This remark just may be the ultimate TRUTH.....

[TEPaul]

............of the fundamental dynamic (or should I say dynamics?) in all golf course architecture!


"As I stated to you verbally, the work is so good that you may not get the credit you deserve. Few if any golfers will realize that Melrose has been constructed by the hand of man and not by nature."



This is from a letter by Alister Mackenzie to Perry Maxwell. We all know that a number of golf architects professed to want to make golf architecture look natural but to what extent exactly? Did any of them actually expect to create man-made architecture to such an extent that a golfer really wouldn't notice the architect (or the architect’s client) did anything at all? Would an architect even WANT to do that thereby risking the perception that he had done anything at all?

In Mackenzie's remark---eg ".....you may not get the credit you deserve" seems to contain somewhat of a warning! Maybe Mackenzie didn't mean it to be a warning but nevertheless, there it is.

Many architects and clients may think if it's not sort of obvious what work was man-made that the cost was not worthwhile and that noone would get the kind of credit they deserved and probably sought, and for obvious reasons.

Personally, though, I think this dynamic goes deeper----a lot deeper. I think it just may go as deep as Man's fundamental relationship with and outlook upon Nature herself----eg some inherent desire to dominate Nature. Of course, the very exigencies of golf itself and golf shots has a lot to do with this entire dynamic of the man-made vs the wholly natural.

What do you think?

[BCrosby]

TEP -

You are asking some questions that go to the heart of things. Let me phrase it slightly differently.

Why do architects (and the rest of us) care so much about a golf course appearing natural? Conversely, why is the phrase "it looks unnatural" a dagger to a golf course's heart?

I don't think the answer is simply because courses that appear natural look more attractive to us. An honest answer would admit that more is going on than purely aestheitic preferences.

Bob

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

More than a dozen years before Mackenzie penned those words to Maxwell, in his advertising booklet, On Building a Golf Course, Tillinghast wrote:

“One vital feature was neglected by most of the old-time builders of American-links. They persistently ignored Nature, and when introducing artificial creations little effort was exerted toward making them appear natural…

“Such relics of antiquity are not pleasing to the golfers of the present; indeed, they are not tolerated, and for this reason it is folly to go to the expense of building along any but the most modern lines…

“It costs no more to follow Nature than to ignore her. Certainly not as much, and those who persist in closing their eyes to this are ‘Penny-wise and Pound-foolish’…

“May these pages be helpful to those who are contemplating construction or reconstruction…”

It is not to claim precedence for Tilly as the man who recognized this "truth" but rather to note that for a number of years back then, the idea of designing courses to represent features found in nature was important to a number of architects, and as tilly wrote above, "golfers of the present..."

Maybe the players back then were simply more discernable as to the finer points of design and how they influenced the game and should do so...

[TEPaul]

"I don't think the answer is simply because courses that appear natural look more attractive to us. An honest answer would admit that more is going on than purely aestheitic preferences."


Bob:

Couldn't agree more. But I do realize that you and I have tried to discuss these kinds of things before and they clearly do not have the same kind of trackable answers and opinions (newspaper and magazine articles and such) as many of the other things that are discussed on this website. And that may be the primary reason this kind of subject is tough to discuss on here----eg it is just extremely opinion oriented without much to actually point to or refer to from the past.

We do know that at least one person from the past seemed to want to delve deep into the underlying dynamics of this sort of question even recognizing the entire dynamic may be pretty much  subconscious or subliminal amongst golfers even of all types and interests, including those into the histories of golf and golf course architecture.

I have said in the past that I believe a lot of the general theme of much of what Behr wrote about in his many and various articles had as their basic theme a form of comparison between Man's inherent relationship with Nature COMPARED to Man's inherent relationship with Man himself.

The only drawback for us in referring to Behr or what he wrote in that vein is that extraordinary dynamic or even comparison was pretty much only implied and never specifically stated by him! 

[JESII]

Question:

Are holes like #13 at Royal County Down, or #14 at Shinnecock "constructed by the hand of man", or by nature?

[Rick Shefchik]

I'm missing the naturalness -- and seeing a lot of the hand of man -- in the photos from the earlier Mackenzie thread.

[Rich Goodale]

Bob and Tom

We've been over this many times before, but there are a lot of newbies on here, so here it goes again.......

Please name one golf course in the world that does not look like it has been "constructed by the hand of man."

Surely not........

........The Old course, Dornoch, County Down, Ballybunion, North Berwick, Cypress Point, NGLA, Merion, etc. etc.........

Maybe Painswick, but on reflection, no.

Could you please explain what Mackenzie's migbht be referring to in that letter to Maxwell.  As far as I can see, he is referring only to his own fantasies?

Thanks

Rich

[Norbert P]

  Is there curiosity about what forces created this landscape?

  Some may say this is a beautiful scene, and leave it at that. Others perhaps see a fascinating scape to know more on a causal basis, and finally enlighten themselves  as to WHY it is beautiful. 

  Do golfers process through the stages and practices of "how" a course was created?  And, do they contemplate further into the history of how the land under it was formed?

  To know whether the golf course is honest is dependent upon some appreciation and knowledge of the land prior to man's involvement.

[TEPaul]

Phil:

There is no question that you are right and that architects years before Mackenzie wrote that letter to Maxwell (1927), golfers and particularly golf architects were talking about the importance in golf architecture of making things (man-made things) that had the look of Nature or that imitated Nature.

But we are so very clearly beginning to see with all this research we are now finding and enjoying and being able to consider again, that they may've been SAYING those things as early as the end of the 19th century but the point is they just were not MAKING it very well to look as natural as some architects came to make it perhaps even beginning in the 1920s.

And I also recognize that some on here will say that this even is not the case and that they were making it to look highly natural much earlier than that. Some will even try to rationalize their opinions and statements in that vein by coming up with terms like the "Macdonald/Raynor Paradox." Apparently a remark and term like that was some attempt to rationalize that even if some say that particular style does not look particularly natural somehow it actually REALLY DOES!!   

They can continue to say that if they want and continue to rationalize this subject in the opinions of others because the fact is to some (including me and certainly Wayne Morrison) that particular architecture just did not look as natural as the architecture that was to come from some in the 1920s.

In my opinion, if any golfer or any observer could not possibly tell on a Macdonald and particularly a Raynor course what was man-made as opposed to what wasn't then I would have to say they were either pretty blind or really visually unobservant about both golf architecture and Nature.

This is not supposed to be any knock or even criticism of Macdonald/Raynor (as I really do love it) or any other golf course architect of any other time. It is merely an observation and discussion of what really does look unmanmade and highly natural about golf course architecture and what doesn't----at least to me and some others I know.

Obviously, the ultimate question and perhaps one for another thread would be----"How important is it anyway?"

I believe I know enough about golf and golfers and golf course architecture to answer that, at this point, with this statement-----eg It's far more important to some than it is to others! 

[Mike_Cirba]

It certainly does beg the question how many early American Golf architects concerned themselves with making courses appear natural.   We know Willie Park, who was still in his homeland at the time, was an early proponent.

April 1912 Irish Independent





January 1913 "American Golfer" report on work at Philly Country Club by the writer known as "Far and Sure";

"The new pits here are wonderfully well made and, as specimens of artificial hazards merging naturally to their surroundings, they are without
equal."

[TEPaul]

"Question:
Are holes like #13 at Royal County Down, or #14 at Shinnecock "constructed by the hand of man", or by nature?"


Sully:

I can't speak about the 13th at RCD (one of my favorite par 4s anywhere but not because of its naturalism or not) but I can speak about Shinnecock's 14th or green, anyway----ie it's man-made, and we know how.

[Norbert P]

 A link to Melrose GC . . .

  www.jcmelrosecc.com/aboutus.html 

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Gents -

I put it this way. Imagine if Nature, besides providing the raw material for a golf course, also decided one day to create an actual golf course - fairways, greens, tees, hazards, an entire, usable field of play. What would that golf course look like? What qualities and properties of Nature itself would Nature itself choose to manifest if it was required to design a setting for golf? Whatever you think the answer is, I think THAT would be the definition of natural design, and a description of naturalism. And I think that anyone - Mackenzie, Behr, Tillinghast etc -- who talked about natural design was talking about the hand/works of man getting as close to this Ideal as possible. Why? Maybe if for no other reason precisely BECAUSE it was the Ideal, and because of the inherent worth of striving for such an Ideal. But I think there may have been other reasons too, more subtle ones. Behr I think was grappling with understanding/explaining why the few golf courses that approached this Ideal resonated with him so deeply. In other words, he was trying to understand and explain HIMSELF through the medium of his experiences on the golf course; and then to work outwards from that self-understanding  to establishing the principles of a golf course architecture that might best and most completely satisfy his human nature, and human nature in general. Sometimes I think he was a fool for trying to do that; much more often, though, I tip my hat to him for the effort -- not IN SPITE of the fact that the effort was doomed to failure, but BECAUSE of it.

Peter

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I take it, then, that you think the sentence "This hole looks unnatural." is non-sense.

Golf courses are built. They have thing like greens, pins and tees that don't exist in nature. Nobody believes a golf course emerges out of the ground without a little help.  

Let's get past that. Within the universe of things that are golf courses, some look more natural than others. Or do you think that too is a meaningless statement?

I think there are meaningful ways of talking about a golf course in terms of its naturalness. There are gradations between golf courses on that scale. I'm not making that up. People have talked (meaningfully) that way about golf courses since time immemorial.

It's also been my observation that when a course appears to fit the land, people generally like that. Whether that "fit" was the by-product of hours of work on a D-6 is beside the point. What matters is appearance.

So yes, some of the courses you named are much more natural than other courses I might name. And for a lot of people, that is something that matters. I don't think there's much question about that.

So to get back to my (and Tom's) original quaere, why is that the case? Why do people seem to prefer a course that appears more natural over others that don't.


Bob

[JMorgan]

Tom, as William James once opined, "Damn the Absolute."  The word truth, especially painted in the uppercase, does not make any so-called fundamental dynamic of golf course architecture more real. 

There is no fundamental dynamic of golf course architecture. 

If one wishes to make his golf course as naturally mimetic as possible, so be it.  Like Bob said, it's a preference.  Apparently Mackenzie thought Maxwell pulled it off pretty well, which is a great compliment.  But it is as equal as complimenting any architect whose intention matches his outcome.   

[TEPaul]

"Gents -
I put it this way. Imagine if Nature, besides providing the raw material for a golf course, also decided one day to create an actual golf course - fairways, greens, tees, hazards, an entire, usable field of play. What would that golf course look like? What qualities and properties of Nature itself would Nature itself choose to manifest if it was required to design a setting for golf? Whatever you think the answer is, I think THAT would be the definition of natural design, and a description of naturalism."



Peter:

Believe it or not there was a pretty much complete and even documentable example of that---and by that I pretty much mean the whole boat----landforms in toto and even including the natural offering of grasses conducive to golf. There was nothing man-made or man maintained unless one calls the creating of some holes in the ground for a ball to fall into man-made ARCHITECTURE or man-generated maintenance! Maybe Rich Goodale would but I don't. 

What really got my attention in that vein was the explanation by one of the best golf and architecture observers of an earlier time who said back in the linksland in the mid to last half of the 19th century it was totally unthinkable and uspeakable to allow a mower of any type to cut the grass on the linksland courses. He even quotes Tom Morris who at one point said something like: "If such a thing as that were allowed where would it stop?!" 

Good question, Old Tom!!   

[Jim_Kennedy]

TE,
A quick look of what's where on any list of classical courses reveals a variety of types. It's not just about natural or man made or what is made to look natural, it's about how well the course works, and how it exemplifies certain values that pertain to the game.

No one really needs a pundit to tell them that a Pine Valley or a Shinnecock or an NGLA or an ANGC or a Winged Foot West or a Pebble Beach should be in the uppermost stratum, it's self-evident.

There is no 'style' superior to another, at least not when 'it' has been created with the utmost attention to detail by a practitioner of extraordinary talent. 

The idea that  ...."people seem to prefer a course that appears more natural over others that don't" just doesn't hold up. 


 

[Jason Topp]

Tom,


“One vital feature was neglected by most of the old-time builders of American-links. They persistently ignored Nature, and when introducing artificial creations little effort was exerted toward making them appear natural…

“Such relics of antiquity are not pleasing to the golfers of the present; indeed, they are not tolerated, and for this reason it is folly to go to the expense of building along any but the most modern lines…

“It costs no more to follow Nature than to ignore her. Certainly not as much, and those who persist in closing their eyes to this are ‘Penny-wise and Pound-foolish’…

One could interpret this quote as arguing that natural designs are more economical rather than superior.

I doubt that is what he meant but it is interesting how much of a focus economy in construction and economy with respect to maintenence were the focus of Tillinghas and Mackenzie writings.  One rarely sees much focus on such considerations today.

[TEPaul]

Rich and JMorgan:

As usual you are just totally missing the point of this thread and this entire dynamic. The trap you fall into is with your insistence that if there is even a single iota of the man-made then this dynamic and this subject and this discussion should basically not exist or even be considered.

Forget about things like Upper case letters and the concept of absolutes! If one can logically assume that some absolute may not exist (in this case "Truth") that does not exactly translate into the fact that there cannot be a whole lot there regarding a particular subject, a particular dynamic etc.  

[Norbert P]

If one wishes to make his golf course as naturally mimetic as possible, so be it.  . . .   But it is as equal as complimenting any architect whose intention matches his outcome.   

   If the design is interesting, mmmmaybe, but if it's uninspiring, as is often the case when nature isn't considered,  it degrades the profession, the sport and, I dare say, humanity. 

[Phil_the_Author]

Jason,

In response to my tilly quote you surmised, "One could interpret this quote as arguing that natural designs are more economical rather than superior."

That is not quite accurate, for Tilly was stating that following Nature as close as possible in golf course design is BOTH superior AND more economical..."

[TEPaul]

"The idea that  ...."people seem to prefer a course that appears more natural over others that don't" just doesn't hold up."

Jim Kennedy:

If you're going to quote me then at least quote me correctly!   

[RJ_Daley]

I think there are meaningful ways of talking about a golf course in terms of its naturalness. There are gradations between golf courses on that scale. I'm not making that up. People have talked (meaningfully) that way about golf courses since time immemorial.

It's also been my observation that when a course appears to fit the land, people generally like that. Whether that "fit" was the by-product of hours of work on a D-6 is beside the point. What matters is appearance.

I go along with Bob here.  I think that we must separate the sensibilities and aesthetic appreciation for the beauties of raw nature of any man so inclined to contemplate nature's beauty with the independent sensibilities of the golfer whose mindset is to intend to enjoy a game upon nature's ground.  Thus, the golfer has his own separate and distinct aesthetic ideal that needs to incorporate raw nature with the game he desires to play.  Thus, the golfer must compromise to that extent that there is no such thing as golf played upon raw, true natural ground.  Some improvement to fit the function must be made.  Then the gradations of appreciation of the beauty for the function improved land can be made on our individual taste levels.  

As and individual, I come to a highly manufactured course like what I am familiar with in Raynor courses, or Langford and Morreau courses and I judge if the forms created 'insult the landforms' or in some sense of style and grace of anything that is manufactured, still appeals because those manufactured things very much provide an enjoyable experience of golf, while not "insulting" nature.  

Emulating nature as a goal of the architect, is a function of talent.  Creating a non-natural form in a specific terrain where such a form doesn't naturally exist yet styling that form that is needed to provide an excellent golf challenge, without insulting the surrounding nature is the trick, in my mind.  So, I love the 'frog eye' or 'aligator eye' or 'gull-winged' totally artificial landforms that I find on Raynor or L&M courses because the archies styled them to not insult my eye, and yet blend them perfectly to the strategy of the game.  Yet, those horrid clumps of chocolate drops and square pits and such that were an insult to nature, are what the early 'thinking' architects were railing against.  

Their writings in my mind were an evolution of awareness of who had more talent to blend in functions of golf with a less 'insulting' presentation of what needed to be constructed.  

So, when you play at a BallyNeal, and can't tell were nature's contours and the architect/contructor's work begins and ends, that is a good thing.  When you play at Lawsonia and can definitely tell where L&M placed an unnatural occuring gull-wing bunker and mound, yet it has a golf functional and yet stylistic emmulation to an eskar or a drumlin in a very distant but vaguely reminiscent sort of way that doesn't insult you, then that is a good thing too.  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,

I used that line from one of Bob Crosby's posts, sorry. 


RJ,
My sentiments exactly.



 

[Jason Topp]

I can go both ways on whether this is a truth.

I am a fan of the angular golden age greens that are relatively rough hewn as opposed to modern more rounded mounds which may look a bit more natural but strike me a bit like line green leisure suits.  

I think my preference, however, lies in the fact that earthmoving was so much more difficult that most of the remaining landscape remained in place and strongly influences play.