[Josh Tarble]

Without context, I think NGLA did look a little jarring on TV.  In fact, watching it with my non-golfing father, he commented on how weird the berm looked on #17.  However, he also thought it looked fantastic - and with a little explanation of the theory behind the course, seemed to be genuinely interested in the design.

My opinion, is that NGLA seems to be the perfect melding of engineering and minimalism.  The features that were created were done so only to maximize the strategic concepts and playing properties.  While the best of the land was left untouched, I especially noticed it on #17 (as I got to see more of that hole than any other).  The fairway looked crumpled, firm and natural - flowing perfectly into the green. However, the berm and bunkers were very engineered but supremely strategic and really forced the players to commit to their chosen shot.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly,

On Thursday afternoon, I spent about 45 minutes with all of the Walker Cup caddies from NGLA, a great crew of knowledgeable fellows, many of whom have caddied for me wheni've played NGLA.

They were surprised by how few rounds the GB&I team had played at NGLA.

I'm pretty sure they played Pine Valley, Bayonne and other courses, but they didn't spend much time playing NGLA.

Saturday morning, while on the 6th tee, I ran into a very good player who's a member of NGLA and we watched all four groups play # 5 and # 6.
We commented on how important local knowledge is at NGLA.
He named a number of very good players who could beat him every where else, but not at NGLA, due to his body of knowledge and playing experience at NGLA.  We saw some "management" mistakes, and when I told him what the caddies had told me, he said, there's no way the GB&I team could win with so little playing experiences under their belt.

We talked about how different the course plays without wind, with the typical trade winds and with other winds and that you couldn't load that into your data base without playing the course under those conditions.  We also discussed the impact on play, of increased wind velocity.

When each member of the GB&I team was introduced, they received the same applause as the American team members, and when good shots were hit, they received applause and verbal accolades, so, I'm at a loss regarding the basis of their sentiments.

The crowds I was with were polite, informed, appreciative and sportsmen like.

P.S.   it was nice to see and chat with you and your son

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

I typed a lengthy reply but lost it.

I'll repost later today

[Jason Thurman]

Well, it's not exactly like Ernest Hemingway losing his manuscript.

Even God is trying to stop the green spam. At least the rest of the forum knows that they have about 3 hours left for intelligent discussion before this topic gets completely filibustered.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I am very surprised at the negative tone the Brits have taken toward this course, its members, and the type of people that attended the event; not really certain why there is so much hatred for it and its people.

KBM,

Are you referring to the comments made in this thread, or something that was said/written in the British press in the run-up/aftermath of the WC?

I haven't read anything of that nature myself.

[Terry Lavin]

This is the great dichotomy of golf architecture.   We worship at the altar of minimalism but are blown away by the sharp lines and angles and templates of MacDonald-Raynor courses!  (I know I am!)

Pithy and quite accurate, as usual.

[Mark Pearce]

Kelly,

Are you seriously extrapolating a genaral dislike for NGLA amongst Brits from the writings of John Huggan?

[RJ_Daley]

I think that Sean's 2 points and Adam's 3rd, Wild Bill's observations along with KBM's posts all make a great deal of sense to me.  

One thing I was wondering in regards to the manufactured lines and angles, along with placement of the hazards, particularly in the flatter areas, is the context of the ongoing building and tweaking the course design at its inception in its time period of 1907-1915.  Obviously the idea of templating or recreating the playing strategies of the iconic golf holes and corridors that CB studied and as he intended to recreate them on this land parcel required the need for shaping material.  Then, when one considers the tools of earth moving that were at their disposal, along with engineer-surveyor Raynor's unfamiliarity with golf course's of the British Isle's origin in general, and one might see how the manufactured hard line, unnatural look came into being.  Their was a great deal of need for manual labor.  I'm not sure what dredge and earth carts on tracks were, although George Bahto has at least one or more photo's in his book, "The Evangelist of Golf", showing the rudimentary and clunky earthmoving apparatus of the day from the work at Lido.

So, with a keen understanding of the strategy and placement of hazards and angles that CB brought back, along with the need for feature shaping, green's platform embankments and teeing grounds and such, was born the sharp and manufactured angles.  One only need look at the many courses of GB built away from the links land dunes that were constructed in-land with the era of geometric shapes of bunkers and such to see that the manufactured and angular geometry of the game hadn't met the more advanced technology of earthmoving and shaping with more artistry.  While it would seem Dr. MacKenzie had it more on his repitoire of shaping in those days to mimic nature, most other archies did not incorporate that aspect of shaping to mimic or compliment nature so much, and it was more about digging pits for hazards and placing them for playing strategical effect rather than the aesthetics involved.  

So, with NGLA being such a new entry on the U.S. golf scene on such a large scale, and lack of a tradition or historical evolution of blending artistic complimenting of artificial earth works with natural surroundings, we got this more manufactured look with great playing strategic angles and geometric shapes. As noted, CB and perhaps Raynor paid attention to the look from eye level and that may have mitigated the angular and manufactured look a little, but the views from above make the geometry and manufactured look more dramatic. At least that is my take...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Well, it's not exactly like Ernest Hemingway losing his manuscript.

Even God is trying to stop the green spam. At least the rest of the forum knows that they have about 3 hours left for intelligent discussion before this topic gets completely filibustered.

Enjoy your gloating while you can, you'll soon be licking your wounds.

But in the meantime, why haven't you answered my questions and cited exactly which features look artificial.
That's what you stated, so you should have no difficulty identifying all of those artificial features.

Cite the artificial features on a hole by hole basis.
That should be easy for an expert such as yourself

[John Mayhugh]

I was fortunate enough to be there on Friday and Saturday.  I watched almost nothing of the practice rounds, but spent the entire day walking the course and seeing something new every time.  I'm not sure how much benefit there is to walking all courses, but like The Old Course this one shows you so much more when you have time to spend looking around.  Like Jeff Warne, I'm reconsidering my attitude towards looking at a course w/o playing, though I cannot see ever choosing walking over playing.

While I was there, I talked to quite a few of the visitors from overseas. Perhaps they were just being polite, but I heard nothing but praise for the course and the event.  People seemed to appreciate how unique and special National is.  After seeing comments earlier on this thread, I took a look at Huggan's tweets.  He's all caught up in the difference in visitor practices between US and UK clubs.  I'm sure that all of us would like to be able to go play places like National whenever we want, but the members haven't chosen that approach. It does not make the course any less special in the world, but nor does it make it more special.

National is the most fascinating, compelling course I have seen in person.  I cannot see how anyone would be able to visit there and not be blown away.  

I'm not sure if all of the GB&I players took local caddies, but most did.  I had a laugh with Alex Fitzpatrick (Matthew's younger brother) over his being fired (sacked) after the US Amateur win, but all agreed that local knowledge was important.  In the play that I saw, both sides were a bit too reluctant to alter approach shot play (i.e. wedge distance doesn't always mean you have to fly a wedge there) based on the hole positions.  

[Jason Thurman]

I'm not sure if all of the GB&I players took local caddies, but most did.  I had a laugh with Alex Fitzpatrick (Matthew's younger brother) over his being fired (sacked) after the US Amateur win, but all agreed that local knowledge was important.  In the play that I saw, both sides were a bit too reluctant to alter approach shot play (i.e. wedge distance doesn't always mean you have to fly a wedge there) based on the hole positions.  

It was great to see a course where angles mattered even for elite players (and I consider Walker Cup players elite), and also great to see firm and fast on display. It's unfortunate that coverage was relegated to two hours a day on cable channels, and also unfortunate the the announcers waited to extoll the virtues of fast and firm until the outcome was decided. But it was still refreshing.

I watched a bit on Sunday in the tavern at my club after finishing a round. The course was clearly the star of the show, as members were asking a lot of questions about it and discussing their thoughts on the features. While there were a few puzzled looks ("Who would want to be a member of a course with bunkers so deep they need stairs!?!"), there were also a lot of intrigued ones ("Wow, I didn't know Shinnecock had other great courses next door").

For the record, there are at least 20 bunkers at our club with grass faces at least 5-10 feet deep, so it's a bit of a funny criticism to hear in our clubhouse.

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

I thought the conduct of the players and spectators was exemplary, so I'm puzzled by any negative comments regarding same.

While the networks seem to have mastered televising the PGA Tour, I'm not so sure that they've perfected how to present match play and the golf course.

The paucity of coverage on #'s 1, 2, 3 and 4 would seem to confirm same.

Is there any more scary first green in golf than # 1.

And # 3, the Alps and # 4 the Redan, how can you not televise play on those holes.

Ditto 6, 7 and 8.

I think the PGA tour and Major telecasts are focused on the end result, the drama on # 18, whereas match play builds to a crescendo/conclusion, not with the score on any one hole, but with the collection of holes.

The cameras missed much of the genius of CBM

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, there's a whole discussion happening around you.
Nobody wants to watch you derail ANOTHER thread.

If by derail, you mean to question and contest your opinion of the golf course, an opinion gleened solely from watching a limited telecast of the Walker Cup on the TV in your club's grille, then yes.

And, if you think you're going to divert the focus from NGLA to other courses, by claiming that I'm derailing the thread, that won't happen.
This thread is about NGLA, and not any other course.
You, and you alone introduced other courses when you posted those photos of other courses.

You clearly stated your position about NGLA, an opinion based on infinitesimal and limited exposure to the course itself.
An opinion based on views of the golf course as seen through a perspective other than that as seen by the golfer's eye.

So, which specific features are or look artificial ?

Please cite them, with specificity, on a hole by hole basis so that we can discuss them in ernest.

Start with hole # 1.
What features seem "artificial" to you ?

Or, if you'd prefer to work backwards, start with # 18.
What features seem artificial to you ?  The Clubhouse ?  The flagpole ?

Go outside and play golf or something.

I'd rather have you provide evidence supporting your opinion, an opinion gleened from grille room viewing.

If you really want to call NGLA's appearance "natural," that's your prerogative.

It's not just my perogative, it's my opinion based on innumerable play of the golf course over forty years............ as compared to your opinion, based solely on a telecast as viewed from your grille room.

It's obvious from your previous post that you have no sense of context whatsoever, and my bet is that real and untouched nature is much too "unwashed" for your tastes so you probably don't have a good frame of reference for evaluating whether something resembles it or not.

"No sense of context" ? ?  ?

You can't be that big of a moron.
"Sense of context" ?
You're sole context is based upon your interpretation of the views presented by the cameras as you watched the Walker Cup from your grille room.
My context is based upon hundreds of rounds over 40 years.

If I had to hazard a guess regarding context and your opinion, I'd suspect that you were overserved

Admittedly, it is very difficult for a New Yorker to have any real recollection of what "natural" looks like. I guess you probably think the Statue of Liberty looks natural since you can only tell that it's manmade when you look at it in full scale and full color, as otherwise it pretty much looks like a person wearing funny clothes.

This shows how little you really know.

I'm not a "New Yorker".
Never lived there.

But, Charles Blair Macdonald was a New Yorker.
How many courses have you designed/altered/renovated ?
How does your body of work stack up to his ?
How does you ability to blend a golf course into its surroundings compare to his ?

And, I can assure you that my "architectural eye" and ability to discern features, natural and manufactured are far, far keener than yours.
And, I can assure you that my familiarity with NGLA is exponentially greater than yours, even if you did stay in a Holiday Express last night.

Your "The features only look manmade if you look at them!" argument is akin to a two year old who believes he can hide from others by covering his eyes.

Well, if you don't look at them, how can you tell if they're manmade of not ?  
Oh, I know, ask the guys in the grille room who are looking at them.
They'll know.

It is entertaining though, as always, to watch you come up with this crap.

I see, when asked to support your moronic position you try to divert and avoid the questions and the issue.

So again, cite for us, with specificity, those features that look artificial at NGLA.

Start on hole # 1 or hole # 18 and work your way through the course and share with us your abundant knowledge of the features as they appear to the golfer as he plays his round.

Share with us, your infinite wisdom, gleened from a few beers and an occasional glance at the TV in your grille room.

We're waiting

[DMoriarty]

I thought there were some really 'clunky' landscape features which may have been acceptable in 1911, . . .

I think it may be a mistake to assume the look today is exactly as it was in the beginning.  Here are some photos of NGLA circa 1911 . . . .

[Joe Hancock]

I love NGLA. But, if it were left to nature in an unmaintained state, starting today, how long would it be before you couldn't see any evidence of it being a golf course previously? I think it would be easy to see the evidence well into the future, assuming trees wouldn't take over the property. So my opinion is that it isn't natural.

Natural or not, why does it matter? It's great golf.

Joe

[RJ_Daley]

I think that is a pretty interesting point, Joe.  Maybe this isn't the right thread to explore that idea and maybe merits a new thread.  But, I for one, would be interested in a list of courses that NLE, that have been fallow for 30 or more years where the ground is still basically there and the old bones can or can not be found, depending on how natural the site was before being abandoned.  

Here in Green Bay there is a course that is still a heavily wooded with FWs and decent green platforms that is the remaining 9 holes of a previously 18 hole course.  It was a private club and half the land was taken by UWGB.  The half that was taken was a prairie 9 holes, completely opposite from the wooded 9 that remains.  I have gone out there many times in areas that are still native prairie and some of the old greens and tee boxes can still be found if you know what you are looking for among the foot and a half or two foot native grass.  Interestingly, there isn't much broad leaf that ever took hold on that prairie, once maintained golf turf.  It is about 40 years that it lies abandoned.  But, it was not a highly manufactured course either.  It was basically prairie turned over and little shaping of green sites and tee boxes in an otherwise natural meadow.  

So, given the climate and turf that is there, I'd have to think that NGLA might be something like finding the old remnants of a civilization past if we get into a planet of the apes scenario, where the top of the Statute of Liberty, and the Alps hole and road hole bunker along with other features of NGLA are still there for someone that knew what fields of golf were about back in the pre-armageddon days.  

[Sean_A]

Its quite clear NGLA was built, not found, but as Joe says, Natural or not, why does it matter? It's great golf.

Ciao

[Jon Wiggett]

It never ceases to amaze me how people go on about courses needing to look natural but are fine with bunkers on clay soils That this includes Mr. Marty is a shock to me but then he is in good company as Tom D worries about mounds but not bunkers as well

Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

Jon, Sean,

I think there is a big difference between making something look as though it has always been there (i.e. natural).... And then that ugly middle ground of containment mounding and maintenance friendly curves that are the long distant relation to "natural" looking shaping...

Bunkers on clay sites - well you just have to live with them, don't you. Because without them, you can't create a "great" golf course apart from on the very rare occasions that the topography & vegetation can do all your bidding for you. Either that or you end up having to create those shapes and features that allow some strategy in to the game.

Plus obvious man-made objects dotted around a very natural landscape can sometimes look very appealing - like a sculpture exhibition in the botanic gardens...

[Adam Lawrence]

The fact that bunkers on clay soil are unnatural doesn't mean they have to look it!

[Sean_A]

I think there is a big difference between making something look as though it has always been there (i.e. natural).... And then that ugly middle ground of containment mounding and maintenance friendly curves that are the long distant relation to "natural" looking shaping...

Yes, I have long had a distaste for what I call mimicing nature.  Because nature is often circular in shape is no reason to think mounding will pass the grade.  Why not be bold even if there can be no mistake about the origins of the feature?  

Bunkers on clay sites - well you just have to live with them, don't you. Because without them, you can't create a "great" golf course apart from on the very rare occasions that the topography & vegetation can do all your bidding for you. Either that or you end up having to create those shapes and features that allow some strategy in to the game.

Very tricky this is, and one reason I think clay sites require extra care in design. If ever there is a site which should feature the complete range of features, a clay site it is.  Because so much would often have to be built, there must be a strong temptation to mimic nature - often resulting in a very bland course.  

Plus obvious man-made objects dotted around a very natural landscape can sometimes look very appealing - like a sculpture exhibition in the botanic gardens...

I agree completely.  Sometimes, it makes sense to push the boat out with shaping features.  I think many of the courses and features we love today that are a bit on the wild side may still look extraordinary today, originally they must have been extraordinary x2.  In other words, archies have to look to the future for their courses to be complete.  I am not sure that is the case these days. My favourite course on the planet is a shaping nightmare and the contrast of green sites with surrounds is jarring.  But the simple concept works and has a visual appeal that is unique.

Adam - if bunkers aren't natural to clay soil, exactly how does one make them look natural?  

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Here are some photos of NGLA circa 1911 . . . .

In this circa 1911 photo would those be vertically positioned railway sleepers across the front of the green?
All the best.

[Adam Lawrence]

Adam - if bunkers aren't natural to clay soil, exactly how does one make them look natural?  

I was partially joking, but it seems to me that one doesn't normally look at a piece of property and say 'that's sandy soil' or 'that's clay'. I've remarked on many occasions, in the US and elsewhere, at vegetation (especially pines) growing on clay that, if your experience was solely UK, you would think normally mark out sandy property. Even on sandy sites, it's not that common to see loads of exposed sand. And outside the links it's pretty rare to have bunkers that are filled with native sand. So I don't really see why sand bunkers should stand out more on a clay property, if they're built with an eye to the natural contours (ie not cut into obviously artificial mounds) and they don't dominate the view.

[Sean_A]

Adam

I think one of the inherent issues with clay is the bunker can only be dug so deep.  The usual choice is to either leave it two feet deep (crap no?) or create a berm to play over.  Usually, these berms aren't tied in very well with the surrounding land probably because of lack of funds and/or lack of imagination.  That isn't to say the bunkering can't look attractive, but looking natural is another story.  Very few courses have sand bunkers which could be mistaken for being natural so its never been a big deal for me.  Unless there are too many bunkers or unusually ugly bunkers, I can suspend my disbelief for 4 hours, but I would rather see bold solutions for aesthetics rather than the same old mimicy job that we see all too often. This is one of the area that Dye excels.  On the surface from a natural PoV, some of his work is miles out, but from a golf PoV, it can be creative and attractive in its own way.  

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

Adam

I think one of the inherent issues with clay is the bunker can only be dug so deep.  The usual choice is to either leave it two feet deep (crap no?) or create a berm to play over.  

I think that depends on the terrain. If you have enough contour that you can find somewhere to run a drain out of it, you can go deeper. How does Oakmont keep its bunkers dry? (I haven't been to the course). Presumably they are all drained.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()