For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci

[Rich_Goodale]

Tommy

Given the totality of the green complex those mounds remind me more of knees than breasts, and I think Thomas was a genius for finding such a formation in nature.

PS-did he name a rose after Ms. West........?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Believe you me, if GeorgeT could have gotten Mae into the sack for the real deal he woulda named the whole damn rose garden after her!

I'm sure you know what those mounds on that hole in the photo are called and obviously George figured doing something like that on a hole in LA and naming them after Mae would get her attention and maybe get him into her foyer at least.

But you just have to listen to me, Rich, and take this in depth research we do seriously. For instance, that hole there in the photo! This is late breaking documented evidence on my part but, did you know that Mae was the world's first breast implant patient?

Yes, she was, and George heard about it through the late night party skinny vine in LA and he said; "Hell, if Mae's gonna do that I'm gonna go along with her on that". So the next morning he told his shapers; "Guys, Mae just went from a "D" cup to a triple "E" cup so I want you boys to make those mounds totally enormous! Matter of fact, I heard on the late night party skinny vine last night that Mae's jugs are so damn big now she says she can't even see both her feet that well anymore. So I want you boys to shape those mounds up so big that we can't even see those trees that well behind the green anymore. I'll get the word out on tonight's late night party skinny vine about this, Mae will appreciate the gesture and maybe in a week or so Mae will let me past her foyer into somewhere more interesting--and then there'll be a little something extra in this for you Boys! This is a tough job, Boys, and I know those mounds might be going a bit over the top but do us all a favor and try and make them look as natural looking as you possibly can! This will make Mae feel better, Boys, and who knows what that might lead to. This hole might even be famous someday, Boys!"

Golf architecture is great anyway but when you truly do the research and find out the depth of architectural thought that went into some of the concepts behind these great "Golden Age" holes, well, I just can't tell you how rewarding it is. One of these days, Rich, I know you will agree that some of those old guys really had amazing talent!  

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom

You know I looked at those two mounds and the first thing that came to mind was a putting thought I used to have in those pre-CLAW days when I used to miss the occasional 10-footer.  It came from Timothy Galwey, who advised that you imagine that the hole was something which gave you a lot of pleasure, and well, I'm not going to say on this family oriented web site what that brought to my mind, but rest assured that it was a very good way to take your mind off your stroke, if that stroke was a bit suspect.

Of course, now I'm sinking bellied wedges from off the green with the CLAW and chips and then lob wedges are next on the agenda.  By the time we next meet I'll probably be driving with that "infernal" grip (as the mad Armenian refers to it) and no guile of any architect, golden age or otherwise, will be able to stop me.

Tomorrow I'm off to Stevinson Ranch with 3 other hearty GCA souls (Dan "The" King, JohnV and Pete "Super" Galea) and we will again experience what a very, very good contemporary architect (John Harbottle) can do with a piece of land that George Thomas probably wouldn't have even though worthy of serving as a manure farm for his rose gardens.  And yet, there's a lovely little "Alpsish" hole out there that sure ain't "natural" but sure is a lot of fun.  Probably like Ms. West if you fed her the proper amount and vintage of Champagne............

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
I don't argue with what you are saying but hopefully you understand my point as well.  This like everything in golf architecture is a gray area and can be intrepreted in different ways.
Mark

[ed_getka]

Rich,
Have fun out at Stevinson tomorrow. Sorry I couldn't join you. Just got back from playing Barona Creek with my brother and absolutely loved it! I agree with you about Stevinson with regards to its "naturalness" or lack thereof, but the course is such fun to play it works. Within the confines of the holes I think Harbottle did a great job with most of the contouring. Its only when you look at the surrounding FLAT land that you realize what a good job Harbottle did turning that land into golf holes.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I worry about people who look at those two globes and think knees, I think I see a belly button -- Ansel Adams could've had field day at Bel-Air.

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I do see what you're saying, I think. You seemed to be asking if this architect has or was suggesting a laundry list of features that were "permitted" or not. And I think you were suggesting that this appeared to be a bit presumptuous on his part! I don't think he's saying that exactly, so I really don't think he appears to be presumptuous.

In the context of that first paragraph anyway he appears to be saying that this "theory" of the artistic in construction should be followed. And by that he appears to mean that the construction art should try to copy nature. It appears that he means that in every way. And he seems also to be quite clear about copying not just nature in general but the nature of specific sites. You can see he thinks that a golf  course should "melt" away into the natural surroundings as much as possible.

However, he is saying that in a few cases that is never really possible to do with certain features! These features can never really "melt" into the natural surroundings of various sites, but they are necessary for golf, and so he's saying they are "permitted" (as inherently unnatural features in an otherwise natural setting). And I think he is saying this, not as a presumptuous authority on the features that can be used in architecture, but only as an admission that without these certain "permitted" ("unnatural") features you really can't have a golf course!

In that short list of inherently unnatural features to specific sites he includes as "permitted" 'sand traps' in land devoid of sand. Various trees and shrubs not indigenous to a site and fairways and greens that are 'cut' next to 'uncut' natural (or naturally appearing) terrain. He also mentions tees but you can see he says they too should be 'melted' with the natural terrain when possible but if not possible then they too are an "unnatural golf feature" that is "permitted".

Or alternatively, you can see that with a manmade bunker on the linksland, for instance, he wouldn't think of it as a "permitted" unnatural feature to that site because it isn't unnatural to that site.

So I don't think he has any other list of "permitted" features in mind that are "unnatural to a site" since he seems to assume that anything else can be made to look natural to a site because the theory is that the architect can "copy nature" with everything else.

You ask about something like a stream or a pond. I suppose he would say there would be nothing wrong with that as long as it could be made to appear to be natural to the site. And of course it's up to the architect to make it appear natural to the site.

But then any of us (and any architect) must decide what is natural to a site or what can be made to look natural to a site (to copy the natural surroundings of a site). Would a babbling brook look natural in the desert? Could it be made to look natural somehow?

These are the things I think he is saying when talking about this "theory" of how construction art and utility should meet and copy nature on a site with a few "permitted" unnatural exceptions.

So if looked at this way you can see that all he's really saying is there are a few features necessary to golf that an architect can never make look natural to various sites--but they are "permitted" anyway!

Shadow Creek would probably be the best example to discuss in the context of this architect's quote and his "theory". Shadow Creek may be an excellent golf course but how does it fare as far as "melting" into its surroundings of its site in a natural way?

What do you think about that? I have my own feelings about that which I've already mentioned!

But the ultimate question, of course is, does it matter?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Shadow Creek is totally out of character for its location, but that is part of the reason it is extraordinary.  If someone blindfolded you and dropped you in the middle of the course, you would never know or ever believe you are surrounded by desert!  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

That's a good way of describing Shadow Creek--"out of character to its site"--but maybe extraordinary nonetheless or even because of that.

I think you also understand what we meant in these series of long topics on analyzing what's natural and what's not and how it would be looked at by an architect like one who made the quote.

You can also see that Shadow Creek totally fails his "theory" of the construction art of copying site specific "nature" (with only those feature exceptions he mentioned as "permitted").

So what would an architect like that one have thought of Shadow Creek? Who really knows. But we do know that archtiects like him, and plenty today, are most interested in the natural potential of sites they build courses on. In the past those sites with real natural potential were obviously more plentiful and also less problematic to build on.

And so an architect like that one may have passed on a site like Shadow Creek. I feel that there are some today who would have passed too, simply because a number of them really do adhere to that "theory" that this architect layed out so well!

For me, would I recommend that Shadow Creek be wiped off the face of the earth because it totally violates that "theory" that I subscribe to? Of course not!

But would I have liked to see Wynn/Fazio use a site that had more potential or even try to do something with the one they used which adhered to this "theory" somehow? Sure I would!

And I guess this discussion has pretty much run its course---and it was a good one!

[Paul Richards]

Mark and TEPaul:

No doubt that Shadow Creek is an architectual wonder.

Mind over matter.

Or in this case, money over nature.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

One has to decide if some items in the statement are Gospel.  For example, bunkers in country where they don't appear natural are deemed a MINOR exception by the author. MINOR ?
Now we get back to degrees again.

In addition, Bel Aire and the Mae West hole topography, lines, and relatively steep slopes are more in harmony with the humps, whereas the Fowler Mounds are not.  The steep elevation changes and slopes where mounds could be the result of leveling dump sites at Bel Aire, don't appear to exist at Beau Desert.

How about viewing Hollywood, a flat golf course, unlike Bel Aire and looking at the abundant mounds and humps on 4th hole, a wonderful par 3.  Now I know someone accused Rees of doing those mounds, so they were bad, but when the uninformed individual and others found out those mounds had been there for over 40 years, perhaps since Travis's creation, they became acceptable.  

Interesting how some conclusions are affected more by predisposition and who the architect is, rather than the architectual merit of the feature.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, first of all, "Bel Aire" is "Bel Air." You remember, the place where you got to meet the Great Kenny Takawana.

Second, while I have expounded on Thomas's Golf Architecture In America, there are several other books by DIFFERENT authors from that time period that have all more or less written of the same beliefs.

And just like gospel, believe it/don't believe it, profess it/don't profess it. These are my beliefs on golf architecture because I have been fortunate* to have seen some great classic works and have been spiritually moved from what I have seen. Everything I have either read before or after seeing these great places is a pretty awesome thing. I just want to go outside and scream, "I get it!"

That is what is so great about the old stuff. It shakes my inner soul!

If intestine-shaped bunkering with cemetrically precise mounding is your bag, so be it. In comparison, I find it hilarious that you could get anything out of a classic like Pine Valley, and yet, not FEEL what is written in the verse that was posted.

(*thanks George Pazin for making me realize just how fortunate I have been.)

My bias is based off of guys that dare to stake their beliefs and in which they have stood the test of time despite the many that want to change that work.

Sort of like signing your name on the Mona Lisa.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

You missed my point entirely.

I thought that the word MINOR, in the context that it was used, was anything but MINOR, I thought it was a MAJOR exception, which brought us back to the element of DEGREES.
And, just because Thomas chooses to classify it as minor, doesn't mean it's the gospel and that everyone else has to agree on the degree that he does.