Analyzing what's natural and what's not!

[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

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

An architect can take advantage of natural features in the desert, but the golf course is entirely artificial.

It may be simplistic, but it's accurate.

We have differing views on Nature and NGLA or YALE, perhaps that's not a good example of leaving the land as it was found.
GCGC, Maidstone and Shinnecock would seem to fit your model much better, and I think, make my point, that some courses REQUIRE more amendments to the land than others.

TEPaul,

There has to be some concession to the piece of land one has to work with before you create a universal criteria or standard by which you judge golf courses and their architects.  

Citing Cypress point is a little simplistic.

Would you equate the site a CP with the site at YALE ?
How about Old Marsh  and Seminole ?
Pine Valley and Spring Lake ?

Could you cite me some courses that don't blend in with the
Natural terrain.

Tommy Naccarato,

I'm not saying that owners/developers and architects don't make bad decisions, they do, just llike surgeons, electricians, insurance people and others, and it's always easy to fly speck or second quess on specific features or the course in general.

Some golf courses represent an inferior final product in light of their potential.  Some golf courses have factors beyond the control of the architect that are responsible for those inferior results.  Other times it's the architect and/or the owner developer.

But, I don't attribute the resulting inferior product the sole result of not harminizing with nature, it goes far beyond that.
There are lots of bad holes that harmonize beautifully with nature, just head north on A1A and you'll hit some of them within a few hours drive.

How would you compare the following SITES on blending with nature ?

Pebble Beach
SandPiper
Cypress Point
Bodega Harbor
Spanish Bay

How would you compare the resulting golf holes on each course ?

I hope you see my point.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
You said an architect can take advantage of natural features in the desert, that is the essence my view of architecture taking advantage of natural features.

[Mark_Fine]

Come on some of you guys, show that you can be open minded and at least a little flexible in your thinking.  I love a "natural" course as much as anyone but every course can't be St. Andrews!  There are many wonderful courses out there that were "built" and if man didn't intervene they would be much less than they are if even built at all.  

Take a course like Mauna Kea.  How natural is that one?  It was "built" in the middle of an old lava flow!  There wasn't a bit a vegatation anywhere for miles.  Maybe Trent should have said, forget playing golf on this side of the island, just go snorkeling instead    Some amazing innovation and very creative thinking led to a wonderful golf course in an absolute beautiful setting.  I do go snorkeling when I'm there, but I'm also glad I get to play golf  

You have to show a little flexibility guys.  
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
Who is advocating that the Mauna Keas shouldn't be built or courses like it can not be wonderful? What do you consider inflexible about this thread?

[Rich_Goodale]

Tommy P

I am familiar with the before and after McKenzie photos of the 9th at CP (I looked at them in your house!) and I very much understand what you are saying.  This year I also walked Friar's Head for 3 hours with Ken Bakst and I understand what he and C&C did with the monolith that now guards their 11th(?) green.  I also drove with Pete Galea through the strawberry fields ("ex", not "forever") where he hopes to build 9 new holes at Pajaro Valley and I listened and watched carefully as you drove me around the Ardrossan property in October and I walked the spectacular 5 new holes under construction on the Struie course at Dornoch.

To me, what McKenzie did was admirable, but not necessarily the best thing that could have been done with that feature and that site.  I'm not smart enough to know that.  Similarly with the Friar's Head "natural" feature and with the routing that Pete showed me in his ofice.  Both seemed fine and creative to me, but not so obviously perfect that I couldn't believe that a "better" solution might be available.  Ardrossan could be a great golf course, but it could also be a great farm, or a great real estate development, or a medicore example of any of those alternaitves.

What it is and what quality of development it becomes is dependent on man, not on it's inherent nature.

One of the telling moments of my walk over the new holes on the Struie was an open sea bird's nest, sitting right in the middle of one of the recently seeded fairways, with an egg sitting right out there in the sun.  The bird that laid that egg hadn't yet understood that the nautral environment in which she lived had been changed.  She would not be so naive next summer when her habitat will be filled with people and their toys.

I've got a lot of arrogance, not unlike most of the people on this site.  To which aspect of it were you referring?  If it was in regards to my self-assessment of various personal attributes as being "above average", that just puts me in the exact same category as virtually everybody who inhabits or just visits this site--including those who think that they can determine which acts of man are "natural" and which are not.

That's all.

[Rich_Goodale]

Tommys N and Acquinas

I have boundless faith, but do not subscribe to Faith.  While I respect St. T's opinions on creation, I can also respect the counter argument that everything since the singularity has been a big improvement--even Shadow Creek and disco, in their time.

Either of you may feel free to pray for me, but be forewarned that my mother-in-law is at the head of that queue, and she is very persistent.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich,

I hope you don't mind me mentioning this, but you alluded to it earlier, and I HAVE to ask;

While we were playing Applebrook this past summer, after having played Merion the day before, it was very early in the round and we were looking at one of the bunkers on the course.  You turned to me and said; "if the bunkers at Merion used to look like this, then I hate to admit it, but Tommy's absolutely right...Merion f*@)ed up!".

Now, what I have to ask is this; by what criteria were you judging the disparities of the bunkering?  Could it be that we're talking about the difference between bunkers that looked totally "natural", and were well-integrated into their surrounds, and those that stood out as completely artificial, amateurishly shaped, and looking like Madonna in Buckingham Palace?

Or, is it simply "playability"?  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood, TommyN and most definitely "Confused",  (where did you come from?-- and would you consider identifying yourself?--I think classic architecture needs you!), we've done all we can do on this topic and probably this specific subject on golf architecture and we should probably pack our tents and go on now!

This is a bit of a depressing day for me! I was truly hoping there was some forceful awakening in the wind--but apparently not with some of these expressions and beliefs on this thread!

These men we have been discussing with are golfers! They may even be very good ones! They are very adept at how to play golf courses and maybe even how to rate or rank them in today's world. They may actually even know something about creating a golf club's course but only for general "envelop flattening" consumption! They are doubtless instinctual at a particular "market" and how to turn a profit. They are obviously of the GOLF CLUB OWNER oriented, market oriented mentality! They are not really of the GOLF COURSE mentality!

None of these people would make good architects, in my opinon, not the way we think of it anyway! They don't really have architecture in their soul, as far as I can see tonight. I hear too much from them about how will it sell and how will it be accepted and that how or if it will meet the owner's particular intention. At the very least how it will play for them! That's surely important but it's not all there is! I don't hear much about sound architectural prinicples from yesteryear and nothing remotely about, "let's try this and see what they think"! They understand the way a golf course functions but not really the way its architecture can otherwise effect!


Pat:

I'm really not sure what you mean by universal criteria or a standard of judging architecture. We, or I, am only talking about a fairly important underlying principle here which is by no means my own! It might not be a general criteria or some "standard", not that I believe in either anyway! And I think my example of Cypress's #9 is absolutely anythng but simplistic, and particularly in the context of this particular topic subject. I realize there may be no place for you to insert your usual mention of an owner/developer in that particular example but, so be it and so what?--it works well for what it was intended to explain. I think it's quite simplistic of you not to understand it, but I recognize too that you may not even have GeoffShac's particular book so, once again, you probably have no idea what I'm talking about and you're just making another tangential statement with no particular purpose.

I think you also asked me about a course that didn't really seem all that "natural" or at least your definition of natural. I do have one and one you know! How about the one and only NGLA? You might think it's significant only because it plays well or you feel it does. But I would strenously disagree with you say that it both plays well and makes our point about how to ATTEMPT to meld and blend with nature on a specific site! And that it probably makes the exact point of everything we are trying to say in this particular thread although you can't see it at all--and certainly not in the specific context of NGLA that we're talking about! And I will absolutely guarantee you will completely misinterpret what I've just said here--I will guarantee it!!

Matt:

You asked me a while ago about how I felt about Coore and Crenshaw's Hidden Creek. I do think I explained it as best I could. I would be interested in your impression of it though. I do hope you like it but in this particular context of "naturalness" it might go over your head. But I hope at the least that you enjoy the golf or the playability of it if not the naturalness because it seems to me that the "playability" of it will be something that you will understand and appreciate. For your interest and information the architect feels it will play quite "hard"! I guess he means in a scoring sense although at the moment I'm not sure I can really see that--but I have more faith in his impression that way than mine about Hidden Creek.

Don't take any of this post personally, Boys, and don't take it hard. Just another discussion on architecture and I've always tried not to pull any punches and I guess you have too. Hopefully we will all be back on here discussing some other topic of interest tomorrow!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Of one thing I am confident, there is no queue.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

Despair not!  

What you are talking about is really at the heart of modern "design" vs classic "architecture, and although I haven't been available to participate much throughout the debate, I have been following as much as possible and I believe it's a salient point.

It's quite the easy argument to make that since every golf course on the planet starts with a shovel, then everything by definition is artificial and man-made.  Balderdash!

There is a significant distinction between courses that are manufactured vs those that "look" manufactured.  Just as the discerning person knows the difference between TOC and Nicklaus's "New course" at Grand Cypress, so to can most of us see the "seams" that separate the real from the imposters.  

I think there are times when pure artificiality is necessary, and mentioned that on another thread on this site.  Sometimes, the existing land is so featureless as to be a blank slate.  Even the classic architects recognized this problem, at sights like Lido, for instance, and great construction projects were necessary to build great courses there.  And yes, Matt Ward is correct that I stated that some very natural courses built on boring property have turned out just that way...boring.

However, none of that takes away from the truth that it really is possible to have the best of both worlds.  Most of the best courses ever built have taken really good golf property and utilized it in a way that provides for great golf, great challenge, wonderful aesthetics, and naturalness and solid integration with its surrounds.

I have to laugh when I hear of such concepts as a Hawaiian style course being built in New Jersey, or a dunes layout in the mountains of West Virginia.  We've talked about what the owner wants, and sometimes the owner is simply out of his freakin' mind.  

[Mike_Cirba]

p.s. - I'm still waiting to hear Rich's criteria that he used in his assessment of the difference between the bunkering at Applebrook vs the "new" bunkers at Merion.  

I only wonder how many euphemisms for "naturalness" exist in Funk & Wagnalls  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You know that I like AppleBrook, from what I have seen of it, but, I wouldn't call the bunkers NATURAL.
They have a ROUGH look, a look many of us, including myself, find appealing, but the unkept look doesn't necessarily equate to natural, as if they existed in that form prior to a golf course arriving on the site.  Again, I want to say I like the look, however it's interpreted.  Perhaps we're talking in degrees again.

TEPaul,

I agree with you, I too don't think NGLA is all that natural, that's been a point I've been trying to make to others on numerous posts.  Did I misinterpret your words on NGLA or did I get it right ?

Are you also saying, if we haven't read Geoff Shackelford's books, we're unqualified or in the dark on architecture ?
What if we've read them and don't agree with everything you or others posture, are we guilty of lacking any semblance of reading comprehension ?    
There has to be a broader degree of open mindedness.

Mark Fine,

I think Mauna Kea is an excellent example of a site where adhering to the continuity in nature had little to do with the golf course that was manufactured on that site.... that it took major amendments to the land to produce that golf course, the same as exists in the desert.

My view has always been in the context of, site specifics,
not a monolithic, universal, unbending standard.

[Rich_Goodale]

Mike

You are right about my opinions of the bunkers at Applebrook and Merion, and I said much the same thing to Tommy N in a private e-mail some time ago.  Like Patrick M, to me visual appeal is not the same thing as being "natural."  The current Merion bunkers are not visually appealing, although they do very much function the way bunkers should, strategically and tactically.  Kittleman's work at Applebrook is much more esthetic, and it made me believe that Merion would have been better served if it had kept the old look.  I don't think, however, that the bunkers at Applebrook are any more "natural" than those at Merion.  Both are the result of man and show this--to the detriment of man at Merion and to his credit at Applebrook.

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich,

By definition, unless one considers bunkers created naturally by wind or sheep, no bunker is natural.  Once one shovel of dirt has been turned by man to create them, "natural" is permanently gone.

That's a given.  However, what I believe that me, and Tom Paul, and Tom MacWood are arguing is more than splitting hairs in a semantic debate.  What we are talking about instead is how a golf course both uses undisturbed natural golfing features, and how well any man made features are "naturally" integrated into a cohesive whole.  We also argue that on the whole, natural features that already existed on the site tend to provide the most unique, compelling, variable, and interesting features, and sadly are too often bulldozed away in modern times, rather than creatively used by the architect in the "creation" process.    

Almost all of the "dead guys" talked about the need to do this.  Mackenzie and Tillinghast both talked extensively about the need to blend the hand of man with natural site features.  Mackenzie related it to his ideas of "camouflage", while Tillinghast believed it had more to do with aesthetics.

So, since you say that the new bunkers at Merion are not "visually appealing", exactly why do you think that is?  Yet, the ones built by Hanse, Kittleman, Rodney, et.al. at Applebrook are much more "aesthetically appealing" to you.  Why do you think that is?  

What do you think are the factors that contribute to the success or failure of your aesthetic sensitivities when looking at what are admittedly man-made features?

Patrick,

I think this whole discussion is about degrees, yes, but I also believe that we are confusing terminology and splitting hairs to a degree where meaningful dialogue is being impeded, at times.  

Do you think my position above is closer to your views?

[TEPaul]

MikeC;

Thank God you're back. As you can see we're trying to have a discussion here and we haven't managed to get on the same page with some of these fellows, so whatever we're discussing is not exactly the subject that we intended to discuss.

They keep telling us we're romantics and asking us how can anything that man makes be considered natural? And we keep telling them that it can't be considered natural (or nature) but the deal is (and this entire discussion, I had hoped) that it's all in an architect's ATTEMPT to make what he designs look as natural as possible and it would help too if he did it in such a way that it had something to do with the particular nature of a particular site!

If some of you would bother to really read and understand Hunter or Behr you would see that they explain very clearly that any golf architect (man) is encumbered to a degree by the necessary features of a golf course (tees, fairways, greens and bunkers) since these particular features are INHERENTLY UNNATRAL to most raw sites on earth. You may not agree with them but at least you would understand what they're talking about (and us too). So the attempt then is to somehow make those inherently unnatural golf features look as natural as possible to blend or meld into the natural surroundings. And most definitely that can be different depending on different sites! But the ATTEMPT to blend or meld with nature (or use its natural features) should be the same effort!

This is the sole reason we talk about an architect ATTEMPTING to emulate nature, to mimic nature as best as he can. This really doesn't seem to be rocket science here--and I can't understand why it's so hard to grasp.

These kinds of discussions get sidetracked (or never on track) due to a complete misunderstanding of the words used in the discussion. This one appears to be no different. But thanks to your efforts we seem to be turning the words into something that can be understood by all so we can all get on the same page.

Obviously the use of "nature" ("naturalness") and an architect's attempt to emulate it was throwing these fellows for a loop! But it seems now that Rich is on the same page  when you got him to admit that the bunkers of Applebrook were more "esthetic" than those of Merion's. So Rich, from now on just think of these things as "more esthetic" instead of "more natural" (or more "natural looking") in the context of this discussion and we should remain on the same page.

And Pat said in response to your post; "PERHAPS, we are talking in degrees here." And I'm not certain yet but it's possible that Pat's mention of "rough" may be somewhat synonymous with what we think of when we talk about "natural looking".

Well, hello, Pat! Of course we're talking in degrees here and it would seem that "rough" might work a bit better emulating nature than some super straight, super clean bunkerline! Have you ever seen that in nature anywhere? And if you have, for goodness sakes identify it and some good architect might then be able to emulate it too!

What did you think we were talking about with an architect's  attempt to emulate and mimic nature? Did you think we were saying that man and his plans and designs, machinery, whatever could CREATE the exact same things as wind, water and time can? Nobody that I'm aware of on this topic has ever said that an architect can CREATE nature! The best he can do on a golf course is to emulate it as best he can. That's why guys like MacKenzie, Hunter, Thomas, Behr, Coore, Crenshaw, Doak, Hanse, Hine, Wagner, Shackelford, Bradley and Craig spend time staring at natural formations and studying them!!

I did not say that you had to read GeoffShac's book to understand architecture. Didn't say that at all. What I said is it might help to look at pages 42 and 120 of his Cypress book to understand a point I was trying to make about using natural features and formations versus wiping them away with the example of CPC's #9! It seems every time I try to make a point you think I'm implying you don't know anything about architecture! Nothing of the kind!

And Rich, I tried to answer your post asking me about what I meant when I said I thought your remarks (on a post) showed the height of man's abliltiy to be arrogant. I answered but lost the post. It's hard as hell to post on this site these days due to some technical problems!  

What I meant by that was not anything you've said about golf architecture. It's fine by me whatever you or anyone thinks in that context. But when you said man was better than nature or even better than the creator of nature (the creator of himself, in fact), I felt that about showed the height of man's ability to be arrogant! And it makes no difference to me whether you've read and studied Behr or Hunter or any other art, science or philosophy under the sun! You probably have but I would still feel that remark showed the height of man's ability to be arrogant.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom Macwood,
Seems to me it is implied pretty strongly here that if something is not natural it can't be that good?  I just pointed out a course like Mauna Kea that is clearly not natural, it was built in a lava field.  How do you build a natural golf course there?  

Furthermore, what is natural about bunkers on parkland courses where there never was sand to begin with?  As you know, most of the features incorporated in the design of a golf course come from St. Andrews and most are not natural on the sites where golf courses are built!
Mark

[Del Ratcliffe]

HI GUYS!!!!!

It's great to know that I can flit by the ole' DG site every six months or so and see ya'll are still arguing about the same things!!  I just had to put my two cents in on this thread... it is, after all, one of my favorite topics.  I think I remember the same argument like THREE YEARS ago.
  In my opinion, "Natural" is a tough term to apply to a golf course, because to my knowledge, God (or nature through it's natural process if you're an athiest) didn't intend for a certain piece of land to be used as a golf course, despite the numerous claims to the contrary by various golf course architects.  If He had, I feel certain He would have provided high-quality amenities, such as granite tee markers and at the very least a natural source for good flag poles.
  In every instance of a golf course, including TOC, MAN has adapted the land for his own purpose of playing golf.  To argue that changes haven't been made is ludicrous.  In some instances, the changes necessary were very minor; in others, great effort was made to modify the playing field to in an effort to provide a more enjoyable experience.  (No argument here that THIS goal often fails)  Those of you who proclaim the ideals of a course being "natural", therefore, are stating your conviction that these changes should be minor, and integrate with the natural character of the land, and not "appear" as artificial, even though they clearly are.  THAT then becomes a perception... and we all have different perceptions.  Given our current ability to move and shape earth, to create "natural" elements such as streams, lakes, and waterfalls and to successfully transplant virtually any plant to a different area, it is certainly possible to move HUGE amounts of dirt, and still make a site "appear" natural.  You can make drastic changes and STILL "blend" in the changes with the land.  Some architects are better at this than others, but does that mean that the end result is necessarily better?  I certainly don't think so.  As long as the end result is aesthetically pleasing, I like it!  Those who argue in favor of using the "natural" lay of the land are stating their preference for the appearance of the course... it does not look "good" to their eye if it doesn't "blend in" with the natural surroundings.  Can a golf course be a "good" design, yet be "artificially produced"?  I HOPE so, because if not, the ability to produce any more "good" designs will be severely limited, and many that we consider great designs will have to be taken off the list.
  One last point, and I've made this one before... when it comes to "naturally" occuring landscapes in nature, I've seen things that appear totally "unnatural", but were the result of forces and events well beyond the control of man.  It is certainly possible to find strange land-shapes, irregular hills, mounds and hummocks, unusual rock formations, abrupt changes in textue and elements, and unusual patterns in vegatation that do not appear "natural" at all.  Why does a golf course have to appear "natural" to your eye in order for it to be a "good" design?  Isn't the true test of a golf course how well it challenges and rewards the play of the game?  

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I don't know that it's been strongly implied that if something is not natural it can't be good. The entire point we're trying to make here is the degree to which it can be made to appear natural is the degree to which it is good.

And yes you did point out a course in Mauna Lea built on a lava flow and you did ask how can that have golf features that appear natural? That's a very good question! Yes indeed, how can it appear to have golf features that appear remotely natural on a lava flow? That would probably be a bit of a dilemna for even the best architect inclined to built a golf course that appeared natural. For some architects, at least, they may just decide not to try to build a golf course on a lava flow! To some architects sites are important in this particular context.

And your second paragraph is almost the exact question(s) posed by the likes of Hunter and Behr in their books and articles. In them they pose it as an architect's basic dilemna and the riddle for them to unravel as best they can. They go on to cite and explain ways to do just that! I would try again, to itereate their thoughts and conclusions here, but since your questions and theirs are so exactly similar, it might be best to refer to their thoughts and conclusions on the question! If you don't have them I'm sure we could make them available somehow.

Matter of fact, the entire question (posed by you and them) revolves around a most interesting evolution in golf architecture. Those old architects and writers were hoping and dreaming of the day that advancing technology would actually help them hide their creative hand between what was natural and what they made, to an extent that someday it might almost be indistinguishable!

Isn't it odd how things turned out? Almost the opposite of what they were hoping for, it seems. And at this point, it seems likely that their hopes and dreams were misunderstood and are continuing to be misunderstood!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
I think you might want go through and re-read the thread. No one said nor did they imply that something man-made can not be good. In fact just the opposite - many times the man-made features are the reason a particular golf course is appealing. My view is that natural features are superior to man-made - which is different from stating man-made features are bad.

I do not agree with your assesment that Mauna Kea isn't or couldn't be natural because it was built on a lava flow -- that seems to be a repeat of the Mucci ultra-simplistic view. If Mauna Kea utilizes the outstanding features that Nature provided, namely the irregular undulations and contours of its surface -- then I would say the course is natural or took advantage of Nature. Certainly the famous third took advantage of a dramatic ocean inlet is an example of design utilizing an outstanding natural feature.

In the strict sense of the word, you are correct that a bunker on parkland course is unnatural. But not all bunkering is identical and some are much more interesting and meld better than others.  But are bunkers the only feature we are talking about. In my mind the most interesting possbile natural features are the contours of the ground.

As I stated before in analyzing a design I look at two factors, how well does the design maximize the interesting natural features of the site? And how well do the created features work with what nature has left? From my experience the greatest courses are successful in meeting both these criteria.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I thought of you guys while out playing my home course, Great Southwest, yesterday.  Lou, Andrew said you were out there, but I didn't get a chance to stop and say hi!

GSW is a 1967 Ralph Plummer/Byron Nelson collaboration, although I'd bet his input was minimal.  We have a letter saying he inspired the mounds in the approach area of two green, which I left when I remodelled the place.

The point is, most people would assume there is little fairway grading on the course, but that is not the case.  Holes 2,4,6, 9, 12, 13?, and 18 all have fairway cuts to generate fills to build greens, tees, and bunkers.  How can I tell?  In all cases, there are mature trees on either side of the fairway, sitting approximately 2-6 feet above fairway grade on either side, indicating to me that a "vision" cut was made.  The fill most likely went to the nearest green or tee site.

It is barely noticeable, because there is not additional shaping (really closer to highway cuts) and the slopes are 6-10 to 1, not the 3-5 to 1 more modern architects may use to 1) get more fill for bigger features, 2) display the talents of their shapers.  As Tony Ristola said once here (I think it was Tony, anyway) he contours fairways following natural grade, but doubling the per cent of slope.  I think the key to the natural look at GSW is that the cut slopes aren't more steep than about twice the surrounding land.

I admit I haven't read all the back and forth in this thread, so I may be repeating some one else, but I thought I would give one specific "tip" actually answering  TEPaul's original question.

[Mike_Cirba]

Del,

Great to see you hear!

Now, let's argue.

You say, "when it comes to "naturally" occuring landscapes in nature, I've seen things that appear totally "unnatural", but were the result of forces and events well beyond the control of man.  It is certainly possible to find strange land-shapes, irregular hills, mounds and hummocks, unusual rock formations, abrupt changes in textue and elements, and unusual patterns in vegatation that do not appear "natural" at all.  Why does a golf course have to appear "natural" to your eye in order for it to be a "good" design?"

Well, hallelujah!   Those irregular, natural features are EXACTLY what many of  us are talking about!!  They are fabulous, and their singularity and uniqueness go a long way to given a golf course an identity...character, if you will.

Too many of today's architects see those features and instead of using them in creative and original ways that befit their uniqueness, they instead plow them under in the name of fairness, symmetry, and expectations of "product".  

Is it any wonder that we are left with so many cookie-cutter golf courses??  

I was with you almost the whole way, until your last series of paragraphs.  

[archie struthers]

Lots of interesting dialogue here, figured I'd throw one more log on the fire. Don't know if I will ever build another golf course, though I would like to, but obviously a beautiful piece of ground along the ocean, or with real specimen trees to work with, or with just the right amount of pitch and roll would be the ideal. Not only do these sites not come cheap, in my neck of the woods come rife with ecological hurdles, government agencies, tree huggers, endangered species and bureaucratic nightmares.

So what do you do if not fabulously wealthy or politically connected, you build the best course you can on the land that is available. If its not unique and natural or Cypress Point, Sand Hills or Pine Valley, so be it! Wouldn't it be wonderful if there were more of them for golfers to enjoy. In the mean time we will just have to do the best with the hand we are dealt, and try to make the course challenging, interesting and fun!    

[TEPaul]

Del:

Right in the middle of your last paragraph you mention that there are strange looking shapes created by nature that don't appear to be natural at all--at least to you! From your description some of them actually might be some of the things I saw when last at Portrush.

Hmmm! That's very interesting! They are shapes created by nature but they don't appear natural to you? What am I missing here? Maybe you mean that you don't like them on a golf course for some reason!

I think we are sort of back to Tom MacWood's original point here and one that is beautifully incorporated through his wonderful five essays on the basic intent of the "Arts and Crafts" movement!

His point and most of some of ours too has been completely missed in this regard, it would seem. I know I'm too damn tired to go over it again and I would suspect that Tom MacW is too. It hardly seems to matter anymore. Today's world and its golf arcthitecture will just have to be what it will be, I guess!

[Rich_Goodale]

Mike

I don't know why I like Kittleman's bunkers much better than Marucci's (or Doak's, Kidd's, Phillips's, Nicklaus's, to name a few of the other newly manufactured varieties I have seen this year).  I don't know either why I love the Grand Central Terminal in NYC but hate the Pan Am building that sits on top of it, or why I like the TransAmerica Pyramid in SF but not the BofA tower that rises near it, or why I like the design look of most Jaguars better than that of Cadillacs.  Is it because the manmade things I find esthetically pleasing are more "natural" than those which displease me?  Nobody on this thread has said anything to convince me that this might be so.

Yes, a lot of what we are talking about is semantic, and there are shades of gray involved.  My feeling is that us "realists" are more willing to admit this ambiguity that the "romantics" who try to prove their points by poring over the writings of the Golden Age dilletantes with the fervor of the discpiles interpreting the meaning of the gourd in "Life of Brian."

I see your point, Mike, in your comments directed at Del regarding unique natural features, and agree with you that these can be important parts of an interesting golf course.  I would ask, however, how many of these features are truly interesting in a golfing sense?  I suspect far fewer than we might think.  The fact that a genius like Bill Coore can crawl over a flat site on his hands and knees looking for and finding little "poofs" that add (often infintessimally) to the quality of a golf course does not mean that every golf course architect ought to do that or even be able to.  I would like to get a list of the "outstanding natural features" that have been bulldozed by out of favor architects.  Perhaps there was a particularly "natural" part of the lava flow at Mauna Kea that RTJ ignored when designing his course there?

At the end of the day, however, I know from my brief time playing with you that you and I and Tom Paul, if walked blindfolded to any golf course, anywhere in the world, would agree on the quality and esthetic value of that course almost 100%.  The only difference is how we would choose to articulate our degree of pleasure.

Del

Amen.