Are you kidding ? Yourselves ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The January/February 2002 issue of Links has many  interesting articles.  One is about Herbert Fowler and his
Beau Desert golf course, completed in 1913, just 25 miles northwest of Birmingham, England.

Included in the article are some pictures of the course.
Now I know one picture is just that, and doesn't tell the whole story, but one in particular, on page 50, is striking.
 
There seems to be a large MOUND or two fronting the green.
It appears as though this mound is in total conflict with the, natural,  right to left sloping terrain.  It appears as if this mound is......is..... un-natural, and directly in the field of play.

If Fazio or Rees had designed this hole.... well the outcry would pierce your eardrums.  Oh my goodness, the violation and disrespect of the natural flow of the land, the round mound in stark conflict with its surrounds.  Where are The Three Amigos, the Three Toms when you need them

Is this an outrage, or is it okay to create a feature, not in harmony with its immediate or distant surrounds, if it serves a valid architectual and/or playability purpose ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Haven't seen the feature you're talking about that Fowler built, but for the time being I'll take your word for it, that it's very unnatural looking or certainly for where he built it.

And what difference does it make who built it? If it's unnatural looking then it just is, whether it was built by Fazio, Rees, Fowler or Bill Coore?

You seem to be the one overly concerned about names and the one with sensitive eardrums, not us!

In any case, this is nothing necessarily monolithic, as you've mentioned. This is about architectural lines and golf features that work well with a site, at least it is to me. But when TommyN posts some very good writing that deals quite well with this specific subject, well then, you said the writing seems too general, and I suppose I would have to say that it then appears it doesn't really mean much to you. So be it!

But it does mean something to me and it's not too general either and I believe that writing very well might be the same writing I was thinking about when I posted the topic on "Analyzing what's natural and what's not natural". In retrospect, maybe I should have added "natural looking to the site, or the lines of the site", or even in the context of golf and golf architecture that they were referring to.

We really do consider these things in the art of golf architecture, but we accept that you might not. It isn't black and white as you might want to make it or make us make it. I'm not all that crazy about North Carolina in Nevada, in this context, although I do accept it.

You need to understand the points and the distinctions that an architect like Hunter and Behr are trying to make. Again, they said that a bunker, for instance, is an inherently unnatural feature to various sites around the world and is interesting that way as it apparently is a necessary holdover for golf, although only indigenous to the linksland of Scotland. They said that a bunker was more interesting, in fact, in that context, because it was not really as necassary to a golf course, at least in a part of the world where it was not indigenous, as a tee, fairway or green, for instance!

But nevertheless, there it remains on almost every golf course in the world and for all these years--an odd vestige of the completely natural links bunker of yore, probably symbolic of something that preceded architecture itself and the hand of man! So what was an architect to do about it? People like Hunter and Behr and so many of the others who considered the subject of naturalness in golf, considered these things. Don't you find the bunker, for instance, or a mound or any of the other necessary or apparently necessary golf features  interesting in that context? And don't you find despite the oddity of the context that they still tried to make it all look natural somehow?

So the idea was to try to make a bunker, for instance, look  like nature made it, even if it was something that may be thousands of miles away from the sites where it truly was natural and indigenous! And maybe even if it was hundreds of years later. Don't you find that interesting?

In this context, the "imitation bunkers" that Chandler Egan created at Pebble Beach, which are now gone, were not exactly indigenious to the bay at Monterry, but did they fit in there in the context of golf and with the natural lines of that site, although thousands of miles from the Linksland? Yes they did, in my opinion, and that is what we've been talking about here, I believe.

So, no, we are not kidding ourselves. I hope you understand this, but if you don't or never do, that's OK. And I don't mean by that that you don't know anything about architecture--that's not the point here!

[doyen]

Please note only doyen may post on this thread.

[TEPaul]

And furthermore, recognizing that this is not a particularly simple subject or one that is easy to explain, it actually gets a bit more complex, although no less valid.

Tom MacWood, whose points on this subject may be slightly different, or maybe, let's say, quite a bit more expansive than the ones I've made, are no less valid and no less interesting to the subject of golf architecture and the subject of naturalness as a part of it.

His points, I believe, are that an architect should also pick out and use with his architecture those features that are natural and indigenous to any site that may not be what some consider to be the most attractive somehow.

The natural features he refers to that may be spread across any site, may appear broken, gnarly and irregular or random. They should be used, in his opinion, because they are, in fact, what nature gave the land, and the architect, and he should use them! That he should not try to wipe them away and create something that is just a manmade fantasy garden of perfect balance, perfectly flowing lines and such since this is just not the way nature really is. And since a golfer has always wanted to play golf in nature, or at least he thinks he does, that he should try and construct something that may be necessary and was not there, that looks something like nature!

Tom MacWood deals with all this at length and from a very well documented historical perspective, "The Arts and Crafts Movement" and how it effected many things, included both building and golf architecture, and other things!

His point is, I believe, that a golf course, or even a building or a town should not really appear to be completely man-made, that it should all meld with nature, at least in it's lines and use of what is natural.

In this way, the movement he refers to was a reaction not to something the "Arts and Crafts" practioners felt would be coming some day but to something they had been through. And that actually was "classic architecture" itself, that was an attempt at man-made perfection in many of its lines and elements of that art form and era!

The "Arts and Crafts Movement" was a reaction to the era of "Victorianism" that was a heightened time of man-made forms of perfect lines and perfect balance that combined with the onset of the Industrial Revolution and even evolved into an atmosphere that denigrated man himself in both the context of work and craft and certainly in the part, the necessary part, that nature played in his world and in his existence.

I suppose, and Tom MacWood will correct me if my suppostion is wrong, that much of this was a reaction by some to man's apparent evolving attitude that he had become dominant above all else, including nature! In this context, Rich Goodale's feelings may be different--no less valid, but certainly different! Rich Goodale may feel that man should dominate all else, including nature--that man is so perfect that he has transcended all else and has a perfect right to act like it!

But isn't it interesting that that time and movement, much like the Golden Age, and even our own to an increasing degree,  was and is a reversion back in golf architecture to a time and place where it all began--in nature! And that that is what architects are still, for the most part trying to do, emulate nature, even if it's just a bunker or a mound.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
I haven't seen the photo in question, is there any way to scan it? Have you read 'Arts and Crafts Golf' and do you think this feature is in conflict with that essay? How does the course look in general, how would you characterize the overall appearance of the golf course?

[Michael_Stachowicz]

I don't think it is making a golf course look natural that we have a problem with, it is building a golf course with no regard to the surrounding environment.  Each golf course should have its own personality, and most of that personality is derived from the surroundings and the layout.  When an architect goes in and builds a course that he has built everywhere else and moves over 500,000 cubic yards to do so, that is when a course becomes generic, repetitive, boring.  Golf is geting closer to football is this case, the same wherever you go.

It seems that the first architects only had the ability to move enough earth to construct tees, greens, and bunkers.  So only the the bare essentials of a golf course are imposed on the land and the surroundings are not effected.

I think the word natural has become overused in these type of discussions because most of the great golf courses don't look natural (i.e. any of Raynor's designs), but they fit in the land and with the character of the area.

It was better when our abilities and resources were limited by the lack of machinery.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

I like the way you think.  I saw the photos and said the same thing.

[TEPaul]

Hey Pat!

I like the way you think too!! I still haven't seem those photos but if you think it looks totally unnatural I know I will too! There's absolutely no doubt in my mind about that--almost stake my life on it!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, I haven't seen the photos either, but what was the mission statement of the club? What was the intent? How often does the club's members change their underwear? Is in fact the mound totally un-natural to begin with? Was it not there to begin with and maybe Fowler just cut a notch out?
Have you played Beau Desert to ascertain this fact? who was the club member responsible for watching over Fowler when he commited these devious errors in judgement?

[Paul Turner]

Here's the photo (credit:Matthew Harris)



It doesn't look bad to my eye.  I'd like to see it from the line of play.  There might be a deep bunker cut into the far side of the mound as we look at it?

I've played several Fowler courses and this is just about the only large mound I can remember seeing.  

It's a very good article on what looks to be a very fine course, with some wicked greens (I like the story about Hawtree).  And so I'm even more miffed that I couldn't get to play there a couple of weeks ago-no visitors over the holiday break  

[Tom_Egan]

I believe it's very hard to make a reasonable case that the picture depicts an artificial mound.  After lengthy inspection, and consultation with two eminent railroad construction engineers, the most likely scenario is that the mounds are not "fills", but that the rest of the terrain is one monster "cut".  In other words, this was probably a big, open, relatively level field.  The architect and construction people envisioned what you now see and achieved it by simply removing an unbelievable amount of dirt.  The top of the highest mound is at the original level of the field; the remainder has been "cut".  If we check our dates, we may find that the construction of this course coincided with the early 20th century phenomenon of the English Channel shrinking in width from 45 miles to 20 miles in an 18 month period.

Artificial? Maybe.  But not in the way the "amateur" architect might believe.  In other words, the TOPS of the mounds are natural.  Everything else is artificial.

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

Don't attribute those mounds to any misguided mission statement or anything of that kind. Herbert was a clever, sex possessed fellow (despite the bowtie, banker's suit and the aging choirboy look) and he heard what GeorgeT did in LA for Mae West and he figured he'd give her a little tribute over in Europe too, always figuring in the back of his mind if he got to LA maybe he might get a little piece too!

How can anyone deny those old guys weren't amazing architectural talents?!

[Paul Turner]

At least the mound (or bunker?) is strategic: the hole is a slight dog leg right, with a right to left tilt to the fairway, so a bold draw tee shot down the left opens up the green but the safe route to the right, has to carry the mound.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Eagan,

My only railroad engineering experience is in 1:160 scale, where I create beautiful natural topography from plaster, but that ain't no cut, based on my golf course construction experience!

My reason for saying that is the apparently old stand tree cover would also be about 10 feet above the fairway, since they couldn't cut the grade and save the trees.  Of course, it's old and they may of been planted later.

Another possibility is that you are being clever, but forgot the smiley face!

Yet another possibility is that these mounds were added during a remodel anytime after 1960.  The steep back bank seems more typical of an old course, where the shortest possible haul with a horse was necessary.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Paul
Thanks for posting the picture. And for including the image of Fowler -- he appears to be saying something----------------"Pat Mucci what the hell are you talking about?"

Pat he's looking at you.

Pat
What's on the otherside of these mounds? If you don't know I'll try to find the answer. It appears to be lovely piece of ground that his been largely undisturbed. I did notice two golfers who seem to be strolling off the tee and to a very naturalistic scene. The gentleman to the right looks to be walking with a limp and the fellow on the left appears to be constipated.

I have no idea when or by whom this feature was created or even what this feature looks like when approaching the green. Do they seem to be out of the ordinary considering they are viewed from behind? Is anyone familar with this hole?

JeffB
Other than the backside of these mounds what else stands out in the photo?

What I tried to express in my essay, and probably not very well, was a common thread - an appreciation for the land and Nature. Their common goal was to maximize the natural features of a site. Just like the A&C architects they were not some monolithic group with a single style, but they did share a single approach. They came from different locals, they had unique influences, they were individual artists and craftsmen, but they all believed one thing -- take advantage of Nature. After that they did not always agree or do things the same way. And that is why I believe that era is so interesting - for example Thomas, MacKenzie and Simpson tried to build features that were indistinguishable from nature - Macdonald, Raynor and Langford created features that were almost in juxta-position to the natural features they utilized, and Ross, Thompson, Alison, Fowler and Colt were a mixed bag. The common denominator was their ability to recognize the outstanding natural features of a site and incorporate them into their design.

[TEPaul]

Tom & Jeff:

Interesting what you're surmising about the construction of that hole!

Tom:

You think too big! Maybe today they might think of something like you said there but not back then. You're thinking way too much for that era. Matter of fact, you're thinking so big you might even make another recommendation about raising the Titanic.

I wish I could see more to the other side of that flag to see whether there are some other cut or dirt source possibilities. I can't see if there are any bunkers on that hole or somewhere that they may have "cut" but from the look of that hole it looks like most of what you see was naturally there except for the green and those mounds.

It looks to me like the green is an old fashioned manufactured "pushup". I don't know where the fill came from but it looks like they just built the green with the fill, maybe had too much left over and just parked it over at the front right and presto, you have some mounds that have been there ever since!

That was probably on a Friday and on the following Monday the shaper had the day off so they just threw seed on them, let it take and they've been that way ever since.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I would also like to take this time to also inform Pat that many Golden Age Architects had their own, different ideas on golf design. Although the majority of them favored a natural flair, and proof of this can be seen in their writings, which is proof enough for me. Each of their own styles were very distinctive. With that distinction came a variety of styles that made golf interesting to the point that it shaped the game as we know it today.

Alister MacKenzie had even commented that he didn't always agree with Fowler's style of architecture, he still praised him for modernizing American golf, and setting a standard which other architects attempted to emulate.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Amigos,

I'm sure you're not trying to tell me that if this photo appeared, and it depicted a hole that Fazio or Rees just completed, that there wouldn't be an outcry regarding mounds, violation of the naturalness of the land, that C & C would never have done this, and on and on.

The twofold purpose of this post is to make the point that the evaluation of a hole seems to have its basis, largely in the name of its creator, rather then in the architectual merits of the specific hole.  And......... if Rees or Fazio did this hole, your perspectives would be entirely different versus the same hole done by Fowler, Ross, or C & C.  
I see it, others may see it, and others may deny it.

My second, and more important point asked the question:

"Is it okay to create a feature, not in harmony with its immediate or distant surrounds, if it serves a valid architectual and/or playability purpose ? "

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
The answer to your question is yes. I love the interesting features that Raynor and Langford created on their golf courses. And the reasons I love them is 1) their strategic value 2) they act as a contrast to the natural features both men were brilliant in utilizing - bringing even more attention to the natural and 3) they are unique and unussual.

Did you read 'Arts & Crafts Golf' and if so, do you think the Beau Desert feature is in conflict with that essay?

I believe the common thread among the best architects, past and present, is the ability to take advantage of Nature. The individual features that an architect creates/designs differ from architect to architect -- that is why the art form is so interesting IMO. I think you are too focused on a single feature and are missing the big picture, the beautifully natural golf course of Beau Desert. Now if Fowler took that mound and multiplied by thousand and called the course Atlantic we'd have a different story.

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

Amen to your last post!

 

[Gib_Papazian]

Does the 11th green at NGLA qualify as unnatural? Forced on the land? Not in harmony with the surrounds?

I wonder about this entire idea of striving to make everything look like it has always been there or that there is some huge virtue in designing golf holes whose appearance is indistinguishable from nature.

I understand why that is a core value to the art, but sometimes breaking the "rules" produces the most compelling creations.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Don't kid yourself or us, the reason for your topic here is actually threefold and the primary reason for it is to prove us wrong on this subject somehow or make it look like you have! You and a few others think this whole issue is really about just the names of certain architects. You think that we will forgive one architect and blame another for the very same mound. You're wrong about that, we keep telling you that and showing you that but you apparently are never going to be willing to believe it or admit it!

This has been going on for a long time now and pops up occasionally on topics like The Bridge and some of these recent ones.

But anyway, there is the photo of Fowler's mound(s) you mentioned and yes I would agree with you that it sure doesn't look natural to the site that I can see on that photo. Not the way I've been talking about looking "site natural".

And sort of the flip side of this issue, Tom MacWood's point, of using actual natural features that may be odd, random, rugged, ragged, whatever that most architects would tend to wipe away and get rid of, well, in that context that mound or mounds sure doesn't fit into that category either, in my opinion!

So what do I think of thosse mounds? I'll go through the issues and tell you specifically. First, I think it does look unnatural, almost outrageously so! And for that I actually like it better than if it was just a poor attempt to be or look natural.

Secondly, how does it make the hole play although it may look outrageously unnatural? Well, I've been staring at it and the hole and although I don't know the hole it looks like those mounds sure would make the hole play better than if they weren't there. Try to visualize that hole with the mounds gone and the hole at grade in that area!?! The mounds probably give the green degrees of blindness from the wrong fairway angle and it the ball got near or on them some very interesting things, random things, bad bounces, good and lucky bounces, crazy and "unfair" bounces, crazy stances and lies, whatever, etc. And I think all those things are good.

This kind of architecture is definitely of a style and era anyway and you see it on most of the MacD and Raynor courses, Banks courses, Langford etc. Some of the  architects of that era did this stuff very noticeable and uniquely! I didn't really know that Fowler did it but there it is! Apparently Thomas did it too from a few of the California photos posted recently, particularly the Mae West hole.

But as you know from NGLA the juxtaposition of the "manufactured" features with the natural flow of the land and how they put that together is one of American golf's ongoing fascinations. It sure it noticeable and yes sometimes unnatural as hell in the context that I've been talking about anyway, but at least it seems to have purpose for golf and the ball! And somehow we all seem to think they pulled it off! Maybe because they were not attempting to make it look natural at all! Maybe some of the less talented architects attempt to make it look natural and simply do a very poor job of it! And maybe some of the old guys just used some lines in the creation of the obviously manufactured stuff that just worked better somehow. Some people very knowlegeable in architecture seem to feel that and that's something I'm still trying to figure out. Actually GCGC has a good deal of that!

The difference to me with a few of the other unnatural things we've talked about is what was the purpose of it? What was the purpose of that mounding we argued about at the Bridge? What did that do for the golf? Nothing? It just sat way out on the side of the hole and looked terrible, basically cutting off a helluva view. And what was the purpose of years of the parallel mounding between holes that Rees did for a long time? To separate the holes so players didn't see each other? Maybe. Or maybe he was creating some faux mounding like what appears naturally at Portrush and County Down. But it's natural in Northern Ireland and not really in Nantucket. That's definitely a big distinction.

But back to those Fowler mounds. I would say the same things about them if they were Fowler's, Fazio's, Rees's or Coore and Crenshaw's! Matter of fact I wish that Fazio or Rees had done them and I wish they would do some like that! They're very outrageous to me and I would love to see Rees and Faz do something really outrageous--it would show an interesting flair and change instead of the same old safe same old!

Matter or fact, Coore and Crenshaw actually have done something like that--at Hidden Creek--on hole #2! A very large mound/bunker combo that has real strategic significance for degrees of blindness for the approach shot. It's extraordinarily large for that low profile site but it does happen to be far more rugged looking than those Fowler mounds. Even the bunkering at Hidden Creek is not exactly "site natural", whatever that would be!? What it is is an interpretation of the "ridgy" bunkering found on some of the actual "heathland" courses, which Hidden Creek is an American adaptation of apparently! But all of what they did there looks natural, either to the site or to the place they adapted it from. There are no smooth clean, super mainicured bunkers and no phony attempts to look natural!

Again, those Fowler mounds? They are unnatural looking, but so much so they're outrageous, although of an era, and I actually like them better than if they looked like that and were much less so! The actual top profile lines of them really are too clean and smooth though and they could and should be made a bit more random and broken.

Somehow you're going to find some double standard in something I've said here or some of us have, I know you will--but that's my honest opinon.

[TEPaul]

I take back what I said about ruggeding up the top profile lines on those mounds. I looked at the photo again and they do match well the higly manufactured look of that green that has some very smooth basic manufactured lines.

That green? It looks very cool indeed! How about that rear drop-down tier? Very cool! And obviously those mounds play havoc with seeing and firing to the rear right of that green.

[Paul Turner]

Just for interest, I tried to find other images of that hole and the only success is an overhead from the website that Jeroen Pit recommended (thanks!).  It's not that clear but you can see the general shape of the dog-leg hole and a large cross bunker which according to the LINKS article is about 30 yards shy of the green.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tom Paul:

I really enjoyed your comments about the "juxtaposition of the manufactured features with the natural flow of the land".

Specifically, your point about architects who made it work perhaps by not attempting to make it look natural whereas other, less talented architects, tried and failed to make something look natural.

There is an example of the latter here in Cleveland at Boulder Creek, a project I highlighted a few months back where some horrible looking mounds were created behind #5 green.  It was all part of a misguided effort to conceal a cart path, a text book example of how not to create a "natural" look.

My favorite example of the former in your neck of the woods is what Tom Doak did at Stonewall.  The reservoir near #8, #9 and #10 looks highly manufactured, but somehow it works.  It seems to add to the overall naturalness of the place!

It's a contradiction I can't explain, but I don't think it is just a matter of being such a fan of Tom's work.