As a point of comparison, I went through my latest course in my head as to grading:
Total cut and fill hauls were about 90,000 CY, although LUI built many greens and tees with on site dozer balance cuts and fills. Holes 1, 2, 5, 7-10, 13, 14, 16-18 have virtually no grading, save greens, tees and bunkers. 4 of those are par 3 holes. Since most of the site rolls at 7-15%, which is 4-12% greater than we would like for a putting surface, and 6.5-14.5% greater than we would like for tees, we found no “natural” green and tee sites that required no grading.
Of the fairway bunkers, those on holes 1-2, 6, 12, 15,and 17 required some import fill, while those on 3, the centerline bunkers on 2, and those on 8, 9, and 10 were built into natural slopes.
Holes 3, 4, 11 have fairway cuts through a substantial hill for vision and 15 fairway got some fill placed, but didn’t need it, but LUI preferred to get rid of excess lake cuts in the closest location. At holes 6 and 14 we filled and piped small valleys that crossed the first LZ to keep it playable.
Now, that being said, there were probably just a few tweaks in all fairway after all was said and done.
For examples,
We cut a swale above the first fairway to divert many acres of drainage from crossing it, but the fairway contours themselves are natural.
On 5, 8, 9 we added one or two fairway catch basins where the length of the natural slope showed that water was concentrating in erodible quantity and volumes.
On hole 12, we cut a deep valley in front of the green both for fill, a la Donald Ross, and to create a distance illusion.
17 drained naturally, but it looked just a bit dull to the eye after clearing, so we cut a small valley to direct the eye.
18 is a double fairway hole and we did extend the green shaping out in front of the fairway to define the fairways and take away the middle option to un-reward a wild shot.
In modern terms, I think that is about as natural as you get. Yes, the greens are “built” and a few appear artificial like the 6th, where we combined Mackenzie’s boomerang green with an artificially built valley. (I had intended to sink it into the highest hilltop, but surprisingly, drainage became an issue so we built it up artificially and it shows. Add in a tribe requested “Buffalo” bunker and it sort of bucks the natural theme……) Another example is 17, which also sat near a crest and where we wanted to balance the valley look of the cut on 11, using the background mounds of 17. However, the shaping also came out a bit stiff because of circumstances and the green doesn’t mesh as well as some of the others. In some other open areas of the site, just plopping a green in wouldn’t have been too attractive, so we did add some gently rolling ridges around some of them, while others just fall off the back.
So, if anyone wants to think the course would have looked better with less grading, then they are entitled to their opinions. I tried to leave as much natural as I could, but in the end golf holes are artistic creations and the art is part of what satisfies the golfer. As hinted above, there were some cases where I could have left the ground as is but my artist’s eye told me that a little tweak here and there to “organize” the scene for human eyeball consumption would make it better. Overall, I think that is a higher objective than leaving the land as is, even if leaving the land as is often works best in creating a golf course for cost reasons, and for the human connection to nature.
But, when it doesn’t, it doesn’t. The job of the golf course architect is to create a place for human enjoyment, and thus, to know when to change the earth and when to leave it as it is.