[Mike Hendren]

You just need discipline to touch as little as possible.

Tim, I never said I was "right" and would dearly love to be proven "wrong."  

Why doesn't your quote above read "You just need discipline to touch absolutely nothing.?"

The devil (i.e., the architect or the shaper) is in the details, me thinks.

Regards,

Mike

[Tim_Weiman]

Forrest:

As I suggested to Mike Hendren, if you think "natural bunker" is an oxymoron, your education in golf architecture simply isn't complete.

Occasionally, the planets and stars do line up. Have sheep running all over Inch created some of the "bunkers"? Probably so. But, most of them were created by Mother Nature. The hand of man didn't have anything to do with it.

Granted, I'm discussing the rare air. Arthur Spring's years of effort may never pay off. The world of golf may never see them. But, clearly "natural bunkers" do exist. You can't spend much time at Inch and come to any other conclusion.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Hendren:

Inch may well be the place where you wouldn't have to "build" any bunkers. There are hundreds of examples where you would do well "to touch absolutely nothing".

Yes, you would have to build tees and layout greens. But, that really might be it.

As a friend put it to me "after all the superlatives that people have used to describe locations for a golf course, what words do you use?

I could only shake my head, but Arthur Spring has his one word: "orgasmic".

Visiting Inch will go beyond proving you wrong. It will make you cry if all of Arthur's work never comes to fruition.

[Gene Greco]

Mike Sweeney:

    The fairway bunker on the left side of #11 started to "move" a few years ago and it started to encroach on the fairway. It was shored up to try to limit the amt of movement.

The bunker to the right of #17 simply got bigger on its own.

Tim:

"While I haven't been to Sand Hills I've driven through the area and have a pretty good idea of the natural condition of the land. Inch is in a whole different category. You don't need to build bunkers. You just need discipline to touch as little as possible."

It is obvious you have never been to Sand Hills. The land in that "little" valley is unique even for the Sand Hills region of Nebraska. While you might have "driven through" the area it would be very difficult to get a COMPLETE picture of the 18000 square miles this region covers without a helicopter which is what C&C and Youngscap did to find this paradise. One didn't need to build bunkers here either and C&C used complete discipline in touching virtually nothing.

Where the heck is Tom Doak? He saw this land before a golf course was there.

THE BUNKERS WERE THERE ALREADY. ONLY A FEW OF THE BUNKERS WERE SCRAPED. THEY ARE NATURAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mike_Young]

imho there is no such thing as a natural bunker if sand has to be placed in it.  

[Tim_Weiman]

Gene,

Like I said, unfortunately I have never been to Sand Hills. I've driven through that part of Nebraska (and seen what appears to be many places you could build golf courses), but the actual club site I haven't seen. Thus, I probably shouldn't have said anything at all and am more than happy to defer to your judgment about whether "natural bunkers" exist at that location. Someone here seemed to question that assertion and you may be just the right guy to offer a rebuttal.

My real point is that Inch offers the perfect case to prove that "natural bunkers" just isn't an "oxymoron". Spring has laid out four courses on paper, but no work has actually been done. Nothing. So, there is plenty of opportunity to see the abundance of "natural bunkers" that already exist.

Mike Hendren may be correct as a general proposition. But, clearly there are some special locations that are exceptions to the rule. I can only take your word for it with regard to Sand Hills, but I know with my own two eyes that Inch is perhaps the classic exception.

FYI, I would have had much more to say about Inch, but Arthur asked me to hold off. Publicity really doesn't help the planning permission process and, believe me, the entire golf world has to wish him well.

[THuckaby2]

Gene:

OK, you sold me (not hard to do   ), they're natural.  But I can live with a loose definition of that term... I just can also understand one with a very strict definition saying they are not.

Or maybe it's best to say some are, some aren't?  Are there bunkers at SH that were absolutely, completely, 100% untouched?  I'm guessing plenty must be... but some have been scraped or whatever, thus displeasing the strict definitionistas.  

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Some of you guys have no idea of the meaning of refinement.

[THuckaby2]

I'm sure I don't, Tommy.  Please define.  That word to me can mean many different things.

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
Refinement is the process of taking something and either extracting from it elements for other uses, or elements to make that something, usable or to find its best use. (This is my own definiton. I did not look it up)

In the case of art and bunkering,:) I'm not going to go into details of what one might think is natural compared to what is constructed. Refinement is a varible that can be either extreme or minor in an effort to make it more presentable to the eye. The more refinement=the more time spent on making it look perfect to the person who is creating it. Sometimes it doesn't take much time at all for it to look perfect. Sometimes too much time is spent, and it still doesn't look right. This is where time and cost become the driving issue for those who don't care or have no idea or taste of artistry. This will also hi-light the difference between true artesans and contracted labor.

I think the best architects are the ones that know that if they could have it their way, they would be doing their work all of the time and not having to rely on a contractor to do it for them, because so much is lost in the translation. I do know for a fact, that several good architects rely on the relationships they have with their contractor(s).

Ultimately, this is why I support the so-called favored nations on this site.

[THuckaby2]

AHA!  And here I thought it had to do with being suave, debonair, etc.    

Thanks for the definition, anyway.  That definitely helps in this thread.

TH

[Gene Greco]

Tim:

   Where is Inch?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy Naccarato,

This is where time and cost become the driving issue for those who don't care or have no idea or taste of artistry. This will also hi-light the difference between true artesans and contracted labor.

This is where you lose your connection with the financial realities and time constraints of both development and restoration budgets.

Time and cost constraints are very real concerns in golf course projects and should not be confused with the two items you mention above, taste of artistry and ideas/concepts

You can't build what you can't afford, irrespective of your taste, ideas or genius.

Steve Wynn gave Fazio an unlimited budget.
Few projects enjoy that luxury.

It also might interest you to know that the Shadow Creek bunkers now bear a strange resemblence to the Merion bunkers.

One of the factors that everybody seems to ignore when discussing restorations is the memberships tolerance for having the golf course out of play.  

Very few clubs are willing to lose a season, let alone two seasons, hence time is a critical factor.

I wonder, if Merion's membership was given the choice of having their bunkers restored as they were, or exactly as you would want them, by hand craftsmen, understanding that they would lose the course for a year or two, due to the time it takes to meticulously construct these bunkers your way, which choice they would make ?

I would further wonder if the additional cost to hand craft each bunker as you wish would be approved by the membership ?

And, would the combination of the additional cost and additional time be approved the membership ?

Remember, you're asking the members to pay their dues, assessments, food minimums and miscellaneous charges.
How would they vote, knowing that they will continue to incur these charges, but will be unable to use their golf course for a season or two

And then remember, in the Northeast that Mother Nature doesn't always allow us to meet our time schedules for lengthy construction projects.

This isn't a simple black and white issue, or a lay up.

[Tim_Weiman]

Gene:

Inch is in Dingle Bay. It can be seen while playing Dooks and looks like a massive sand barge. Well, I guess it is!

[Tim_Weiman]

Pat Mucci:

I was not aware that the Gil Hanse plan for restoring Merion's bunkers involved shutting down the course. Is that your understanding?

[ForkaB]

redanman

If you subsitute the words "sand based turf " for "bad turf" and you believe (as do I) that Man is an integral part of "Nature", I think this is a truth.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok, whether it's at Inch, Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, the road to Montauk, or Kansas, there IS such a thing as a "natural bunker" in nature.  I think that's been proven pretty conclusively.

I think it's also a given that the earliest links courses utilized these natural bunkers, although over time man "scraped" new ones to add variety, punishment, and strategy.  

So, we're left with the realization that every man-made bunker, whether in Madagascar or Moscow, got its conceptual start as man's attempt to emulate a naturally occurring landform.

I think the idea that some of us therefore expect them to look as "natural" as possible, and have a great appreciation for those who successfully are able to pull it off, is not an unnatural expectation in the least.  

 

So

[Mike_Cirba]

Hmmm...

Two hours and no contrarian reply from Rich.  

Is my logic that unassailable?    

[ForkaB]

No.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike Cirba:

Rich may come up with something witty, but Inch is the trump card. It thoroughly discredits the idea that there are are no "natural bunkers".

[Mike_Cirba]

Tim;

Are you saying that I might win this argument by an "Inch"?

Actually, one need only travel northeast of Denver towards Nebraska to see billions and billions of natural bunkers.  The fact that they are sometimes formalized a bit for golf purposes doesn't in any way negate their existence.

[Tim_Weiman]

Mike,

Well, yes and no. I just wanted to win this argument by overwhelming force and Inch does that.

Are there other places that prove it as well, e.g., Northeast Nebraska?  I'll bet there are.

But, I'm not sure that is the key point. Your point about architects emulating the best of nature makes sense. Why argue about language - is "natural bunker" an oxymoron? - when clearly, natural looking bunkers are far more appealing to the eye than the artificial junk sometimes found on golf courses. Mackenzie was right about this issue, in my view.

[Dan Kelly]

Your point about architects emulating the best of nature makes sense.

Is this an argument for waterfalls?

They're always struck me as being at least AMONG the best of nature.

[Mike_Cirba]

Dan;

If there is a good place and appropriate context for a natural looking waterfall to be created, I say go for it.  (See Wigler, I'm flexible! )

However, from what I've seen if we think that very few can create a natural looking bunker, then the situation gets more difficult by degrees with waterfalls.

I've seen some pretty fugly and fartificial water features out there...hardly worth the time and expense IMHO.

[Dan Kelly]

If there is a good place and appropriate context for a natural looking waterfall to be created, I say go for it.

Mike --

By "appropriate context," I gather that you mean: You wouldn't put a waterfall on a golf course in the middle of the desert. That sort of thing.

Why don't you hold bunkers to the same "appropriate context" standard? Why is it admirable to build "natural-looking" (your expression; I prefer "pseudo-natural" or "imitation natural") bunkers in places where you have to truck in the sand to make bunkers at all?

I say:

If you're in Inch or the Sandhills of Nebraska or some other spot where bunkers appear naturally, and you build a golf course in that spot, it makes sense to make them as "natural-looking" as you can.

But if you're building a course in any spot where bunkers do not naturally appear, "natural-looking" bunkers aren't in the least bit natural-looking! They aren't any more natural-looking, in fact, than the Rees Jones bunkers you find so distasteful.

Comprende?

I'm not arguing, by the way, with your taste in bunkers. I like cool-looking bunkers, too -- even when they're no more natural-looking than the neighboring tees and fairways and greens.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()