Do some mistake over shaping as talent?

[MCirba]

A good rule of thumb:

If you notice the shaping it's over-shaped.

Very shortsighted imo.  It depends on what is meant to be achieved.  Not all architecture must adhere to natural lines and fail to be noticed.  There is much to be said for bold shaping which is noticed. 

Ciao

Sean,

The late, great Harry Chapin used to say that Adulthood is the ability to hold two completely contradictory beliefs as both true, such as "Too many cooks spoil the broth" and "Many hands make light work", or "He who hesitates is lost" and "Look before you leap".   

In that same spirit I found myself in complete agreement with your refutation of my post, and continue to believe that my statement is correct, as well.

Does that make me an adult?   Lord, I hope not.   

Best Regards.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Well, "some" might, how could I know?  However, FWIW, there is a clear difference between great shaping and over shaping, and most astute architecture observers can see it.


I will never forget playing Fazio's PGA National in about 1983.  Working for Killian and Nugent, and their typical 2 or 3 backing mound greens, when I first saw what they were doing there, it was great.  Grass bunkers, lead in combo grass/sand bunkers, all lobes different shapes, sizes, angles, etc.  In the fw, long slopes grading to end 1/3, 1/2 or 2/3 across the fw rather than dying at the edge like most architects.


In other words, every feature that was shaped was shaped well and very creative (at least for the times) And, that great shaping spawned some copy cats including nearly every architect as the trend became shaping all down the fw.  However, it doesn't take a keen eye to see the difference in a straight row of 20 mounds each side of the fw and an artful array of them in many, but not all places, in different sizes, slopes, etc., and more natural looking.


So, wall to wall shaping is not necessarily over shaping, and over shaping doesn't necessarily equate to bad shaping or low talent.  It's a style, and one that is sometimes required.


Lastly, I take this you mean the architectural side, meaning what basic ideas are put in place, but there is an element only the top shapers can do.  One (of many) simple explanations is just how the shaper handles the saddles between two mounds.  Average ones shape (and average architects draw, when they draw, or imagine, when they imagine) those saddles at 90 degrees to the row of mounds.  Great shapers always put them at slight angles, beginning to set up an approximation of the randomness of nature, with slightly different slopes on both side.


Around greens, when K and N did mounds, they always related to the green edge, a common problem no matter what the design method.  I notice that on Fazio courses, he takes his cues from the surrounding angles and steepness of the natural tie in banks, another nice touch.  (I noticed similar at 10 on Prairie Dunes, and doing so just results in a more natural look and some unique tie in slopes.)

[Jim Sherma]

Jeff - thanks for taking the time to post this. Very well stated and nicely explains what many of us can sense but not necessarily explain.


This past year I played 5 or 6 William and David Gordon courses with Hillendale (MD) and Bon Aire (PA) being first time plays. Over the winter as I thought back on the year I found myself thinking that the Gordon courses were generally better than average and asked for a lot of good golf as one plays them. They exhibited some interesting quirk and land movement when the land lent itself to it (e.g. Hillendale #10, Bon Aire #10). What the Gordon's did not seem to do was much if any shaping on or on the sides of the fairways themselves. Generally the definition of the edge of the fairway is the mowing line and that is it. The fairways and rough tend to follow the lay of the land. This clearly makes for visuals that are less engaging compared to more modern aesthetics and is certainly not limited to the Gordon's work but is of that era in general. It certainly makes their courses appear somewhat bland from the tee even though the playing characteristics are not greatly impacted if at all. I am wondering if a lot of what we denigrate from the "dark ages" is simply less aesthetic shaping and the use of available land that did not leave much natural undulations or land forms to route over and around.

Mike,


Well, "some" might, how could I know?  However, FWIW, there is a clear difference between great shaping and over shaping, and most astute architecture observers can see it.


I will never forget playing Fazio's PGA National in about 1983.  Working for Killian and Nugent, and their typical 2 or 3 backing mound greens, when I first saw what they were doing there, it was great.  Grass bunkers, lead in combo grass/sand bunkers, all lobes different shapes, sizes, angles, etc.  In the fw, long slopes grading to end 1/3, 1/2 or 2/3 across the fw rather than dying at the edge like most architects.


In other words, every feature that was shaped was shaped well and very creative (at least for the times) And, that great shaping spawned some copy cats including nearly every architect as the trend became shaping all down the fw.  However, it doesn't take a keen eye to see the difference in a straight row of 20 mounds each side of the fw and an artful array of them in many, but not all places, in different sizes, slopes, etc., and more natural looking.


So, wall to wall shaping is not necessarily over shaping, and over shaping doesn't necessarily equate to bad shaping or low talent.  It's a style, and one that is sometimes required.


Lastly, I take this you mean the architectural side, meaning what basic ideas are put in place, but there is an element only the top shapers can do.  One (of many) simple explanations is just how the shaper handles the saddles between two mounds.  Average ones shape (and average architects draw, when they draw, or imagine, when they imagine) those saddles at 90 degrees to the row of mounds.  Great shapers always put them at slight angles, beginning to set up an approximation of the randomness of nature, with slightly different slopes on both side.


Around greens, when K and N did mounds, they always related to the green edge, a common problem no matter what the design method.  I notice that on Fazio courses, he takes his cues from the surrounding angles and steepness of the natural tie in banks, another nice touch.  (I noticed similar at 10 on Prairie Dunes, and doing so just results in a more natural look and some unique tie in slopes.)

[Mike_Young]

Mike,


Well, "some" might, how could I know?  However, FWIW, there is a clear difference between great shaping and over shaping, and most astute architecture observers can see it.


I will never forget playing Fazio's PGA National in about 1983.  Working for Killian and Nugent, and their typical 2 or 3 backing mound greens, when I first saw what they were doing there, it was great.  Grass bunkers, lead in combo grass/sand bunkers, all lobes different shapes, sizes, angles, etc.  In the fw, long slopes grading to end 1/3, 1/2 or 2/3 across the fw rather than dying at the edge like most architects.


In other words, every feature that was shaped was shaped well and very creative (at least for the times) And, that great shaping spawned some copy cats including nearly every architect as the trend became shaping all down the fw.  However, it doesn't take a keen eye to see the difference in a straight row of 20 mounds each side of the fw and an artful array of them in many, but not all places, in different sizes, slopes, etc., and more natural looking.


So, wall to wall shaping is not necessarily over shaping, and over shaping doesn't necessarily equate to bad shaping or low talent.  It's a style, and one that is sometimes required.


Lastly, I take this you mean the architectural side, meaning what basic ideas are put in place, but there is an element only the top shapers can do.  One (of many) simple explanations is just how the shaper handles the saddles between two mounds.  Average ones shape (and average architects draw, when they draw, or imagine, when they imagine) those saddles at 90 degrees to the row of mounds.  Great shapers always put them at slight angles, beginning to set up an approximation of the randomness of nature, with slightly different slopes on both side.


Around greens, when K and N did mounds, they always related to the green edge, a common problem no matter what the design method.  I notice that on Fazio courses, he takes his cues from the surrounding angles and steepness of the natural tie in banks, another nice touch.  (I noticed similar at 10 on Prairie Dunes, and doing so just results in a more natural look and some unique tie in slopes.)

What???  hmmmm......

[Jeff_Brauer]

im,

[/size][/color]

Yes, it was a generational thing, no fw shaping, unless required to raise a fw for drainage or lower the crest of a hill so golfers could see from tee to green.  While natural holes are great, occasionally, you can route a course "too well", I have actually needed a cut somewhere to provide fill for greens and tees, even if the holes don't really need it.

I still recall my first job on my own.  I called for very few areas of topsoil stripping only to find the contractor had stripped the entire thing between the trees, just expecting me to come out and demand shaping everywhere, even though some areas on the plan had labels "No topsoil stripping or shaping HERE".  (I found an eroded bank below an old fence line I thought was a cool carry hazard)  That was the day I knew the world had changed a bit.

As I tried to explain, yes, in the 1990's, it was just average or less shaping, sometimes done just because at some point, "everyone" expected it.  Although I have heard the theory that poorer land was used for golf in the last few decades, its not universally true.  That said, I probably designed 20 of my 60 courses on table top land that needed something, especially for the visual "TV" generation.

Jeff - thanks for taking the time to post this. Very well stated and nicely explains what many of us can sense but not necessarily explain.


This past year I played 5 or 6 William and David Gordon courses with Hillendale (MD) and Bon Aire (PA) being first time plays. Over the winter as I thought back on the year I found myself thinking that the Gordon courses were generally better than average and asked for a lot of good golf as one plays them. They exhibited some interesting quirk and land movement when the land lent itself to it (e.g. Hillendale #10, Bon Aire #10). What the Gordon's did not seem to do was much if any shaping on or on the sides of the fairways themselves. Generally the definition of the edge of the fairway is the mowing line and that is it. The fairways and rough tend to follow the lay of the land. This clearly makes for visuals that are less engaging compared to more modern aesthetics and is certainly not limited to the Gordon's work but is of that era in general. It certainly makes their courses appear somewhat bland from the tee even though the playing characteristics are not greatly impacted if at all. I am wondering if a lot of what we denigrate from the "dark ages" is simply less aesthetic shaping and the use of available land that did not leave much natural undulations or land forms to route over and around.


J72]

Mike,


Well, "some" might, how could I know?  However, FWIW, there is a clear difference between great shaping and over shaping, and most astute architecture observers can see it.


I will never forget playing Fazio's PGA National in about 1983.  Working for Killian and Nugent, and their typical 2 or 3 backing mound greens, when I first saw what they were doing there, it was great.  Grass bunkers, lead in combo grass/sand bunkers, all lobes different shapes, sizes, angles, etc.  In the fw, long slopes grading to end 1/3, 1/2 or 2/3 across the fw rather than dying at the edge like most architects.


In other words, every feature that was shaped was shaped well and very creative (at least for the times) And, that great shaping spawned some copy cats including nearly every architect as the trend became shaping all down the fw.  However, it doesn't take a keen eye to see the difference in a straight row of 20 mounds each side of the fw and an artful array of them in many, but not all places, in different sizes, slopes, etc., and more natural looking.


So, wall to wall shaping is not necessarily over shaping, and over shaping doesn't necessarily equate to bad shaping or low talent.  It's a style, and one that is sometimes required.


Lastly, I take this you mean the architectural side, meaning what basic ideas are put in place, but there is an element only the top shapers can do.  One (of many) simple explanations is just how the shaper handles the saddles between two mounds.  Average ones shape (and average architects draw, when they draw, or imagine, when they imagine) those saddles at 90 degrees to the row of mounds.  Great shapers always put them at slight angles, beginning to set up an approximation of the randomness of nature, with slightly different slopes on both side.


Around greens, when K and N did mounds, they always related to the green edge, a common problem no matter what the design method.  I notice that on Fazio courses, he takes his cues from the surrounding angles and steepness of the natural tie in banks, another nice touch.  (I noticed similar at 10 on Prairie Dunes, and doing so just results in a more natural look and some unique tie in slopes.)

[Mike_Young]

Jeff,I understand what you are saying I just can't do the formula and calculation stuff of a shaper having a specific way he builds a mound etc etc.  ...I see good shaping as more of a jam session like when the Highwaymen got together and they just go with it...and over shaping is more like that halftime show last nite...I just don't think you can put shaping in formulas.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Nothing in what I said was about formulas......I know its hard to describe, and I for one have always hated the architects and shapers who prefer to leave it vague, as in they got it from the right hand of God so don't even try to understand.  But, I guess in trying to put words to my observations, including "right angles" it can sound like formula.  All I was really trying to say is the best ones find a way to make it more random and thus natural.  The average ones fall into traps. (no, not literally)

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

Whats hard to understand about naturalism?  Isn't a good rule of measure to simply ask "Did someone shape this form or mother nature"?  And if you really can't tell, I would think that's a good standard.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

Whats hard to understand about naturalism?  Isn't a good rule of measure to simply ask "Did someone shape this form or mother nature"?  And if you really can't tell, I would think that's a good standard.

I don't think there is anything hard to understand about naturalism...If I had to say one thing bout naturalism that is a standard, it would be that most earthforms are long...and there are a few exceptions...

[Kalen Braley]

Mike,

I sort of agree there.  What I tend to see in Mother Nature is fractal behavior. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal)  In this model "'long" becomes very relative.

[Mike_Young]

Mike,

I sort of agree there.  What I tend to see in Mother Nature is fractal behavior. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal)  In this model "'long" becomes very relative.

I have come across the "fractal" term a couple of times and decided it was out there for me but I think I get the basics.  I think it is safe to ay most natural land forms were formed by moving water or by volcanic eruption which were then smoothed over time by water again.  We rarely see mounds.. 

[Tom_Doak]

I have come across the "fractal" term a couple of times and decided it was out there for me but I think I get the basics.  I think it is safe to ay most natural land forms were formed by moving water or by volcanic eruption which were then smoothed over time by water again.  We rarely see mounds..

I, of course, have been lucky to work in sand dunes a lot, which are entirely different than eroded or erupted land, and which many architects are subconsciously trying to mimic because golf started in Scotland, so they think they need mounds.


The thing is, in sand dunes, everyone focuses on the highs, and doesn’t pay attention to getting the lows right.  As MacKenzie explained, and Jeff B started to, the lows between dunes are generally much broader and softer than the highs, and the bottoms are almost never right in between the dunes, but offset to either side of the saddles in between.


When you are designing a course on flat ground, and don’t think about the low points as well as the highs, it looks very unnatural. Fortunately, I’ve collected topo maps for a bunch of sand dune courses of my own, so if I had to mimic natural dunes it would not be hard to just “sample” the natural terrain of Ireland or Oregon or Nebraska or Tasmania, as the musicians say.  If I were into that sort of project.

[Thomas Dai]

To what extent have changes over the centuries/decades/years in machinery made shaping look more or less ‘natural’?
Atb

[Joe Hancock]

To what extent have changes over the centuries/decades/years in machinery made shaping look more or less ‘natural’?
Atb

There’s nothing more natural looking than doing nothing to land that exists in its natural state. Other than that, the only thing that prevents shaping things that look natural the shapers’ imagination and preferences. What tools he/ she has available are used in unconventional ways, at times, to achieve the natural look.


The biggest obstacle to natural looking shaping is usually a pre-concieved idea of what looks natural, even if none of those ideas don’t even exist on the ground that’s being shaped.


So, I would say that imagination and observation are more powerful tools than any machinery advances.

[Sean_A]

A good rule of thumb:

If you notice the shaping it's over-shaped.

Very shortsighted imo.  It depends on what is meant to be achieved.  Not all architecture must adhere to natural lines and fail to be noticed.  There is much to be said for bold shaping which is noticed. 

Ciao

Sean,

The late, great Harry Chapin used to say that Adulthood is the ability to hold two completely contradictory beliefs as both true, such as "Too many cooks spoil the broth" and "Many hands make light work", or "He who hesitates is lost" and "Look before you leap".   

In that same spirit I found myself in complete agreement with your refutation of my post, and continue to believe that my statement is correct, as well.

Does that make me an adult?   Lord, I hope not.   

Best Regards.

Dude, just sayin', mostly because I am not nearly as enamoured with the current naturalism trend as most  I am ready for a big gun archie to take a chance.

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

To what extent have changes over the centuries/decades/years in machinery made shaping look more or less ‘natural’?
Atb

Thomas I think what has helped shaping more than anything over the last 30 years has been opportunity.  When the golf boom first started back up in the early 0's the talent pool wasn't there because no one had been doing anything and the companies doing the work had mediocre talent.  As younger guys got involved and were passionate about their work they became better and better.  It will be interesting to see what happens if there is no work for all of the talent and it dries up before the next boom, if ever. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,


Good point, for both architects and shapers. I would guess with less work there is less chance to perfect shaping, and perhaps less incentive to take a chance on something new, at least in most people happy to have the work.


On the other hand, before the boom, most contractors had 1-2 long time shapers.  In the boom, lots of new guys came in to the shaping field, and like anything else, the 80-20 rule prevailed, with 10% being top and bottom end, and others being average. 


In my experience, you got one "A" shaper and a few lower talented shapers, and if you were lucky, you could hold the others to tees and less critical areas.

[Tom_Doak]

Having three A+ shapers on my payroll has certainly been an advantage, especially when building 1-2 courses per year.

[Jud_T]

From the cheap seats:
-Aesthetics- certainly there is a bias here among many, myself included, for the dominant minimalist aesthetic and subtle shaping associated with it.  Of course this has been so successful of late because much of it has been very well done and harks back to the game’s links origins.
- Function-  Agree that given a tighter budget, shaping that affects play, strategy, ground game etc., should take large priority over purely decorative dirt-moving.
- the interesting intersection for me is some modern designs where both the aesthetic and function diverge from the minimalist aesthetic- i.e. an unnatural look and a function that can be punitive for certain levels of ability.  This is a lose, lose in my view.  Having said that, boldness, in and of itself, isn’t necessarily a bad thing as can be seen in many classic designs as well as some modern designs that push the envelope in terms of “fairness”.  For me the difference is whether shaping makes sense visually and whether the resulting rub of the green affects all players or is primarily punitive to average or weaker players.
- bottom line- shapers matter