[Tim Gallant]

Tim

It seems to me that adhering to a naturalist look is very prohibitive.

To be clear, then you don't care for reverted, sleepered or much of the MacRaynor style bunkers?

Ciao

I don't mind revetted, or sleepered bunkers at all. I would evaluate any feature based on the interest it adds to the hole first. But do I think a revetted bunker looks natural, or is better looking than a bunker one might find at Sand Hills? No. If I were to build my own course tomorrow, I would look at the characteristics of the site, and try to build a bunker that emphasised the identity of the course I was trying to build (ie - strategic), that fit in with the surrounds, and that looked as natural as possible within that environment, or as natural to what one might think could realistically be nature.

Again going back to NZ, with no prior knowledge to the site or the course, I believe some golfers wouldn't be able to tell if that donut bunker I showed was naturally forming, or if it was built by hand. However, with a revetted bunker, 100% of golfers will know it was put there by human intervention. Does it matter? I suppose it depends on why you play the game.

Tim

I spose I am far less concerned with concealing the hand of man as I am with with forcefully placed features and that those features look good. Naturalism has its place on an extremely small number of sites, so I don't much see the point in trying to adhere to an aesthetic across the board.

Ciao

Ah ha! Now we get to the crux - can features look good if they are not 'naturally' looking? I'm not sure I've given it much thought, but it's an interesting idea. Do you have examples of forcefully placed features that look good, but are obviously not natural?

So let's take a clay site for example - one where sand is unlikely to be found naturally. In all cases the sand is unnatural, but to me, there's a distinction from an aesthetic perspective between putting an oval bunker in the slope of the hill (clearly un-natural as there is no other symmetric shape to be found in any other form, natural or otherwise within a 1000 miles), and one where you try to work the bunkers to reflect the asymmetry that is found throughout the rest of the site, even if the bunker itself is not natural.

In both cases, if they are a good feature that adds interest to the hole, that is the primary objective, but why not strive to create some believability that what is there could be natural?

Tim

Sure, one can strive for the "best" natural look possible given the circumstances. However, for me it's more important to create something attractive regardless if it could be mistaken for natural. For instance, I really like what was done at Kington and Walton Heath. I know the features are man made, but their over riding appeal is far more important so far as I am concerned. And these are sites where I think more site sensitive Simpson ala New Zealand like features would work very well. All are equally valid, vital and as it happens, fairly rare approaches. We happen to be in a period of naturalism at all costs, when unfortunately there aren't enough skilled shapers who can pull off this look very well in non sandy environments. Part of the problem is the insistence on a clean, sterile look. Much of the time ultimate naturalism only comes into its own when nature is allowed to take hold, which is exactly when bunkers are then spruced up...its a great shame. To me it's easier to get a great look from a feature which interacts with fairway (ie short grass) by a Walton Heath or Kington approach than it is to try a natural approach.

Ciao

Lovely write-up and not much I can go against. I Agree that naturalism at all costs, particularly when it can't be pulled off, or is 'naturalism as a one-size fits all' look is not conducive to good design. Which is why the thread was started

[Sean_A]

Tim

It seems to me that adhering to a naturalist look is very prohibitive.

To be clear, then you don't care for reverted, sleepered or much of the MacRaynor style bunkers?

Ciao

I don't mind revetted, or sleepered bunkers at all. I would evaluate any feature based on the interest it adds to the hole first. But do I think a revetted bunker looks natural, or is better looking than a bunker one might find at Sand Hills? No. If I were to build my own course tomorrow, I would look at the characteristics of the site, and try to build a bunker that emphasised the identity of the course I was trying to build (ie - strategic), that fit in with the surrounds, and that looked as natural as possible within that environment, or as natural to what one might think could realistically be nature.

Again going back to NZ, with no prior knowledge to the site or the course, I believe some golfers wouldn't be able to tell if that donut bunker I showed was naturally forming, or if it was built by hand. However, with a revetted bunker, 100% of golfers will know it was put there by human intervention. Does it matter? I suppose it depends on why you play the game.

Tim

I spose I am far less concerned with concealing the hand of man as I am with with forcefully placed features and that those features look good. Naturalism has its place on an extremely small number of sites, so I don't much see the point in trying to adhere to an aesthetic across the board.

Ciao

Ah ha! Now we get to the crux - can features look good if they are not 'naturally' looking? I'm not sure I've given it much thought, but it's an interesting idea. Do you have examples of forcefully placed features that look good, but are obviously not natural?

So let's take a clay site for example - one where sand is unlikely to be found naturally. In all cases the sand is unnatural, but to me, there's a distinction from an aesthetic perspective between putting an oval bunker in the slope of the hill (clearly un-natural as there is no other symmetric shape to be found in any other form, natural or otherwise within a 1000 miles), and one where you try to work the bunkers to reflect the asymmetry that is found throughout the rest of the site, even if the bunker itself is not natural.

In both cases, if they are a good feature that adds interest to the hole, that is the primary objective, but why not strive to create some believability that what is there could be natural?

Tim

Sure, one can strive for the "best" natural look possible given the circumstances. However, for me it's more important to create something attractive regardless if it could be mistaken for natural. For instance, I really like what was done at Kington and Walton Heath. I know the features are man made, but their over riding appeal is far more important so far as I am concerned. And these are sites where I think more site sensitive Simpson ala New Zealand like features would work very well. All are equally valid, vital and as it happens, fairly rare approaches. We happen to be in a period of naturalism at all costs, when unfortunately there aren't enough skilled shapers who can pull off this look very well in non sandy environments. Part of the problem is the insistence on a clean, sterile look. Much of the time ultimate naturalism only comes into its own when nature is allowed to take hold, which is exactly when bunkers are then spruced up...its a great shame. To me it's easier to get a great look from a feature which interacts with fairway (ie short grass) by a Walton Heath or Kington approach than it is to try a natural approach.

Ciao

Lovely write-up and not much I can go against. I Agree that naturalism at all costs, particularly when it can't be pulled off, or is 'naturalism as a one-size fits all' look is not conducive to good design. Which is why the thread was started

Tim

In an ideal world all archies/shapers could pull off the best of New Zealand. But we know this isn't the case. Given this, is it realistic to expect New Zealand results anything close to most of the time?

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim

It seems to me that adhering to a naturalist look is very prohibitive.

To be clear, then you don't care for reverted, sleepered or much of the MacRaynor style bunkers?

Ciao

I don't mind revetted, or sleepered bunkers at all. I would evaluate any feature based on the interest it adds to the hole first. But do I think a revetted bunker looks natural, or is better looking than a bunker one might find at Sand Hills? No. If I were to build my own course tomorrow, I would look at the characteristics of the site, and try to build a bunker that emphasised the identity of the course I was trying to build (ie - strategic), that fit in with the surrounds, and that looked as natural as possible within that environment, or as natural to what one might think could realistically be nature.

Again going back to NZ, with no prior knowledge to the site or the course, I believe some golfers wouldn't be able to tell if that donut bunker I showed was naturally forming, or if it was built by hand. However, with a revetted bunker, 100% of golfers will know it was put there by human intervention. Does it matter? I suppose it depends on why you play the game.

Tim

I spose I am far less concerned with concealing the hand of man as I am with with forcefully placed features and that those features look good. Naturalism has its place on an extremely small number of sites, so I don't much see the point in trying to adhere to an aesthetic across the board.

Ciao

Ah ha! Now we get to the crux - can features look good if they are not 'naturally' looking? I'm not sure I've given it much thought, but it's an interesting idea. Do you have examples of forcefully placed features that look good, but are obviously not natural?

So let's take a clay site for example - one where sand is unlikely to be found naturally. In all cases the sand is unnatural, but to me, there's a distinction from an aesthetic perspective between putting an oval bunker in the slope of the hill (clearly un-natural as there is no other symmetric shape to be found in any other form, natural or otherwise within a 1000 miles), and one where you try to work the bunkers to reflect the asymmetry that is found throughout the rest of the site, even if the bunker itself is not natural.

In both cases, if they are a good feature that adds interest to the hole, that is the primary objective, but why not strive to create some believability that what is there could be natural?

Tim

Sure, one can strive for the "best" natural look possible given the circumstances. However, for me it's more important to create something attractive regardless if it could be mistaken for natural. For instance, I really like what was done at Kington and Walton Heath. I know the features are man made, but their over riding appeal is far more important so far as I am concerned. And these are sites where I think more site sensitive Simpson ala New Zealand like features would work very well. All are equally valid, vital and as it happens, fairly rare approaches. We happen to be in a period of naturalism at all costs, when unfortunately there aren't enough skilled shapers who can pull off this look very well in non sandy environments. Part of the problem is the insistence on a clean, sterile look. Much of the time ultimate naturalism only comes into its own when nature is allowed to take hold, which is exactly when bunkers are then spruced up...its a great shame. To me it's easier to get a great look from a feature which interacts with fairway (ie short grass) by a Walton Heath or Kington approach than it is to try a natural approach.

Ciao

Lovely write-up and not much I can go against. I Agree that naturalism at all costs, particularly when it can't be pulled off, or is 'naturalism as a one-size fits all' look is not conducive to good design. Which is why the thread was started

Tim

In an ideal world all archies/shapers could pull off the best of New Zealand. But we know this isn't the case. Given this, is it realistic to expect New Zealand results anything close to most of the time?

Ciao

In my opinion, it’s not even always about perfect shaping. It’s about having the cop-on to go with something that fits a site by not imposing itself upon it.

[David Harshbarger]

Is there an "Uncanny Valley" for bunkering?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


I think we are pretty much on the same page with the exception of terminology. To me a manmade object is anything that is manmade where as you think if it is pleasing to the eye it should be labelled 'natural'. Yet this does not deal with much of the shaping done by Braid or Simpson which is often very sharp and 'unnatural' in appearance and yet still fits its setting perfectly. Or does it?


Jon

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


I think we are pretty much on the same page with the exception of terminology. To me a manmade object is anything that is manmade where as you think if it is pleasing to the eye it should be labelled 'natural'. Yet this does not deal with much of the shaping done by Braid or Simpson which is often very sharp and 'unnatural' in appearance and yet still fits its setting perfectly. Or does it?


Jon

Good question,


Following on from the Winter Book club thread, Hunter advocated that the designer should work so that it is hard to distinguish between what was 'built' and what was naturally occurring. By that logic, I'd be interested to hear if others think if the examples you site where the designer 'gave away his hand' with a sharp or abrupt appearance in some way detracts from the overall experience.


I need to think a bit more on Raynor / Banks to understand if I would classify what they do as natural despite an obvious manmade look through geometric form.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Part of the demise of our ancient links is the insistence of applying a high maintenance mentality to courses that only require low maintenance techniques as well as the apparent need to eliminate inconsistency in terrain to satisfy the needs of mowing machines and the avoidance of the "unfair" lie.

[Sean_A]

Tim,

I think we are pretty much on the same page with the exception of terminology. To me a manmade object is anything that is manmade where as you think if it is pleasing to the eye it should be labelled 'natural'. Yet this does not deal with much of the shaping done by Braid or Simpson which is often very sharp and 'unnatural' in appearance and yet still fits its setting perfectly. Or does it?

Jon

Good question,

Following on from the Winter Book club thread, Hunter advocated that the designer should work so that it is hard to distinguish between what was 'built' and what was naturally occurring. By that logic, I'd be interested to hear if others think if the examples you site where the designer 'gave away his hand' with a sharp or abrupt appearance in some way detracts from the overall experience.

I need to think a bit more on Raynor / Banks to understand if I would classify what they do as natural despite an obvious manmade look through geometric form.

Tim

For me, the obvious hand of man is not an issue so long as the features are front and centre and some care has been taken to make them look good even if not naturally attractive. The question becomes does the man made feature serve an important enough function to warrant its existence? Often times I don't think they do. Bunkers are the obvious culprit here. I find so many bunkers to be unattractive and unnecessary.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

JC-S makes a very valid point. The maintenance regime can have a considerable effect on the extent things look natural or not. And then you have such things as members and committee's to consider plus, if the Club is 'fortunate enough' (sic) to have one, the input of the Beautification Committee.
atb

[Jon Wiggett]

JC-S makes a very valid point. The maintenance regime can have a considerable effect on the extent things look natural or not. And then you have such things as members and committee's to consider plus, if the Club is 'fortunate enough' (sic) to have one, the input of the Beautification Committee.
atb

Indeed he does. I have mentioned several times that the lower height of cut at TOC has effectively eliminated most of the none flat lies as the ball always rolls off the slope. This has not only removed much of the interest of the course but also concentrates wear and tear into smaller areas. It also leads to much higher maintenance costs.

[Rob McGuirk]

This is an interesting topic and although I am certainly not an expert I can give some insight from a golf club owners perspective. My club Prince's had been stuck in a rut for a number of years which came to a head in 2008. On reflection we had taken our eye off the ball with everything from bunkering, conditioning, tees, greens etc. A letter outlining these issues arrived from someone who I had huge respect for and had our interest at heart. We were in danger of not being considered for tournaments and memberships were dwindling. Our GM at the time had a relationship with EDG and they carried out some improvements to the bunkering which was well received. Fast forward to 2016 and its was time for a full re-design. We chose Martin Ebert to oversee the works and he produced a  report which showed the layout pre war, post war and present day. Our historian had photographs from 1909 which showed a mixture of revetted bunkers, rough/blowout bunkering and a combination of both. These photo's alongside Martins report laid the foundations for the works. This decision was not taken lightly but with cost of replacing a number of revetted bunkers every three to five years (This depended on use, whether they faced North/South or wind direction) it made sense to bring a lot of the old features back. Green sites were expanded to the original size where we could and green surrounds enlarged to provide different challenges and choices around the greens. Prince's had been considered too linear so two new par threes have been introduced to break this up (One of which compliments a Harry Roundtree painting of the 1932 course). With the scale of the works we needed to harvest a significant amount of sand and wetlands were created which have been a blessing with the weather we have had recently.These have also been a success from an ecological standpoint although I understand that the purists do not like them but it was a necessary evil to get the sand we needed. Dune systems have been created to frame greens and break up holes alongside major works to the routing including introducing grass paths were viable. I have been fortunate enough to play a number of courses around the UK which have undergone some kind of renovation. Some of these changes have been excellent and some have not improved the course. I can only speak from Prince's perspective but the changes have brought improved revenues, improved rankings (although subjective), lower maintenance costs and pace of play has improved(more sand scrapes less rough). We also felt that we needed to offer something different to our two neighbours which are both great courses. I hope this gives some insight why some courses have renovated over the past few years.

Rob

[jeffwarne]

JC-S makes a very valid point. The maintenance regime can have a considerable effect on the extent things look natural or not. And then you have such things as members and committee's to consider plus, if the Club is 'fortunate enough' (sic) to have one, the input of the Beautification Committee.
atb

Indeed he does. I have mentioned several times that the lower height of cut at TOC has effectively eliminated most of the none flat lies as the ball always rolls off the slope. This has not only removed much of the interest of the course but also concentrates wear and tear into smaller areas. It also leads to much higher maintenance costs.

and has virtually elimanted the strategic effect of sidehill lies on high end US courses, creating the need for and the nearly always inevitable outcome of the "second cut"

[Tim Gallant]

Saw this photo on Twitter from Hillside GC. In full transparency, I have not played the course, so can't comment on the work, but would like to hear from those that are more familiar with the course/club on the rationale for this and how they feel the work has turned out.

[Tim Gallant]

This is an interesting topic and although I am certainly not an expert I can give some insight from a golf club owners perspective. My club Prince's had been stuck in a rut for a number of years which came to a head in 2008. On reflection we had taken our eye off the ball with everything from bunkering, conditioning, tees, greens etc. A letter outlining these issues arrived from someone who I had huge respect for and had our interest at heart. We were in danger of not being considered for tournaments and memberships were dwindling. Our GM at the time had a relationship with EDG and they carried out some improvements to the bunkering which was well received. Fast forward to 2016 and its was time for a full re-design. We chose Martin Ebert to oversee the works and he produced a  report which showed the layout pre war, post war and present day. Our historian had photographs from 1909 which showed a mixture of revetted bunkers, rough/blowout bunkering and a combination of both. These photo's alongside Martins report laid the foundations for the works. This decision was not taken lightly but with cost of replacing a number of revetted bunkers every three to five years (This depended on use, whether they faced North/South or wind direction) it made sense to bring a lot of the old features back. Green sites were expanded to the original size where we could and green surrounds enlarged to provide different challenges and choices around the greens. Prince's had been considered too linear so two new par threes have been introduced to break this up (One of which compliments a Harry Roundtree painting of the 1932 course). With the scale of the works we needed to harvest a significant amount of sand and wetlands were created which have been a blessing with the weather we have had recently.These have also been a success from an ecological standpoint although I understand that the purists do not like them but it was a necessary evil to get the sand we needed. Dune systems have been created to frame greens and break up holes alongside major works to the routing including introducing grass paths were viable. I have been fortunate enough to play a number of courses around the UK which have undergone some kind of renovation. Some of these changes have been excellent and some have not improved the course. I can only speak from Prince's perspective but the changes have brought improved revenues, improved rankings (although subjective), lower maintenance costs and pace of play has improved(more sand scrapes less rough). We also felt that we needed to offer something different to our two neighbours which are both great courses. I hope this gives some insight why some courses have renovated over the past few years.

Rob

Rob,


I'm sorry I missed this last time but thank you for taking the time to write. It is great to get your perspective as I know I certainly don't have that perspective, and mainly just talk in the theoretical


That said, I'd be curious to get your thoughts on a few points:


- Strictly from an architectural standpoint, do you feel M&E created something that is unique to Prince's? From an outsiders perspective, as you can see with the picture I just posted, it feels like a lot of their work is similar at other links courses (for example, the scar bunker they created at Gullane 1, or even next door on the 5th hole at Sandwich).


- Do you feel the M&E work was sympathetic to the old aerials that you mention? I appreciate it wasn't a restoration that you were after, but do you feel the course plays closer now to it's roots 100 years ago?


Thank you for taking the time, and really appreciate you chiming in!!

[Sean_A]

Saw this photo on Twitter from Hillside GC. In full transparency, I have not played the course, so can't comment on the work, but would like to hear from those that are more familiar with the course/club on the rationale for this and how they feel the work has turned out.

My first thoughts without having seen the work in person, but knowing Hillside somewhat:

1. Do the open sand areas make the course more playable and if so at what cost compared to properly maintaining rough...assuming there are no environmental restrictions? I ask this because I know the rough at Hillside can be brutal and a serious buzz kill.

2. I would have liked to see the sandy area connect with the pots.

3. Visually, this hole, 18, looks far better than previously.

4. If the club is looking to integrate this look throughout, I will be interested to see how it works on the more hilly holes, especially those cut through dunes.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I am so over artificially created, open sand, waste areas on courses that are covered with vegetation. They look incongruous.


I keep on hearing how good they are ecologically as well. I’m wondering at this point if this a just a repeated mantra emanating from one source because I’m yet to see someone list out material benefits. It would certainly help if I fully understood this as it might soften my stance.


Like at Princes (where wetlands had to be created to mine sand for built dunes),  the same proposal occurred at Portmarnock. Of course, I saw no need for the containment dunes to be built there and in the end, the sand needed was so large that the proposed wetlands have ended up as an enormous pond.

[Sean_A]

I am so over artificially created, open sand, waste areas on courses that are covered with vegetation. They look incongruous.


I keep on hearing how good they are ecologically as well. I’m wondering at this point if this a just a repeated mantra emanating from one source because I’m yet to see someone list out material benefits. It would certainly help if I fully understood this as it might soften my stance.


Like at Princes (where wetlands had to be created to mine sand for built dunes),  the same proposal occurred at Portmarnock. Of course, I saw no need for the containment dunes to be built there and in the end, the sand needed was so large that the proposed wetlands have ended up as an enormous pond.

Ally

Wait a minute. Portmarnock dug a pond to excavate sand? Is the pond in play as they are at Princes Hims?

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Sean,

The pond is large (look at google maps) and is in play to the left of the 1st hole on the 3rd nine and as a carry over the edge from the back tee on the 9th hole on the main eighteen.

Portmarnock is built on an aquifer and there was always a very small pond there that had been dug for irrigation way back in the day. This has been increased in size about twenty-fold.

Ally

[Jon Wiggett]

Looking at the Hillside photo I would agree with Sean that it looks better visually than before however I am of the belief that good GCA looks to tailor its style to the site. I am not saying that this is not the case here but it seems to becoming very repetitive to me.


I would be more interested to see if they have sorted out the 14th & 15th holes which were both a bit of a blot on the course.


Jon

[Sean_A]

Sean,

The pond is large (look at google maps) and is in play to the left of the 1st hole on the 3rd nine and as a carry over the edge from the back tee on the 9th hole on the main eighteen.

Portmarnock is built on an aquifer and there was always a very small pond there that had been dug for irrigation way back in the day. This has been increased in size about twenty-fold.

Ally

Ally

Not being a fan of ponds on links (or in general 😎), I am sorry to hear this.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Time will tell.
These ‘opened-up’ sandy waste areas on links courses look great on photos and drone shots but what are the longer term regular maintenance implications on a windy site, especially if labour and money is tight?
And then what happens when the Captain or the Chairman or their best friend or partner hits their shot into one of theses newly opened-up areas and takes half a dozen shots to recover and gets their electric power trolley stuck! Don’t laugh, decisions get made for all sorts of reasons, some pretty bizarre!
If these kind of ‘opened-up’ sandy areas on links courses are still there in 5 yrs, maybe 10, then they’ve probably been a success. If there not still there, or have been deliberately covered over again, well it’ll tell another golfing story ....
Atb

[Tim Gallant]

Time will tell.
These ‘opened-up’ sandy waste areas on links courses look great on photos and drone shots but what are the longer term regular maintenance implications on a windy site, especially if labour and money is tight?
And then what happens when the Captain or the Chairman or their best friend or partner hits their shot into one of theses newly opened-up areas and takes half a dozen shots to recover and gets their electric power trolley stuck! Don’t laugh, decisions get made for all sorts of reasons, some pretty bizarre!
If these kind of ‘opened-up’ sandy areas on links courses are still there in 5 yrs, maybe 10, then they’ve probably been a success. If there not still there, or have been deliberately covered over again, well it’ll tell another golfing story ....
Atb

To confirm at Gullane, the waste area bunker at the 9th hole is no longer there.

[Tony_Muldoon]

I keep on hearing how good they are ecologically as well. I’m wondering at this point if this a just a repeated mantra emanating from one source because I’m yet to see someone list out material benefits. It would certainly help if I fully understood this as it might soften my stance.

Exactly this.

I'm not an ecologist but I know that Bird watchers head for estuaries or wetlands because that’s where birds eat invertebrates (insects) that live in mud or the tidal ecosystem.  It's a rare bird that can find enough to eat on beaches or sand scrapes.
When I ask those ‘in the know' at Deal what the purpose of the new scrapes are? I’m told that they are there to increase diversity. On enquiring “how so?” I’m told there are certain insects that need these areas and that by having a few such areas on the course they can move limited distances from one to the other and indeed link up with the other courses nearby.  When I ask what those insects are ….

[Clyde Johnson]

I'm not sure the vast majority of these exposed areas are being created for the sake of it. As has been mentioned, they are being used as a source of sand and native plant material (to patch back up newly created landforms). Given how constrained many of our links courses are, it's inevitable that these source areas are close to play, and inevitable that they are positioned where they are less likely to influence play. To the foreground of holes or way off to the flanks, in areas that might otherwise have been unplayable...that's not always a bad thing. 


So, the more pertinent question should be: are the projects that require the generation of sand worthwhile, and actually really improving the golf!?






In the case of Hillside, the area between the first and eighteenth was rather non-discript - open, with a roadway passing through  it. I tend to like such areas for variety in the landscape. Not to mention, a strong dislike for flanking mounds that fail to tie into the fairway contours in at least one or two places. I'd think of the work as superfluous, but I bet that you'd be hard pressed to find too many of their members that agree...and that's who the work is really for.


The pictured work is very fresh and very clean. Not to mention, very similar in shaping to the work seen elsewhere in the Isles. But, you've got to give it a few years to weather-in/evolve before you can pass true judgement on the aesthetics.


The ecological narrative is merely that as far as I can see. The ideal convincer to push for the design decisions that are being proposed. Not many architects could resist that.

[Ally Mcintosh]

If it doesn't grow over in time (strong possibility unless it is maintained), it will weather much better exactly because the wind and erosion will get at it, making it look as if it belongs a little more than it does now. The reason it doesn't look like it belongs now is because it is in a position where it should not be. It is not a natural position for open sand or blow-out. I don't like it personally.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()