Is the line between manufactured and contrived a thin one?

[Mike Hendren]

We love Raynor and Banks.  Engh not so much (Where's Matthew J. Ward when you need him?).
 
Why?
 
Bogey
 

[Peter Pallotta]

My theory: the contrivances of Raynor and Banks are (and appear to us as being) focused on and foundational to the playing of the game and to the shot-making demands and options the game presents; and they are (and appear to us as being) so for two reasons:


- first, because those contrivances did indeed follow/mirror traditional and fundamental principles of design upon which our notions of what it means to play the game are based, and
- second, because after decades of use (and of serving as models/inspiration for countless other architects and courses) the Raynor/Banks/Macdonald focus has become foundational. 


Mr Engh, on the other hand, may be creating contrivances that are also based on the shot-making demands and options of the game and on fundamental principles; but as they don't appear to share the same focus/approach as the Raynor/Banks/Macdonald contrivances, we may not see them as foundational in the same way (especially since Mr Engh's works hasn't had decades of time to filter into the consciousness of other designers) and so instead we see them as tricks. 


Peter

[Jeff_Brauer]

Michael H,

For what its worth as an architect from the same training/school (and a friend of) Jim Engh, my take is that when you admit you are building an un natural green (which most greens are) there is no problem trying to do a straight line.

However, when your dramatic style entails curved forms, which the mind equates with trying to be natural, no matter how hard we try, the standard gets set higher, and the idea of regularity offends the eye unconsciously.  Jim's so called "muscle bunkers" are curved, but so regular that they don't look like nature enough.

I know, because I have often had the same problem and worked hard to overcome it in various ways.

[Ken Moum]

Yes, and where that line falls is totally a matter of person taste/bias.

We all admit that you could never get away with building anything like The Old Course from scratch, using a bulldozer. Yet most also agree that it is brilliant as it sits.

The difference?

Most golfers are FAR mormore willing to accept crazy contours that "just happened," even if the results seem "unfair," than they are to accept identical contours and results if someone did it to them on purpose.

Even people who like that kind of golf are affected by it. Not long ago I had a friend who loves links golf complain about a newly built green that to my eye looked very natural and similar to lots of other greens on links courses.

IMHO he couldn't ignore the fact that it was created by the hand of man.

K

[Tom_Doak]

For what its worth as an architect from the same training/school (and a friend of) Jim Engh, my take is that when you admit you are building an un natural green (which most greens are) there is no problem trying to do a straight line.

However, when your dramatic style entails curved forms, which the mind equates with trying to be natural, no matter how hard we try, the standard gets set higher, and the idea of regularity offends the eye unconsciously.  Jim's so called "muscle bunkers" are curved, but so regular that they don't look like nature enough.

Jeff:


Thanks for this explanation.  I'm not one to worry much about WHY I think what I think, but your explanation does make sense to me to the extent that "purists" are much more likely to give Raynor's designs a pass than some of the newfangled ones.


Age is another factor ... on older courses the grasses have segregated out and become more natural in appearance, while on new courses [and many recently-completed remodels] all the pure bluegrass sod just screams "unnatural" regardless of the shapes involved.

[DMoriarty]

We love Raynor and Banks.  Engh not so much (Where's Matthew J. Ward when you need him?).
 
Why?

The thread title presupposes the answer is related to aesthetics.  Perhaps it has more to do with the quality of the playing experience.