Avoiding "Wholly flat land" for golf courses??

[Mark_Fine]

I posted a short while ago a topic on golf courses built on Farmland.  One of the points I was trying to make was that many of the classic courses were built on farmland and I wondered how many of the features on these courses were truly "natural" vs. manufactured by the architect?  

I just came across a quote from Robert Hunter on the thought of "avoiding wholly flat land".  Hunter felt avoiding flat land for golf courses was a mistake.  He goes on to say that - "Not only some of the most popular but some of the most interesting courses have been made on flat land.  As the greens can be placed anywhere, the layout in general should be without flaw.  The length of holes will not be goverened by certain situations which must be used, but will be decided by ideal considerations... one can mould the surface at will, and create effects and problems which can but rarely be found provided by nature."  

Seems to me Hunter is suggesting that natural features can be "overrated" and at time a nusance?  

Does this quote shed a different light on some of the farmland courses??  Maybe more of the features on the classic courses that we think were natural because the architect spent so much time in the field searching them out, were really manufactured ones sketched out on a drawing pad back in his office and sent on to the construction crew to build.  We know Ross did this quite often as did other architects.  Thoughts?
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
Do you think that passing over Hunter's early comments about his thoughts on the ideal land for golf, might result in many taking this quote out of context? I don't believe that it is accurate to state Hunter believed natural features were overrated - in fact the opposite is true.

Is it possible to design a great course on flat land - yes. Chicago and Garden City are two examples that come to mind. Although neither is totally flat, they are flatish and the architects did a wonderful job in producing interesting man-made features without having to resort to heavy handed earth moving tactics.

What I got from the farmland course discussion is that you nad I and just about everyone, really didn't have an understanding of farming techniques of that time and the nature of the farmland of that era. Tom Paul seemed to know the most about the actual methods and practices of that era. I agree that many of the features we find, may have in fact been created by the architect - but the point is it is difficult to tell. And the reason it is difficult to tell is because they were intimately familar with nature, because they preferred to work with and utilize the land and interesting natural features. Their intimate familarity is reflected in the man-made features that are nearly indisernable from the natural. Not all man-made features are created equally, there are man-made features and there are MAN-MADE FEATURES.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark,

Like Tom MacWood, I'm wondering if the Hunter quote is taken out of context.

Can you tell us the source, i.e., the title, page number, etc.?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark,
I don't see how this quote would lead you to believe that Hunter is suggesting natural features can be "overrated" and at times a nuisance?  
It appears the first sentence only shows that Hunter recognized that great courses did, in fact, get built on flat sites. The rest of the quote just seems to infer that if you do build on a flat site, you should be able to get it right and if you don't you only have yourself to blame as there were no natural barriers to your success.

[Mark_Fine]

Quote came straight from pages 15 and 16 of the book "Driving the Green".  I have not looked at Hunter's book to see everything he wrote on the topic but it seems pretty clear to me what he was saying here.  

[Rich_Goodale]

It seems pretty clear to me, too, that Hunter is saying that you can in fact make a very interesting golf course without any particularly recourse to any significant natural features (he also strongly implies that such natural features are rarely interesting and/or may in fact get in the way of interesting design).  The examples to support this theory are legion, and include modern efforts such as Stevinson Ranch, TPC-Sawgrass and Shadow Creek as well as much of many classic courses such as Hoylake, Carnoustie and TOC.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
What do you make of Hunter's chapter 'The Purpose of Hazards', it seems to me he clearly believes natural hazards are the essence of the game?

[Slag_Bandoon]

  Flat land is like a flat sheet of drawing paper.  Depending on it's boundaries the result is the vision of the designer and exposes any weakness or strengths brought to the void.   Will it look like Mr. PotatoHead with placed features or will it be a Dali landscape of flowing wizardry or will it be an Ansel Adams presentation of purity, or ...?  

  On great undulating or interesting land the reigns of predetermined ideas should be dropped and the horse should be the designer. What I mean by that is 'trust nature'.  Pacific Dunes is grand because it held in check emphasizing the hand of man.  At Talking Stick, I imagine the designers had to see deeper for its final portrait.  

  Without a Shadow Creek budget, flat land seems the most interesting for the mind to work with for someone eager for a challenge.   Let the artist trust in thine own nature to express honestly.  

[Paul Richards]

Mark:

For a real-world case study in how a master architect works
wonders with a dead-flat piece of land, be sure to visit
Evanston Golf Club, just north of Chicago.

Donald Ross took a piece of land which probably, without
moving one shovel-full of dirt, would have made a great
parking lot for a Wal-Mart SuperStore, and turned it into
a very interesting golf course.  

Unfortunately, some time in the early '80's, someone there
got the bright idea to hire Nicklaus' firm, which proceeded
to remove cross-bunkers, and change those things which
Ross chose to put in that made the place interesting. (see
eighth hole as a great example).  According to my sources,
Nicklaus "ruined the place."

In addition, as at many of the classic Chicago courses,
intense tree-planting over the years has yielded a course
which walking single-file down the fairway is the only way
to traverse the flat land.

However, I also understand, that a group of dedicated
members has finally realized that they are sitting on a Donald
Ross gem, and are hoping to hire a Ross-inspired architect to
bring back Evanston Golf Club to its classical roots.

[Mike_Young]

Mark,
In the last paragraph of your topic you say....."Maybe more of the features on the classic courses that we think were natural because the architect spent so much time in the field searching them out, were really manufactured ones sketched out on a drawing pad back in his office and sent on to the construction crew to build. " ......... My thought is that any architect can detect the manufactured from the natural.  IMHO flat land is there because it is the "end of the journey " for water a some point back in time.  Swales and ridges were created by water and wind movement.  Original bunker flashings were created by the prevailing winds on one side and animal shelter on the downwind sides..........so I don't know if natural is the word or not...Could the word be soft or subtle maybe???  One of my all time favorite Ross courses is the Old Savannah Inn in Savannah, Ga.  ....only a few feet above sealevel...flat but a great subtle golf course.
Hope I am not completely off base.
Mike

BUT I CAN ATTEST .... that a flat course is by far the hardest to build.  I am finsihing one in Alexandria , La. as we speak that has one foot of fall in 1400 feet of length...THAT IS FLAT...we have moved about 500,000 cu. yds trying to get water to move.  It is subtle but you can look at the surrounding land in the distance and see that it was manufactured.

[Mark_Fine]

I just thought the comments by Hunter were thought provoking!  Talking Stick North might prove a good example someday.  I can imagine people saying in 20 years, "Boy, weren't C&C lucky to find such a neat piece of property with all these natural features right here surrounded by all this flat featureless land?  

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

I admire you! On your first topic on farmland you probably didn't get the answers from this group that you were looking for--namely farmers might have screwed up or wiped out natural features interesting for golf! Generally farmers did not do that--there was no reason for them to and their farming practices definitely did not do that!

So now you're coming back with another angle on this subject and this time with a quote from Robert Hunter! And this time your angle is a very good one and a very interesting one!! And I believe by the end of this topic the answers will be conclusive and we all will have learned a great deal about that very fundamental subject of what good "site-sensitive"   architects are looking for and wanting to use to produce a great golf course in both finding available natural features, enhancing them, toning them if necessary and creating other features which are needed if and when the site may not naturally offer them!

The previous answers and posts on this topic are excellent ones--really excellent, truthful and valid!

As for taking Hunter's quote and his meaning out of context with your assumption that it means Hunter was not interested in natural features, yes, I think you did take it out of context, but maybe not entirely! If you're making an assumption and trying to draw a conclusion that this quote proves that Hunter or architects like him were not that interested in natural features, yes you are taking him out of context, making an incorrect assumption and drawing an incorrect conclusion.

It's quite clear what Hunter meant when he talked about the "blank canvas" latitude an architect may have to create a golf course and its features on "wholly flat land"! But by saying that I hardly think Hunter was implying that was the only way to create a golf course or even the best way to create a golf course. He may, however, have been saying or implying that that was the "easiest" way to create a golf course!

But if that's true that he was saying or implying that that was the easiest way to create a golf course it is imperative (and extremely interesting) to analyze why he was saying that! And that brings us directly to the subject of natural features and available natural features for golf! There's no doubt we can find ample evidence and plenty of quotes to prove how valuable and prized interesting natural features that could be used for golf were to those guys! But how to go about using them (which they clearly were on the lookout to do) certainly wasn't as easy for them as working a "wholly flat land", "blank canvas" site.

And to understand that I believe anyone interested in this subject has to fully understand how and what a golf course architect has to do to use and employ interesting natural features into his golf course design on any site.

The routing context is definitely the place to start for that understanding. Natural features for most good architects very well may be the first things they notice and look for on a site and desire to use on a site for their course. It also may be the first things they recognize as obstacles or problem creating situations!

And this brings up how and where an architect starts the routing/designing process. Many of Hunter's type used those interesting natural features (and maybe even the most complex ones) as their starting point and tried to figure out how to design them into the course from either end! This is most definitely where you get into that jigsaw analogy! Where do you start? Or even, to a degree, what do you want to hold onto the most? This is all time consuming as hell and complex when you're trying to identify and imagine interesting holes and in the back of your mind you're always trying to maintain easy flow, balance, variety as to par and where, variety as to angles and turn and where and many of the other things that make for a good golf course like the sun, wind and where you are and might need to be at any point in the course and in the routing etc, etc!

So it cut both ways with them, I believe! Interesting features were prized anyway and could be used instead of making features but sometimes those very features may have become problematic for any number of reasons and then they  had to get imaginative, creative or sometimes just gutsy! But one could hardly say despite all the problems and complexities of natural features that they were looking to give them up, bypass them or downplay them. Otherwise so many of these great old courses would not have had so many interesting natural features used for golf! The examples of them are far too numerous to mention but one only needs to think through the holes of Merion, Cypress, Pebble, Pine Valley, Seminole, Riviera etc etc, to prove how valued natural features were to those guys.

Even today you can see from Brad Klein's book and other contemporary books how natural features can cut both ways and in both eras. In the old days the designers didn't have the equipment to remove and work with problematic natural features that they do today but they also didn't have the problems of restrictions of dealing with some of them that designers have today. Ross was likely to just fill in what today Fazio has to take great pains to work around in enviromentally restricted areas. And TomF doesn't have to worry about getting particularly creative with some natural feature that Hunter got creative with due to lack of D-8s and such!

And if you're then going to say that any architect of any era would do what TomF or some others can and do today with D-8s and such then all I can say is just go analyze a course like Friar's Head!! To date I have not found a better example to disprove the claim that all architects will do basically the same thing simply because the equipment is available!

So I think all this fairly proves that although Hunter might have said or implied that "wholly flat land" may have been an easier canvas to work on, that the more complex sites and more interesting natural site features he found on other sites were definitely NOT UNIMPORTANT to him to identify and use for golf! They were extremely important, in fact!

I think natural features were very important to good architects back then and very important to good architects today and are probably the place that most good architects use for their starting point on a site!

But it generally takes time to analyze interesting natural features and use them and it's undeniable it just might be easier today to ignore them and with the equipment available today like the D-8s and larger, it might also be easier to just wipe them away and create a "semi-blank canvas" to build whatever anybody feels like!

[Rich_Goodale]

TomP

I don't think this topic (or anything else in GCA, for that matter) is an "either/or" sort of issue.  Rather the choices are more of an "E unum, pluribus" nature.  This is to say that from any one piece of land there are an almost infinite variety of golf courses that can be created.  To me, what Hunter is saying in the quote Mark used is that the "blanker'' the canvas (i.e. the more "featureless" the land), the more practical options there are for the architect to create "interesting" golf.  This is not to say that interesting golf cannot be created from a "featureful" piece of land, just that the options are restricted in the latter.

Coore and Crenshaw have found a very interesting routing at Friar's Head, but it may or may not be the "best" one or even better than one's which were suggested by other potenital architects for the project.  You yourself know from your experience at Gulph Mills how diffferent architects can make different (but "equally" interesting) golf holes out of the same terrain--even after the course has been laid out and played over for many years!

I cannot think of a course I have played that could not have another course (probably an even "better" one) laid over it, if that impractical exercise were ever undertaken.  There are even places where, if such were done, truly great courses could be created over the bones of merely good ones.  I often wonder what Tom Doak or C&C or Gil Hanse could do if they were given completely free rein and a few years (and a resolution of the crofter/town dispute which keeps the livestock on the course) to build 18 holes of their choosing over the land on which Brora Golf Club now exists.  There are awesome possibiliites in that land that were only lightly scratched by Braid.  One thing I would "guarantee"--all 3 courses would be very different and very, very good.

I think this is partly what I was trying to get at when I wrote the stuff about "mutable matrices" that confused everybody on this site, including me......

Cheers

Rich

Tom MacW

If Hunter really wrote (or believed) that "natural hazards" are "THE essence of the game" (my emphasis) as well as the words in the quote Mark cites above, than he was a very confused young man, which I am sure he was not.  Enlighten me, if you wish.

[Mark_Fine]

There are a number of ways you can intrepret Hunter's comments.  Maybe that is in part why you have modern architects doing different things while at the same time each one is saming they are following in the practices of the golden age guys and doing what they would be doing today.  

Hunter did not say natural features were bad but he did imply they can be a liability.  My guess is that if a site has a few good natural features Hunter felt the architect might feel obligated to find use for them at the possible expense of the other holes.   Whereas on a featureless site Hunter felt the architect was not constrained and can "build" as he pleases with no restrictions.  

A modern architect could intrepret this as being given licence to just build what they want (since they have the tools available to them now that Hunter and his fellow architects did not) and not be constrained by natural features on a site.  

It's clearly a lot more work (and Hunter implies this) to work in the natural features.  You could see many of the modern guys saying, "why bother with all that in the field effort when I can just design it right here on my computer and have it built just the way I want it"!  

One more comment to add here - We often here the statement that "All the good sites are taken to build golf courses".  Doesn't sound to me like Hunter would ever buy into that arguement does it??
Mark

[Mike_Young]

TE Paul,
Very good summary on Hunter and "flatland".

But before we go further let's define flatland.  Do we mean a piece of land with no elevation changes in one plane.  Or do we mean a piece with say maybe 10 ft in random elevation changes.  On a very very flat ,level piece you must have a place to move the water which means that somewhere downstream you have to have fall or either flooding is a problem.  Would you agree??  For me there would be a significant difference in a flat piece of land in a mountain meadow and a flat piece at sea level as to what an architect can accomplish.  I am assuming that "flat " refers to the plane of the land.  Could it be that Hunter is describing a flat, LEVEL piece of land?  Yet, maybe some course we describe, such as Friars Head, are built on a piece of flat yet tilted terrain??  I think that level may be what he is describing when he uses the word"wholly".
Mike

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Yes, Mark is just making a point or two and so am I. His point is an interesting one to make and he goes on to say that it seems to him that "natural features can be overrated and at times a nuisance."

My point is that I don't think that Hunter felt that natural features were "overrated". At times definitely some of them, depending on what they were, could be problematic (if that's a nuisance) to use for golf or work around when building a golf course. If they were the type that were problematic to him, I'm sure he would have been just as quick to take them out as some of those today are if he could have done it back then. But that's not my point at all. That may be Mark's point, though, and as I just said, if the features are problematic then yes, he's right about what he says about both then and now!

My point is that all natural features can't be looked at the same way, obviously, and Hunter, like many of his contemporaries, that thought as he did, saw the value in natural features that could be used for golf, and in some very clever and interesting ways, even if that took time and effort and involved complexities. And in that way he did not think natural features were "overrated". That's my point! And there are a number of architects today that look at the subject the same way as I think Hunter and some of his contemporaries did. I know they do because I know them, I've watched them work and I've talked to them about this very subject.

It's true though that other architects see the ease of designing holes on a computer or whatever and just applying those designs to sites and wiping interesting natural features away in the process. That's Ok if that's what they want to do and that's what the client and the golfers who are going to play the course want!

I just happen to like the type of designer who generally spends the time on the site and not in front of the computer when designing and building his courses. I just happen to feel that things tend to work out better if the available time is spent on site. If they do that they tend to pick up more about the site and it's available natural features of all kinds, big, small and in between and certainly because they're looking for them. The history of golf architecture would seem to suggest that, with clearly a few notable exceptions. That's my point and I'm not saying I'm right and others are wrong--it's just what I like the best.

And as for other routing possibilities and designs on good and great golf courses that may be better than what's there, or ideal, I guess that could be so. But I'd rather spend my time learning why the good and great ones are that way and why others that could be or should be aren't.

Could Friar's Head be a better course or a better routing somehow? Maybe, but I wouldn't focus much on that because what's there is magnificent. Bill Coore, BTW, was not the only man to have done a routing on the property that is now Friar's Head. And don't ask me who the others were--I'm not going to tell you because at this point it's meaningless--at least to me!

What turned out looks to be magnificent; the architects are happy with it, the owner is, and very likely the members will be too because likely all of them were looking for a site-sensitve golf course maximizing the natural features of that land. And as Pat Mucci will tell us what's important in the grand scheme of things is that those who pay the bills and make the decisions get what they want! He's definitely right about that!

[TEPaul]

Mike:

My sense is that by "wholly flat land" Hunter is describing land that really has no identifiable natural features to use for golf design, whether on a mountain meadow, with 10ft of random elevation change, as you say, or something like Talking Stick. Anyway, I think that's the way Mark Fine is presenting this topic--a site devoid of natural features--a "blank canvas", in other words!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
I'd love to enlighten you, but I'm a very poor typest and its tiring to type out an entire book. But since it is unlikely you will ever pick up the book and read it, I will attempt to highlight what he said and attempt to put his thoughts into context. The exerpt that Mark exerpted from Strawn's book that Strawn exerpted from Hunter's was from a chapter called 'Things of First Importance'. At the end of the chapter Hunter summerized his points of 'first importance':

1.Select well-drained slightly rolling land. Desirable contours are a valuable asset. They should consist of gentle upheavals in an area comparatively flat.

2.Avoid land with steep slopes and hills tiresome to climb. Territory broken with deep ravines, streams of water and out-croppings of rock is not desirable.

3.The most desirable soil is well-drained, sandy loam, porous enough to dry quickly....

The short experpt regarding flat land directly follows a long explanation of why an architect should avoid severe land and really should be considered in that context.

As far as natural hazards being the essense of the game, Hunter explained the golf originated on the links-land and without the the thrills and drama created by natural hazards he believes we would have no golf - it never would have survived. 'Let us but ask ourselves why golf originated on links-land and immediately it becomes clear that without hazards there would have been no golf. This glorious game was born there, and not in any one of a thousand other places, where it might have been played, because of the many hazards to be found there.......meadows were not chose for the birth place of golf. Sportmen were not attracted to these charming but hazardless fields. Instead they went to those crumpled and corrugated areas along the wind-swept dunes.'

He goes on to explain the psyche of these men and their seafaring background, and their strenous battle with the nature, comparing the unpredictable sea with the unequal penelties of the natural hazards - which is the essense of the game. Stating 'had it been been left to the men of the pastures, golf would have never been born, and if it is allowed to degenerate in their hands it will disappear'.

I think when taken in context Hunter's views are not confusing or contradictory. Although flat land was generaly thought to be something to be avoided, Hunter believed flat land should be considered because first of all it was preferable to severe land and secondly because it could be easily adapted, providing great flexiblity when routing over a complex site -- not unlike the flatish holes on the Friars Head. To state he felt natural hazards were over-rated is inaccurate and to state he preferred flat land to land that is naturally undulating is also inaccurate.

Let me recommend the book - not only would you appreciate his interesting A&C influenced mind, I think you would also enjoy his views of St.Andrews.

[Rich_Goodale]

Thanks Tom

I must admit I think Hunter is off base regarding his thoughts on the origination of golf on the links.  It seems far more likely to me that it was played there because the land was of little value for any other use rather than because of some sort of atavistic desire to conquer natural hazards.  Also, have you ever tried to walk through a Scottish meadow in the rainy season (i.e. most of hte year)?  But, of course, I could be wrong.....

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Those were not his thoughts on the origin of the game, that comes in the first chapter 'Ante Scriptum'. Those were his thoughts on the nature of hazards, the attitudes of the first golfers and the reason the game survived.

[John_D._Bernhardt]

Mike Young I appreciate your email and would love to get together with you. You are only an hour and 15 min from me in alexandria. I am happy to meet you up there or down here. My phone number is 337 266 2344.  Rich, Mike et al, I believe a piece of property with rolling features and 15 to50 feet of so of topography make for ideal inland golf. I have spent the last 4 years searching such a piece.  ( this piece has 20 plus feet) I can find flat land anywhere in this area. This is a statement as to how much importance i place on trying to avoid a piece of flat land.

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom

Did I misread this quote from Hunter which you gave us above, or did you misquote him.......?

'Let us but ask ourselves why golf originated on links-land and immediately it becomes clear that without hazards there would have been no golf. This glorious game was born there, and not in any one of a thousand other places, where it might have been played, because of the many hazards to be found there.......meadows were not chose for the birth place of golf. Sportmen were not attracted to these charming but hazardless fields. Instead they went to those crumpled and corrugated areas along the wind-swept dunes.'

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
No you didn't misread the quote, only that the quote was in the context of his views on the role of hazards and in the first chapter Hunter goes into depth his theories on the origins of the game. You should read what he has to say about Dornoch!  

[Gib_Papazian]

Flat golf course that knocked me out with its architecture:

Westhampton.  

It never has to get any better than that.

[Rich_Goodale]

John B

If I were a developer, I would look for rolling land too, but I would also reserve to right to use a D-8 or two to improve on the nature of that rolling land and to optimize the golfing expereince.

Tom MacW

When Hunter says......

" This glorious game was born there (on links land), and not in any one of a thousand other places, where it might have been played, because of the many hazards to be found there, etc."

......he was NOT talking about the "origin of the game."?

Curious.

Nevertheless, I'd still be somewhat interested in what you think he had to say about Dornoch.......