News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #75 on: November 20, 2008, 04:39:19 PM »
Quote
Andy, What do you think about this natural feature? Would you put sand in the middle of it or not?

 :D Anthony, I am not smart enough to even know how to put sand in the middle of that, though I would have no problem at all with it appearing on a golf course.
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Kyle Harris

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #76 on: November 20, 2008, 04:40:07 PM »
Quote
Andy, What do you think about this natural feature? Would you put sand in the middle of it or not?

 :D Anthony, I am not smart enough to even know how to put sand in the middle of that, though I would have no problem at all with it appearing on a golf course.


How would we get the man to stay still?

Anthony Gray

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #77 on: November 20, 2008, 04:57:03 PM »
Anthony/Melvyn,

I think it is a very important debate and subject to actually sit down and define what exactly is natural about golf. Anthony hit the point perfectly, without maintenance there would be no golf course. Whether one likes it or not, maintenance of a golf course is inherently UNNATURAL. Grass must be retained at a certain length against the natural tendency for the plant to grow. Weeds and other naturally introduced plants must be killed in order to maintain playing conditions. Outside materials must be introduced or moved to provide bunker material and those bunkers must be maintained and restored periodically to set back natural erosion.

We often pontificate about natural features or natural golf. The very concept is an exercise in hypocrisy. The very nature of the game is that man has picked a particular piece of land over which the game is to be played. Since the tendency of the land is to develop away from conditions suited to the game, man's hand is made evident by nature. With the need for maintenance comes the need for economic considerations and both men and machine are utilized for the purpose. Cart paths and other roads are cried down in the view of the golf hole from some arbitrary point without consideration that such paths serve a tremendous purpose for daily maintenance traffic - with or without a golf cart using membership. Berms and other sharp features are often criticized without due consideration for the turf or maintenance practices needed in the area.

I hereby call for the suspension of the word "natural" from any descriptors of a golf course. As stated earlier, the very nature of the game is to take back nature's processes in order to preserve a certain playing condition. Unless one finds a location where the grass keeps itself at 1/8" very little is natural about a green site.

I consider golf courses to make high use of features which are "aboriginal" to the site where others call them natural. I am sure links golf uses the preponderance of aboriginal features, but they are by no means "natural."

  Kyle,

  Well done. If you don't say quirky we won't say natural.

     Anthony

 

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #78 on: November 20, 2008, 05:42:37 PM »
Andy

Name me one course apart from the Castle Course that I have attacked. Tell me exactly what holes I have defended on TOC. Show me which post I have talked about TOC being better than another other or where I have promoted it. I don’t think you will find any because each golfer has his or her own preference and ideas of a golf course. I have suggested that when golfers travel to GB that they try the lesser known 9 & 18 hole clubs to get the feel of some of our original courses, in fact I have named some in the past, but to the best of my knowledge I have never commented on or attached any overseas course whatsoever.

My comments are very clear, I Iike Nature & Natural. I’ve explained why and as for bunkers they appear naturally on a links course. Want to shape them as sinkholes or other shapes then that’s down to the designer.

Kyle

Not bad for someone who has not been over here, not seen let alone played our courses and you accuse me of being unfair to America.

To both of you, I simply say you will never understand because it’s just not in you to want to understand. You try and latch on to some minor point and it becomes your tool to try and belittle the opinion of others. Please remember that most of the courses I tend to play and refer to are from the 19th Century.

So there is no natural in your opinion, fine I accept that’s your opinion, but you both have totally missed the point. Modern & artificial maybe the order of the day for you guys. I think the old saying capture it well, ‘You can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink’ – well guys that your choice.  Mine is the magic of the Natural course and that is what I like. 

 PS Kyle, are sheep part of Natural & Nature, they are in my book and in the old days they kept the grass down, perhaps not as per the American standard requires on you courses  but enough to play the course. But of course things change, so does Nature, therefore natural must follow. Natural/Nature will for ever be a major part of a good golf course. 
 
Melvyn


Kyle Harris

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #79 on: November 20, 2008, 05:56:23 PM »
Andy

Name me one course apart from the Castle Course that I have attacked. Tell me exactly what holes I have defended on TOC. Show me which post I have talked about TOC being better than another other or where I have promoted it. I don’t think you will find any because each golfer has his or her own preference and ideas of a golf course. I have suggested that when golfers travel to GB that they try the lesser known 9 & 18 hole clubs to get the feel of some of our original courses, in fact I have named some in the past, but to the best of my knowledge I have never commented on or attached any overseas course whatsoever.

My comments are very clear, I Iike Nature & Natural. I’ve explained why and as for bunkers they appear naturally on a links course. Want to shape them as sinkholes or other shapes then that’s down to the designer.

Kyle

Not bad for someone who has not been over here, not seen let alone played our courses and you accuse me of being unfair to America.

To both of you, I simply say you will never understand because it’s just not in you to want to understand. You try and latch on to some minor point and it becomes your tool to try and belittle the opinion of others. Please remember that most of the courses I tend to play and refer to are from the 19th Century.

So there is no natural in your opinion, fine I accept that’s your opinion, but you both have totally missed the point. Modern & artificial maybe the order of the day for you guys. I think the old saying capture it well, ‘You can take a horse to water but you can’t make it drink’ – well guys that your choice.  Mine is the magic of the Natural course and that is what I like. 

 PS Kyle, are sheep part of Natural & Nature, they are in my book and in the old days they kept the grass down, perhaps not as per the American standard requires on you courses  but enough to play the course. But of course things change, so does Nature, therefore natural must follow. Natural/Nature will for ever be a major part of a good golf course. 
 
Melvyn



Melvyn,

I don't need to travel to Scotland to know that the grass there is mowed, nor do I need to travel to Scotland to know a sod-wall bunker is a construct of man.

Are you going to address my point or continue with your argument ad hominem?

Sheep are domesticated animals, for the most part - though I will admit to ignorance as to whether or not Scottish Links are inhabited with any type of wild sheep. However, the domestication process is certainly one where the hand of man is quite evident.

And please, Melvyn, stop categorizing me in a certain way in regard to what I do and don't want to understand. I do not attack you, just your logic. You are twisting a definition in an attempt to glorify a certain era of golf architecture. It is not a practice exclusive to you, nor to the era you most like. But the more the term is twisted, the more it loses meaning.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Natural

There is NOT ONE natural golf course in the world. It is imperative for the health of the game that we, as golfers, acknowledge this and move on to discussions of less impact and how the game can survive.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #80 on: November 20, 2008, 05:58:23 PM »
Kyle:

I don't want to overly encourage Melvyn on this, but there ARE natural links courses in Scotland which are kept down by animal grazing more than human maintenance.  And though sheep ARE domesticated animals, they are not specially trained to mow fairways ... you just put them out there, and they keep all the grass short and you can hit a ball around.

You should go to Royal North Devon GC (Westward Ho!) and report back from there.  It would be a revelation to you.  It's how golf was invented.

Kyle Harris

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #81 on: November 20, 2008, 06:05:38 PM »
Kyle:

I don't want to overly encourage Melvyn on this, but there ARE natural links courses in Scotland which are kept down by animal grazing more than human maintenance.  And though sheep ARE domesticated animals, they are not specially trained to mow fairways ... you just put them out there, and they keep all the grass short and you can hit a ball around.

You should go to Royal North Devon GC (Westward Ho!) and report back from there.  It would be a revelation to you.  It's how golf was invented.

It's on my list for my trip to Scotland in June 2010. Along with the Cullen Links and a few other places well off the beaten path.

The sheep are PLACED for the purpose of keeping the grass down in a specific area, are they not? Don't fences exist to keep the sheep in certain areas? Am I to turn a blind eye to these fences when assessing the naturalness of the site?

I think it is far more accurate and beneficial for the game if the terms used are things like aboriginal or minimal impact course.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #82 on: November 20, 2008, 06:21:44 PM »

Kyle

I do not think we will agree. I voiced my opinion and given reasons, you find fault in my logic so you attack it.

Clearly you have very little understanding of my game or the courses I play.

Also our interpretation of the English language is also playing its part, so to save others the frustration of reading anymore, let’s just agree to disagree and move on. 


Kyle Harris

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #83 on: November 20, 2008, 06:34:15 PM »

Kyle

I do not think we will agree. I voiced my opinion and given reasons, you find fault in my logic so you attack it.

Clearly you have very little understanding of my game or the courses I play.

Also our interpretation of the English language is also playing its part, so to save others the frustration of reading anymore, let’s just agree to disagree and move on. 



If you insist. But the attitudes regarding nature and golf affects my career and livelihood.

Let us be clear, however - I may have little understanding of your perceptions of your game or your perception of the courses you play. However, I look at St. Andrews and Merion and see near equivalent amounts of the hand of man and the hand of God. It just so happens that St. Andrews has more apparently visible in terms of natural influence than most other places - as do most links courses. This alone does not make them more or less natural - just different. Each present different maintenance challenges which provide for a different experience on all accounts.

Furthermore, the difference in demands in terms of maintenance practice do not necessarily determine some quantitative measure of naturalness. Simply because you are more willing to accept a slower, less frequently maintained green does not eliminate the hand of man. At some point, man must intervene or else the golf course, as Anthony stated, ceases to exist.

As such, I think it is more than reasonable to say that golf, since the time of formalization of the links for the purpose, has strayed from being "natural" and moved more toward an integration of the natural elements that were there before (as defined by aboriginal) and the requirements of the challenges presented by the game and those managing it.

TEPaul

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #84 on: November 20, 2008, 06:48:02 PM »
"Tom
The sod or riveted bunkers go back to the 19th Century,"


Melvyn:

Maybe revetting does go back to the 19th century but that's not my point. My point is I bet you can't find a photo of a 19th century bunker anywhere near as "clean-lined" and perfectly circular as that one is in the photograph in reply #56.

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #85 on: November 20, 2008, 07:17:28 PM »

Kyle

I just do not believe you at times, you just can’t let it go, can you?   You just don’t understand, you have not taken in all my posts - I’ll put that down to the immaturity of youth. One point though if you have not been to St Andrews and played TOC how can you make such statements. Unbelievable, just bloody unbelievable.

Tom

You may well be right, but I have not studied the old bunkers in any detail, Scott maybe the one to advise/assist you. 

Melvyn

Kyle Harris

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #86 on: November 20, 2008, 07:30:38 PM »

Kyle

I just do not believe you at times, you just can’t let it go, can you?   You just don’t understand, you have not taken in all my posts - I’ll put that down to the immaturity of youth. One point though if you have not been to St Andrews and played TOC how can you make such statements. Unbelievable, just bloody unbelievable.

Tom

You may well be right, but I have not studied the old bunkers in any detail, Scott maybe the one to advise/assist you. 

Melvyn

Melvyn,

What about this



Do I need to see in person to determine it to be natural?

Here's the thing. You are entitled to your opinion, yes. But for the stakeholders in this business, your opinion can be very dangerous. You state that a golf course can indeed be natural.

As a future golf course superintendent, I am under constant scrutiny in regard to the environmental impact of golf course maintenance on not only the ground upon which the golf course lay, but also the ground downstream from me. What natural means to you, a well-seated golfer, and to a non-golfer who may have impact over my career are two very different thing. I can assure you that very few non-golfers see ANY golf course as a natural thing, and I've shown them pictures of links land.

When I, a professional in the field, come forth to these non-golfers for whatever reason, and present what I do and the course I maintain as natural - I immediately lose credibility. I do not have the luxury of deluding myself into believing that any practice done to maintain a golf course is natural - here in the United States or there in Scotland. When I see short grass, I immediately think of the cultivation practices and the not-so-apparent hand of man that is required to provide nutrition for that grass. No matter what or who is doing the cutting, at some point in time, the turf will reach a point where it can no longer keep itself alive without intervention from man. This is why grazing fields are rotated and aeration occurs.

How much more will the Eden River need to naturally erode toward TOC before it is stopped?

Anthony Gray

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #87 on: November 20, 2008, 09:19:20 PM »




   Kyle and Melvyn,

  You two definately need to cross the pond. I know that you two have more in common than you realize. If you would only cross the pond and walk in each others shoes you would realize how much you have in common.

           Anthony


Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #88 on: November 20, 2008, 09:22:34 PM »
Quote
Name me one course apart from the Castle Course that I have attacked. Tell me exactly what holes I have defended on TOC. Show me which post I have talked about TOC being better than another other or where I have promoted it. I don’t think you will find any because each golfer has his or her own preference and ideas of a golf course. I have suggested that when golfers travel to GB that they try the lesser known 9 & 18 hole clubs to get the feel of some of our original courses, in fact I have named some in the past, but to the best of my knowledge I have never commented on or attached any overseas course whatsoever.

My comments are very clear, I Iike Nature & Natural. I’ve explained why and as for bunkers they appear naturally on a links course. Want to shape them as sinkholes or other shapes then that’s down to the designer.

Melvyn, you have made more than enough comments on what you consider unnatural, a number of times in relation to American courses, and the loathing in your words was clear. Its clearly not worth digging through your old posts to find 'em. There's no secret there.
Yes, your comments are 'clear', whatever that means, but I still have yet to hear you say how it applies to TOC other than how the bizarrely geometric bunkers somehow look 'natural' to you because they remind you of a cave you saw.  Please compare how OTM presented the bunkers vs the way they are now--which looked more natural, which, according to one of your thresholds would blend  better with the environment surrounding TOC. The answer could not be more obvious, and yet, you can't come out and say it. Odd.

Quote
My comments are very clear, I Iike Nature & Natural. I’ve explained why and as for bunkers they appear naturally on a links course. Want to shape them as sinkholes or other shapes then that’s down to the designer.

No, that is most assuredly not in line with your prior thoughts.  You claimed earlier that the current iteration of bunkers at TOC is found throughout the world. But you haven't actually said where. Why?
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #89 on: November 20, 2008, 09:35:42 PM »
Quote
To both of you, I simply say you will never understand because it’s just not in you to want to understand. You try and latch on to some minor point and it becomes your tool to try and belittle the opinion of others.

Bollocks, what a disappointing comment Melvyn. You don't know anything about me, nor has anyone been belittled--please drop the martyr complex anytime someone tries to dig a little deeper with you. And really, the bunkers at TOC are a minor point? Really?


Quote
So there is no natural in your opinion, fine I accept that’s your opinion, but you both have totally missed the point. Modern & artificial maybe the order of the day for you guys.

That has not been stated as my opinion, why then make that statement? Where has anyone praised artificiality?  You have made a number of comments about natural, about a course and its soul, about a course blending with its environment.  Why is it hard for you to apply that same standard to TOC--how do the current bunkers blend with the enviroment? That is your criteria.
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #90 on: November 20, 2008, 09:38:15 PM »
Quote
My point is I bet you can't find a photo of a 19th century bunker anywhere near as "clean-lined" and perfectly circular as that one is in the photograph in reply #56.

Careful Tom, you are getting perilously close to sounding like me.   ;)
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Mike_Cirba

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #91 on: November 20, 2008, 09:39:56 PM »
Any thread where the term "Bollocks" is used generally piques my interest, so I'll have to catch up on my reading here and hopefully offer something of questionable value to the mix in coming days.
 ;D

Anthony Gray

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #92 on: November 20, 2008, 09:43:11 PM »
Any thread where the term "Bollocks" is used generally piques my interest, so I'll have to catch up on my reading here and hopefully offer something of questionable value to the mix in coming days.
 ;D


   Mike,

  Welcome to the discussion. Please do not use the words natural or quirk.


     Anthony


Mike_Cirba

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #93 on: November 20, 2008, 10:03:06 PM »
Anthony,

That may be difficult as I'm a big fan of naturally quirky courses.  ;)   

Anthony Gray

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #94 on: November 20, 2008, 10:05:07 PM »
Anthony,

That may be difficult as I'm a big fan of naturally quirky courses.  ;)   


   Spot on gentleman golfer.



     Anthony