News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tommy_Naccarato

For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« on: January 10, 2002, 02:13:34 PM »
Who said this, and do you agree with it?

In GOLF, construction art and utility meet; both are absolutely vital; one is utterly ruined without the other.  On the artisitic side there is a theory of construction with a main fundamental that we copy nature; in all of this we seem to agree.  There are minor exceptions which are permitted, as the placing of sand traps in a country otherwise devoid of sand; the cutting of a fairway and green with uncut surroundings; the planting of varied trees, shrubs and grasses which do not blend with the existing conditions, and the practical neccessity of including fitting and implements required in the general scheme of play.

The contours of our tees, of our hazards, of our greens, of our rough and of our fairways should, except when absolutely neccessary, all melt into the land surrouding them, and should appear as always having been present. The washing of water makes smooth, gradually fading lines, as, for example, the sand bar; and the soft, rolling curves of low gently rounded hills are most attractive if copied in our molding. Where we have natural washes. many of their lines fade imperceptibly, and float or vanish into other contours with which they come into other contours with which they come into contanct. Such flowing, graceful curves are very valuable in the artificial contouring or modeling of approaches to greens, of greens themselves and of mounds adjacent; also for the sides, backs, and fore parts of hazards.

Tees should never obtrude, and, where possible, they be part of the fairway. Yet, sometimes it is expedient to build them seperately, and they should lose themselves, if practable, as much as other artificial mouldings, into contacting topography.

Raised tees require more water in dry conditions, and are unsightly, but aid utility where, because raised, they give a better view of the shot to be played; and so raised, their boundries should of course, fade, gradually into the ground near them.

Yet, while easy lines are beautiful and pleasing, they are not the only things we need in our golf architecture from an artistic point of view; and as a matter of utility they are not satisfactory if used alone. Variety must again be considered.  We must have a contrast to orient our curving rolls, for not only will we it make it prominent, but will aid whatever point we desire in the fairway carry or green carry, or green entrance, and most of all of the green itself, to stand out to the view of the golfer.  If we blend everything, nothing is accentuated, and in golf the position in which the ball should be placed must be emphasized, and the ability of the palyer to visualize or focus the distance to such a spot, by the aid of our contrasts, is the supreme test of our work.  The flat plain, with a flag on a flat green, cannot be be oriented, neither can gently blending lines be conspicious.

For this reason we need sharper and sterner patterns for proper visuality, and we have much in nature to copy.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

APBernstein

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2002, 02:21:05 PM »
I like how this post is specifically tailored to three people.  This, I think, is the true meaning of discussion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich_Goodale

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2002, 02:47:47 PM »
Tommy

I don't know who wrote this and I find most of it to be too general for the purposes of discussion.  The one passage that caught my eye (probably because I very much agree with it!) was:

".......in golf the position in which the ball should be placed must be emphasized, and the ability of the player to visualize or focus the distance to such a spot, by the aid of our contrasts, is the supreme test of our work."

This seems to argue against the use of blindness, and if applied to many holes on many classic courses would not show them in a very positive light.  Do you agree with what the author is saying in that passage?

Cheers

Rich
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #3 on: January 10, 2002, 03:21:02 PM »
Rich, a huge error occured here. I spent a long time typing out this post and two thirds of it was erased. I'll try to continue it on further, later when I have time to type it out AGAIN!

I feel that the text has some great points that we have been talking about in one of the other posts.

Feel free Andrew, if you have something to add, please do. (Once I get it all typed out again!)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #4 on: January 10, 2002, 04:30:20 PM »
Tommy Naccarato,

Like Rich, I find this very general, very broad.

Immediately, I think of the first and second tees at NGLA and how they would seem to violate this outline.

As I've said many times before, I don't think there is a monolithic, universal design concept.

 If the author would define "copy nature" It would help.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #5 on: January 10, 2002, 05:20:21 PM »
Tommy:

When writing something long do you type in Word first and then copy?  If not, you may want to do so.  It cuts down the risk of losing your work.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Tim Weiman

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #6 on: January 10, 2002, 07:03:32 PM »
Tim, That would have been a real smart idea. In fact I have done that before, but it sort of gets to be a pain when you have to go back, after pasting, the text doesn't line up.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2002, 05:20:54 AM »
Tommy,
One of the first sentences says it all to me -

"There are minor exceptions which are permitted, as the placing of sand traps in a country otherwise devoid of sand; the cutting of a fairway and green with uncut surroundings; the planting of varied trees, shrubs and grasses which do not blend with the existing conditions, and the practical neccessity of including fitting and implements required in the general scheme of play".

I'm not sure who wrote this, but why does this person have the lease on what is permitted and proper in golf course design?  

I'll try to comment more later!
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2002, 05:39:28 AM »
Mark:

To answer your question on that last post, please read the thread "Are you kidding yourself" and I hope you'll understand better what we're saying and what that quote really means. It's pretty clear even in the context of your question on your post and I really don't see where anyone is making tremendous distinctions with it with various architects.

I really don't know why this is always such an argument about the names of various architects. Some of you guys are far more defensive about various architects than you need to be--or at least need to be on our account!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2002, 05:45:29 AM »
Tom,
I'll read that thread, but I'm not defensive about any architect.  I don't have any set favorites and at times like them all.  I never judge a course till I see it and regardless of who designed it, I'll make my comments as I see them -  and not how I "should" see them if you know what I mean.  :)
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #10 on: January 11, 2002, 06:56:34 AM »
To tell you the truth guys, I typed all of this out originally in hopes that you might get out of it what I did. Then to have 2/3's of it erased, was unfortunate.

However, I'm finding that the majority of you seem to be defensive because it seems to be that I was singling you out, and that wasn't the intent. Even in the words that weren't erased there is enough information for all of us to digest, about the "melding*" of natural vs. man-made features and how it is vital that there is a distinction in their use.

(*Tom Paul's exact verses of the past on "Melding")

In truth, I was originally just going to type out a few pages of this text, and then I kept going and going and going because it was so highly interesting and informative. It is from Golf Architecture in America's 5th chapter called "Beauty and Utility" and it is just wonderful verse on the subject of nature and the building of golf courses.

Mark, I think that you are correct. You never seem to take the side of any paticular architect. Maybe it is time that you do to further bring out the greatness in what each certain architect did/does, and what features make his golf courses unique and interesting. Look past the Golf Digest critieria which doesn't allow you to view golf courses the way George Thomas did. Celebrate each of these guys by studying their works and how they were just as eager to write these novels of great interest. It is much more beyond then ranking golf courses for a magazine. It is understanding the truest essence of why Lehigh is Lehigh. (In example)

Rich, I was hoping that you too would read this and hope to get some intellectual inspiration to hear what Thomas was saying about the importance of terra firma. What was it that made you like the Applebrook bunkers more then the Merion bunkers. I want to hear your response because I think ultimately you are likely able to give a very intelligent response, IF you are looking at them in the same verse as George Thomas, Hugh Wilson, Gil Hanse and Bill Kittleman did.

All of this is what made the Golden Age courses so Golden, and how we should look upon the effort of design today in determining the level of Greatness.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:01 PM by -1 »

Tommy_Naccarato

I almost forgot, how forgetful of me!
« Reply #11 on: January 11, 2002, 07:00:56 AM »
Sorry Andrew, Go ahead and post something that you want to say or add to the discussion.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich_Goodale

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #12 on: January 11, 2002, 08:16:28 AM »
Tommy

I answered that Kittleman/Merion question on another thread recently.  The answer was essesntially "I do not know" why I like one or the other better anymore than I know why I like Vermeer better than Rembrandt or Browning better than Tennyson or Bach better than Beethoven or Muirfield better than North Berwick, etc.

I think Patrick asked a very good question above as to what you (or anybody else) thinks Thomas meant by "copy nature."  I don't have a clue and I don't think that anybody who posted on the recent threads which dealt with this did or do either.  It's one of those phrases like "No New Taxes!" that sounds good but is very difficult to elucidate or defend.

I don't think anybody on this thread is or has been defensive.  I, for one, am still struggling to find anything but pleasant generalities in the quote which started this thread.  IMO it's a point of view, but not much more.  You obviously differ.  Why?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #13 on: January 11, 2002, 08:22:44 AM »
Tommy,
You should know by now, I am not "formulaic" in how I assess a golf course.  I make my decision based on what I have experienced and what I think is good and then make the GD criteria work for me (not the other way around).  The process GD uses might force me to come up with some numbers, but so be it.  Ranking by definition is a numeric process and every ranking that I can think of of any kind results in some form of numerical tabulation.  If you think a course is an A+ course or a BB course or an Excellent course or a Very good course, or in the top tier or one of his best,… these can all be reduced to numbers.  

You have to realize, GD raters are not “forced” into anything, at least I’m not.  The best example I can give you is on that dreaded “resistance to scoring” factor everyone talks about.  If I think the difficulty factor is overdone on a golf course or at 7400 yards it’s only the length of the course that makes it hard, I will down grade that category.  So what if the course rating is 75.8 and it slopes at 147, it might still only be a 4 or 5 in the "resistance to scoring" category because of “why” it is difficult.  I am not forced to give it an 8 or 9.  

My opinions are my opinions.  They continue to get refined but at the end of the day, they are my opinions.  
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #14 on: January 11, 2002, 08:41:43 AM »
Mark:

If you aren't being defensive about various architects then why ask?; "Why does this person have the lease on what's proper in golf design?"

I read it as an architect, probably an old one, describing what he feels about his art. It seems to me he's writing about how he thinks things should be done by him and that he also thinks that others might and probably do agree with him, maybe even most of them, as he says. Like a lot of those architects he's basically trying to explain his feelings about the importance of how they deal with "nature" in architecture when constructing things that are artifical but necessary for golf.

Frankly, for all our efforts to try to explain what we're talking about on this very subject recently, none of us explained it half so well and in so much detail as this architect did in that quote! And in the last part of his quote when he started talking about points that need to be created and accentuated for the golfer to aim at and such I was starting to not agree with him at all as that is something, personally, I don't agree with so much!

But then when it came to explaining those accentuated points that needed to be created, his last two-line paragraph was right back to the subject of copying things in nature again. Except this time possibly the kind of things in nature that might look like the sum and substance of all that Tom MacWood has been talking about all this time! Things that some might not think are beautiful or proper because they might be sharp, irregular or random but what this architect says are still nature (which Tom MacW obviously agrees with) and which are many of the same things that were well explained as almost the theme of his "Arts and Crafts Movement" essays!

If you read carefully his first paragraph you will see that he says; "On the artistic side there is a theory of construction the main fundamental of which is that we copy nature, on this we all seem to agree." He calls what he is saying a "theory" about construction in the art, and that he feels others agree with him. I don't call that slapping a lease on the way construction must be done and by saying it that way ("a theory") presumably he is prepared that others may not agree with him. And when he goes on to use "should" numerous times, he's only doing that to explain in detail what his theory is all about.

If he was truly bothered by the way someone else was doing it otherwise or going to do it otherwise, I assume he would have said what it was he thought was wrong, and maybe even named some of those he thought were doing it wrong and what they were doing wrong. Then I would say he might be putting a lease on architecture as it might be clearer that he thought his "theory" was the only way to do it.

Reading carefully through that quote, it occurs to me how truly accurate and instructive it is for all we've been trying to say here. He is even very specific about the inherent "unnatualness" of bunkering to certain sites in the world since they aren't indigenous on some sites, as well as the inherent "unnaturalness" of a few of golf's necessary features such as tees, fairways and greens.

So it seems to me, although I was not specifically aware of that particular quote when I wrote the topic on "Analyzing what's natural and what's not", that it must have been this  writing that was in my memory--it's just too close otherwise.

But all this is just an opinion, a theory as he describes it. It certainly is one he endorsed and one I do too and obviously some others do. He doesn't say it's the only one or even the only right one.

Personally, I think it's the right one though, and on other theories I guess I would just have to see. But for others that have other theories or even this one and don't follow it properly, I must say I don't like their architecture anywhere near as much!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

redanman (Guest)

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #15 on: January 11, 2002, 08:46:08 AM »
I find this passage from Thomas (I found after I read down), definitely an old dead guy from the tone.  But it is also a bit new age-y touchy-feeley, too, no?  Sort of a long-winded "respect nature".  Not a bad thought.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #16 on: January 11, 2002, 09:06:56 AM »
Tom,
I never said I disagreed with Thomas.  I just said he starts out the passage by stating what exceptions "are permitted" in golf course construction.  

My point was that I didn't know there was a list of what is permitted and what is not.  I would guess every architect probably has their own list of "rules for the ideal golf course" and I'm sure we would all have opinions on these, but no list is right or wrong are they?
Mark  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #17 on: January 11, 2002, 09:11:38 AM »
Rich,
The statement that Pat asks is answered in the text. Read it closely.  I read it and find every word of it very understandable!

The whole point was to make it MORE understanding to all of you that don't understand it and why these Golden Age courses receive so much worthy praise. There has to be a substance to make a golf course great other then the magnificent view.

I really do feel that why you are so taken by Dornoch is because it's natural surroundings are best emphasized because of it's naturalness and beauty.  All of the architecture works because it is so natural and evolved. It's imperfect lines are PERFECT are the result.

When Thomas says in that verse, "If we blend everything, nothing is accentuated, and in golf the position in which the ball should be placed must be emphasized, and the ability of the player to visualize or focus the distance to such a spot, by the aid of our contrasts, is the supreme test of our work. he is talking of how the man-made lines such as abrupt slopes of tee, gentle mounding, green entrance/false fronts, and green complexes should be defintive, so as the golfer can focus at the direction of the target--the ultimate goal. This is also where Dr. MacKenzie's theories on camoflauge come into play and deception becomes an interesting and descriptive feature.

Such is the problem with blind shots today. Too many designers who do not know how to properly define the target, which leads to it's unpopularity.

Point in example--In Great Britain, the blind par 3 was once a great favorite. The Maiden is an excellent example of a blind par 3 where there lines were both descriptive and narrative.

The hole was one directly over a blinding dune but can no longer be used due to being set in the line of play of  the previous hole which proved a dangerous place to be. Shortly after the war, the hole disappeared, but can still be seen to this day, in its mothballed state, alongside the fairway. You can read both Bernard Darwin's and Horace Hutchinson's verses on it which prove it to be nothing less then world class.

The natural/un-natural lines defined for that blind shot became evident of the immense congregation of scabby bunkers and fortification of sleepers defined exactly what pin-point direction to hit the golf ball to a green that could not be seen from the tee.

The dune and the scabs were natural, the sleepers, of course un-natural but needed to prevent the scabs from further evolving and swallowing unfortunate players from walking their outlines.

This is the meld which is spoken of.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #18 on: January 11, 2002, 09:38:54 AM »
Rich, my boy;

I realize this may not be the easiest subject in the world and apparently we've made it more difficult than need be; but are you seriously asking now what someone like George Thomas meant by "copying nature"? It's just not that hard to understand!

Let's say, for instance, that Thomas wanted to do some really rugged looking bunkering on a golf course and let's say he went out a found a natural blowout or natural bunker somewhere and got it totally in his mind or even photographed it and then copied it on his course.

If you're having trouble visualizing what that might look like visualize some of the ruggedest bunkering you saw at Applebrook. Even visualize some really rugged totally natural dunsy formation you may have seen near a beach somewhere--it could be very much like the linksland's natural bunkering (the real thing in this case) and much like some of what the best designers we talk about have been doing for years now.

Now say a redesigner came in and altered that rugged bunker of Thomas's that he had meticulously copied from a natural formation and that the new one had smooth clean lines all around, on top, on the bottom and sides and where the grass met the sand and was highly manicured with no ruggedness to it at all.

Let's say a photo was taken of Thomas's original rugged bunker and a photo taken of the new smooth clean manicured one and both were put up on the wall. Are you saying that almost anyone would fail to see the differences in naturalness and artificiality between the two? Are you saying that anyone couldn't see what we mean by what Thomas meant to do and did when he said "copy nature"? Are you saying that anyone would seriously think that the new bunker really looked like anything found in nature or they would think that it was anything other than completely artifical looking?

But if you're trying to imply that if you put two people shoulder to shoulder and told them to look at the big oak tree right in front of them and one said it was a big oak tree and the other said it was a Jaguar and that this proves some sort of valid transcendalism or some such thing then I would say we aren't on the same page at all on these topics here!

Coping nature is obviously not easy to do but it isn't hard to understand what these people are trying to do. It's why a guy like J. Bradley might sit and stare at a natural land formation for hours--maybe even take a toke or two of something!

This stuff really isn't complicated at all--all you have to do is look and you will see the difference and understand!

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich_Goodale

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #19 on: January 11, 2002, 09:40:47 AM »
redanman

I very much agree that one should "respect nature," in GCA or otherwise.  If Thomas had said that, that pithily, I would have more respect for him as a thinker and a writer.

Tommy

Dornoch is not perfect nor are some of its best features particularly "natural."  I went to Dornoch the first time for the golf but I returned, again and again, for the people.  If in 1978 I had met these people at North Berwick, or Crail I would have save a helluva lot of petrol money over the past 20+ years!

I think you are stretching quite a bit in terms of trying to match Thomas' words to your theory of blindness and I would hate to think of how much disc space you would have to consume to extend your arguments to places like holes 2-6 on the Old Course.......

PS--I think the word Thomas used was "melt", unless it was a tyop.  "Meld" is actually an amalgam of the words "melt" and "weld."  One part "natural" and one part "man-made"--kinda like good golf courses, don't you think?

Cheers

Rich
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #20 on: January 11, 2002, 09:58:52 AM »
Rich the blindness of the Old Course to me is perfect. I love that feeling, that sort of leap of faith, and then running out there to see how you ended up. (OK, for me it would probably be more like rolling out there.) Its all natural, and fun!

I can say with all true confidence that while I don't exclusively know all of the works of Vermeer, Rembrandt, Browning, Tennyson, Bach or Beethoven, I can look, read, and hear their works and be able to detail what I like about them.

And I'm a person of less then average intelligence.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Rich_Goodale

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #21 on: January 11, 2002, 10:10:04 AM »
Tommy

If you are a person of "less than average intelligence" there is a HUGE amount of hope for this world.  But, alas, you are obviously not.......
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #22 on: January 11, 2002, 10:53:00 AM »
Mark:

Honest to God, please read that quotation again. When Thomas, or whoever made that quote, mentions that,

 "sand traps are permited to be placed and constructed on land otherwise devoid of sand", (or natural bunker-type formations),

how can you think he is saying anything other than what is completely obvious? How can you think he is laying out some personal prescription for golf architecture or trying to "lease", as you say, the art of architecture?

The fact of the matter is that sand traps have been part of the game on the linksland since before golf architecture existed when everything used for golf was natural, and they are still apparently almost universally necessary for golf courses and golf architecture all over the world. In other words how many courses do you know where sand traps are not used at all?

The other undeniable fact is that there is land all over the world where sand and sand bunkering of the type naturally found on the linksland just does not exist at all. And there are golf courses on the land where sand and natural bunker formations do not exist. That's what he means by "permitted" architecturally!

So an architect tries to copy a natural bunker. Obviously there is some latitude in that depending on any particular site but it was never considered a good idea to get too removed from what the real and natural bunkering looked like. Otherwise you're into things with sand and bunkering that are clearly artifical looking, clean lines, completely manicured etc, or something that's supposed to look like a Norseman's spear and shield or the state of New Jersey.

There are a lot of architects and golfers who just don't think that's the way to go with architecture and mostly it's always been that way. Otherwise an architect would probably just dig a hole and drop some kid's sand box into it and noone would think a thing of it.

These guys look back at the original bunkering of he linksland mostly with its ruggedness, randomness etc. That's copying nature and if you put that kind of bunkering or some natural variation of it in the Canadian Rockies where nothing like it is indigenous, then that is "permitted" in architecture.

That's all he said.

And to a slightly lesser degree the word "permitted" is used with tees, fairways and greens. They aren't really natural to sites so they too are permitted. But they should also blend in with the natural sites somehow if possible. At least their lines should. That's all he said.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #23 on: January 11, 2002, 01:30:13 PM »
Tom,
I think you read into my comments too much.  The point I was getting at was simply - what is permitted or "reasonable" if that better word and what is not reasonable when it comes to constructing golf courses and blending them in with nature?  Is a man-made stream for example that blends in ok?  How about a pond that needs to be built for irrigation purposes?  How about a pond on a desert course?  This is a very gray area isn't it?
Mark
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tommy_Naccarato

Re: For Rich Goodale, Mark Fine & Pat Mucci
« Reply #24 on: January 11, 2002, 03:08:47 PM »

Mark,
For the time being.....Forget the stream. Forget the pond.

The lines of nature are more then just streams and ponds. Lets take #12 at Bel Air to use as an example. The Mae West hole. (which sadly no longer exists as some errant green committee felt that Mae's appendage must have had cancer and had it removed.

I'm using this as an example because it sounds as if it is a similar hole of Fowler's which Pat is mentioning in his other thread, "Address this?"



If you look on the right side of the picture, the lines of nature are sloping left, as that is where the direction of the hillside is coming from. Even the right "breastus" looks very natural, but to contrast this, Thomas seems to have either cut a wide "V" into what was either a descending hillside, or shaped a mound to the left of it to make it look like one. Notice the angle on which the two Breasts come in at--which is a descending line of nature.

While the mound may look and seem artificial, it was ultimately the wide "V" cut that is the artificial line, and used to create a definitive feature to the target--the green entrance.
 
It all works with the exisiting terrain of the sloping hillside, and the natural site of the hole made it even better for the strategy simply because this green entrance required getting the shot as close right ot the hillside as possible, while avoiding the natural containment that sent the ball rolling left, creating a more difficult high-lob shot over the "breastus."

Ironically, I would have tried to go for the right in hopes that if I did fail, I would have to make that shot. Imagine the fun!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »