[Marty Bonnar]

I didn't think so. I thought there were some really 'clunky' landscape features which may have been acceptable in 1911, but looked really artificial and even jarring today. I still loved the look though, and thought it was a marvellous history lesson. Just please don't anybody design or build anything similar today.
And no, Patrick, I've never been, so bite me,
F.

[Tim Liddy]

Hi Martin,

Will always remember our time together when you were kind enough to show me one of MacKenzie's early golf courses.

I have always liked this simple quote from one of my favorite landscape painters and think it also applies to McDonald's work.

"Nature is random and it is your job to give it order"
Russell Chatham

[Mike Sweeney]

You are going to take a hit on this one FBD   Now watching the replay as I could not get out to Southampton and it looks fabulous to me. Most fun course I have ever played, and that is due in part to those features.

The perfect match play course, even for long hitters.

[Bill_McBride]

When you are playing there, it is not jarring at all, just one wonderful hole after another.  The greens are very tricky, with lots of interesting contours.  

[Marty Bonnar]

Tim,
A pleasure. Come on back soon. I still haven't been back to play your new holes at the Dukes.
Brer Mike,
I agree it 'looks' fabulous and all, but it also 'looks' totally man-made. Not a huge issue or problem, just not what the good doctor and other 'proper' architects would do/have done. Woah, controversial!
Unc,
Agreed, but there were too many things which I found lacking in artistry. I do give it some slack, but the old boy was here for bloody ages and should have learned more!
F.

[Mike Sweeney]

I agree it 'looks' fabulous and all, but it also 'looks' totally man-made. Not a huge issue or problem, just not what the good doctor and other 'proper' architects would do/have done. Woah, controversial!
Unc,
Agreed, but there were too many things which I found lacking in artistry. I do give it some slack, but the old boy was here for bloody ages and should have learned more!
F.

There really are no courses in the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks family that look natural due to many of the angles that are featured in the bunkers. I personally think this is why they are so much fun to play.

Are you going to sell us how some sheep made this  



An argument can be made that the Doak/ Blue is the National of Streamsong in Florida, and the Red/Coore is the Shinnecock, so they are building them. Never been to Bandon, but Old Macdonald would be my first play....

[Michael Whitaker]

Tim,
A pleasure. Come on back soon. I still haven't been back to play your new holes at the Dukes.
Brer Mike,
I agree it 'looks' fabulous and all, but it also 'looks' totally man-made. Not a huge issue or problem, just not what the good doctor and other 'proper' architects would do/have done. Woah, controversial!
Unc,
Agreed, but there were too many things which I found lacking in artistry. I do give it some slack, but the old boy was here for bloody ages and should have learned more!
F.

Martin,

You are very correct... there are many features of NGLA and most other McDonald/Raynor courses that look manufactured or unnatural, because they are. The bunkering in particular is often unnatural looking with severe angles and steep banks.

Having said that, everything knits together perfectly and seems as smooth as silk within the context of playing the holes. It's the aerial shots that show up the awkward visual lines... you don't really see that from the ground.

[jeffwarne]

Tim,
A pleasure. Come on back soon. I still haven't been back to play your new holes at the Dukes.
Brer Mike,
I agree it 'looks' fabulous and all, but it also 'looks' totally man-made. Not a huge issue or problem, just not what the good doctor and other 'proper' architects would do/have done. Woah, controversial!
Unc,
Agreed, but there were too many things which I found lacking in artistry. I do give it some slack, but the old boy was here for bloody ages and should have learned more!
F.

I took my 13 year old son there today and to the opening ceremonies.

He has NO interest in golf architecture.
I NEVER walk courses without playing them.

After the opening ceremonies Friday night, we walked the course and both agreed it was awesome.
Today we walked it again, even though there were no matches on many of the holes we walked.

I don't think he knows it, but he's interested in architecture now
I turned around and he was looking in to see how deep the Road hole bunker was.
.........and I'm considering changing my policy regarding walking courses

NGLA is freaking awesome, and is the best it has been in my lifetime.

You should visit Martin.

[Bill_McBride]

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!)

[Mike Sweeney]

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!)

The other dichotomy for me personally is I don't care for Pete Dye courses but love MacRaynor courses....

I think "minimalism" is a sales pitch. I love courses on great land where little has to be done. Of course, I love Yale so that theory gets killed every time I tee it up in the rocks and clay of New Haven.  

[Bill_McBride]

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!)

The other dichotomy for me personally is I don't care for Pete Dye courses but love MacRaynor courses....

I think "minimalism" is a sales pitch. I love courses on great land where little has to be done. Of course, I love Yale so that theory gets killed every time I tee it up in the rocks and clay of New Haven.  

LOL.  See my post re: "Great dichotomy."   According to everything we espouse about minimalism over artificiality, we should detest NGLA and its ilk.  But.......

[Patrick_Mucci]

I didn't think so. I thought there were some really 'clunky' landscape features which may have been acceptable in 1911, but looked really artificial and even jarring today. I still loved the look though, and thought it was a marvellous history lesson. Just please don't anybody design or build anything similar today.
And no, Patrick, I've never been, so bite me,

Not surprised with your perception, proof positive that ignorance is bliss.

Would you identify what you perceived as the "clunky" landscape features ?

Especially the features that "looked really artificial and even jarring" ?

Would you also indicate the camera angle/location that led you to come to these perceptions/conclusions ?

[Jason Thurman]

There's nothing natural looking about MacRaynor shaping. It's pretty easy to tell where nature ends and the hand of man starts. Ditto for Dye, Langford & Moreau, and plenty of other architects that most of us love.

I like minimalism as much as anybody. But if there's no room in the world for those engineered features we saw at National during the Walker Cup, then our Kool Aid has gone rancid. That joint looked fantastic, though it's true that there's nothing minimalist about it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

There's nothing natural looking about MacRaynor shaping. It's pretty easy to tell where nature ends and the hand of man starts. Ditto for Dye, Langford & Moreau, and plenty of other architects that most of us love.

I like minimalism as much as anybody. But if there's no room in the world for those engineered features we saw at National during the Walker Cup, then our Kool Aid has gone rancid. That joint looked fantastic, though it's true that there's nothing minimalist about it.

Jason,

Have you ever been there and seen the golf course as seen thruogh the eyes of a golfer playing each and every hole ?

What specific features looked artificial ?

[Mark Saltzman]

There's nothing natural looking about MacRaynor shaping. It's pretty easy to tell where nature ends and the hand of man starts. Ditto for Dye, Langford & Moreau, and plenty of other architects that most of us love.

I like minimalism as much as anybody. But if there's no room in the world for those engineered features we saw at National during the Walker Cup, then our Kool Aid has gone rancid. That joint looked fantastic, though it's true that there's nothing minimalist about it.

Jason,

Have you ever been there and seen the golf course as seen thruogh the eyes of a golfer playing each and every hole ?

What specific features looked artificial ?

The WINDMILL.

[Eric_Terhorst]

I loved the look of the course on television.  It doesn't look "unnatural", it looks like a...wait for it...golf course! And a fascinating one at that.

Couple of questions for those that have played it--

1) why did the USGA allow removal of rocks from the bunkers as a local rule. On the telecast yesterday, I saw this occur and thought, surely if the members of NGLA wanted the rocks removed they would be gone.  If they don't want rocks removed from the bunkers, why should the USGA see the need to make a local rule covering this meddling with a hazard? Play it as it lies, no?

2) the "Eden" green looks huge--does it play at all like the original or more like a CB Macdonald original?

Thanks...

[Jason Thurman]

Pat, I prefer the term "engineered" over "artificial." I've not played National. I contextualized my post in reference to MacRaynor shaping in general. I've played several Raynor courses. I love the look of Raynor shaping. It's not natural looking, but I have no idea why anyone would complain about that in a vacuum. There damn sure isn't anything natural about stuff like this, but it still has excellent visual appeal:

















What I love about MacRaynor in general is that, while their shaping is obviously manmade in many spots, I find that their courses still generally follow an intuitive routing and locate greensites and fairway corridors in natural positions. As a result, the holes themselves sit beautifully on the land while the features really "pop" thanks to their sharp, geometric definition. It's a wonderful juxtaposition between what is natural and what is engineered, and the result is very appealing visually. I can't speak to National having never played it, but it certainly appears from photos and the coverage this weekend that it follows the same formula with excellent fairway corridors and greensites that take advantage of the natural terrain combined with shaped features that deviate from it.

[Sean_A]

FBD

For sure these Macnor courses look engineered, but the important aspects which set them apart is

1. There is no attempt to mimic nature - so the courses have a functional beauty which is just as attractive as natural beauty - if you are a golfer

2. The features are meant to be in play rather merely on the edges working as a frame

NGLA looks odd compared to most golfers' steady diet, but it looks incredibly interesting and very much like a golf course.

Ciao

[Adam Lawrence]

I think the question 'Why do many people whose general preference is for natural-looking courses really like the aesthetic of Macraybanks courses as well as their playability' is one of the most interesting in golf design. I've given it a fair bit of thought, and basically agree with Sean, except that I would add a third reason:

3. Most (not all, but must) of the obviously artificial features are relatively low-profile and thus don't jar so much on the eye. I contrast this to the sort of wavy artificial framing mounds seen on so many modern courses, which are far more intrusive. Straight lines may be rare in nature, but the clean nature of the MRB look doesn't interfere with the beauty of the rest of the golf course and landscape.

[Sean_A]

Adam

#3 is a good point.  Do you think time helped soften the "sharpness" of the lines or was NGLA always easier on the eye regards the engineered look?

Ciao

[Lyne Morrison]

NGLA is not only a tremendous golf course - it is Art.
It tugs at your heartstrings. It moves you.
Nothing clunky there.

I love the audacity of NGLA and I would love to replicate its features - yes even today given the opportunity and the maintenance budget.
It is what it is -  absolutely enchanting!

Lyne

[Greg Taylor]

Have a read of this regarding NGLA, great article, Bamberger on golf.com:

http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2013-walker-cup-showed-golf-its-best-when-it-hews-closely-its-scottish-roots


"You take what you want from this Walker Cup. This is what I’m taking. Less water. More brown. Wider fairways. Shorter holes. More fun. More match play. Less talk. More walking. More wind. More salty air.


Amen to that!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jason,

First you have to eliminate the photos that aren't photos of NGLA as they are irrelevant when discussing NGLA.

The photo of just the right corner of a huge 3rd green distorts the nature of the green/hole.
And, the fact is that that green and especially what's depicted in the photo is INVISIBLE to the golfer as he hits his approach from the fairway DZ.

With regard to the "Road Hole" bunker on # 7  and the photo you posted, you should know that the bunker is virtually invisible to the golfer's eye as he plays the hole on his second shot and approach.  It's only when you're on top of the feature that it reveals itself in full.

The next photo, depicting a portion of # 8 green doesn't reveal the land form to the left of the green, which when revealed, presents the 8th green as a natural feature within the global land form.

The next photo of # 11 green, taken from near the 12th tee is not what the golfer sees as he plays the hole.

Your lack of familiarity and dependence upon limited photos taken from but one vantage point inhibits your ability to grasp NGLA in it's true form.

You're like the three blind men examining an elephant.

You have to play NGLA, more than a few times to understand it's architecture, bold and especially, nuanced.

[Jason Thurman]

Pat, there's a whole discussion happening around you. Nobody wants to watch you derail ANOTHER thread. Go outside and play golf or something.

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

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

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Disclaimer: I haven't played, nor seen NGLA in person. I have set foot in NY state, but that was at Niagara Falls.  

I also wondered about the routing. I acknowledge that the back tees are generally pushed back into rather awkward positions, solely to increase yardage, but the teeing area for the 7th looks a bit squashed.

Some of the holes looked a bit cluttered. The 15th has bunker after bunker up the right side; are all these necessary? Penal architecture perhaps? And all those teeny weey bunkers on 17 and 1; couldn't most of them be filled in? If a modern day architect sprinkled a course with so many bunkers, I'd start to wonder if he had run out of ideas.

Having said all that, I'd love to play it someday and staring at a satellite image gives a very distorted view of any course.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()