Analyzing what's natural and what's not!

[TEPaul]

There's been a ton of discussion on numerous topics recently about using natural features, using natural topography for golf and its features etc. Or if not using natural features at least creating features that appear as natural as possible on or to any given site.

There's been discussion about some designer/architects using a site's "site natural" lines, features and other such to meld their courses and features into the lines of the surrounding area, both near and far.

There's been discussion about some architects striving to use as much and as many of the site's natural features and natural aspects of all kinds as possible and other architects not using these things, often overlooking them or wiping them away to build whatever they visualize, exclusive of these natural aspects.

Some on here have stated, mentioned, implied whatever, that if anything is moved at all by man it's unnatural, it's inherently unnatural, it has to be unnatural etc!

So how does an architect work with the land, how does he hide his hand in construction and how is he successful and how does he fail? How do you draw any distinctions in this area and on this subject between one architect or another? How does the "Golden Age" generally compare or differ from the "Modern Age" in this respect?

Were "Golden Age" architects limited in their abilities to hide their hand successfully compared to "Modern Age" architects? Of course they were! Technological advances were actually looked upon by them as the answer to hide their hand better in the future in this respect! Did "Modern Age" architects adhere to the hopes and dreams of some of the "Golden Age" architects to accomplish this goal or did they overlook it and/or fail miserably in this regard?

It's an interesting subject and a complex one! Probably the best place to start is not if an architect moves anything at all and if he does that it should be assumed that he is doing and has done something unnatural. It would be more sensible to analyze how well he worked in blending or melding what he did with the way the land was before he got there! And after construction has been completed it's difficult sometimes to estimate what the land was like before he got there. Pre-construction photos certainly help in this respect but are rarely available. Without them are there ways to tell what the site looked like naturally and how he worked with it? I think there are, to a large degree, particularly if you get lucky with a few things that can give you hints.

In restoration architecture it's a bit of a different matter to determine how things started, how they were altered and changed, but soil and sand analysis and the analysis of original construction material, where they are, were etc can certainly help.

I think often an architect does not really want to talk about exactly how he builds his golf course, how he moved dirt, how much, whatever. Others seem proud of it! Some would probably rather not make those facts and details known--others will. But it would be interesting to know on here from some of them, no matter how they feel about making that known or not. Personally, I've been struck by the extreme minimalism of a hole like Cypress's #9 and also struck by the extreme differences before and after construction at a course like Fieldstone!

Probably a good place to start an analysis like this is not with those that say that anything moved indicates an architect is on a process of "unnaturalness" but to recognize Robert Hunter's perceptive statement that golf architecture and its designers are inherently saddled with a number of necessary golf features that must be produced--in his example, at least, four of them--tees, fairways, greens and bunkers that are inherently "unnatural" to most sites and their topography!

That's a given (in Hunter's statement), so the point is how well he applies those inherently unnatural but necessary golf features to any site and its land in as natural a way as possible.

It's an interesting subject and one of the most tell-tale places to look at it is in and around greens--particularly to the rear of them and sometimes to their sides!

So can you tell and if so how? And secondly, is this effort necessary? Who really notices? And lastly, since the ultimate goal is to produce something that's fun, interesting and challenging to play how should the fact and the goal of accomplishing it as naturally as possible really meld together with playbility? Is naturalness as important as playability? Is it less so, more so, or not even necessary or important at all?

If it is not important, why were so many of the best of the "Golden Age" architects and some of those today so interested in it? And if it is important why did so many of the "Modern Age" architects ignore it?

[ed_getka]

I don't even know where to begin with all that. For myself as long as the course is challenging and fun I don't really mind how much earth is moved or not, unless it leads to increased costs that are then passed on the golfer through higher green fees. The rest of this will require a few days of thought.

[TEPaul]

There obviously is way too much in this topic post of mine--too much to think about and too much to answer--sorry about that!

Another thought that hopefully could get this large subject a bit more focused, though, is the reminder that "how much" or "how little" dirt is moved in the creation and construction of a golf course is really not necessarily synonymous with trying to create "naturalness" or "site naturalness".

Often trying to create naturalness to surrounding topography might take much more dirt and dirt movement just to "tie in" naturally! Other times just the identification of a natural feature or a natural topographic aspect or area used for golf instead of wiping it away and bulldozing it can result in much LESS dirt being used.

It definitely can cut both ways but the intention to use anything and everything that can be preserved for golf is definitely the place and the mindset to start if naturalness is the goal!

[TEPaul]

With that last thought in mind, it might be instructive, particularly with someone like Pat Mucci, who is clearly interested in this subject although he might look at if far differently than some others, to start analyze particular holes.

I would suggest a course like NGLA and its holes--a course Pat obviously knows very well. I would even start with a hole like #2 which clearly appears to be manufactured and to try to determine where it is manufacturered and where the places to look would be to determine if it is and where it is!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Ed
What are your five favorite golf courses?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It is so difficult to compare "Golden Age" courses in the context of land movement because they didn't face environmental and permiting issues, nor remediation.

There is no doubt that many of the great courses we love, couldn't be built in their original form TODAY.

What might be an interesting exercise is to look at a "Golden Age" course we like in the context of building it in todays world, and how the course would be substantially different, or how the holes would be different or non-existant.

If we're going to do NGLA, we should really start on # 1.
What I would rather do, if you'll accept my amendment, is wait until this spring/summer, when armed with my digital camera, I'll be able to provide pictures from several angles of each hole.

It would also be a good exercise if Archie Struthers could show us before and after pictures, and describe what he did, and what he was required to do.

[ed_getka]

Tom,
 I haven't played nearly as many great courses as many posters here, but my five favorite that I  played are:

Cypress Point
Pasatiempo
Pacific Dunes
Stevinson Ranch
Pebble Beach

Courses I really look forward to playing are Prestwick, Machrihanish, TOC, Royal Dornoch, North Berwick, Rye, Ballybunion, Lahinch, etc.

In the states, NGLA, Crystal Downs, Sand Hills, Pinehurst #2, , Talking Stick, Yale, etc.

These are just to illustrate what I am interested in from what I've read and heard from people that I know and here on GCA.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Nothing outweighs the hand of Nature. That is if you really want to understand this stuff from a perspective of how all the great courses that you have mentioned, were conceived.

Tom Paul,
Jim Craig once said to me that the best way to emulate nature was to closely observe how all of the elements more or less directed it. He used the example of observing how the Lines of Nature--Wind, could blow a sand dune into a certain shape and how it was important to utilze that feature to its fullest. After all, this is what made the Great Links, Great. they simply left them untouched because there was no need to move or create anything.

The Lines of Nature--Water, tend to carve and erode shapes and swales. Its what makes the outlining shapes of a bunker look as if it is melting into the lowest part of the ground.

Both of these is no doubt why natural looking, scraggy-edged bunkering attracts us so. It is why it all works at Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills, Friars Head, and even Notre Dame! (Noting of the extreme difficulties of that site.)

It is for all intensive purposes what Tillie, Hunter, Mackenzie, Simpson, Behr, Colt and so many others wrote about in an age where creating features into natural-looking ones was such a new and bold undertaking, and how EMULATING those features or lines was the goal, supreme.

It is here that we need to analyze the great names of the past that understood this, knowing all to well that Nature has done its part to EVOLVE them into works of art that they are today while still remaining fully functional for their purpose. (Such is the art of the work of a Great Superintendent)

It is also the time for us to pay attention to the names of the people today that understand it just as well and are doing eveything in their power to influence these same ideals into the minds of a consuming public that has mistinterpreted what Nature has offered.

Creating pine hills in the Nevada desert isn't emulation, it is a expensive copy that wreeks of an artificialness (Mind you that I have not seen Shadow Creek, and will reserve my full  judgement of that course for a later time when I will hopefully be sweeped off of my feet and proven the greatness of its mentors.)

Creating pine hills in North Carolina/Pinehurst area is emulation, because you are more or less tracing over what existed there. Only making it suitable for golf.

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

Does it really matter if something is natural / unnatural if golf's main axiom is followed -- to wit, the good shot is rewarded and the bad shot penalized proportionally to the manner in which it is executed.

Golf is a game about holes and how those holes are interconnected / tied together through a skillful routing that calls for maximum dexterity with the greatest range of clubs. That's what I look for when playing a course. You know Tom that one man's natural is another unnatural, etc, etc.

Clearly, there are architects who can blend in "man's" hand so that the differences between nature and man are rather difficult to detect. Having played Shadow Creek I am aware of the argument on how "natural" a site can Shadow Creek be when a "North Carolina" type course is located in the heart of the desert in greater Las Vegas?

I liked Shadow Creek and I credit Wynn / Fazio with the vision / bucks to create their dream. Would I elevate the course to the level that Doak has in his Confidential Guide book? No. But, my question is so what? In today's world you have people with megabucks who can create Hawaii in the middle of New Jersey. Clearly, there will be people who will detest this because such a course is not "natural" to the setting it is cast. My focus is on how the holes are designed to make you think your way throughout the round. I place greater emphasis on the strategic vision rather than the actual creation / location fit. Yes, I'd like a course to "fit" in but my need for such an element is not as high as others have opined.

Just an opinion ...

[TEPaul]

Matt:

Is it important that a golf course look natural or look like it belongs in it's own area? It is to me but clearly not very important to some others.

To each his own, no doubt, but I do admire the architects that feel as I do. Maybe I feel as I do because they feel that way and I have come to admire what they do.

But you're right, one has to play the game and how the game plays on any course despite what it looks like is certainly of primary interest and importance. I do admire the course that has both aspects, though, more than the course that has just one.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Ed
That's a hell of list - although I'm must admit I'm not familar with Stevenson Ranch. I agree with with what you said, the amount of dirt moved is not necessarily a determining factor as to how good a golf course might be, but I would say that maximizing the use of natural features is a determining factor and the two are necessarily mutually exclusive. And I'd say your list is a reflection of designs that have definitely taken full advantage of nature.

Matt
The reason that it matters is because man is unable to create features nearly as interesting as Nature. That doesn't mean man-made courses or man-made features are bad, only that if all things are equal they are inferior to Nature. If you look at the few truely great golf courses in the world, what seperates them from the rest are their unique natural advantages -- sublime natural features that have been utilized in their designs. What do NGLA, Pine Valley, Cypress Point, Pebble Beach, St. Andrews, Shinnecock Hills,  Pinehurst (No. 2), Royal County Down, Royal Melbourne, Portrush, Dornoch, Ballybunion (Old), Sand Hills, Crystal Downs, etc. all have in common?

The problem with courses like Shadow Creek and the problem with many modern designs, is the fact the it gives architects a false sense that they can create features more interesting than Nature -- a romanticized vision of nature that is initially appealing to the unsuspecting masses -- but after repeated plays soon looses its appeal either consciously or unconsciously. Because of this false sense of their own creative powers, these architects end up ignoring or plowing up many features that are clearly superior to anything they could create.

I suspect that course like Shadow Creek, Nantucket, Wolf Creek and the other 'spectacular' man-made designs are meant to played only a hand full of times if that - maximum impact for the single round. But I could be mstaken.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom Mac, You forgot one!

Lost Canyons.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Thanks, Tommy I missed one. Also I meant to write subconsciously not unconsciously - although I suspect some might by unconscious.

[Rich_Goodale]

We seem to go around this topic every few weeks or so, but I have yet to be given a convincing argument as to why "natural" features such as the greens at 14 Dornoch, 8 Pebble Beach, 18 NGLA are inherently "better" than those which have obviously been "manufactured" such as 2 Dornoch, 14 Pebble Beach and 1 NGLA.  It seems to me that "naturalness" is a preference/prejudice that some people on this site hold sacred and others do not.  And, as I stated a month or so earlier on an original post, there is no golf course in the world that does not look like a golf course to me.  Anybody who says they cannot see the vast difference between the 14th at Dornoch and the virgin linksland which borders virtually its entire left hand side is fooling themselves.  Yes, the 14th could eventually become virgin linksland if left to go to seed, and the land to the left of hte current hole could easily be made in to a very fine golf hole, but both would have been changed--changed utterly, as Yeats would say.  I also drove all around Merion a few months ago in an untimately successful effort to find the golf course.  In all of that driving I did not see one "naturally" occurring "white face" in the vicinity.  What has been lost there in recent years is a loss of man's efforts, not nature's.

I personally would prefer that we talk on this site about golf holes and golf courses and their inherent worth, based on our own standards or form and funciton, without spending too much time and effort trying to determine such an indeterminable characteristic such as "naturalness."

[ed_getka]

Tom,
 Stevinson Ranch illustrates my point about naturalness. Stevinson is located in the middle of nowhere about 2 hours east of SF. I can assure nobody has ever "stumbled" on this course. You have to no where it is and go looking for it. If you are ever out this way get in touch and I'll take you out there. Most if not all of the NorCal guys out here like it a lot.

Stevinson Ranch is built on FLAT land that John Harbottle massaged into a very fun and challenging course. If you look around the area any mounds on the course tend to look out of place, but in the context of playing the course they work very well for the most part. Harbottle also did an interesting thing around the greens with a shaved down collar of approx. 5-10 yds. that adds a lot of short game interest. I drive over an hour to play there because they have an excellent practice area and midweek I can play a 3 hour round with my young son accompanying me without getting in anybodys way since the course is practically empty.

Tommy,
Great point above regarding the wind shaping dunes and water effecting land forms.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul and Tom MacWood,

There is nothing natural about ANY golf course located in the desert.

It is an inherent conflict in their respective natures.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
How much do you know so much about desert environments? How many different desert envoronments are there? Based your ultra simplistic view there is nothing inherently natural about any golf course that has turf which is not indiginous, flat tees and/or flag sticks. I on the other hand can acknowledge a golf hole that takes advantage of natural desert wash or that utilizes interesting desert contours or melds the the desert flora as working with and utilizing Nature.

Rich
I see you take the Mucconian black and white view of golf architecture. You can analyze every single feature of every single golf course if you wish, but when you judge golf course design as a whole you will reach the same conslusion -- Nature is more interesting. And that is the common thread you will find with all the many past greats we all admire - they understood that.

The reason that Dornoch, Pebble Beach and NGLA are great is due to their interesting designs utilizing the outstanding natural features, while at the same time creating stimulating features that work with nature. I would never say that all features must be natural or that man-made features can not be interesting or beautiful or exciting. The man-made features you mentioned are wonderful, but the reason these courses are great is due to the architects subordinate attitiude and the ability to meld their features with what Nature left. Are there greater man-made features than the chasm at #8 Pebble or #16 CPC, are there more interesting man-made contours than #14 Dornoch or #8 Crystal Downs, what man-made feature compares with the dunescapes at Sand Hills or County Down?

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom MacW

Man is, by many orders of magnitude, THE most interesting thing that "nature" has ever produced.  This is because "he" and he alone, can create by and for himself.  And, what he can create is by definition "better" than anything which was made by his "creator."  The fact that all the "greats" that you refer to apparently believe otherwise is irrelevant.

Rich "Mucconian 2nd Class" Goodale

[Tommy_Naccarato]

"I personally would prefer that we talk on this site about golf holes and golf courses and their inherent worth, based on our own standards or form and funciton, without spending too much time and effort trying to determine such an indeterminable characteristic such as "naturalness."

Rich,

Do I detect a subject that might be beyond your comprehension or maybe something that you just don't want to learn about?

I have to ask, have you read all of the books mentioned in previous threads by great architects who spoke of the same values of nature?

What a horrible way of looking at the such wonderful works of art, both natural and emulated. I came away from Merion VERY inspired, knowing the doom that was on its horizon. This may have even inspired my visions even more!

In truth, for someone of your intellect, I find it hard to believe that it is beyond your comprehension or is it something that you feel just isn't intelligent enough.

Merion's beauty is that it fit the form and function (Those wonderful rolling hills) and looked natural and evolved. It's rough-at-the-edges appeal is what set it miles apart from anything I had ever seen, (other then true links and the quirkier manufactured features that have evolved over time. You simply can't manufacture that. It has to evolve over time. It all comes with time and nature working together.  

How sad that the powers that be decided to forego all of those great years of history and evolution to take the modern path of ideals and organized selfishness.

Maybe the reason why you can't see the difference between certain holes at Dornoch, NGLA, Pebble, etc is because you are forgetting once this stuff was finished, it, just like the birth of our own lives starts to evolve and mature?

NATURE makes it all blend together as it EVOLVES over time.

Does this mean the bunkers at Merion will eventually evolve? Yes, but their lines are totally un-natural and will look out of place because the maintenance practices that the club will institute. It will insure that the bunkers as well as the lines of nature are organized, neat and tidy. All of this will make it even longer for nature to do its good work.

To get back to your original comment, if you can't understand it, simply click the back icon of your browser and proceed to a post by JakaB where you can be more intellectually stimulated. I'll take the theories of stalwarts like T. Paul and T. MacWood or maybe an superintendent or architect who care to further explain how nature works, anyday.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Pat, I have seen some pretty unbelievable natural wind-blown sand dunes in the Coachella Valley that have been eliminated one by one over a period of time, not just because they didn't privde the best housing opportunites, but because of the ignorance of way too many developers and designers to take advantage of them.

However, If you were to ever take me up on meeting me out in Arizona, I could certainly show you a couple of them that do seem to fit pretty damn good and emphasize the Nature for where they exist. (Apache Stronghold and Talking Stick.) I think you would be truely impressed.

Rich, I'm getting the strong feelings that you might be a person of little faith.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I realize too that we have been going over this subject of naturalness for too long and seemingly getting nowhere.

You say that noone has convinced you why attempting to emulate nature versus not doing same in golf architecture makes any hole (or course) inherently better than another. And you also say that there are some who feel that this attempt is extremely important while to others it is of no importance.

I really don't think this area of golf architecture is something you will ever be particularly interested in so if some of us cannot convince you or we realize we never will that's just fine too.

I don't know that making a hole better is really the way to look at the subject. We, or it least I, feel strongly about this particular subject because of the way a group of architects felt about it and also explained it! The reasons for their  efforts and attempts to use and mimic nature in architecture is best left to them to explain. And for this reason you should read them carefully!

There is a whole litany of reasons for their attempts to do this from the aesthetics of it to the inherent reaction of a golfer to what's natural or perceived to be natural versus his reaction to what is created to confront him by man. Max Behr (and Hunter), for one, made a convincing case, to me anyway, that man reacts more favorably to what he must deal with in golf if it's perceived to be nature than he will if it's perceived to be only man's doing!

You may be unaware of this logic and explanation or you may be aware of it and not agree with it at all. You say you've read Hunter but I wonder how closely. Behr would also be one I would recommend. If in fact you have read and truly understood both of them and still don't agree or care much about this particular subject, then so be it!

It does not sound to me like you really have read either of them as you continuously make the point about land that is totally natural and devoid of any golf features and ask us how any of us could confuse that with land that has golf features on it (even the most natural golf features imaginable). OF COURSE none of us confuse the two. And the fact that you ask such things tells me you are almost totally missing the point that we've tried to make for so long!

This is not black and white, as I think Tom MacWood mentioned. The entire subject is in the attempt to mimic nature and in the aesthetic interest in that and also for many other reasons previously explained here (and totally explained by such as Hunter, Behr, MacKenzie, thomas and numerous others).

You would know if you understood Hunter and Behr et al, or even how we've explained them on here, that it is IMPOSSIBLE for man to totally hide his hand in a natural setting if he is going to create tees, fairways, greens and even bunkers (in certain settings). The totality of the subject is the degree of the ATTEMPT that he makes to do so!!

And that includes both using what's natural to the best of his ability and what's not natural BUT NECESSARY for golf to attempt to create it as naturally as possible.

That's the very reason, the only reason, that TommyN mentions the studied attempts by such as Jim Craig to emulate formations that might be examples of the work of wind and water!

Again, I agree that this subject has probably been going on too long and also going in circles. I don't ask that you agree with me, or anyone else for that matter, only that you understand what we are talking about and, again, please  don't give us example of things we are clearly not talking about--like pure natural land versus land that has golf features on it, albeit the most natural golf features imaginable!

Lastly, if you do understand these thing and don't agree, that's completely fine. I don't really think that makes any of us a better student of golf architecture than you or vice versa. I don't really want to think, though, that you just might not notice these distinctions at all.

Frankly, I'm tired of the subject too but I feel I've said all I know and feel, and pretty clearly at that.

So I will leave this subject with the best example I know of to explain what I mean. And that would be #9 at Cypress Point! If you scrutinize the preconstruction photograph on page 42 of GeoffShac's "Alister MacKenzie's Cypress Point Club" compared to the post construction photograph on page 120 you should notice that MacKenzie used a completely natural landform for this hole. All he did is gently lay on a tee, a fairway and a green without disturbing a single thing. Excuse me, he did clear away some brush and he did build one small bunker through the fairway (who knows why) that is  completely indistinguishable with what was there before he arrived!!

This is what I mean, and all of what I mean! Another architect may have not noticed this wholly natural landform hole and bulldozed it away!! And that is what I mean on the other end of the spectrum--when and architect does not consider nature for golf!

Can you notice a difference between page 42 and 120? Of course you can! Mackenzie layed a few golf features (tee, fairway and green) on that landform, that as Behr and Hunter said MUST INHERENTLY be DISTINGUISHABLE from true nature and one feature to mimic nature (the bunker) and that he did his absolute best to hide his creative hand in a natural setting. That's about all anyone could ask for!

Anyone should see the difference (p. 42 and 120) but he did the best anyone could ever ask for! And that's the point!

Whether or not you agree, at least understand that sole point!

[Rich_Goodale]

Tommy

You detect wrongly.  Even though I haven’t read all of the books that you or anyone else on this site has, neither have you or anyone on this site read all of the books that I have.  We all have our different histories, genetic and experiential, and our own opinions, on various matters, including the subject at hand.

My experience includes a very much above average amount of time in the study of various arts and elements of “nature” as well as exposure to a very much above average number of great golf courses, some in very much above average degrees of depth.   Like everybody, I have the right to express my opinions, and when I wish to do so, I do.

I see golf as a game.  A game often played in beautiful settings, but a game, nonetheless.  A creation of man and not of “nature,” whatever that is.  You and others, perhaps, see it differently.  So be it.

Merion is a great golf course, and I have no doubt that the “white faces” that you saw were “better” than the bunkers I played a few months ago.  Nevertheless, those white faces were no more “natural” to the area when they were built than their contemporary counterparts are today.  That is all I was trying to say.

You are right, of course, that time is a very important element of golf course design.  I am very pleased that you have come around to my point of view on this issue.

I’ve looked at the Mahler/Beethoven thread, and my take is that, unfortunately, the good points made by JakaB were ignored and the thread hijacked by people, including yourself, who seemed more interested in showing off their esoteric knowledge of music than relating his potentially interesting points to GCA.  Nae problemo on that—I’ve done the same myself on this site.  It’s human nature.

Rich

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

You say, "man is unable to create features nearly as interesting as Nature." Really? That may ring true in other settings but not always so in golf.

I've played a ton of courses where man did use his creative noodle to do a marvelous job and unless you have a real trained eye many could not tell which ones were which. I will also say that among the most gifted architects of today they are very good in disguising their design techniques so that the man v nature discussion on natural v unnatural is virtually impossible to identify.

This argument of natural v unnatural is really more about the course "looks." As I said previously, my main focus when playing is how the course "plays." I get a chuckle out of a few of you gentlemen who genuflect about the past grand masters, but these same designers had no hestitation in re-routing streams, filling in wetlands and in implementing all other no-no's by todays' environamentl standards that today's modern architect must deal with.

The strategic vision of the course deals with having holes / course that reward / penalize proportionally the type of shots executed. I could care less if some big dollar owners decides to build a Hawaii course in New Jersey.

I can easily make an argument that there are courses built that are wonderfulyl "natural" but are a real yawn in terms of their strategic quality. Too often those who profess a romanticism about minimalism fail to realize that as Mike Cirba mentioned accurately in a unrelated post that less can often be indeed less.

Golf, in my mind, is about shots & holes and how they are tied together in a clever routing plan that makes you play the full set of clubs. Yes, I would like a course to have a natural look but it's more of a secondary concern than a primary one for me.

Tom Paul, I value your opinion in that this an attribute you like to see. Let's just say we agree to disagree on where this item shakes out in our own preferences.

TommyN:

I still love Lost Canyons / Sky Course even though I know you detest it.

[Confused]

Rich
I enjoy it when you and your contrarian partner resort to bizarre and sometimes humorous attempts to change the subject. I agree with you completely anything man creates is superior to what a dog might create.

If it is true that man is the single most interesting creation of Nature or the Creator --  isn't it true that anything that the Creator of man, and coincidently also the creator of Nature, is superior to anything man-made. An entity great enough to create man is certainly superior to man and therefore by definition all his creations are superior -- including Nature. Afterall man is natural creation and an intregal part of Nature and can not be seperated from Nature. As far as I know man did not create the dunes of Portrush, or the Heathlands of London, or the Sandbelt of Melbourne, or the Sandhills of Pinehurst or the Canadian Rockies.

Tom 'Aquinas' MacW

[TEPaul]

Well, young Rich, (as Thomas Moore was inclined to say), if you're post of 9:26pm is truly the way you feel about this subject and golf architecture generally, then please, by all means, disregard that long post of mine (and those of others) to discuss the distinctions of this particular subject with you! For it will be of no use now or at any time.

As Cuba Gooding said to Tom Cruise in Jerry MacGuire over a philosophic difference; "Well, that's definitely another way to go!"

Personally, I feel those thoughts of yours, well encapsulated and defined in that post, are just about the height of man's ability to be arrogant!

But don't misunderstand me for a second, your feelings about architecture, or even man and nature, are not in the slightest problematic to me! You're a great guy and I both like and appreciate your view of things. Vastly different thought  creates a great dynamic, and first and foremost I love the dynamics and the differences in both life, thought and golf architecture (again recognizing I might be a bit different than you, TommyN, in the context of golf architecture in this way).

Although I'm sure you have an idea how I feel about various things to do with architecture I also have a great respect for the differences in it. I like the spectrum--I think it's both healthy and good. But only in this way; good days are actually made better by rainy days, if you know what I mean!