[Sean_A]

Most on this site know that I am a proponent of varied hazards (using the term as it was originally meant - not how the USGA uses it) and thus have an interest in all forms of hazards.  I believe we have come to rely far too much on the bunker as the primary hazard or at least the second most used hazard with rough being the king.  JH Taylor also believed that when golf moved inland its archies over-emphasized bunkering.  In an attempt to create a better balance Taylor came up with the idea of Alpinization for his work on Royal Mid Surrey around 1910.  I say came up with the idea, but that is probably not accurate as we know Park Jr used mounding (and hollows) extensively on his 1900 Huntercombe design.  It would seem that Taylor was quickly shouted down for his radical ideas and mounding was abandoned as a hazard.  For sure, some archies used the idea sparingly throughout the 20th century and at least on one course, Kington, a Hutchison gem, mounding was used as the main counterbalance to the slopes of Bradnor Hill.  In recent decades, mounding has come back into vogue, but it is far more often used for containment purposes rather than as a hazard. 

Do folks think Taylor's ideas failed?  If so, how might he have better succeeded?

Are there any vestiges of alpinization which wield a reasonable influence among archies?  Below are a few examples using the idea to one degree or another.





Do folks think a more varied approach to hazards is a goal worth striving to achieve?  If so, is there is a place for alpinization as hazards in architecture?

Would folks welcome the converse of alpinization, hollows?  A few examples below.  Notice that these are not near greens.





Ciao

[Ross Tuddenham]

I will admit to having little knowledge of maintenance techniques but would it be a problem to maintain such small mounds with narrow tops?


A second point I can think of is that it may by a lack of confidence on the architect’s part.  Would it be a worry that a player in one of these hazards could still get to the green with relative ease compared to being in a bunker?  Therefore to ensure a degree of difficulty a bunker is used instead?

If it was the case that such humps and hollows did not provide enough of a hazard it would be more difficult to use hazards to present strategic options.

I have to say that I think if they were in keeping with their surroundings then I quite like the look of these alpine hazards.

[Emil Weber]

As  Ross already said, mounds have to somehow fit into their surroundings. I really hate the look of modern mounding because it looks unnatural and too consistent and because is more employed for framing than for making play more interesting. IF the mounding appears natural (and may be even tightly mown (18th green at Saunton, for example)), than I do think you should use it more often.

I also enjoyed reading the chippendal-framing thread (green top-line framing...) http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38892.0/
I really like this concept because it's effective framing but requires little effort.

For hollows, I really like your photos, Sean. The concept looks very interesting.

[Anthony Gray]

  Those mounds look a little tricked up and do not blend well. But I think "contours" around the greens and fairways add flavor to the game.

  Anthony

[Phil McDade]

Sean:

Good topic -- I think in general sand and esp. water are overused on courses, and mounding and depressions under-used. Here are some examples of stuff I like and don't:

I recently visited an old Tom Bendelow 9-hole course called Country Club Estates where Bendelow effectively used some mounds and depressions, particularly around bunkers:

Not quite as dramatic as Kington, but echoes of it:



A grassed-in bunker squeezed between two mounds that works well as a side depresssion next to a green:


Here's a nifty little depression on the backside of the 16th green at University Ridge near Madison WI:


I don't like these mounds behind the 16th nearly as much -- they look too artificial, like deliberately placed containment mounds, as opposed to having some strategic interest in how a ball off the green is played:

[Bill_McBride]

Sean, is there some Painswick in there?  The ancient leftover quarry workings make great mounds.  Not 100% natural looking but not the regular look of manufactured mounding either.

I'm a big fan of major contouring as a hazard around greens, but it has to either have always been there or at least look like it has.

[Charlie Goerges]

I think Colt had mixed feelings about "Alpinisation" of golf courses:

Now we have what is known as the Alpinisation of courses, and the few rough mounds which have been made for many years past develop into continuous ranges on every new course. A good idea is worn threadbare in next to no time in golf-course construction.


That was from an essay in "The Book of the Links". The following cartoon accompanied his essay:

[John Foley]

Sean - grat topic.

I'm in agreement that well designed subtle mounds can be used as great hazards.

The following are a few looks at the 8th green @ Leatherstocking. Mounds galore a few bunkers tied in nicely. Just a great great green complex. Original by Emmett & updated by Bob Cupp. Not sure who to attribute these to though. Whomever it works nicely







Here are the green-side mounds on the tough par 4 2nd. Again they work very nicely.

[Emil Weber]

Just found this photo in Sean's review of an english Colt Course.



The subtle mounding is very appealing and created by little effort of earth-moving.
I know that it doesn't really create playing interest, but for framing, I think there is no more efficient way to do so than top-line-chippendale-mounding.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I think features like that can make for very good golf ... the question is whether they'll fit in to the eye and be accepted.

I don't think they work very well on a parkland course such as in John Foley's pics.  Then again, there are some very cool little mounds at Somerset Hills, and those don't bother me at all.  I guess it's because they look like they've been there for 90 years -- and they're covered with patchy native grass instead of mowed bluegrass.

However, in the right setting, most people may not even know they are manufactured.  We've put similar features in a few places at Old Macdonald -- most notably around the 18th green, which no one has seen yet.  But they also feature prominently on two of the ten holes that are in play now, and to date, no one has pointed them out or asked me if they were natural or artificial.

[Sean_A]

What a coincidence!  Speak of the devil and he appears in Illinois.  Mind you, its the bunkers which have been alpinized!


I have been thinking on this topic for quite some time.  Probably since first seeing Kington some 10 years ago.  I was able to get past the weirdness of the look probably because it looks so rugged and literally unfinished.  After finally seeing a Raynor a few weeks ago I think it dawned on me that what I don't like about that look, though I was surprised that the look didn't bother me nearly as much as the repetitive nature of the recovery around the greens, is that it is more highly finished then say Kington, Beau Desert, Huntercombe or Painswick for that matter, but the finish isn't really here nor there.  It isn't rugged and it isn't natural. 

I am not sure an archie today could bring himself to create the alpinization look simply because the finish is so rudimentary - regardless of the architectural merits of that style.  For instance, at a glance, Kington, Huntercombe and Painswick seem carved out of the same general mould, but it is obvious to me that both Huntercombe and Kington are light years ahead of Painswick in their strategic creativity.  For lack of a better word, Painswick is truly a random course without much in the way of shaping to create strategic options (which is fine) whereas as the other two have it in spades - only from today's eyes they look unfinished.  Perhaps the questions marks surrounding Olympia Fields is testimony to this unwillingness for the modern golfer to accept the freakiness that is alpinization when it isn't made to fit the landscape.  Heck, I didn't care for J Foley's pix of Leathersiocking and perhaps Tom is right, maybe the setting is too parklandish for that style to really work well, but I can see what was attempted and I bet it looked better in the old days when maintenance regimes would have better supported this look.  Which brings me back to Yeamans, I believe it was the maintenance style of the rough areas which made it easier for me accept the overall look. 

Another aspect which has struck me about alpinization in the case of Kington, in an odd way these mounds act as containment structures, but are also strategic in how they are placed.  The difference is the mounds usually contain balls on the greens, which in a way is necessary if the time and money wasn't spent to shape the mounding out to fit the surrounds.  The method Hutchison employed was probably an economical way to use the lay of the land and have hazards without creating the extra width necessary to shape it properly.  I would also say that mounds push large flows of water around greens. If bunkers were in those hollows they would often be under water with the sharp rains this course gets at 1200 feet.  In any case, I better appreciate why archies use containment features on severe sites.  That isn't to say I always agree with it, but at least I can see their value at times.

Emil - I am not overly keen on Colt's rear mounding.  He employed this look an awful lot, but I think it merely serves to frame greens with very little architectural impact.  I think this smacks of work not properly finished for a guy trying to create a natural look. 

I am still interested to know what folks think as it is a continuing wonder for me as to why I like Kington even though it goes against my nature of preferring a much more natural look.

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

Some alpinisations from my home course:








Ulrich

[BCrosby]

As noted Somerset Hills has a lot of it and it works well there.

One of the reasons that Colt was not a big fan of aplinization was that JHT had conceived it as an alternative to ideas about strategic golf design that were gaining traction at about the time of R. Mid-Surry. JHT was not a fan of the ideas that Low, Colt, Alison, Fowler and others were then working out.

Obvioulsy contouring has been and always will be an important part of gca. But I'm not sure there are very many instances where contouring, even extreme contouring, can be called "alpinization" in the sense that JHT intended it.

Bob 

[Emil Weber]

Ulrich:
Which course is that? Might be the new 'Nessie' course at Bachgrund? If yes, then I really have to play there in the near future!

This is the 18th green at Saunton. My advice: take 2 clubs more when approaching the green and end up behind the green to be left with a really fun recovery-shot . (apologizes for the quality of the photos)


The recovery onto the 5th green at Saunton if missed long:

[Sean_A]

As noted Somerset Hills has a lot of it and it works well there.

One of the reasons that Colt was not a big fan of aplinization was that JHT had conceived it as an alternative to ideas about strategic golf design that were gaining traction at about the time of R. Mid-Surry. JHT was not a fan of the ideas that Low, Colt, Alison, Fowler and others were then working out.

Obvioulsy contouring has been and always will be an important part of gca. But I'm not sure there are very many instances where contouring, even extreme contouring, can be called "alpinization" in the sense that JHT intended it.

Bob 

Bob

I think you are right.  Taylor was keen to use the concept through the green as it were.  Clearly, this was an idea that didn't fly probably because folks wouldn't accept that extreme in your face look and it wasn't really strategic.  That said, it did promote randomness and that can't be all bad - except the finish work wasn't anywhere near up to scratch to pull this off.  If any criticism can be levelled against Colt its that he didn't leave anything to chance.  He was the first guy to well and truly create purely strategic courses - a true and final break from the past.  

This is the big difference between Taylor and Hutchison's work at Kington - his form of mini-alpinization was very strategic.  We can see a stark contrast in Ulrich's examples as well.  Those alps are basically framing mounds with points.  They ahve nowhere near the impact of Hutchison's work at Kington.  Those mounds essentially contain the view and balls while Hutchison's contain & repel, but never interfere with the view.  IMO, Hutchison's mounds were far more cleverly employed.  

Ciao  

[Michael Whitaker]

Sean - Great thread!

As you know, I am a big fan of Huntercombe... specifically because of the unique hollows and mounds found on the course. To me Huntercombe should be a case study for any designer seeking ways to create an interesting course on land without special interest. As we discussed at our last visit, Huntercombe (or most of it) could be replicated almost anywhere. While many of the features at Huntercombe are obviously manufactured, they are done so in such brilliantly simplistic way that I never once found them to be unacceptable... only fun, interesting, and challenging. When I think of Huntercombe I think of the depressions and hollows built into the course more than raised mounding... although both exist.

The course is such fun to play I don't understand why there are not more courses constructed in this style. Perhaps because the construction budget would be too SMALL???

[Ulrich Mayring]

Emil, yes, that is Nessie shortly after grow-in. It looks a little less bare now, but still very "pointy". If you plan on playing there, give me a shout. It's pretty expensive though for guests and we members aren't getting any deals :-(

Ulrich

[Kyle Harris]

I will admit to having little knowledge of maintenance techniques but would it be a problem to maintain such small mounds with narrow tops?

This is only a problem if we assume that they must have perfect grass on them at all times. I say let the mowers nick and dent them.

What's wrong with Alpinization and somewhat choppy grass? 

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Like you, the biggest problem I have with "mounding" is that so much of the modern stuff is done to provide a background for the hole and does not really factor into play.  I'm just not a big proponent of features which don't add to the strategy of the hole for some players. 

Plus, I am very conscious of backgrounds in my routings and I would hate to think I"d have to rely on big earthworks such as the ones Ulrich pictured.  The mounding done by most American architects for background is too small ... the flag winds up flying against the top line of the mounds and that is awfully distracting.  If you are going to do that sort of work, it has to be done BIG or you call the golfer's attention to the artifice.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

Like you, the biggest problem I have with "mounding" is that so much of the modern stuff is done to provide a background for the hole and does not really factor into play.  I'm just not a big proponent of features which don't add to the strategy of the hole for some players. 

Plus, I am very conscious of backgrounds in my routings and I would hate to think I"d have to rely on big earthworks such as the ones Ulrich pictured.  The mounding done by most American architects for background is too small ... the flag winds up flying against the top line of the mounds and that is awfully distracting.  If you are going to do that sort of work, it has to be done BIG or you call the golfer's attention to the artifice.

Tom

I agree with you.  A major reason for Taylor's alpinization was to create hazards without sand.  The alps were not meant to be a background feature - they were front and centre.  Other than the look of Royal Mid-Surrey's alps and the possible the (too?) random nature of them, I also think a big objection was that for all intents and purposes, Taylor was creating a hazard which had to be flown.  In other words, there were too many of the damn things! There was no effective way to hit a grounder through them which of course was counter-strategic.  I wonder if Hutchison realized this and kept his mounding at Kington at generally much smaller scale and around the greens only (though I am sure it also had a lot to do with keeping costs down)?  One can fly over or bump over them.  Of course, the absolute key is the grass on/around the mounds needs to be short which is what I didn't see with the example at Leatherstocking - once again highlighting the importance of the marriage between maintenance and design.   

So from the perspective of size, I think Hutchison got it right.  The mounds certainly look odd, but because they do the job so well I give them a pass.  Afterall, many weird things we see on courses aren't necessarily loved because they are attractive or fit the land well, they are often loved because of their uniqueness.  I spose its the same with Yeamans.  I give the regimented look a pass because it serves its design purpose very well, but I think it was just overdone - too repetitive especially given the flat site where practically anything could have been created.

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

I'm convinced Alpinization can work but can't explain why it does, when it flies in the face of what I might otherwise consider a basic requirement of good architecture, that the course should fit the land so as to give the impression of being (so far as a golf course can be) natural.  Kington is a wonderful site, sat on top of a hill, with tremendous views all around and a rugged, basic natural feel.  Hutchison then covered it (mostly the green surrounds, if I recall correctly) with alpinization which is clearly and strikingly artificial.  And yet it works wonderfully.  Not only does it make playing the course a great challenge but it is fun and looks right.  I suspect it would work less well on all levels at Kington were it combined with sand bunkering.

My home course, The Northumberland G.C is a Colt design on basically flat land.  On the inside of the right to left dogleg on the 17th hole are a series of mounds.  I had not even noticed how obviously unnatural they were and how different from the design of the rest of the course until another GCAer pointed them out last year.  On the hole they work well.  I meant to get some photos last night but was too wrapped up in trying to hold a round together and forgot.  I'll try again at the weekend.

[Sean_A]

I'm convinced Alpinization can work but can't explain why it does, when it flies in the face of what I might otherwise consider a basic requirement of good architecture, that the course should fit the land so as to give the impression of being (so far as a golf course can be) natural.  Kington is a wonderful site, sat on top of a hill, with tremendous views all around and a rugged, basic natural feel.  Hutchison then covered it (mostly the green surrounds, if I recall correctly) with alpinization which is clearly and strikingly artificial.  And yet it works wonderfully.  Not only does it make playing the course a great challenge but it is fun and looks right.  I suspect it would work less well on all levels at Kington were it combined with sand bunkering.

My home course, The Northumberland G.C is a Colt design on basically flat land.  On the inside of the right to left dogleg on the 17th hole are a series of mounds.  I had not even noticed how obviously unnatural they were and how different from the design of the rest of the course until another GCAer pointed them out last year.  On the hole they work well.  I meant to get some photos last night but was too wrapped up in trying to hold a round together and forgot.  I'll try again at the weekend.

Mark

An interesting corollary (meaning non-bunker hazard) to alpinization is Huntercombe's hollows.  I know Kington has some of these hollows, but not too many.  Instead, the slopes of Bradnor Hill and those weird little cups in the "fairways" are used to create interest.  All the same, I think more Huntercombe like hollows would work very well at Kington. 

It also interesting how alpinization is used at Huntercombe.  It is sort of betwixt and between Royal Mid Surrey circa 1911 and Kington.  The areas where it is used is extensively is around the 7th green, but some of it is used to house bunkers.  I don't think Huntercomb's mounding works as well as Kington's - probably because the grass is left too long. 


Ciao

[BCrosby]

Sean -

I've only played Huntercombe once, but my impression is that a lot the mounding there is not so much an example of alpinization (most would have pre-dated Taylor's ideas in any event) as it is remnants of old cop bunkers where grass has grown over the sand bottoms. Even the massive pit in front of the 16th (?) green is not really an example of alpinization. (My host speculated that it was a gift from the Luftwaffe. )

Also, very few of the photos higher up on this thread are examples of alpinization. They are rather examples of different kinds of mounding. Most of which looks awful.

Your definition of alpinization above nails the idea.

Alpinization is  an interesting concept. Primarily because is was first promoted by very powerful people in the game as an alternative to concepts like strategic architecture, and ended up in the dust bin of history.

Bob

[Tom_Doak]

Sean / Mark:

I have never been to any of the three courses you are discussing (Huntercombe, Kington, Royal Mid-Surrey) but I suspect that a lot of the differences there would be explained by the native soils.

If Kington doesn't have many hollows, it is probably because the soils are heavy and it would have created drainage problems -- or rocky, and it would have been hard and expensive to dig.  So their mounding is limited to areas around greens which had to be disturbed anyway, and the mounding is probably the spoils pushed up from the green site before better soil was added for the green itself.

At Huntercombe the soils would probably be better (gravelly or sandy) so it didn't cost much to gouge out some hollows and use that material for the greens construction and some bigger featuring in the fairways tied in with those excavations.  Cut-and-fill work is always going to look better / more natural than plain old fill, where it's impossible to hide the natural plane of the ground and thus the work looks unnatural.

Royal Mid-Surrey was a much more aggressive project on flattish ground, and all of the material for Taylor's Alps was probably imported from off-site.  Again, though, a lot of that choice would have been based on the fact that the soils were heavier and the ground was very flat, so if hollows or bunkers had been created there would have been no place to drain them to.

[Sean_A]

Sean -

I've only played Huntercombe once, but my impression is that a lot the mounding there is not so much an example of alpinization (most would have pre-dated Taylor's ideas in any event) as it is remnants of old cop bunkers where grass has grown over the sand bottoms. Even the massive pit in front of the 16th (?) green is not really an example of alpinization. (My host speculated that it was a gift from the Luftwaffe. )

Also, very few of the photos higher up on this thread are examples of alpinization. They are rather examples of different kinds of mounding. Most of which looks awful.

Your definition of alpinization above nails the idea.

Alpinization is  an interesting concept. Primarily because is was first promoted by very powerful people in the game as an alternative to concepts like strategic architecture, and ended up in the dust bin of history.

Bob

Bob

Yes, Willie Park Jrs Huntercombe pre-dated Taylor's concept, but the look is very similar.  The placement is what is very different - Huntercombe's being much more strategic like Kington.  I can't help thinking there is some connection.

You are right, but I am using the word "alpinization" as to the look of what is essentially mounding.  I understand that the back in the day they were also referring to the placement of the mounds that as a group would sort of copy an Alps hole (except for the critical blind aspect).  That said, I think they way they are used at Kington is still alpinization because it is front and centre (yes, from fairways), blocking access to the hole if one gets in the wrong position - call it strategic alpinization. 

Tom

Yes, nearly all of the mounding at Kington is preceded by hollows - this is obviously where turf came from to build the mounds.  I don't know where the extra turf came from to left backs and sides of greens.  These involve much more soil than the alpinization.  I have often wondered if it came from the large dips in front of the 4th and 5th tees.  Mind you, many greens are benched into hill sides so again its a simple displacement soil. 

The turf at Kington is of the highest order and second to no inland course that I know of - its a beautiful playing surface that drains better than most links.  More hollows could easily be dug, but there would have been the problem of getting rid of the turf, but it would have seemed an easy thing to just chuck it into the rough and let nature takes its course.   

View from 4th tee


View from 5th tee


A look at how the 13th is built up.


I am still curious to know if golfers would accept some of the stuff they have seen in the pix.  More importantly, are there archies out there who would build this sort of thing?

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()