[Kalen Braley]

I remain confused about the nomenclature.  A new course, highly regarded on this board, has been described as a "monument to minimalism," and yet it is reported that they moved 300,000 yards of dirt, brought in 2,000 loads of sand cap, and laid 15 miles of pipe.  And that was for 9 holes.  As the words are commonly understood, is that really minimal or natural, regardless of how pleasing the result?

Are you talking Sweetens Cove?  If so I wouldn't call that minimalist...

[Kyle Harris]

I remain confused about the nomenclature.  A new course, highly regarded on this board, has been described as a "monument to minimalism," and yet it is reported that they moved 300,000 yards of dirt, brought in 2,000 loads of sand cap, and laid 15 miles of pipe.  And that was for 9 holes.  As the words are commonly understood, is that really minimal or natural, regardless of how pleasing the result?

Are you talking Sweetens Cove?  If so I wouldn't call that minimalist, but naturalist sure...

Infrastructure is often required to make golf sustainable. Else the sport would be limited to coastal Scotland and the heathlands.

[Tom_Doak]

From what I've read about your experience building High Pointe, would you say that naturalism was an exigent of your resources there?

Yes, sort of.  I started High Pointe with the idea that we were going to build something as efficient as possible - to err on the side of doing less, rather than more, which is where everyone else had been erring for a decade.  The client didn't tell me what the budget ought to be; we thought about what we needed to move, and came up with the relatively small number of $1.3 million.


The only other person involved with any experience in golf, Tom Mead, was my construction superintendent and grow-in guy.  Tom was a big believer in sustainability before we even had that name for it.  His most profound comment about sustainability is that if you try to maintain your golf course for less money but at the same time you are trying to keep it healthy, you are making exactly the same moves you would be making to make it more sustainable.


At the time, I didn't understand a lot of the details of hiding my tracks, as we do today . . . those were gained from experience, and they weren't very important to the Dyes.  But, I was imitating the work I'd seen on older courses.  One of my mantras at High Pointe was that we wouldn't build any "mounds" because those were so popular in the 80's; I didn't recognize at the time how often Dr. MacKenzie had built mounds as the foundation of his big bunkers.  [Not much at Crystal Downs, though.]


We also had the advantage of beautiful natural roughs on the back nine, and in hindsight we did a pretty good job of tying them in naturally, except along the right side of the 13th hole where I couldn't find anything to grab onto as an edge.

[Tom_Doak]

I remain confused about the nomenclature.  A new course, highly regarded on this board, has been described as a "monument to minimalism," and yet it is reported that they moved 300,000 yards of dirt, brought in 2,000 loads of sand cap, and laid 15 miles of pipe.  And that was for 9 holes.  As the words are commonly understood, is that really minimal or natural, regardless of how pleasing the result?

Sweetens Cove is anything but minimal or natural, in my book.  [Disclaimer:  I have not seen it in person.]


I think it's fine for me to say that, since the designer is on record saying he is trying to do something very different from what I do.  But, since "minimalist" is still the fashion, anything new that's good must be linked to that label by writers, much like when I started, anything new had to be labeled as "links-like".


When we were building Black Forest - 18 holes cut through the trees - a golf writer asked me if it was a Scottish-style course, because of course that was the thing in 1991.  I responded [tongue in cheek] that it was more of a German-styled course.  He did not get the joke.  And to be fair, I had not been to Germany, so I had no idea how true that statement was!

[Bernie Bell]

Kalen, yes, and I haven't seen it, which handicaps me.  But I guess naturalist then means a style that, through ingenuity and imagination, makes the artificial (or man-made) appear natural?  Versus something more stylized and less realistic?

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen, yes, and I haven't seen it, which handicaps me.  But I guess naturalist then means a style that, through ingenuity and imagination, makes the artificial (or man-made) appear natural?  Versus something more stylized and less realistic?

Bernie,

I edited my last response, but only because I haven't see it in person, so I guess I shouldn't say.  But in all the pictures and videos I've seen the place looks fantastic.  I think there is a good point here in that a course doesn't have to be naturalistic to enjoy it.  Jim Engh's course are a ton of fun to me, and they will never be confused with such.  Perhaps Sweetens Cove is somewhere in the middle in that it is at least plausible for its location?

[Ira Fishman]

Isn't that always one of the biggest criticisms of Raynors work, the greens and surrounds not tying in. Did he even try to do that? Somehow he seems to get a pass from almost everyone. Perhaps engineered vs minimalistic which is an interesting discussion though one that seems to allow some courses that benefit from wonderful locations to present fairly engineered courses that don't offer what I'd call tie ins. Examples in my mind, all courses I really like would be Fisher's Island, Sleepy Hollow and of course there are tons of other ones.

They are just two different styles and there is no reason you can't enjoy both.


However, when we built Old Macdonald, we could not imagine building all the features without worrying about the tie-ins as Raynor and Macdonald might have.  My compromise was to think of it as building a course full of the great links holes they admired.  It's worth noting that places like North Berwick don't always have perfect tie-ins, either . . . but the scale of the artificial work is generally small, so the abrupt little edges of greens are more in scale for a golf shot than the bigger bolder features of, say, The Castle Course.


Raynor was good, though, at keeping his tie-ins reasonable.  The last time I was at Chicago Golf Club, I noticed how most of the greens are higher on one side than the other, so that the banks down to the bunkers are of similar height, instead of having a taller bank on the low side that calls out how artificial the fill is.

First, this is a wonderful thread.


Second, we loved North Berwick on both our plays. So I am very curious which holes have shortcomings regarding tie-ins. If I had to guess, I would say Numbers 8, 10, and 12, but that is a pure guess.


Thanks.

[Jay Mickle]

I find #2 a study in contrasts in that on many holes an approach from the correct angle provides a view of what I see as a well tied in green but from other sides it seems a bit contrived. Perhaps someone better versed can help me understand this better.

[Ally Mcintosh]

I find #2 a study in contrasts in that on many holes an approach from the correct angle provides a view of what I see as a well tied in green but from other sides it seems a bit contrived. Perhaps someone better versed can help me understand this better.

This is quite often the most difficult part of the puzzle. Tom often talks about looking at the work from all sides for two reasons: The first is playability and golf shot related. The second is aesthetics (related to tie-ins / finishes).


I know that on a few occasions, I’ve done work which looks great from the approach but less so from behind or from side-on. Debate usually ensues for why this is, can it be tweaked and eventually does it really matter in the one or two cases where we couldn’t actually improve it. But those instances always left a “less than perfect” taste in my mouth.


Generally I find that if I walk away from an area of work and nothing annoys me about any part of the visuals, then we’ve nailed the tie-ins. Being highly critical I think is a must.

[Tim Gallant]

Really enjoying reading all the responses so far. How everyone has responded was what I thought of when thinking 'tie-ins', but Andy's response made me think there's more to it, and based on the responses, there is!


I'd love more examples of good and bad tie-ins.


At NB, my guess is the bunkers in the middle of the fairway at 9 are maybe not classically great tie-ins, as they are just two humps in the middle of a flat fairway, but I quite like them - they are imposing and strategically, I think they work well, so I'm less worried that they look manufactured.


Any other examples others can point to on other courses?

[Sean_A]

At NB, my guess is the bunkers in the middle of the fairway at 9 are maybe not classically great tie-ins, as they are just two humps in the middle of a flat fairway, but I quite like them - they are imposing and strategically, I think they work well, so I'm less worried that they look manufactured.

+1

Ciao

[Mike_Young]

I think it is fair to say you "find" minimalism and you "create" naturalism as a style.  In minimalism you find green sites, landing areas and tee sites and decide how best to link them together with minimal disturbance.  Tie-ins are minimal.  If I had to describe the main element that defines naturalism it would be the long flowing earth forms created to look as though they "tie-in" to the existing terrain and have always been there.  I don't think either was possible in the early 80's and 90's for most projects because they were lined with real estate lots and the corridors would not allow for the needed "tie-ins".  Sharp abrupt mounding was often placed on the perimeters of holes and then later as courses were developed w/o homes or with a "core" design the ability to "tie-in" became feasible.  The one aggravating feature that came from all of this , whether one calls it minimalism or naturalism, is the damn jagged edge bunker.  In so many cases it is not sustainable. It is not minimal and it is not natural.  I would almost rather have the old abrupt mounding

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean's +1 and his profiles of some early examples of architecture/courses by the golden age greats has me thinking that the importance tie-ins have for us today reflects both the maturing of gca as an art-craft and the enhanced expectations of the modern golfer for a complete experience: one that combines the shot-making aspects of the game with the aesthetic pleasures of nature -- and does so seamlessly, and ideally (judging by the rankings) in a setting far from the maddening crowds, in near isolation with unspoiled scenery and the sea all around us.

Our ancestors seemed to be content with having merely a great game of golf, and wanted the architect to provide that without undue concern for appearing natural as opposed to constructed (which 'look' would usually come about of its own accord anyway, over time); but today we expect & demand more: not merely a great game of golf but a breathtaking (and yet calming) immersion for 4 or 5 hours in nature, into a bucolic world of its own. And we demand it instantly, not 'over time': we want it from the very moment a new course opens for play.

Perhaps the farther away we move from a natural and well-measured life -- surrounded by huge swaths of concrete and steel, racing around at an increasingly frenetic pace, tied to our cell phones, inundated with information/noise -- the more important it becomes for us, and the more we will pay for, the sane and quiet pleasure of time spent in nature, even if we know deep down that this 'nature' has actually been created and 'tied-in' by skillful hands.

                 

[Thomas Dai]

To what extent are tie-ins influenced by, modified by, enhanced or hidden by length of grass?
Atb

[Jim Nugent]

The minute you need to change something you do everything possible to make it seem like you never changed it in the first place.

Slightly paraphrased, this is exactly what Alister Mackenzie said. 

[BCrosby]

Well said, Mike Young.

[Kalen Braley]

Bravo Mike!


Whoever said containment style mounding is not "natural" has clearly never been to the Palouse region of Eastern Washington.... 

[Tom_Doak]

If I had to describe the main element that defines naturalism it would be the long flowing earth forms created to look as though they "tie-in" to the existing terrain and have always been there.  I don't think either was possible in the early 80's and 90's for most projects because they were lined with real estate lots and the corridors would not allow for the needed "tie-ins".  Sharp abrupt mounding was often placed on the perimeters of holes and then later as courses were developed w/o homes or with a "core" design the ability to "tie-in" became feasible.  The one aggravating feature that came from all of this , whether one calls it minimalism or naturalism, is the damn jagged edge bunker.  In so many cases it is not sustainable. It is not minimal and it is not natural.  I would almost rather have the old abrupt mounding

To be fair, pretty much no style of bunker edge is natural in a parkland setting.  The jagged edges ARE natural at Sand Hills, Ballyneal and Barnbougle ... they don't spend any money on edging them.


As for tie-ins, you are generalizing too much.  The terrain at Ballyneal is very choppy, so the tie-ins there are way different than at Cape Kidnappers, where the whole playing surface is a long, tilted plain with sharply eroded edges.  For the latter, building anything up was almost impossible to tie in, but we could make very abrupt cuts wherever we needed.

[Mike_Young]

If I had to describe the main element that defines naturalism it would be the long flowing earth forms created to look as though they "tie-in" to the existing terrain and have always been there.  I don't think either was possible in the early 80's and 90's for most projects because they were lined with real estate lots and the corridors would not allow for the needed "tie-ins".  Sharp abrupt mounding was often placed on the perimeters of holes and then later as courses were developed w/o homes or with a "core" design the ability to "tie-in" became feasible.  The one aggravating feature that came from all of this , whether one calls it minimalism or naturalism, is the damn jagged edge bunker.  In so many cases it is not sustainable. It is not minimal and it is not natural.  I would almost rather have the old abrupt mounding

To be fair, pretty much no style of bunker edge is natural in a parkland setting.  The jagged edges ARE natural at Sand Hills, Ballyneal and Barnbougle ... they don't spend any money on edging them.


As for tie-ins, you are generalizing too much.  The terrain at Ballyneal is very choppy, so the tie-ins there are way different than at Cape Kidnappers, where the whole playing surface is a long, tilted plain with sharply eroded edges.  For the latter, building anything up was almost impossible to tie in, but we could make very abrupt cuts wherever we needed.

TD,
I did generalize and I knew there were exceptions...as for the bunker edges....I'mnot talking about natural sand blowouts and sand bunkers shaped in sand land...I'm talking about all of the movement in some of these bunkers cut into clay and other soils which are trying to emulate sand land bunkering...

[Tom_Doak]

TD,
I did generalize and I knew there were exceptions...as for the bunker edges....I'm not talking about natural sand blowouts and sand bunkers shaped in sand land...I'm talking about all of the movement in some of these bunkers cut into clay and other soils which are trying to emulate sand land bunkering...

I know you know . . . but you were sounding a little too much like Rees Jones there, lampooning the idea of jagged-edged bunkers because he thinks his style should be universal. 


I agree with you completely that bunker edges can be taken way too far; one size does NOT fit all and some of the things being built today seem ignorant of their surroundings.  Plus I still remember Dick Youngscap laughing at Dan & Dave for taking so long to do their bunker edges at Sand Hills, and telling them it would all take care of itself in a few months anyway.

[AStaples]

Great topic!


I find it interesting the topic of tie ins has evolved into a description of minimalism. I’ve always thought of minimalism in the manner in which Wilber described it to me building Sand Hollow - “If you don’t have to do it, then why do it?” This has been a critical clarifier in the process of building golf. If you don’t have to change a natural contour, or build USGA greens, or add a bunker, then why do it? I refer to this advice often! Thanks Dave.


But it’s when you do have to do it, that tie ins matter most. And in renovations, as Toms suggests, it’s the most important. Here’s a few recent examples of what I would call tie ins and the importance of getting them right:

• Making sure your bunker edge is properly excavated to account for @#%*ing bunker liners
• Making sure the sod company lays the warm season sod perpendicular to the bunker edge and not straight or parallel along the edge, essentially eliminating any sense of creative edging
• Making sure the bunker sand is spread properly and not bury the edge
• Making sure the rock wall along the edge of a lake is properly back filled and it doesn’t settle and create a place for a ball to come to rest against
• The corners of square tees don’t settle
• The added drain line that was needed gets properly backfilled
• The bunker edge and slope that gets wiped out when a sprinkler sticks on over night
• Realizing you didn’t remove enough turf to create the support for a bunker or slope and then seeing it when the setting sun hits the contour during grow in

I have more but a large collection of these is what makes getting it right so time consuming. And it’s not always poor construction or disinterested contractors. There are so many moving pieces that it takes a great team to know what’s being built to get it as close as possible. Develop a great team, then repeat.

[Tom_Doak]

Andy:  Your list above is partly why, on a new course, we


1. Don't do bunker liners
2. Don't lay sod
4. Don't build rock walls (or ponds if I can help it), and
5. Don't build square tees


As a baseball fan, I have sometimes compared doing earthwork (and tie-ins) to getting batters out.  It's one thing to retire three guys in order, but it's exponentially harder to pitch a perfect game.  So, the fewer pieces of work you give yourself to do, the more likely you can pull them off without a mistake.

[AStaples]

I like the baseball analogy. 


The other aspect of tie ins that seems to happen on every project are the ebbs and flows of emotional capital of the crews, both construction, and maintenance.  It seems for me anyways, it's a battle to keep everyone there as long as possible to finish the job out right.  Every job starts  off with the highest of expectations, and great enthusiasm.  It gets into the grind right about the time we're finding our shaping groove, and irrigation comes through and destroys the place. But, as soon as the first water is turned on, and then the first holes start to turn green, the enthusiasm spikes, and everyone has a smile on their face. It's when you're at the end of the project that we have to be diligent at keeping up the quality.   Its at this point the carnitas or steaks on the barby come is handy.

[Tim Gallant]

Great topic!


I find it interesting the topic of tie ins has evolved into a description of minimalism. I’ve always thought of minimalism in the manner in which Wilber described it to me building Sand Hollow - “If you don’t have to do it, then why do it?” This has been a critical clarifier in the process of building golf. If you don’t have to change a natural contour, or build USGA greens, or add a bunker, then why do it? I refer to this advice often! Thanks Dave.


But it’s when you do have to do it, that tie ins matter most. And in renovations, as Toms suggests, it’s the most important. Here’s a few recent examples of what I would call tie ins and the importance of getting them right:

• Making sure your bunker edge is properly excavated to account for @#%*ing bunker liners
• Making sure the sod company lays the warm season sod perpendicular to the bunker edge and not straight or parallel along the edge, essentially eliminating any sense of creative edging
• Making sure the bunker sand is spread properly and not bury the edge
• Making sure the rock wall along the edge of a lake is properly back filled and it doesn’t settle and create a place for a ball to come to rest against
• The corners of square tees don’t settle
• The added drain line that was needed gets properly backfilled
• The bunker edge and slope that gets wiped out when a sprinkler sticks on over night
• Realizing you didn’t remove enough turf to create the support for a bunker or slope and then seeing it when the setting sun hits the contour during grow in

I have more but a large collection of these is what makes getting it right so time consuming. And it’s not always poor construction or disinterested contractors. There are so many moving pieces that it takes a great team to know what’s being built to get it as close as possible. Develop a great team, then repeat.

Andy,


Thank you very much for the examples - really interesting to read! It's interesting that most that commented here talk about tie-ins as it relates to the course fitting in well with the surrounding land naturally, whereas you pointed to detailing work that ties everything together and makes a good course, a potentially great course by ensuring the details are considered.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()