News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #100 on: September 13, 2013, 10:19:16 AM »
Very good point, Lou.  Few, if any, of us are immune to the powers of common knowledge and conventional wisdom.

Pat

I asked you to read the title, and you read the text.  Naughty boy, you!

The title is a direct quote from MacKenzie, which summarized what he thought a great golf course ought to be.  MacDonald obviously thought differently.  Most of us can enjoy both philosophies and styles if they provide interesting golf.  That is the point of this thread.

As John Mayhugh rightly said, NGLA is a very fine golf course, but so is Pasatiempo, even through the two of them were designed by competent gentlemen with strongly contrasting styles and beliefs.  As your bosom buddy TE Paul would say, its's a great big world out there, but if you try to turn it into some sort of black and white fantasy world you take all the fun out of the game.  IMO.

Rich
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #101 on: September 13, 2013, 10:44:48 AM »
So far as I can tell, nobody is saying NGLA is a lesser course because of its engineered look.  Folks are merely saying its much easier to see how the course was manufactured then perhaps a more natural looking Doak course.  On the continuum or architecture NGLA looks more engineered than many other courses.  Engineered doesn't equate to ugly, well not to me anyway.  Is this some sort of taboo judgement to make?  Do MacRayBanks fans really find this truth upsetting?  Making mountains out of mole hills...

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #102 on: September 13, 2013, 11:28:50 AM »
Does these look natural?









Damned if I know. Sure look gorgeous, though.

And any comparison between these and the manufactured ugliness at many modern courses strikes me as overly simplistic.

In my work, I see a great deal of art. Some of it is beautiful, some of it is ugly. Some of it is natural, some of it is manufactured. There's no direct correlation between natural and beautiful, nor ugly and manufactured.

I thought NGLA looked beyond fantastic, far better than I ever dreamed. Made me feel sad I haven't had the opportunity to get there, while also inspired to dream more about the game. Can't ask for much more than that.
« Last Edit: September 13, 2013, 11:30:49 AM by George Pazin »
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

John Mayhugh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #103 on: September 13, 2013, 11:56:00 AM »
So far as I can tell, nobody is saying NGLA is a lesser course because of its engineered look. 

The original post seemed to have two main points:
1.  The course did not look like it was "indistinguishable from nature"
2.  "please don't anybody design or build anything similar today."

My simple thoughts:
1.  I have never played a course that was indistinguishable from nature.  NGLA and the other CBM/Raynor courses that I have played fit their landscape very well, even if there are features engineered to make the course more fun and/or challenging.  

2.  Why wouldn't we want loads more courses like NGLA built today???  If you are actually playing golf and not talking about it, they work superbly.


Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #104 on: September 13, 2013, 12:09:50 PM »
So far as I can tell, nobody is saying NGLA is a lesser course because of its engineered look. 

The original post seemed to have two main points:
1.  The course did not look like it was "indistinguishable from nature"
2.  "please don't anybody design or build anything similar today."

My simple thoughts:
1.  I have never played a course that was indistinguishable from nature.  NGLA and the other CBM/Raynor courses that I have played fit their landscape very well, even if there are features engineered to make the course more fun and/or challenging.  

2.  Why wouldn't we want loads more courses like NGLA built today???  If you are actually playing golf and not talking about it, they work superbly.



Tucky

I took the comments with a large pinch of salt - remember who the author is.  Maybe I am wrong, but regardless, there is no need for angst.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Patrick_Mucci

Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #105 on: September 13, 2013, 12:18:36 PM »


So far as I can tell, nobody is saying NGLA is a lesser course because of its engineered look. 

Sean,

What engineered look ?

I've repeatedly asked, as the golfer plays the course, from tee to green, where the course looks unnatural ?

So far, no one has been able to cite a single view.

Anyone can post photos from behind a green, but that's not how the golfer sees the course as he plays it.

At the theatre, what does the audience see ?

Backstage or the production from their seats that's intended for their eyes ?




Folks are merely saying its much easier to see how the course was manufactured then perhaps a more natural looking Doak course.  On the continuum or architecture NGLA looks more engineered than many other courses.  Engineered doesn't equate to ugly, well not to me anyway.  Is this some sort of taboo judgement to make?  Do MacRayBanks fans really find this truth upsetting?  Making mountains out of mole hills...

Ciao

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #106 on: September 13, 2013, 01:14:55 PM »
A couple more images of the course.



Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #107 on: September 13, 2013, 01:27:05 PM »
Making mountains out of mole hills...

Now *there's* an engineering project...
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

George Pazin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #108 on: September 13, 2013, 02:44:43 PM »
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.

Fwiw, I think this is what caused the angst. I love FBD as much as the next guy :), but I'd be more than thrilled if someone built such an eyesore in my neck of the woods, or anywhere else, for that matter.
Big drivers and hot balls are the product of golf course design that rewards the hit one far then hit one high strategy.  Shinny showed everyone how to take care of this whole technology dilemma. - Pat Brockwell, 6/24/04

Philip Gawith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #109 on: September 13, 2013, 04:36:50 PM »
NGLA is the most visually compelling golf course I have played. It shimmered like a jewel. I have seen better views from a golf course, but I don't think I have actually seen a course itself look better. It may be manufactured, but it felt like a sublime piece of art, surely a function of the harmony of all its component parts. Whether it was indistinguishable from nature was entirely irrelevant.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #110 on: September 13, 2013, 04:46:01 PM »
Philip & George,

I'm getting in my car in five minutes and driving out to the East End of Long Island to see if I can locate those "clunky", "artificial and even jarring" features that FBD, Rich and others keep referencing.

Since they've been unable to identify and/or locate them, I have no reference point and shall have to take a day or two searching for them.

I've asked a reliable architectural critic, with a discerning eye, Ran, to join me, but, he's incognito and hasn't responded, thus, I'll have to do it all by myself.

Philip Gawith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #111 on: September 13, 2013, 04:49:42 PM »
You're a lucky man Pat! Don't hurry too much....

Marty Bonnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #112 on: September 13, 2013, 06:06:43 PM »
Well,
Sorry I've been away enjoying a week of super golf in the north of my fair country and have been avoiding replying as I didn't have enough time to take in all of these replies. Some really brilliant debate, thought and reasoning. Such a shame it's all centred around some asshat's (that's me, btw, just to avoid more unnecessary controversy) comments on golf course design and not on some important subject of the day.
Look, I've never seen Raquel Welch in the flesh, but I think she's hot. I've never seen ngla in the grass, but I think I prefer the look of other golf courses, either from the telly or in reality.
I didn't like the LOOK of the mound thing 'protecting' the road.  I didn't like the LOOK of the feature on 17(?) with the bunkers BEHIND the mounding. Thought that looked a bit strange.
In the last few weeks I've PLAYED Leven and Lundin Links and just can't help feeling old Charlie boy didn't reflect the naturalness of the dunes landforms at ngla as well as he might have. Having said that, could YOU replicate Michelangelo's David back home after one viewing?
F.
The White River runs dark through the heart of the Town,
Washed the people coal-black from the hole in the ground.

Marty Bonnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #113 on: September 13, 2013, 06:12:38 PM »
Oh, and PS,
GOODALE, as always is most astute in his comprehension. The thread title is of course a direct reference to Ally Mack.
F.
The White River runs dark through the heart of the Town,
Washed the people coal-black from the hole in the ground.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #114 on: September 13, 2013, 06:31:51 PM »
Mr. B,

good to see you back. Hopr yu enjoyed yur trip.

Jon

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #115 on: September 13, 2013, 06:54:55 PM »
NGLA is the most visually compelling golf course I have played. It shimmered like a jewel. I have seen better views from a golf course, but I don't think I have actually seen a course itself look better. It may be manufactured, but it felt like a sublime piece of art, surely a function of the harmony of all its component parts. Whether it was indistinguishable from nature was entirely irrelevant.

Fully agree.  Did anything there remind you of Huntercombe?   They aren't far apart in age. 

Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #116 on: September 13, 2013, 11:47:05 PM »
Michael Whitaker:

Actually, I have some sympathy for the perspective your wife expressed. Being "attractive" does not, IMO, capture the essence of NGLA. Instead, I believe what makes the course so outstanding is the countless number of details that add to the interest and challenge of playing every shot.

Put another way: NGLA is not a "walk in the park"; it is a test that keeps the golfer focused on the task at hand.
Tim Weiman

Ben Sims

  • Karma: +1/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #117 on: September 14, 2013, 05:21:54 AM »
Philip & George,

I'm getting in my car in five minutes and driving out to the East End of Long Island to see if I can locate those "clunky", "artificial and even jarring" features that FBD, Rich and others keep referencing.

Do be careful in that big Duesy.  

Here's an unquantifiable quote about NGLA, for what its worth. The National isn't the prettiest course I've ever played, but it is the most beautiful.  No it doesn't sit on the land as delicately as some of the modern minimalist wonders.  But every feature fits in, and it is maintained better than any course in the country.  It's not perfect--no course is--but it's the closest I've seen.  
« Last Edit: September 14, 2013, 05:25:44 AM by Ben Sims »

Kevin_D

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #118 on: September 14, 2013, 09:57:41 AM »
NGLA is the most visually compelling golf course I have played. It shimmered like a jewel. I have seen better views from a golf course, but I don't think I have actually seen a course itself look better. It may be manufactured, but it felt like a sublime piece of art, surely a function of the harmony of all its component parts. Whether it was indistinguishable from nature was entirely irrelevant.

This comment hits the nail on the head to me.

I attended the Walker Cup on Saturday and Sunday.  It was my first time at National itself, though I have played Shinnecock and Sebonack so am familiar with fine courses in the neighborhood.

National is one of the most inviting looking courses I have ever seen.  Not only is it just extremely attractive looking and with great views, the holes themselves were incredibly compelling.  The words interesting, quirky, bold, and most importantly, FUN came to mind as I walked the course.  Not once did I think anything was clunky, artificial or jarring.  My main takeaway was that I simply can't wait to play the place, and hope I eventually get the opportunity!  I also thought that it's a shame courses like National, Yale and Garden City don't get built any more.  It takes a lot of guts to build something as bold and quirky as these courses.

I would also add, from a spectator point of view, it was fantastic.  This was my first Walker Cup, and the ability to both walk up right behind the players, as well as walk along the fairways on holes not in play, was simply wonderful.  The spectators all seemed appropriately respectful as well.

Some family members who are not golfers (though have some appreciation for golf) came with me, and they had a great time as well.  I was especially appreciative of the fact that my mother, who has a foot injury and has some trouble walking, was driven in a cart up to a spot just below the windmill on 16 by one of the very nice volunteers.

I suppose there are other courses that are more natural looking - say, Sand Hils or Ballyneal, or perhaps veen Shinny next door.  But having been there, I have no doubt this is one of the great courses of the world, and they put on a fantastic golf tournament.  Kudos to all involved on a wonderful job done.


Philip Gawith

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #119 on: September 14, 2013, 03:15:32 PM »
Bill, in truth I did not think too much of Huntercombe while at NGLA. NGLA is so bold and so open while Hcombe is much tighter with so many trees and largely on flat ground, so they conjure up pretty different feelings to me. Did you see some resemblance?

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #120 on: September 14, 2013, 07:34:23 PM »
Bill, in truth I did not think too much of Huntercombe while at NGLA. NGLA is so bold and so open while Hcombe is much tighter with so many trees and largely on flat ground, so they conjure up pretty different feelings to me. Did you see some resemblance?

I was just thinking of some of the angular and somewhat manufactured aspects of both courses.  Obviously Huntercombe is on a much smaller scale.   I just love the feeling when you play both courses that you're getting a history lesson.   ;D

Patrick_Mucci

Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #121 on: September 15, 2013, 02:48:04 PM »

I've never seen ngla in the grass, but I think I prefer the look of other golf courses, either from the telly or in reality.

The above statement tells you all you need to know about Martin Bonnar's position and his ability to discern the qualities of the architecture of a golf course he's never played, or one that's he's only seen as the producer intended you to view it, and not as the golfer sees it as they play the hole.


I didn't like the LOOK of the mound thing 'protecting' the road.  

The berm protecting the road, and required, is quite natural looking to the golfer as he stands on the 8th tee.

It is invisible to the golfer as the golfer stands on the 11th tee.

I have to presume that FBD doesn't like the look of that "mound thing protecting" the 17th green at Prestwick.


I didn't like the LOOK of the feature on 17(?) with the bunkers BEHIND the mounding.

They are INVISIBLE to the golfer, as the golfer stands on the tee, and in the fairway.
They only become visible when you round the dune and are almost standing on the green.


Thought that looked a bit strange.

What a surprise


In the last few weeks I've PLAYED Leven and Lundin Links and just can't help feeling old Charlie boy didn't reflect the naturalness of the dunes landforms at ngla as well as he might have.

What "dunes landforms" are you referencing ?
Could you list the hole and the "dune landform" ?


Having said that, could YOU replicate Michelangelo's David back home after one viewing?

In that case, maybe you should have remained silent and had people think you a fool, rather than typing and proving them right. ;D


Marty Bonnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #122 on: September 15, 2013, 02:53:47 PM »
Paddy-lad,
I'd rather people thought me a fool than a green italic-waving boorish troll. Those will be my last words to you on this website, sir. Have a nice life.
M.
The White River runs dark through the heart of the Town,
Washed the people coal-black from the hole in the ground.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #123 on: September 15, 2013, 03:07:32 PM »
I recently spent an entire day at NGLA, and paid particular attention to the areas of transition, between fairway and green.

Based on my observations,  those who claim the course looks unnatural............. are all morons.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Green after green emerges seemlessly from the fronting fairway and the fronting fairway is a continuum of the fairway in the DZ.

What's manufactured is the back of the green.
It's built up from grade, but, looks perfectly natural.

The greens, with rare exception flow along the landform along with the fronting fairway.

So, again, please identify, on a hole by hole and feature by feature basis, where the course looks unnatural.

Thanks

P.S.  Several caddies approached me and some were asking if some or many of the posters on GCA.com were living in their parent's
       basement and not getting out into the real world, let alone golf courses, often enough.
       They said, where do these guys, who have never set foot on the golf course, or who have played it once, come up with their
       positions ?  I answered their question with a question.  "Why do you think I annoint them as morons"

        One caddy approached me on the 5th green and asked if I was a "moron".
        I responded that I was the "Chief of Morons" and after some conversation, annointed him as an MIT (moron in training)
        After an incident on the 15th hole, I elevated him to full moron status, and informed the other caddies that he was
        bordering on "Flaming Moron" status.  Great guy, alot of fun, and like so many caddies at NGLA, knowledgeable about the course,
        and lurkers on GCA.com.

        I think one of the neat things about the caddies at NGLA is that they understand the architecture and the different methods of
        play it presents and that they have to consider and blend the ability of the player with the options that the architecture
        presents.  I'll start another thread on playing NGLA and trying to introduce a relative new golfer to it's challenge

        In addition, I spoke to several members who laughed at the comments, based solely on watching the
        Walker Cup on TV, or a solitary play.  I think most lamented that the coverage didn't present the entire golf course, rather,
        some of the later holes.  Some indicated that my conveying "moron" status on GCA.com posters was an act of kindness. ;D

        Other architects have told me that they see something new every time they visit NGLA.
        That the course contains incredible subtlety in addition to the basics.
         I found that interesting in light of the analysis of the course by those whose perception of the course is what they've gleened
         from some random views and/or a single play on a given day.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: ngla : indistinguishable from nature?
« Reply #124 on: September 15, 2013, 03:12:39 PM »
Paddy-lad,
I'd rather people thought me a fool than a green italic-waving boorish troll.

Martin, after your post/s, people no longer think you a fool, you've confirmed and solidified that assessment.


Those will be my last words to you on this website, sir.

Thanks, what a bonus.
I think you initiated this exchange in your opening post, and now, with bloodied nose, you retreat, snifflling, to your den.


Have a nice life.

Indeed I will.

Just came back from spending an entire and truely wonderful day with my son at NGLA, basically, from dawn to dusk.
Not a bad way to start a "nice life"

You threw down the gauntlet, and when I rose to the challenge, you whined and crawled away.

AMF

« Last Edit: September 15, 2013, 03:16:15 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back