Why the tendency to dislike anything "artificial"?

[Grant Saunders]

Hypothetically, suppose evidence surfaced that the Old Course was in fact completely man made. Would your attitude towards it change?

Would you lose respect for it or be in awe of the great job they did?

[Tim Martin]

Frank - for me it's for the same reason that I like touching stone and wood instead of plastic and steel; the same reason I want an open window and a breeze instead of air conditioning; the same reason I want to listen to live music, wind instruments that carry human energy like saxophones and trumpets instead of sitting at a computer with headphones on being inundated by electrical impulses; the same reason that wild flowers growing randomly in bunches and profusions appeal to me more than a formal garden; why I'd rather walk and feel the earth beneath my feet than be in a tube 30,000 feet up attached to nothing at all. Because it feels better, it rings truer, it resonates more deeply, it quenches my humanity more fully, it lifts my spirits up higher, it nourishes my psyche instead of depleting it with artifical signs and signifiers and self promotion. In short, it's what Melvyn said so simply. I know, I know - if the only courses in the world were the original scottish links, millions of golfers would never get a chance to golf, so we 'have to' fake it -- in deserts where there is no grass and with bunkers where there is no sand and with mounds on what used to be a rice field and with golf courses on what used to be garbage. But there is a big difference, it seems to me, between accepting this reality/fact (with, hopefully, good grace and gratitude and a peaceful spirit) and celebrating this reality/fact as if it were something objectively 'good' or something that truly fed our deepest natures.

Yup.

Peter  

PS - Maybe I'm just a tired romantic who has spent too many years working on artificial tasks in artificial buildings with artificial light and air, but all those natural pleasures I just described -- the longing for those experiences -- is what, I predict, will mean that a course like Ballyneal, on which Jim Colton just performed a great human and humane feat, will within our lifetimes be ranked No 1 in the country.

Am I the only one that started to weep uncontrollably after reading this post? I don`t know what you do for a living Peter but if it`s not writing cards for Hallmark you missed your calling. All kidding aside - very poignant.

[paul cowley]

Jeff Brauer

Your last two posts were exceptionally well done and echo my own thoughts and also my lack of ability to express them as succinctly as you have.

Best

paul

[paul cowley]

Frank - for me it's for the same reason that I like touching stone and wood instead of plastic and steel; the same reason I want an open window and a breeze instead of air conditioning; the same reason I want to listen to live music, wind instruments that carry human energy like saxophones and trumpets instead of sitting at a computer with headphones on being inundated by electrical impulses; the same reason that wild flowers growing randomly in bunches and profusions appeal to me more than a formal garden; why I'd rather walk and feel the earth beneath my feet than be in a tube 30,000 feet up attached to nothing at all. Because it feels better, it rings truer, it resonates more deeply, it quenches my humanity more fully, it lifts my spirits up higher, it nourishes my psyche instead of depleting it with artifical signs and signifiers and self promotion. In short, it's what Melvyn said so simply. I know, I know - if the only courses in the world were the original scottish links, millions of golfers would never get a chance to golf, so we 'have to' fake it -- in deserts where there is no grass and with bunkers where there is no sand and with mounds on what used to be a rice field and with golf courses on what used to be garbage. But there is a big difference, it seems to me, between accepting this reality/fact (with, hopefully, good grace and gratitude and a peaceful spirit) and celebrating this reality/fact as if it were something objectively 'good' or something that truly fed our deepest natures.

Yup.

Peter  

PS - Maybe I'm just a tired romantic who has spent too many years working on artificial tasks in artificial buildings with artificial light and air, but all those natural pleasures I just described -- the longing for those experiences -- is what, I predict, will mean that a course like Ballyneal, on which Jim Colton just performed a great human and humane feat, will within our lifetimes be ranked No 1 in the country.

Peter, great post!

[Adam Clayman]

Jeff Brauer

You're last two posts were exceptionally well done and echo my own thoughts and also my lack of ability to express them as succinctly as you have.

Best

paul

Even the rear mounding for visual backstops?

IMO, This is a major formulaic flaw when done too frequently or uniformly, ALso if done to block views of land better seen. Adding a frame of reference is also another reason for my negative feelings.

 

[Steve Lang]

  I like Putt-Putt golfing,



 but I prefer the Himilayas

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim, Paul - thanks. I was feeling a little tired and sentimental I guess (hence that special 'hallmark cards' quality...). But that's what came out of my fingers without thought, just typing away - so maybe that's the way some part of me really feels. But like many such black and white precepts, I like to think of them more as 'directional ideals' than 'enforceable absolutes'.  Also,just to show I'm not cracked, check out the Ironweed thread for a course I like a lot in its simplicity.

Peter

[Mac Plumart]

We talked about similiar stuff on this thread.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47557.0.html

Always a fascinating topic.  IMO.

[Sean_A]

It’s a great thread and a very good premise.

To start with, yes golf courses are truly artificial, other than areas left native in the design.  For most courses, the constructed part is close to 100% of the site, with only patches of undisturbed areas.

Tees must be leveled, and greens and fairways leveled “enough” to fit their function of providing golf surfaces that function under the rules and conventions and maintenance practices of golf.  It is a landscape designed for a very particular human use, and changes to the landscape should be expected.  Most of the “keep it natural” idea seemingly stems from the old notion of sheep huddling for wind protection and then creating bunkers in Scottish dunes.

So, the land changes, but the question is, how much.  Many use the Raynor style as an example.  And, its just that – a style of manufacturing critical golf elements, although, in some cases you could argue that he is trying to return the grade back to nature as quickly as possible, and it might be more natural.  Other Golf Course Architect’s have espoused the philosophy of never more than doubling the natural grade, using more room to catch back up to grade, but looking plausibly natural, while probably the most common thought is to make disturbed slopes the maximum steepness that can be mowed, sort of half way in between the extremes.

To me, the real question isn’t the Raynor style – it’s the style myself and others used in the 1980-2000’s to various degrees to grade other than non essential golf elements – i.e., mounding all the way down the fairway.
It seems to me that there are/were several basic theories in place:

Don’t grade the fairway with artificial contours, like mounds.

Grade only for support of features – like sand bunkers, raising the back edge of fairway for visibility and ball holding capabilities, and sometimes to support vision through the hole, variance in fairway grades to establish strategies, etc.  Included would be backing mounds at the green to provide a visual backstop to the hole.

Grade to place the hole in a visually controlled valley.  Even here there are variances – Fazio uses the long slope, no more than double natural slope mentality, whereas Rees, JN, myself and others at different times experimented with the idea or earthwork as artwork, sacrificing naturalness to create visual excitement and also to provide a visual side stop, if you will, where non was present with trees.

There are some valid reasons for style no. 3 – if you want to separate holes, earthmoving is both cheaper and more immediate than planting lots of trees.  I have also argued that we are more visually engaged than our forbearers’, mostly because of TV,  and “arranging” the landscape into something more visually exciting at the expense of naturalism actually makes some sense for the modern day golfer, even if the tradition from the old days was different.  I also believe that “creating spaces” has a lot of appeal to human nature, even more so than just being out in nature.  Again, as we move off the farm to big cities, we are more used to existing in man made spaces, and perhaps are more comfortable in them, for reasons we cannot explain.

I believe one of the reasons Fazio is so popular is that he combines the need to “arrange the landscape” and “create spaces” with the natural look, accomplished not only with reasonably natural looking contours, but also massive landscape budgets that give his courses almost instant maturity..

Jeff

I must admit that I am dubious of much of this sort of thinking for grading.  I think things can get quickly out of hand or patterns repeated when so many reasons are identified for non-essential grading.  I often go back to Colt and his rear nobs of greens which I see often on his courses.  They are often used on uphill shots and essentially serve to frame (create a sort of easier vision) for the approach.  I can't point to any other specific element an archie does/did a lot of except for perhaps Dr Mac and his raised rear bunkers (not a favourite design motif), but I see re-occuring themes throughout many archies work which suggests a formulaic design just as much as can be seen in Raynor's work.  For me, the huge difference is getting the artificial work front and centre so the golfer has to deal with it on a playing level and the aesthetics become a secondary issue.  If the work is in place to hide a backdrop (shouldn't be too often used imo) then try to mimic what exists on the course.  One of the best jobs I ever saw of hiding something was at Camberley Heath.  Colt (maybe someone did it later) built a huge mound to block an underpass, yet it fits right in because of the nature of the hole.  Most folks wouldn't pay it any attention from the tee despite its obvious size.  



Below is an example of a very obviously man made slope that works for me because its front and centre and must be dealt with.  


I guess what I am saying is artificiality can work if you make the golfer work around the element, but natural mimicing elements work far better when hiding something.  That may mean that to hide something could dramatically alter the way the entire hole is shaped, but so often this sort of work seems an afterthought or not a thought at all.  

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

It’s a great thread and a very good premise.

To start with, yes golf courses are truly artificial, other than areas left native in the design.  For most courses, the constructed part is close to 100% of the site, with only patches of undisturbed areas.

Tees must be leveled, and greens and fairways leveled “enough” to fit their function of providing golf surfaces that function under the rules and conventions and maintenance practices of golf.  It is a landscape designed for a very particular human use, and changes to the landscape should be expected.  Most of the “keep it natural” idea seemingly stems from the old notion of sheep huddling for wind protection and then creating bunkers in Scottish dunes.

So, the land changes, but the question is, how much.  Many use the Raynor style as an example.  And, its just that – a style of manufacturing critical golf elements, although, in some cases you could argue that he is trying to return the grade back to nature as quickly as possible, and it might be more natural.  Other Golf Course Architect’s have espoused the philosophy of never more than doubling the natural grade, using more room to catch back up to grade, but looking plausibly natural, while probably the most common thought is to make disturbed slopes the maximum steepness that can be mowed, sort of half way in between the extremes.

To me, the real question isn’t the Raynor style – it’s the style myself and others used in the 1980-2000’s to various degrees to grade other than non essential golf elements – i.e., mounding all the way down the fairway.
It seems to me that there are/were several basic theories in place:

Don’t grade the fairway with artificial contours, like mounds.

Grade only for support of features – like sand bunkers, raising the back edge of fairway for visibility and ball holding capabilities, and sometimes to support vision through the hole, variance in fairway grades to establish strategies, etc.  Included would be backing mounds at the green to provide a visual backstop to the hole.

Grade to place the hole in a visually controlled valley.  Even here there are variances – Fazio uses the long slope, no more than double natural slope mentality, whereas Rees, JN, myself and others at different times experimented with the idea or earthwork as artwork, sacrificing naturalness to create visual excitement and also to provide a visual side stop, if you will, where non was present with trees.

There are some valid reasons for style no. 3 – if you want to separate holes, earthmoving is both cheaper and more immediate than planting lots of trees.  I have also argued that we are more visually engaged than our forbearers’, mostly because of TV,  and “arranging” the landscape into something more visually exciting at the expense of naturalism actually makes some sense for the modern day golfer, even if the tradition from the old days was different.  I also believe that “creating spaces” has a lot of appeal to human nature, even more so than just being out in nature.  Again, as we move off the farm to big cities, we are more used to existing in man made spaces, and perhaps are more comfortable in them, for reasons we cannot explain.

I believe one of the reasons Fazio is so popular is that he combines the need to “arrange the landscape” and “create spaces” with the natural look, accomplished not only with reasonably natural looking contours, but also massive landscape budgets that give his courses almost instant maturity..

Jeff:

I am convinced that two of the reasons my work has been popular is because I've consistently broken two of your rules, which makes our courses look different than most of what other guys are building.

We do not grade to place the hole in a visually controlled valley.  We do control your vision, but in other ways.  It helps a lot to have beautiful sites and features which draw your attention ... I probably couldn't do the same thing if all my sites were flat like The Rawls Course.  But, it's not all in valleys, either.

Also, I agree that "instant maturity" is important, but there are two ways to achieve it, and Mr. Fazio's is way more expensive than mine.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom: Do you think people tend to question modern courses more because of the progression and ability for us to shape the land to a greater extent?

Frank:  I was really just talking about the fact that on a new course where the architect is being touted for his genius, everyone is aware that the course is a series of conscious decisions by someone, as opposed to accepting that some (or many) features were natural.  Certainly, the fact that it's easier to move earth now makes people less accepting of any feature they don't like.

[JC Jones]

P.S. Artificial works for me -- so long as it makes for good golf. Cf., e.g., Lawsonia.

Clearly someone has done well in their Bluebook-ing exercises.

[JC Jones]

Why the tendency to dislike anything "artificial" in golf design but the tendency to embrace most things artificial in other areas of life?

Why support factory farming when it does more for soil erosion and raping of the earth than any artificial golf course ever could (think all of the flooding is random)? 

Where is Shivas with the GCA Hypocrisies !!

[paul cowley]

Jeff Brauer

You're last two posts were exceptionally well done and echo my own thoughts and also my lack of ability to express them as succinctly as you have.

Best

paul

Even the rear mounding for visual backstops?

IMO, This is a major formulaic flaw when done too frequently or uniformly, ALso if done to block views of land better seen. Adding a frame of reference is also another reason for my negative feelings.

 

Adam...I wouldn't suggest doing anything too frequently in golf design but the use of visual and actual backstops are favored design tools when the right situation arises. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Paul,

I agree on variety.  One of the best things about natural slopes is the randomness.  It is hard for designers to vary things to that degree. I recall telling a shaper to make a grass hollow like a big old barrel chair.  Liked it, and the next trip, every durn area looked like a barrel chair.  Shapers and archies just cannot provide the variety nature usually does.  On the other hand, they have to consciously try, and a formula to use backing mounds, or any other feature gets noticed, probably because nature wouldn't randomly place mounds like that time after time (well, in most cases)

I am also reminded by some of the photos of old linksland, that the idea of mounds must have originally been to convey some sense of the dunesland, but as one gca put it, those are "puny strivings" because even today, with the exceptions of perhaps Whistling Straits and Shadow Creek, we cannot emulate nature's scale.

That said, so many responses are feature based.  My thoughts are that in general, people understimate the amount to which our entire landscape is "organized" for human consumption and use, and how much I believe the average guy actually has come to rely on that organization (via landscape architecture mostly) to feel comfortable.

Or, more specifically, there are very few opportunities like golf where the viewing sequence is so controlled and predictable.  In some ways, its a shame not to try to maximize that, by leading the eye, varying the spaces, and even throwing in the occaisional surprise.  In those ways, design really should be able to improve the golf experience, if well done, no? 

The only reason to tout maximum naturalness is if it enhances the user's experience while using the facility.  Often, nature does that, and it makes most sense to change the landscape as little as possible for the given use (in our case, golf).  But, if nature needs a little help now and again, there is no reason not to, is there?

Lastly, I use the term "sincerity" in design.  Given that we must alter the landscape to some degree, I often take the middle ground - alter it and make no apologies for it, that is, building a green or bunker support.  If all the factors in golf and the landscape say we need a bunker out there, then I see no reason not to just put in just enough support fill to build that bunker. 

Sure, I could add a bunch of support fill to try to convince the golfers that there was a natural hill there that we just carved the bunker into, but what exactly is the point?  Again, the "puny strivings" thing comes into play.  In practical terms, we probably need to strip all the topsoil the length of the hole and move loads of earth in an attempt to make a small area of altered contours look like it was part of something bigger.  Why be less natural in an attempt to look more natural?  Isn't it more "sincere" to admit we are building a golf course and need to add bunkers, so just do it the best we can?

IMHO, yes.  Let the feeling of nature come from the trees, the grass (not at all natural in some areas, BTW) and the fresh air.  And let the golf course be a competition field, not a meadow or arboretuem.

[paul cowley]

Jeff

I feel that many overlook the fact that golf design is site and budget driven. A flat site with a Shadow Creek budget is great...and easy to create in my opinion...but a flat site with a budget that barely allows for drainage and the minimum of golf features...IE tees, greens and bunkers...is great as well, but becomes much more of a challenge to tie in the site naturally. This type of site becomes strategy driven first, with 'natural looking' second.

I enjoy the challenge of both but probably get the most fulfillment from the latter.

I played one of these today with my son...3+M budget...flat site with tough drainage on the SE coastal plain...we went at times with Raynor basics and our own creative framework...and it played really well (not me unfortunately, but the course), and I am sitting here quite content.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jeff - another really good post, thanks.  This struck me most interesting:


" There are very few opportunities like golf where the viewing sequence is so controlled and predictable.  In some ways, its a shame not to try to maximize that, by leading the eye, varying the spaces, and even throwing in the occaisional surprise.  In those ways, design really should be able to improve the golf experience, if well done, no?"

It's true, and I never thought of it - i.e. the sequence of 18 holes following one after another is unique in how it allows the viewing experience to be controlled. But here's the thing: by the time I step on the first tee, I already KNOW that the experience has been created for me and is being controlled -- I have driven a car, sometimes many miles through urban sprawl, and I have parked on a huge slab of concrete, and sometimes a young man has sped up to me in a mechanical cart to ask if I want a ride up to a massive house-like structure that a century ago would have been the home of a King and Queen, and then I have paid a couple of guys (who, like me, are dressed up to look like uptight dorks) a big wad of cash, and then I have followed one sign after another to a place that says 'start here'.  In one sense, architects are already fighting a losing battle at that point if, that is, they have any desire to have a field of play FEEL like a natural setting.  And, for me, the main point of finally getting to the first tee is so that I can forget all the controlled spaces and actions that I had to go through to get there.  

Peter

[paul cowley]

Jeff - another really good post, thanks.  This struck me most interesting:


" There are very few opportunities like golf where the viewing sequence is so controlled and predictable.  In some ways, its a shame not to try to maximize that, by leading the eye, varying the spaces, and even throwing in the occaisional surprise.  In those ways, design really should be able to improve the golf experience, if well done, no?"

It's true, and I never thought of it - i.e. the sequence of 18 holes following one after another is unique in how it allows the viewing experience to be controlled. But here's the thing: by the time I step on the first tee, I already KNOW that the experience has been created for me and is being controlled -- I have driven a car, sometimes many miles through urban sprawl, and I have parked on a huge slab of concrete, and sometimes a young man has sped up to me in a mechanical cart to ask if I want a ride up to a massive house-like structure that a century ago would have been the home of a King and Queen, and then I have paid a couple of guys (who, like me, are dressed up to look like uptight dorks) a big wad of cash, and then I have followed one sign after another to a place that says 'start here'.  In one sense, architects are already fighting a losing battle at that point if, that is, they have any desire to have a field of play FEEL like a natural setting.  And, for me, the main point of finally getting to the first tee is so that I can forget all the controlled spaces and actions that I had to go through to get there.  

Peter

"like"...very much!

[David Harshbarger]

Jeff - another really good post, thanks.  This struck me most interesting:


" There are very few opportunities like golf where the viewing sequence is so controlled and predictable.  In some ways, its a shame not to try to maximize that, by leading the eye, varying the spaces, and even throwing in the occaisional surprise.  In those ways, design really should be able to improve the golf experience, if well done, no?"

It's true, and I never thought of it - i.e. the sequence of 18 holes following one after another is unique in how it allows the viewing experience to be controlled. But here's the thing: by the time I step on the first tee, I already KNOW that the experience has been created for me and is being controlled -- I have driven a car, sometimes many miles through urban sprawl, and I have parked on a huge slab of concrete, and sometimes a young man has sped up to me in a mechanical cart to ask if I want a ride up to a massive house-like structure that a century ago would have been the home of a King and Queen, and then I have paid a couple of guys (who, like me, are dressed up to look like uptight dorks) a big wad of cash, and then I have followed one sign after another to a place that says 'start here'.  In one sense, architects are already fighting a losing battle at that point if, that is, they have any desire to have a field of play FEEL like a natural setting.  And, for me, the main point of finally getting to the first tee is so that I can forget all the controlled spaces and actions that I had to go through to get there.  

Peter

"like"...very much!

+3

Jeff, Paul, Peter....all excellent posts

[Tom_Doak]

Paul,

I agree on variety.  One of the best things about natural slopes is the randomness.  It is hard for designers to vary things to that degree. I recall telling a shaper to make a grass hollow like a big old barrel chair.  Liked it, and the next trip, every durn area looked like a barrel chair.  Shapers and archies just cannot provide the variety nature usually does.  On the other hand, they have to consciously try, and a formula to use backing mounds, or any other feature gets noticed, probably because nature wouldn't randomly place mounds like that time after time (well, in most cases)

I am also reminded by some of the photos of old linksland, that the idea of mounds must have originally been to convey some sense of the dunesland, but as one gca put it, those are "puny strivings" because even today, with the exceptions of perhaps Whistling Straits and Shadow Creek, we cannot emulate nature's scale.

That said, so many responses are feature based.  My thoughts are that in general, people understimate the amount to which our entire landscape is "organized" for human consumption and use, and how much I believe the average guy actually has come to rely on that organization (via landscape architecture mostly) to feel comfortable.

Or, more specifically, there are very few opportunities like golf where the viewing sequence is so controlled and predictable.  In some ways, its a shame not to try to maximize that, by leading the eye, varying the spaces, and even throwing in the occaisional surprise.  In those ways, design really should be able to improve the golf experience, if well done, no? 

The only reason to tout maximum naturalness is if it enhances the user's experience while using the facility.  Often, nature does that, and it makes most sense to change the landscape as little as possible for the given use (in our case, golf).  But, if nature needs a little help now and again, there is no reason not to, is there?

Lastly, I use the term "sincerity" in design.  Given that we must alter the landscape to some degree, I often take the middle ground - alter it and make no apologies for it, that is, building a green or bunker support.  If all the factors in golf and the landscape say we need a bunker out there, then I see no reason not to just put in just enough support fill to build that bunker. 

Sure, I could add a bunch of support fill to try to convince the golfers that there was a natural hill there that we just carved the bunker into, but what exactly is the point?  Again, the "puny strivings" thing comes into play.  In practical terms, we probably need to strip all the topsoil the length of the hole and move loads of earth in an attempt to make a small area of altered contours look like it was part of something bigger.  Why be less natural in an attempt to look more natural?  Isn't it more "sincere" to admit we are building a golf course and need to add bunkers, so just do it the best we can?

IMHO, yes.  Let the feeling of nature come from the trees, the grass (not at all natural in some areas, BTW) and the fresh air.  And let the golf course be a competition field, not a meadow or arboretuem.

Jeff,

I recognize that everything you've said above is sincere.  At the same time, I'm not sure I agree with much of any of it.

For example:  teeing grounds.  Nearly all golf architects base the construction of tees around your argument that they are purely functional elements, so there is no point trying to hide them in the landscape.  In fact, in recent years many architects have made a point of making them look artificial, with square corners.  I read something recently from Martin Hawtree who wanted to "ennoble" the tees on an old course and make them stand out more, much along the same rationale as your paragraph above about people relying on landscape organization to stay comfortable.

Do I agree?  No.  The early teeing grounds were just laid on the ground.  They weren't built up two feet from the surrounding grade and perfectly leveled; they fit with their environment.  The only reason that most teeing grounds are built the modern way is a combination of lack of imagination, and that most architects don't want to take the time to figure out what a great tee would look like.  It was the same with bunkers a few years back -- grass-faced Macdonald-style bunkers became popular because they allowed architects not to worry about shape in the landscape.

We are both being sincere in our own different ways.  I'm sure there are a lot of golfers who are fine with your way, because the majority really don't care one way or another, but that doesn't mean I would be satisfied doing it that way.

The same goes for earthwork and shaping.  You do not "need to strip all the topsoil the length of the hole and move loads of earth in an attempt to make a small area of altered contours look like it was part of something bigger" -- that's rarely true, and I think your honest approach should include your description of the reality.  Our efforts to tie things in and look natural rarely require much more earth being moved around than a simpler approach ... they just take a couple of hours more time and effort to get them to look right.  Would people appreciate it more if I was "honest" and just didn't make that extra effort?

[Jeff_Brauer]

TD,

I will have to read that a few times to make sure I understand where you are coming from, although I know we come from different aspects.

Re: tees, I think your post leaves out a long history of the evolution of tees by mentioning "early tees" and the trend of the last few years of going to square tees.  I also question how deep your thought is concerning the idea that gca's do it simply to avoid thinking about it!

I look at some photos of TOC< and wonder when the square tee with tiers came into being on the first hole?  Certainly they evolved over time, probably getting bigger, moving off the previous greens, etc.  You aren't considering the RTJ rectangles (pre cursor to the new sqaure tees) or things like the Larry Packard free form from the 1970's or even Fazio's work in widely separated tees and putting them all in their own setting.

A lot has happened in tee design from the early days when designers REALLY considered them just a funtional element.

So, to start with, I am not sure thinking of tees in terms of what we need today (size, perhaps mowing radius) etc. isn't more sincere than thinking what they were in the early days.  And, I know you try to do both, because you write about one or two sets of tees, but every course of yours I play has multiple tees much like the rest of the gca community.  BTW, I have always felt your tees are well crafted and attractive.

As to shaping through the fw, I think we are really saying the same thing - shape the bunker, tie in the slopes, forget the rest.  What I was referencing was the fw strings of artificial looking mounds.  In my eyes, it seems those can tend to go the whole fw or just be at the bunkers.  Perhaps the glaring part is the obvious artifical shaping and the juxtaposition of that vs no shaping at all.