[Jim Eder]

What are the 2 or 3 least changed designs around today of Behr? I have played a number of his courses and have liked them but I never really know how much they were changed. When I get a chance I'll dig around on the site more.

Are there any really in-depth books and/or articles on his thoughts, ideas, etc?

Thanks in advance!!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Frankly, I think the short article is mostly marketing BS, an article to justify the differences in Max as a gca over others.  I think he was trying to sound like he gets his ideas from a higher source, and to be just as confusing as he can be to make others think he knows more than they possibly ever can.  Perhaps he is related to David Moriarity or Tom MacWood?  (Just kidding, but similar thought processes to anyone who argues a lot)

I think its also a case of the more words used, the less validity to the theory.  I would have preferred he said "I like rough edge bunkers to smooth capes and bays" to all that.  (I would also prefer most participants here just say that, too)

That is all he can really tell us.  However, the bunker he picks to illustrate the article is oddly smooth and simple on one side, and rugged on the other.  If that is his idea of a naturally appearing bunker, its a miserable fail.  It looks no more natural than any other bunker.  And if not, then why not use a more artistic MacKenzie style bunker, even if artificial.

What is more "sincere" architecture - trying to look natural when its nearly impossible, or trying to be artistic when you know you can't be natural?

[Bradley Anderson]

The best place that I have found to study natural bunkers is Illinois Beach State Park, located on the shore of Lake Michigan on the Illinois and Wisconsin border.  


I used to live just a couple miles from here - my boys and I would spend a lot of time out there hiking.


Everywhere you look there are these amazing natural bunker features made by wind blown sand, held together by the native grass and shrubs.


This would be one heck of a place to build a golf course.


Here you can see exactly what they were trying to replicate when they switched from building the rampart bunkers to "natural" bunkers.

[Mac Plumart]

Bradley...

INCREDIBLE photos!!!  Illinois Beach State Park, right?  It looks worthy of a visit!

[Pete Lavallee]

The natural bunker style that Behr advocated, along with George Thomas had one inherent flaw: they don't last very long! I can guarantee that if there were any of Beh's natural bunkers left at Rancho Santa Fe CC the grounds crew there would be busy for weeks rebuilding them! We've had a most unlikely spell of constant rain rain here in So. Cal; 6 straight days. The same fate befell his work at Lakeside: he tried to incorporate natural Arroyos into the design and now they have concrete culverts! Thomas was gulity too. His natural use of the barrancas at Riviera was frankly, a miserable failure. I can't help but think that a Raynor bunker would however survive. Do they have natural beauty, no; but they do have beauty of design that means they'll last. Perhaps their beauty is that they can resist nature and her forces; there is indeed an inherent beauty in that!

[Jeff_Brauer]

Pete,

Great post.  There is no doubt that design is adapting to the natural land for human use.  At some point, like it or not, designing bunkers for maintenance is a part of the equation because most folks would rather pay $20 for any kind of golf vs $200 for spectacular golf.

Besides, given the history of the home lawn (and its miniature replica of the English estates) its easy to see most people can accept a highly altered version of nature as nature itself.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Pete (and Jeff) - good posts, and good for me to read the other side/perspective (of my inherent bias).

Jason - yes, it is odd. I think about my own reactions - and can't quite understand. But the counter-intuitiveness of Behr is the very thing that I find interesting.

Peter

[Sean_A]

The natural bunker style that Behr advocated, along with George Thomas had one inherent flaw: they don't last very long! I can guarantee that if there were any of Beh's natural bunkers left at Rancho Santa Fe CC the grounds crew there would be busy for weeks rebuilding them! We've had a most unlikely spell of constant rain rain here in So. Cal; 6 straight days. The same fate befell his work at Lakeside: he tried to incorporate natural Arroyos into the design and now they have concrete culverts! Thomas was gulity too. His natural use of the barrancas at Riviera was frankly, a miserable failure. I can't help but think that a Raynor bunker would however survive. Do they have natural beauty, no; but they do have beauty of design that means they'll last. Perhaps their beauty is that they can resist nature and her forces; there is indeed an inherent beauty in that!

Is this not essentially the same thing fancy pants designers face with windy sites except the goal is to keep sand in rather than water out?  I think if one really wants to blow the doors off bunker design they needs lots of space so stray sand isn't much of an issue. On a traditional out n' back design there just isn't the space to allow for free form bunker design.  In any case, Pete, I largely agree with you.  Some very well respected designers took liberities with their designs and the end result was essentially failure.  YET, these same chaps remain revered for these liberties.  Its a strange one I tell ya.

Question, when was it that folks (and which folk?) figured out the function before form mantra so far as bunkers are concerned?  As we write there has been a little talked about experiment with the bunkers at Aberdovey.  While there isn't quite the artistry of Dr Mac etc at play, the club has layed down some quasi compromise attractive bunkers which are not pots.  It will be interesting to see the verdict.

Ciao

[Niall C]

For what its worth I read Behrs quote as a simple statement (for him) saying golfers will happily accept the lie of the land no matter what challenge that presents but will argue the toss over challenges that have been created, the point being aren't golfers a fickle bunch.

Sean,

Spot on with your comments. I'd also be interested to hear more about the Aberdovey bunkers and how they work in practice. What's the motivation of the club to make the changes ?

Niall

[TEPaul]

"For what its worth I read Behrs quote as a simple statement (for him) saying golfers will happily accept the lie of the land no matter what challenge that presents but will argue the toss over challenges that have been created, the point being aren't golfers a fickle bunch."



Niall:

I believe you are right about that. I have felt for years that is exactly what Behr was saying about "golfers" and furthermore Behr actively and consciously presented that idea as one of his premises that went into his a priori reasoning for one aspect of what would become known as "Permanent Architecture" (Behr's term).

I believe in a good deal of what Behr wrote on architecture but I also have believed for years that that one aspect is something that the ensuing years have actually proven that particular premise of Behr's to be wrong!

[Adam Clayman]

It could be argued that the sensibilities of the golfer are the reason those natural bunkers didn't work. If in their evolution they became unattractive to the golfer, I don't see that as failure.

Jason says every bunker he sees looks artificial. That's because of maintenance and aesthetic expectations.

I'll use the second at Spyglass hill as an example. The fronting natural bunker that was there was fierce. The company saw fit to fix it. Isn't that a personal taste issue. A form of "whim of the day"?

I've seen other bunkers that were neglected and they evolved into such beasts, To me, that defines "hazard', especially in a strategic sense.

So, Pete says the natural features were failures and I say that's debatable depending on your aesthetic expectations.

[paul cowley]

Natural bunkers and sand areas that are created are unnatural. Period. Any sand area that requires maintanance is not natural.

[Mac Plumart]

Any sand area that requires maintanance is not natural.

Brillant! 

[paul cowley]

fake boobs aren't real either.

[Peter Pallotta]

Paul - or, as Behr might say:

"The golfer knows that his pastime is a contest with the obstacles that nature spreads in his way; and this is proved by the experience that he readily accepts without question all natural hazards no matter how illogical; but because an artificial hazard is an evident design, in the degree the golfer is conscious of the design in that degree is fault accorded."

In this case, though, I disagree with him. 

[TEPaul]

"fake boobs aren't real either."


Paulie:

Perhaps, but how good are you at telling the difference, at least when she has her shirt on?

Merry Christmas my firiend.

[paul cowley]

I think I'm pretty good at it...love you big guy! You too Pete! Merry Xmas!

[Tom_Doak]

What is more "sincere" architecture - trying to look natural when its nearly impossible, or trying to be artistic when you know you can't be natural?

Jeff:

Well, you made the first half of your question moot by declaring it impossible.  So, I'll stick to the second half.  I think most architects fail miserably when they try to be artistic.

[paul cowley]

Well for me Art is what hangs on walls for visual appreciation...Golf needs to function first and hopefully look better. Naturally.

[Adam Clayman]

So what's the difference between a rabbit scratching and machine?

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()