Who buys into the "aging" factor?

[Mark_Fine]

Obviously maintenance practices can dramatically influence the "aging" process of a golf course.  But how many here buyin to the thought that many of the "modern" courses built in the last ten or fifteen years might just need another 20 or 30 more to "age" properly?  

Granted "aging" won't make up for lack of strategy, etc. but it might help some of the modern courses develop that older, a little rougher around the edges and mature look that most of us really like to see.  
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

I don't buy into it at all.  There is no alchemy in golf course design, waiting to turn overshaped modern creations into classical, naturally-integrated wonders.

Do ugly, misshapen, incongruous courses and features looking a little "rough around the edges" actually look good, or do they simply look like weathered, ugly, misshapen, incongruous courses and features?

One might as well wait for jolly Santa to drop into the fireplace.  

[Charles_P.]

I feel that the exact opposite happens!  When I look at pictures of classic courses back in their early years, they always look rougher, albeit more natural, to me.  The quality of modern maintenance practices makes the classic courses look newer (and, dare I say, artificial) than they should to me.

[RJ_Daley]

In terms of turf characteristics particularly on greens, some aging is probably a factor that increases the quality.  I think that is is more likely that a minimally designed natural presentation will be enhanced with age as opposed to what Mike is getting at;  that an over-shaped grotesque course could ever gain aethetic increase.  But in the case of increased qualities in design and playing conditions , it is an absolute factor that the TomPaul "maintenance meld" be an ongoing process orchestrated by a long term super who comes to literally be one with his course.  

[Mark_Fine]

Take a course like Whistling Straits, as that course ages will it get better or worse or stay the same?  Any opinions?  How about Twisted Dune?  What about that one?

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

Charles P. is right.  The black and white ( which may be a factor) pictures of the older courses are beautiful..The whole presentation looks more rustic and real to me, than what we see today.  Varying shades appear in the fairways,roughs and on the bunker faces, as compared to the perfectly fertilized monotone shade on today's fairways, roughs, etc..  If it is assumed that by aging you do not mean any refinement of the strategy occurs over the long period, I think most people mean that the maturation of the course, the vegetation and outer roughs will "look" better as the course ages.  Again, this goes back to a thread by Mike C. or Mark about aesthetics. How important is it.  To many the maturation of the vegetation makes a big difference.  To the people who say the course will get better with age I think they mean the maturation process...it has nothing to do with the strategy unless as vegetation matures the strategy is affected in a positive way.
In this regard, if you are most concerned about strategy I think the aging process should have little impact on the quality of the course...if the strategy is not there today, it will not be there 50 years from now if everything remains as is.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

I'm not suggesting that wind and erosion do not play a role, especially on windswept, open sites with large man-made "dunes" as you mentioned.  

But, I'm sorry...if something is shaped poorly, or aesthetically unattractive in the first place, in most cases it's going to take the next ice age to significantly change that.

[Mark_Fine]

So Mike, what is your answer regarding Whistling Straits and Twisted Dune?  Better, worse or the same?

Kelly,
We very much agree on the strategy aspect!  I was just curious about people's opinions on the maturation aspect of golf courses?  Clearly there is no right or wrong answer.
Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

Re: TD & WS, I can clearly imagine evolutionary scenarios that could improve or dimish the look of either course over time, but I think we're talking 25 years or more, even with high wind beating at the dunes.  

Right now, I would say that WS could possibly be improved more, because many of the pointy volcanos Dye created at WS are much more artificial looking than the detailed work Struthers did at TD.  Perhaps some of those sharp edges will soften in time.  

What do you think?  And, at least in this country, I think you are bringing up the outlier cases that are heavily affected by wind.  What about the 95% inland, parkland courses?

  

[RJ_Daley]

I think that one can look at Rustic Canyon for some examples.  In the few short days between my chance to see the course prior to opening and the pictures posted, I see some nice improvement.  That improvement is not due to the maturation process of growth of some of the waste and wash areas vegitation, it is due to the cleaning out of some stuff and the refined definition of some lines.  Take 17 for instance.  Geoff told us that they intend to go through the waste area periodically and clean it out 'selectively' to give it yet a nicer sand barrens look.  That is maintenance pure and simple.    Of course the putting surfaces will get better with a year or two more growth maturation and proper cycles of verticutting and sanding, etc.  That is maturation with TLC maintenance,  not aging.  I don't think RC will get specifically better with age in the realm of fairway characteristics beyond turf quality.  But, without wisdom of maintenance it could get worse. The approaches like on 12 could only be harmed by neglect and improper cuts of the surrounds, but I fail to see how they will mature into better than the architect intent as it stands based upon mowing instructions from the git-go.  That 13th mid fairway "bathtub bunker" may undergo tweaking for better or worse, but it will be maintenance, not aging.  

Whistling Straits will only get better through maintenance.  I don't think it can mature past where it is.  Oh the blast areas from bunker shots onto greens may rise some, which may be interesting, but I don't see where age means anything more to design VS maintenance there either.

[TEPaul]

I don't know about some "aging" process effecting strategy either way but just from the look of the aging process on many courses generally it seems to me that maintenance practices might tend to make a course look ever increasingly cleaner as time goes along, particularly things like bunker edges.

There are two notable examples of possible opposite directions with two famous courses as they "aged".

I believe that Cypress may have opened to a look that was almost instant maturity! The look of the course on opening and particularly the bunker edge detail was absolutely amazing and looked to me as if it WAS NATURAL and had been there forever! I cannot imagine that wind and weather (and probably players too) but particularly maintenace practices would not have been able to NOT destroy that look to some extent--that's just how unbelievably good MacKenzie and American Construction Co's work and detail work seemed to be to deliver this unbelievably mature and natural look on opening!

While the early photos of Merion show bunkers that are quite bland and almost generic in maybe the early 1920s but then in the 1930s you can clearly see that Valentine (and maybe Flynn) had evolved them into these beautiful edgy bunkers with the most natural look to them imaginable!

The maturing of two great courses but possibly in opposite directions!

[Mark_Fine]

I have mostly mixed opinions on this topic.  I do know that there is clearly a "grow in period" for new courses that probably lasts several years.  For example, I think bunkers at Barona looked very unnatural and almost forced to me when the course just opened.  The asthetics of those bunkers should only get better in time and in some ways their perception as "hazards" should improve as well.  I haven't seen them for awhile now so I'll be curious to note how they changed next time I get back.  

As vegetation grows in and wind and errosion take over, WS and TS asthetically might improve as well.  Parts that clearly look unnatural now, might not be so obvious in several years time.  

Parkland courses are another matter as trees can have far more impact on a course than just asthetics.  No simple answer here.  
Mark

[~`]

(The artist formerly known as Huge "Puffy" Wilson, now going by the name ~`, faces the first big test of his self-imposed "vow of silence".)

[Kelly B. Moran]

TE Paul:

Tell me what is natural about a depression filled with screened, washed sand in Pennsylvania?  

[TEPaul]

Kelly,

If you're talking about the inherent unnaturalness of the bunker feature (and sand) on golf courses outside the linksland or anywhere other than land with natural sand and sand features like the blow-outs at Sand Hills, don't get me started again or we're all going to get into this long cyclical argument again with me trying to explain the concessions some of the greatest Golden Age guys felt they had to make to unnaturalness due to some basic necessities of golf like tees, fairways and greens and yes the sand bunker (which they felt were inherently unnatural to many sites) which are generally prevalent on courses all over the world no matter if there's not a natural sand bunker within 2000 miles of that particular site.

I'm assuming that's what you meant in your post. This argument gets nowhere and has Pat Mucci claiming I'm biased towards Coore and Crenshaw and probably you and against Fazio and that there's no more distinction in the natural looking architecture of say Hidden Creek than Shadow Creek!

This is not a distinction I'm able to make on here because there're some people who cannot see areas of grey! It's either midnight black or highnoon white and nothing in between! It's either golf architecture of complete order and total formulaics or complete chaos and anarchy.

The idea of randomness in architecture does not exist in Pat's mind, it cannot or clearly he feels it will drive him mad and make him completely flub his L wedge!

So if that's what you mean by washed sand in depressions in Pennsylvania then perish the thought or else email me privately or through the IM feature on here and we can carry on this conversation without causing a riot and anarchy on Golfclubatlas again!

[Evan Fleisher]

I guess the answer is...it depends!

Take a local example here in the Midwest...the new TPC at Deere Run down in the Quad Cities.  They have had a few years of "grow in" under their belt, and last year I attended the Quad Cities Classic for the first time.  You would swear that this course has been there for 100 years.

The use of the natural terrain, incorporation of indigenous plants and trees, and a great flow have all lended to this course appearing far more aged than it really is.  I think that it all depends on both the true "lay of the land" on how the design team chooses to incorporate those features into the final product.

I liken it to today's current trend in housing development...

* Taking the "easy road" by clear cutting the entire property in order to speed along grading, utility installation, etc., and then replanting all vegetation giving the sites a "sterile" feel

VERSUS

* Building individual home sites leaving the natural features as pristine as possible giving them a feeling of having been there and matured over time

Where would you rather live?  Again, I think that courses today could go either way depending on how the design and grow-in are handled.

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

TE Paul,

I will perish the thought and save the conversation for a face to face get together.  

I mentioned earlier the uneven shading of golf courses, partcularly the look of the older courses in black and white photos.  Bernard Darwin mentioned his preference for nonuniformity in fairway shading.  The different shadings had more to do with the grasses allowed to grow or selected back then, I assume, so maybe it doesnot pretain to the maturation  But, I hear many superintendents wanting a more uniform grassing, therefore shading on their courses.  

Also,  why are Darwin's writings never brought up on this site.  He had some particularly interesting comments about architecture in his books, you have to read a lot of his words to find them, but very good.  

[TEPaul]

Kelly:

We don't talk too much about Darwin on this website because we've got a lot of boys from the Bible Belt Midwest who were taught that reading Darwin and his theories on evolution was illegal and indeed they are in Tennessee, all the result of the Scopes Monkey Trial.

Chicago's own aetheist Clarence Darrow, probably the Nation's best trial lawyer at the time, was sort of disappointed to lose that trial that technically banned the teaching of all things to do with teaching evolution! He actually lost the battle but won the war in that trial, as his client, the Darwin teaching Tennessee school teacher was found guilty but only fined $100 instead of getting hung!

Darrow probably copped that interesting trial outcome by going to the Scriptures to make some points of the illogic of it all against his prosecuting opponent (and longtime friend) ex-Presidential candidate, Cross of Gold master orator and literal believer William Jennings Bryan. Apparently Darrow's points got through to the Bible Belt Judge, hence the rather unusual ruling!

On his way out of the courtroom the freethinking, aetheist, asp-tongued Darrow was accosted by a beautiful blond literal believing local Tennessee girl who yelled at him: "Mr Darrow, don't you believe in ANYTHING?" Darrow turned to her and said: "Not any more darling, but I used to believe in blonds!"

It even makes some of those boys nervous talking about the evolutionary sand buildup on green fronting bunkers. And I was playing with one of those Bible Belt boys a year or so ago at Merion and when we got to the tee on #13 and he saw all that evolutionary buildup on that fronting bunker on the par 3, damned if he didn't just march right by that hole and right on over to the 14th tee!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

TEPaul:

Bernard was Charles nephew.

[Joe Hancock]

Here in the midwest the "modern" golf course is typically sowed with bentgrass tees, fairways and greens with blue/fescue roughs and some gratuity outer roughs of some "links" blend of fescues. My feeling is a super with some good grow-in sense will have the course looking nearly its best in the first couple years of the courses life, based on what the archie was going for in looks. How will 10, 20 or 30 years improve all that definition that was so carefully planned for from the git-go? After that many years, we almost always end up with a high percentage of poa annua, and bentgrass encroaches into bluegrass.......you get the picture. I'm guessing the courses of the golden ages were planted with one variety of grass through the green, excepting greens maybe? Maturation would look much different then versus today.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark and TEPaul,

You fellows like "The Look", I like the playability, the strategy, which is far, far, far more important than the look.

Substance over Form fellows  

TEPaul,

Randomness doesn't occur as random as you think !  

[Mark_Fine]

Everything in proper balance Pat    I try not to let one aspect of a design far outweigh everything else in my overall opinion of a course.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

You may be the exception to the "Like the look" gang who visit this site.  

[TEPaul]

KellyB:

I realize that Bernard was Charles's nephew. My point is that's not lost on some of our contributors and it's why they don't feel comfortable reading or mentioning the golf architectural writings of Bernard Darwin, particularly when he might mention things like the maturing process of a golf course, what with its "evolutionary" processes and all. I believe they have a certain uncomfortable sense that blood really is stronger than water!

Pat:

We all know you feel that substance is more important than form. But what you continually seem to fail to realize is that form ("the Look") and substance ("strategy") in no way has to be mutually exclusive!

For some reason, to you, the entire subject has to be either  black or it has to be white and somehow you can't understand you can have both! We're here to tell you that you can have both and in many if not most cases it makes the product far better than either one done exclusively.

"The Look" needs substance ("strategy") for sure, but strategy can be enhanced and improved with "the look". Just can't understand why you can't get that--it's not at all complicated, in fact! Actually just about as simple as one and one equals two!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I NEVER said they were mutually exclusive.

When both are present golf courses benefit.

But, strategy is far more important than "the look", and without it, mediocrity or worse exists in the play of the golf course.