[Mark_Fine]

I remember walking a potential site for a golf course one time with Gil Hanse.  One of the comments he made to me was that he was happy that much of the site was "not farmland" because farmland generally has lost most of its natural contours as they have been plowed right out of it!  

Given that many of our "classic" golf courses were built on "farmland" (presumably because it was a lot less expensive to build a course where there was little clearing to be done), don't you ever wonder if the "natural" contours and features we often talk about on these courses were really natural at all??  

Maybe the farmers who originally cleared the land and plowed it for farming should be given more of the credit
Mark

[Craig_Rokke]

Interesting post. I guess farmland can consist of a nice, flowing, topography, but it make sense that some of the natural character and nuances could easily vanish over many seasons of farming.

[Mark_Fine]

Craig,
It will be interesting to see what comments are posted on this.  My gut feel is that it might not generate much interest because it somewhat goes against the common believe that the golden age architects "always" worked with the natural contours of the land.  What's natural about farmland thats been plowed and graded year on year?  And we know many of the early on golf courses were built on farmland so what's the deal?
Mark

[TEPaul]

The land that was farmed prior to having golf courses built on it did not have natural contour "plowed or graded" out of it. And this is most definitely true of the land farmed prior to the construction of the early golf courses and the "Golden Age" golf courses.

There're a couple of logical reasons for this. One, farmers in that day did not really have the ability to recontour (or regrade) land and even if they did there was no reason to do that. They did remove trees and occassionally smallish rock and that was it (if the rock was too big they left it--I know because I live on a Pennsylvania farm and there are farms all around me and I've also been running equipment and tractors all my life!).

But there's a better reason why farmers did not recontour and regrade land and that has to do with the topsoil! Topsoil is everything to a farmer and they try not to disturb it (other than to till it for crops), they try not to wear it out (unless they want to reduce the life-span of their farmland and they certainly don't want to do that unless they want to go broke)!

And if that's not enough the equipment they used did not have the ability to recontour or regrade (unless your talking about something like a little bump which is about an inch high and two inches wide!).

If they could have recontoured or regraded (even today with grading equipment) they would not do it because they would have to remove the top soil and then put it back again and why would a farmer want to do that?

Golf designers, however, in most cases, will remove the topsoil, regrade and recontour the land and then put the topsoil back on! I once asked Bill Coore if it was feasible to just leave the land alone and not remove the topsoil and lay a golf course on the land. He said yes it was if the natural land (farmed or unfarmed) was interesting enough for a golf design. Coore was looking for natural contour (which was natural and unaffected despite the fact farming had taken place on it) that was both beautiful for what he described as its "twists and turns" and also for what he could imagine it would do to a golf ball. Natural drainage and the DEGREE of slope and contour is the other consideration to a golf designer looking at natural land.

At the very least a golf designer could thank previous farmers for clearing the land of trees (and sometimes small rock) from what he is going to use for his hole corridors!

So it never was the farmer who took natural contour out of the land. But it is the golf designer who will put his own contour into natural land that never had enough of it to suit him in the first place unless he just wants to go with the gradual slope and contour that farms used as they found it and never disturbed!

[Gary Smith (Guest)]

Very good post, Mr. Paul. Topsoil is everything to a real farmer. It takes something like a 100+ years for nature to build just a few inches of topsoil.

[Mike_Young]

I agree with TE Paul.  But I think what Gil Hanse may be speaking of is the "terracing" that we see on many farms. My home course,Athens Country Club" is a Ross course built in 1925 and it was built on farmland.  The terraces still remain.  But I still sort of like farmland for building.  I think if the farmer thought it was subtle enough to farm then it's probably ok for golf in many cases.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Good post.  But I think of most farmland as situated on relatively flat and/or rolling terrain.  You don't see too many farms that have land that looks like #14 a Pacific Dunes do you?  

I guess my point is if that land was "farmland" it would have been smoothed over to a certain degree.  I believe that is what Gil was getting at!
Mark

[Jeff_McDowell]

TEPaul,

Clearly you know a lot about farming and its economics. The question of what is a natural contour is still valid.

I can think of two things that would change the predevelopment contours. First is clearing trees. If you've ever cut down trees and ripped out a lot of stumps, you know how disruptive it is to the existing grade. The area definitely has to be smoothed over. I can't imagine how hard that was prior to bulldozers.

The other is erosion. Once the native vegetation is gone (whether this is forest or prairie), and crops are harvested every fall, the soil is exposed to spring runoff and erosion. This may actually make the "natural" grade more interesting.

[Jeff_Lewis]

Interesting that at East Hampton GC, Coore and Crenshaw created the best holes, in very much of a Shinnecock fashion, in what had previously been farmland. So, I guess it is up to the architects to create contours without creating artificiality.

[Mark_Fine]

Jeff,
That's the heart of what I am getting it - How much is really the land and its "natural" contours vs. the architect and his shaping abilities,...?  I'm going to contend it's more the architect when it comes to building a golf course on farmland because in general I'd guess he has little in the way of "natural" golf holes to select from.  
Mark

[TEPaul]

Mark:

I should have asked Gil what he meant as I just had lunch with him. But my guess would be that he meant that much farmland is just not particularly interesting naturally for contour--that it isn't what the farmer or the farming has done to it--it's just that a lot of it just never had much interesting contour and natural feature in it in the first place--ever!

So whether the land was ever farmed or not really has very little to do with it and the golf architect is likely, in any case, to take the topsoil off, shape some interesting contour into the land and then put the topsoil back on. This is certainly the way I've seen the construction process go in almost all cases.

But I like Coore's remark that if the land has interesting contour, whether previously farmed or not, it would be possible to just lay the course on and not take the topsoil off since no shaping really needs to be done to the land (under the topsoil)!

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

I think I know the site you're talking about, and in that case the lower part of the property that had been farmed was almost dead flat.  I don't think that was the result of grading by farmers, necessarily, but probably more the fact that it was part of the natural valley formation along the creek.  But, you're right....some type of minimal shaping would have been required to build interesting golf holes on that part of the property.

If it is indeed that land I'm thinking of, you might also recall that I suggested that there was more than enough land on the upper part of the property for 18 holes on MUCH better, rolling land.

However, I also know exactly where Tom Paul is coming from here.  His proposed site at Ardrossan Farms did in fact have just ooodles of neat natural land, rolling terrain, and generally undisturbed knobs and features that just popped up and down all over the place.  I swear that on many of the proposed holes on the routing, we could have just cut a cup, mowed a green, and played away, AS IS.  

[Jeff_Lewis]

Mark,

The flip side of that would be LI National or Atlantic, where the artificiality of what was built in the field is totally apparent

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

Now we've come full cycle again and back to one of the earlier threads which is how do you shape some interest into featureless flat land (previously farmed or not) and still make it look like the architecture blends into the natural look of the site before the arcthitects arrived?

You're right about Coore & Crenshaw's back nine at Easthampton and Friar's Head's open farmland section too. It's brilliantly and sympathetically done, particularly at Friar's where they had to tie back in naturally with the other extremely dramatic topography up in the dunes section!

Nearby LI National looks like an unnatural eruption on the land when you drive by it. That doesn't really seem to cool to me but one should not make snap judgements that way either! One should go play the golf course and see how it does from the inside out instead of just looking at it from the outside in.

This is very much what Archie Struthers did at Twisted Dune! It looks similar to LI National, both courses being extremely shaped on naturally flat sites! Although I haven't played Twisted Dune, everyone I've talked to says once you get on the course it's great! Basically it seems like Archie created a "microcosim" and the golf course worked out really well!

[Mark_Fine]

Well it seems that most of us agree that farmland generally doens't have much in the way of natural features.  Is that a fair statement?  If that is the case, is it fair to assume that since many of the classic courses of yesteryear were built on farmland (featureless land), that the majority of the work on these properties was "created" by the architect and not natural?  Either that or else that picked farms with really wild terrain
Mark

[Jeff_McDowell]

Mark,

There are certainly some farms that are flat and featureless, and would require earthworks to make an interesting golf course. However, some farmland topography would make absolutely wonderful golf ground.

One thing I have noticed is that farmland in my area (upper midwest) is either absolutely flat, or wildly contoured with large elevation changes. Each scenario requires earthworks. There doesn't seem to be a middle ground.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mark,
After reading every post on this thread I have to ask you the same question my sons are fond of asking me: So what's your point?

Have certain features on classic courses been created?
- Of course.
Does this lessen the significance of these courses?  
-Of course not.
Could a course that is crap ever be considered classic?
-Of course not
Are there modern courses so good they will be classics?
-Of course
Should critics bash architects who take well featured sites and create crap?
-Of course
Should critics bash architects who take featureless sites and transform them into potential classics?
-Of course not
Should critics bash the waterfalls found in shopping malls?
-Of course not
Should critics bash the waterf--- ah, nevermind.

If you would like to see farmland that has tremendous features get on the NYS thruway from Albany to Syracuse.
Much of what you will see was formed when the Devonian Sea broke out of containment and roared south to the Atlantic. I can't recall how many million years ago this occured but what was left in the wake are hundreds of spectacular golf courses just waiting for players. .
(Only minor touch-up necessary)    

[George Pazin]

Having driven across the (occasionally) great state of Pennsylvania at least a half dozen times a year for the last 15+ years, I can tell you for certain that there is plenty of farmland that has character. Not just flat land, featureless land, or land with wild artificially induced elevation changes. One trip across the PA Turnpike(if you can stomach the incessant contruction & horrible road conditions) will be enough to convince anyone of this. In fact, I am continually amazed at the type on land on which people are willing to farm. Anyone that tells you this land is featureless is just making excuses...

[TEPaul]

GeorgeP makes a real good point here when remarking about the so-called farms or farmland of Pennsylvania. Almost all the farms in the state have quite intreresting natural topography and it's sort of amazing some of the land they used to farm.

In that vein have any of you ever analyzed some of the farmland in Switzerland, for instance? Have you ever looked at the topography of some of the small and medium sized farms in Ireland? Certainly much of it could be wonderful for golf and natural golf topography!

The same is true of the farms of Pennsylvania at least many many of them. They are far different looking and different topography than you might see in the Midwest, for instance, with a single farmhouse and outbuildings in the middle of miles and miles of flat farm ground stretching over the horizon. And there is another interesting variation involved here too. For some of the so-called farms that are a bit closer in to some of the general metropolitan areas that are called farms (and farmland) are actually sort of a cross between a regular farm and an "estate". As such they are more sophisticated and their land and topography and interesting features can be far more varied and unique.

Ardrossan Farm is certainly called a "farm" and they do farm parts of it still but if you saw it you'd think you were in England at the estate of some bigtime Duke or something. Many of these so-called farms (and their (farm) land) are extremely interesting for natural golf. Bill Coore's comment within minutes after seeing Ardrossan was not just that the natural land was great for golf but the entire place had "instant maturity"!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
I think I see what your trying to say - although I think the others have a better understanding of the lay of the land and the realities of farming - to a point I agree with you. Your question asking if many of the features and contours were natural or not is a good one. But the fact that there is a question is the most telling, its hard to tell. I have no doubt that some may have been man made, but most were not -- the fact that those architects recognized and concentrated on the interesting natural features and undualtions had to assist them when they were forced to produce their own.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()