Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Jim Engh on February 12, 2008, 01:58:07 PM
-
Oops! Sorry this was supposed to be a new topic. ROOKIES!!!
Greetings all! Apologies for not posting in a while.
Tom Doak made a post a couple of months ago as follows.....
"Heck, when I can have a friendly exchange with Jim Engh and not even mention how artificial his courses are, you know there's something wrong here."
I consider Tom a friend and we have had some fun conversations over the past few years. Yep, his delivery style does make me giggle. Alas, the point of the issue is that his comment has peaked my curiosity.
Is natural the ultimate goal?
Jim
-
Personally I think seeing as golf is supposed to be a game and all...FUN should be the ultimate goal.
Nothing against naturalism, often times its a nice feature if the property has something going for it to begin with, but it wouldn't be #1 to me.
-
Quote from: Jim Engh on Today at 01:48:02 pm
Is natural the ultimate goal?
Jim
Jim,
You pose what is, for me, a very easy question to answer.
Natural is the ultimate goal for those who try to design that way. I would shudder to think what great courses would never have existed if it was the only goal of all architects.
Your style is not something that should have to be reconciled by another methodology or philosophy. Many enjoy your courses and you obviously choose to design the way you do. Whether Tom Doak or any one of us chooses to agree with it is of small consequence in the big picture.
So, my answer is:
No.
Joe
-
I'm all for variety. If every course was completely naturalistic, naturalism would lose its luster. Ditto if everyone started to emulate the "Engh Method."
Hopefully, designers will borrow a bit of what is known to work well, inject a lot of their unique talents, and produce a variety of original courses which push the envelope without sacrificing playability for the sake of experimentalism.
-
Natural?
Jim, how could there ever be fairways in the desert? How many places are sand pits 'natural'? Must all courses in forest areas be played between trees?
One of the best courses I have played; Eagle Eye in Michigan, was completely 'contrived'. It is still great to play.
We have more options today because we have more powerful tools. I expect them to be used as a creative architect forsees. New ideads are almost always called unnatural, at first.
The only 'natural' possible, it seems to me, is to find a rabbit hole, and a place to start several hundred yards away, and do nothing but play.
All that said; capturing the natural beauty of a landform and building a course that accentuates it can certainly be a wonderous thing. Jim, you have done that well enough.
Doug
-
Natural is not the ultimate goal, but it is a means to achieving the ultimate goal of a fun, beautiful and interesting experience.
I think you fight an uphill battle when you try to do it through artificial looking golf courses. TPC Sawgrass is a really fun layout, but feels like a battle in a garden rather than a battle in nature. I think the experience suffers a bit for that reason.
-
Preferences make the world go round. I would ask if there is an ultimate goal at all. In fact some courses try too hard to imitate nature and end up looking worse than those courses that underline or emphasize a particular "theme" and repeat it well.
-
I am lost by this thread.
How can a putting green and sand trap be natural? How can a golf course be natural?
Is it that we have an innate sense of an idealized pastoral abstraction of what looks good or what is "natural"?
-
If every course was completely naturalistic, naturalism would lose its luster.
Naturalism is timeless and time is the true judge of art.
-
This all gets lost in the theoretical discussion of what exactly is nature. To an extent, natural is "well, it was here when I got here, and it looks about right..." Someday someone is gonna find something I dropped in the woods and think it's an ancient sherd from the natives - which, to an extent, it will be.
-
Naturalism is the goal for me, yes.
It sets better with me when it comes to looking at the game as a journey, exploring the wild blue yonder. I want to be thrilled.
It seems to more closely resemble "golf in the beginning," which I only reference because it seems some credence ought to be paid to those who invented the game after all.
It sets better with me because I've yet to see any architect do it better than mother nature herself.
It sets better with me when it comes to beating back those naysayers who say golf courses are terrible for the environment.
Blatantly artificial is what I can find on any putt putt course. Indeed there is a place for windmills and clown faces, but that's exactly where that place is, the putt putt course.
-
Jim, how could there ever be fairways in the desert? How many places are sand pits 'natural'? Must all courses in forest areas be played between trees?
I've long had the same feelings as expressed by Doug Ralston. When I examine how I feel about a golf course, I don't think so much in terms of whether it looks natural or not, but more in terms of how it sits in the space it inhabits, how it connects with the surroundings to create a pleasing combination. Sometimes it seems to sit effortlessly in the land it inhabits, and I feel like I just "found" it there (TOC), and other times it's the juxtaposition between the course and the surrounding area that inspires, where the course couldn't possibly be there, but it is, and I get to play on it (Banff Springs). I feel perfectly willing to be astounded by the infinite inventiveness of nature and the cleverness of man, in concert, in opposition, or either, standing alone.
-
I am lost by this thread.
How can a putting green and sand trap be natural? How can a golf course be natural?
Is it that we have an innate sense of an idealized pastoral abstraction of what looks good or what is "natural"?
I believe "naturalistic" (e.g. a green that appears to be merely a mown patch of grass in prexisting meadow) is the term best used to describe what golf course architects produce, not something genuinely natural (e.g. a rabbit hole in a meadow)
-
I'm inclined to think that golf courses are better if they look as if they could have just happened.
That give you a lot of leeway, as there are plenty of wild and wooly landforms in this world. And they don't always look like the surrounding terrain.
The "unnatural" stuf that grates on me as a golfer is courses where it's obvious that everything was built by man, and none of it even slightly blends with the land.
I've played too many holes where the green looks like a pile of dirt that someone flattened out @ about three feet above the existing ground.
Nothing done by the architects around here is going to resemble that.
Ken
-
If every course was completely naturalistic, naturalism would lose its luster.
Naturalism is timeless and time is the true judge of art.
Yes, but if every portrait was a derivative of the Mona Lisa, would many of us not grow tired of the genre altogether?
-
Michael Dugger said it many times in his post....for me, or...me....which is honestly admitting he has
Personal Preferences
That is what starts and ends this thread, for any of us.
Joe
-
In short, I believe most courses should be "contextual" (though I know that term is also loaded) instead of relying on the term "natural". No one could then feel courses were monotonous, as so many different contexts exist within the land. Where "contextual" is not readily a possibility, the course should simply be interesting and enjoyable. We would then arrive at an acceptable balance (and not always feel like we were attempting to appreciate the same painting).
-
In laymans terms, I think naturalism is this:
The appearance that a small army of mowers was unleashed on a plot of land as it exists to indicate where the fairways and greens are. A course that is naturalistic may have very well had lots of earth moved, but it appears to have not been touched, just mowed.
The biggest disconnect for me is having bunkers in parkland stlye courses, but on a sandy stretch of dunes, this is realistic.
Is naturalism a good goal to shoot for you? I say heck yes. But is it the only goal? No way. I don't think any of us would find much fun playing a course that sits dead flat on the land with no undulations of obstacles to negotiate. Think corn field in dead flat Iowa plowed under and a naturalistic course put in its place.
-
I think that harmony is the ultimate goal. Instead of asking if a golf course is natural, we should ask if it is in harmony with it's environment. And that includes a lot of elements that are not even necessarily golf related: the clubhouse architecture, the native terrain, the natural features of the land, the native flora, the community history and traditions, and the skyline, just to name a few.
Augusta is a club that engenders one of the strongest feelings of harmony of any club that I have ever visited, but most of the golf features are not even particularly natural (although everyone has their own definition for what is natural). Everything about the Augusta, from the entrance drive, the clubhouse, the glassy smooth wide-open fairways, the towering pines, the pine straw, the huge rolling greens, the magnolias, the cabins, even the aroma; all the elements complement each other. You don't have competing themes at Augusta, but rather one motif. And this is a very hard thing to contrive. It requires extraordinary personalities to design and preserve.
-
Ernie Els also isn't a naturalist.
http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/columns/ernie_els/ernie_els_golf_course_design.aspx
Although there is some discussion of trying to be natural (obviously, I think that's always a consideration - artificiality for articiality's sake seems silly), I think this is Els' most important goal, and I think courses that pull it off are brilliant:
"This way, you can make up your own mind as to which shot to play as opposed to the course dictating a specific style. I feel this sort of creativity makes for the most enjoyable golf, no matter where you are in the world. "
Looking at photos, that's what makes Kinloch so beautiful - its not the most natural course (though its not overly artificial either), but the sheer number of options when playing is what makes it unique.
-
If all courses were proposed to sit upon interesting land of ideal contouring and a setting that reflected a harmony with the regional land masses, then I'd say that it would be a pity to create or manufacture a golf course that insults those natural landforms and regional setting.
Anotherwords, flattening a nicely rolling site instead of designing among and over such contours to use the land for strategy and golf feature-hazard creation that fits the areas natural tie-ins to the horizons, etc. If one imposes many water features such as lakes and artificial water courses on a rolling prairie or sand hills, it insults nature. On, tidewater, or low lands, one must use water and dig lakes for FW fill, etc. But, if one insults the subtlety of low tidewater or lowlands, with goofy artificial series of willy nilly improbably mounds looking like a dead elephant burial grounds, it insults nature, as well.
Even in the improbable areas for the siting of a golf course, such as someone mentioned Banff, there was a process that Stanley Thompson employed to find a very natural routing through the terraine and sited very plausible hole corridors that in no way insulted nature. (even though I haven't been there and am only going by photos I've seen)
So, if there is a flat piece of ground, with unremarkable or no distinquishing natural character, then the archie can still either create or manufacture something of great fun and strategic interest by finding 'something' that makes it plausibly tied into the ground and surrounds as a regional siting tied to a distant distiguishing feature, or just not make it so improbable that it offends the eye.
I think we do have preferences but generally know when something is implausible or whacky VS something that makes good golf sense and is natural and restrained or strikes just that right balance of manufactured artificiality to yield good golf.
-
Even for those who consider naturalism akin to a dry aged prime rib eye and Caymus Reserve, I'm sure a greasy cheeseburger and cold Budweiser is appealing from time to time.
-
In the beginning golf was played on linksland. It was the ideal terrain because of its' natural characteristics. It was unusable for agriculture, so towns did not deprive themselves of opportunities to grow food in lieu of golf.
The natural rolls and springy turf made it fun to hit a ball over the surface.
Sheep, seeking refuge from the wind. dug their way into the backside of humps. Over time wind eroded these humps and bunkers were formed.
What's not natural about this?
-
I think we do have preferences but generally know when something is implausible or whacky VS something that makes good golf sense and is natural and restrained or strikes just that right balance of manufactured artificiality to yield good golf.
Like Lawsonia, for instance?
;D
-
Hmmm... interesting topic. I would like to put it in a slight different context.
I think the goal for any artistic creation (I would categorize golf courses as an artistic creation), I believe is to create desired harmony with its surroundings.
Our brains are wired so that we recognize patterns in everything we hear, see, touch, etc. When something is not harmonic with its surroundings, it causes our brains to react in stress (evolutionary trait that helped us survive in the wild).
This fact is elegantly demonstrated in music. Most people have favorable responses to music by Beethoven or Mozart because they have very natural progression of chords that create beautiful harmonic resonance with how we feel.
I believe this is the same kind of sensation that people feel when they see a golf course that looks like it is part of the land and blends in beautifully with the surroudings. And it is what most people here are calling "naturalistic" design.
However, you can have slight disruptions in harmony to produce different, but still desired effects. Just like Stravinsky provoked a riot with his use of dissonant chords in "Rite of Spring", very modern designs such as the Stadium course goes against the accepted norm to produce "dissonant" harmony with it surrounding in a very calculated manner. And while the initial reaction from the public may be strongly against it, over time people get used to the dissonant qualities and the appreciation for the different harmonic quality grows.
This is pretty much how all artistic endeavors grow over time. I expect golf courses to follow the same paradigm.
So I would say "natural" should never be the ultimate goal. But how to shape the perception of "natural" should be.
-
Joe, believe it or not, I hestitated to post in thinking of justifying the Lawsonia example (or a Yeaman's Hall, or CC of Charletson) but then thought they do fit my parameters. Neither courses have features that insult nature, they have created features that make good golf sense, and are not just willy nilly. The gullwinged FW bunkers of Lawsonia are there for strategy as are the less artful Raynor bunkers of YH and CCof C, but are stylish enough and strategic (at least to my eye) They are sort of restrained artificiality necessary for the strategy. At Lawsonia, the platforms of greens are plausibly like topped off drumlins that are all over our glacier kettle and morraine region. At a more lowland Yeamansand CCofC, there are some more built up than others. The built up ones aren't natural sites at all, but still they are restrained to not insult nature, I don't think.
-
In past years when I travelled the world, I wanted the same standard of accommodation wherever I went e.g. a Hilton Hotel near every airport. However, I have never wanted the same with golf courses.
I am of the very old school. I love the natural courses with minimal intrusion because that is how golf started – this was the basis of the game. I am not a supporter of moving mountains – I can accept artificial lakes (for the sole purpose of storing water to irrigate the course) but I don’t want to play on what I describe as plastic manicured courses.
What scares the hell out of me – is that when we start to live on the Moon, we may see beautifully manicured courses with trees, lakes, double lane buggy tracks and 10,000yds long courses, located beside a Hilton Hotel. As Spock may have said to Kirk ‘Jim, this is not life as we want to know it’ – Guys if you get there please, please, please design a natural course.
Everything else is just plain artificial.
-
I am lost by this thread.
How can a putting green and sand trap be natural? How can a golf course be natural?
Is it that we have an innate sense of an idealized pastoral abstraction of what looks good or what is "natural"?
Is 'natural' a style?
This thread reminds of when people in my field (I am an architect...buildings) and discuss things like 'function'.
-
"Is natural the ultimate goal?"
Jim:
I don't think so.
I guess I'd say if golf architecture is an art form the ultimate goal of the artists in it should probably be whatever kind of expression of art they want it to be. I'm all for the "Big World" theory that there should be a lot of difference in this art form. But for those artists whose ultimate goal is naturalism, I'd like to see some of them push that limit maybe farther than its ever been pushed before.
-
great thread - thanks gents.
Jim - It's hard not agree with Joe H and others who talk about 'personal preference' as opposed to 'ultimate goal'. But here goes:
Wouldn't the ultimate goal of designing for a sport that's played inside be the very opposite of that for a sport that's played outside?
If the sport is played inside, in a building, I'd want that building to be a technological marvel, and to take full advantage of all the man-made know-how that's available. The actual field of play would remain unchanged and standardized in any event - independent of the site.
If a sport is played outdoors, in nature, I'd want that design to be a naturalistic marvel, and to take full advantage of the depth and breadth of nature's ways. The actual field of play would be affected dramatically, and there'd be no hint of standardization - totally dependent on the site.
Peter
-
The only natural golf course I have ever played was in my Dad's backyard. Nonetheless, there is a difference between using the land and abusing the land. I at least like to see the course fit in with the surrounding land in plantings, trees, and undulation. A course like Ballyneal or even the Sanctuary fit in this category. It seems that Jim's course at Pradera fit the crterion as well. Black Rock pushes the envelope a little, especially #11 but even that course fits into the landscape.
That said, I love Whistling Straights. From the course you can't see the flat land the surrounds the course, so it at least feels to fit in with the surroundings.
-
There are so few courses that actually pull off a natural look successfully that I gotta believe its either much harder to make a course a look like it belongs then not or it isn't desirable to make courses look like they belong. Even so, so far as I am concerned, natural is one goal, not the ultimate goal.
Ciao
-
Boys, thanks for the replies. My apologies for re-starting the old thread about Tommy. It was not intentional. I was trying to copy the quote from Mr. Doak and the next thing I know, I have the entire thread posted........ That is why the guys in my office will only let me have pencils. Nothing that can't be fixed with an electric eraser! They are sitting in fear as we speak.....oh no! Engh's on the internet! Honestly, I do hope that Tommy is doing well.
Anyway, after reading all of your interesting and heartfelt perspectives I have come to the conclusion that the topic is simply too complex for a definitive answer. However, I would like to share some thoughts in simple, non-connected statements.
- I noticed in a past thread, I think started by Jeff Brauer, that the majority of you view the profession more as an artform than a technical function.( Jeff sorry if I didn't get that exactly right.) I tend to agree. In fact, I view the technical side of the profession to be more about solving problems created by the artistic process.
- Is the goal of art not to invoke interest, passion and thought from the human spirit? Would that be the same for golf?
- If a piece of land is flat and boring, is it the gc architects duty to design to mimic the land or provide an unique human experience through art?
- If the goal is to invoke interest, passion and thought through art, how much of the passion revolves around the game versus the landform?
- Suppose that if art is in fact, suppoosed to be natural, how would you view the following artists? Renoir? Picasso? Warhol?
- If you feel that art does not have an obligation to be natural, how do you feel about the same artisits? Which style do you prefer? Are you pleased that there is a wide variety artistic perspective? Would that same wide perspective be positive for the game of golf?
Sorry for all of the abstract. Just things that have been running through my dark-hole-vaccum of a mind.
All the best
Jim
-
Boys, thanks for the replies. My apologies for re-starting the old thread about Tommy. It was not intentional. I was trying to copy the quote from Mr. Doak and the next thing I know, I have the entire thread posted........ That is why the guys in my office will only let me have pencils. Nothing that can't be fixed with an electric eraser! They are sitting in fear as we speak.....oh no! Engh's on the internet! Honestly, I do hope that Tommy is doing well.
Anyway, after reading all of your interesting and heartfelt perspectives I have come to the conclusion that the topic is simply too complex for a definitive answer. However, I would like to share some thoughts in simple, non-connected statements.
- I noticed in a past thread, I think started by Jeff Brauer, that the majority of you view the profession more as an artform than a technical function.( Jeff sorry if I didn't get that exactly right.) I tend to agree. In fact, I view the technical side of the profession to be more about solving problems created by the artistic process.
- Is the goal of art not to invoke interest, passion and thought from the human spirit? Would that be the same for golf?
- If a piece of land is flat and boring, is it the gc architects duty to design to mimic the land or provide an unique human experience through art?
- If the goal is to invoke interest, passion and thought through art, how much of the passion revolves around the game versus the landform?
- Suppose that if art is in fact, suppoosed to be natural, how would you view the following artists? Renoir? Picasso? Warhol?
- If you feel that art does not have an obligation to be natural, how do you feel about the same artisits? Which style do you prefer? Are you pleased that there is a wide variety artistic perspective? Would that same wide perspective be positive for the game of golf?
Sorry for all of the abstract. Just things that have been running through my dark-hole-vaccum of a mind.
All the best
Jim
Jim
I was rolling with you, though I admit it was a bit of a bumpy ride, until I hit "Suppose that if art is in fact, suppoosed to be natural, how would you view the following artists? Renoir? Picasso? Warhol?". I don't see how making architecture naturalistic went to art being natural. Do you really consider yourself an artist in the same way Renoir or Picasso were artists?
Ciao
-
Sean
Thanks for trying to stay with the ramble.
Certainly, I am not trying to compare myself with these artists.
The purpose of using those artists was to present three artists with a wide and varied range of styles and perspectives, that most people would recognize. The point was that these three artists reached the heights of thier profession with wildly differing styles. Could there be an analogy to the artform of golf course design?
I do feel that any art form is supposed to inspire an emotional response from those that experience the art form. So I suppose that I do feel a kinship in that way. Of those three greats I have a personal preference. However, I truly respect and enjoy the emotional experience from all of thier works.
Jim
-
Cool! Art discussions on GCA… neato!
Jim, I believe artists like Renoir, Picasso, and Warhol are all naturalistic in their endeavor. They may not “look” naturalistic, but Renoir wanted to distill and put emphasis on how natural light interacts with objects, while Picasso put emphasis on how views from multiple angles affects how we view our world. Warhol’s naturalistic endeavor was to emphasize innate beauty in everyday objects around us.
They certainly stretched and expanded a lot of boundaries, but they were all ardent students of nature.
But I don’t think the current state of golf architecture mirror those artists. I think it goes back a bit more.
To me, the original “golden age” of golf architecture is more like the Renaissance revolution in art where faithfully recreating nature was of utmost importance. And I would argue that the period that we went through in 60’s through 90’s represented Rococo period in golf architecture where overly ornate and extreme proportions were all the rage. I would further argue that the back to the “natural” movement we have witnessed over last decade or so is the equivalent of Classicism (Tom Doak) and Romanticism (you) where artists wanted to reflect back on the essence of Greek artists and Renaissance artists.
What I am REALLY looking forward to in the future is what kind of equivalent vision we will see in golf architecture like we saw with Impressionism in art world. Who will be bold and daring enough to really distill the essence of golf architecture and re-interpret nature in a very specific manner? That should be very very exciting (at least to me).
I do think that we are a long ways from a golf architect equivalent of Picasso and Warhol.
-
Again, I agree with Jimbo here. The goal is a "good test of golf" not a good test of nature! The art of landscape and golf course architecture is to modify the landscape to make it fit for a specific human endeavor.
Golfers are our target, not the land itself. Owners success is our concern as well. A great natural course that doesn't sell enough rounds will soon be natural again!
Obviously, modifying it as little as possible has some benefits, but in reality, in some markets, and on some sites, so does modifying like putty, a la Whistling Straits. In others, like Sand Hills, it would be a crime and wouldn't work.
The trick is to know the difference!
-
Jim
I spose I see your point, but I believe gca is inherently far more limited in scope then any painter would be because the archie' s main goal is to make a product which is functional. A painter doesn't have such a restriction. At the end of the day, an archie can believe what he wants about his work. Is it art, engineering, labouring etc or some combination of everything? It may sound crass, but I am not terribly bothered what the archie believes about these matters. No matter the philosophy or outlook, courses all look more or less alike and as such are an easily identifiable product which is part of the reason I am not convinced that archies are artists - at least in the normal sense of the word. Off the top of my head I can't think of another "artistic" endeavor which in which the end product of all its practitioners is so similar. Even other very functional creative areas such as furniture or building architecture can be more diverse in their appearance. I may think this way because my eye isn't trained to see architecture or furniture the same way I see gca. For instance, I can be cruising through on a train and spot a golf course from just a glimpse because of the difference in colour of the surrounding landscape or how an area looks strangely flattened or built up even. I automatically try to read the course just as I would an advertisement on a billboard.
Ciao
-
Jeff, can you think of any examples of any courses that were built to be in harmony with natural surrounds and conversely, any that were totally artificial, either kind that have gone under? I'll have to think on that myself some.
But, I just perked up at your statement that courses that are designed to reflect a natural playing environment, that don't sell enough rounds, are going to soon revert back to truly natural. Where has that happened?
-
I think the goal might be integrity.
Which means, if you go for something, then flat out do it, do not go for half the result.
That's why a place like Oakmont is great, they had one thing in mind, built a hard penal course and in every detail that's exactly what they did.
When Tom Doak does a course like Barnbougle Dunes, his goal is probably to make a great field of golf, but to make as natural as possible, so every detail is oriented that way with great success.
Probably the same philosophy applies to Raynor's course, fit the templates them fit it all the way...
If you start building just another golf course, or a course that would be like the other one you did on the other side of the country, then you're in trouble.
Basically, try to make every course unique, respect it's uniqueness all the way. It might be green style, bunker style, hell tee style, whatever, but try to reinvent yourself a bit every time.
great artist consistently try to reinvent themself, if you become stagnant, you're dead
-
Jim
I think these questions posed months ago remain relevant to your new thread "Is natural the goal". Perhaps you can answer them here in this context.
Thanks
From your other thread-
I see Jim Engh bumped up the Tommy thread and I was hoping to get some answers from this query 2 months ago.. I'm hoping he can expand on some statements he's made.. I'm keen to know the answers..
Jim-- anythoughts on the below
Jim
I had the pleasure of playing Pradera this past summer with some friends and your design associate Tim H.
We noticed that the course features well placed and very imposing central bunkering but there seems to be an upslope going into them from the tee facing side and a lot of heavy grass in their surrounds.
We mentioned to Tim that these features seem to be "anti-gathering" and you almost need to fly the ball into them to have a ball hit into these bunkers and we asked if this was by design. He replied that you did this on purpose and the design intent was "not to punish members good shots". Your quote from above "The noses and slender nature came from my belief that my profession is more about art forms and human spaces than the creation of a field on which to play a game." seems to be in line with what Tim told us. Are these imposing looking (and playing if you get in them) bunkers really more for art and eye candy then for playing the game? Given that you said your "muscle bunkers" were inspired at Royal Portrush which certainly are gathering bunkers that were designed as hazards I wonder if you could explain a bit more about your design intent with regard to the bunkering schemes at your courses?
Thanks for your participation.
and
Bump for an answer to Noel's question.
I was there at Pradera and spoke with Tim about the bunkering and their design intent as well.
I'd love it if you would expand on your statement
"The noses and slender nature came from my belief that my profession is more about art forms and human spaces than the creation of a field on which to play a game."
because I strongly disagree. Golf is a sport and the playing field is there for the game. It is not a museum or national park to be passive and look at it. I certainly think your profession is an art form and the more that a course is integrated with its surrounds and the better it pleases the senses the better the experience of PLAYING THE GAME will be.
I'd really appreciate your take on this.
-
You're not the only one, Mr. Grumpy ;D
-
I sure wish I could pen the ultimate answer, but truth is there is not one. On this site alone there are 1500 ideas of natural, 1500 ideas of contrived, and 1500 ideas of a great golf course.
Which is why these threads are so much fun ;D
I would imagine that each one of us, even on the best course we can imagine, would be able to find something that we would do differently. Probably even the course's designer???
But even on that hole that I hate - if I hit a great shot and make birdie, I LOVE IT. And that is what it is all about.
-
Dr. Grumpy, RJ, and Naffer I presume,
I hope your interest in hearing Jim's position on these design issues is because y'all are inherently interested to know many perspectives in the field of golf course architecture.
If it's because you are looking to hold a person up to public humiliation because they think differently than you, or have different priorities for golf courses, then I would say that would be a wrong motivation.
Not a gauntlet or anything, just deciphering a bit of tone from the typed words...I hope I'm wrong.
Joe
-
Joe, speaking only for myself, No Way am I looking for any 'humiliation'. I have never played one of Jim's courses. I've just seen many very flattering pictures. The landscape beauty of his landscape focused design is very appealing.
But, there I said it, as he apparently did in the quote:
We mentioned to Tim that these features seem to be "anti-gathering" and you almost need to fly the ball into them to have a ball hit into these bunkers and we asked if this was by design. He replied that you did this on purpose and the design intent was "not to punish members good shots". Your quote from above "The noses and slender nature came from my belief that my profession is more about art forms and human spaces than the creation of a field on which to play a game."
I'm asking about this apparent priority he seems to be presenting about a desire to create an artform and human space before attending to the playability or a field of play. We are asking him to explain this more fully. Perhaps, as is highly understandable from all the short phrases everyone makes that don't reflect the "whole" idea of our values, this is one example of a quote out of context, or not fully developed. We would like Jim to elaborate. I think that is fair. They are his words after all, not ours...
And to be upfront, I personally believe you must provide the field of play of the game considerations first. I thought I was quite balanced in my views above, that I'm not a "natural design absolutist". I just feel that if you go either way (artificial landforms as landscape art) or designs that collaborate with the natural surrounds, the golf sense has to come first, or else one is just producing nice golf calendar photo views. Would you agree with any of that? :)
-
RJ,
I pretty much agree with everything you said. I would like to hear Jim's perspective on why, or if, he choses to prioritize the space and art forms than the actual playability....as it seems he is saying.
However, even if he comes back and confirms his priorities as implied, I am just hoping that the differences of opinion that are sure to follow would be respectful. We deal with ideals on this website most of the time, and it may prove enlightening to hear from someone who is radically apart from the status quo here....even if we disagree.
Joe
-
Jim:
For me natural is the ultimate goal, because it seems like a nearly impossible thing to strive for. We've come close, but we have never really gotten there yet, and that's one of the things that keeps me going. I just went and looked at a new project in the Caribbean (of all places) that could be the one -- but it's still several years in the future, unfortunately.
At the same time, I understand that natural isn't the goal for all courses, or even for all of mine. I think we will be pushing the envelope at Old Macdonald far more than most people expect, and I'll be the first to applaud when somebody pulls off the Picasso of golf course designs, really out there and yet fun to play. I was talking with a landscape architect recently and asked him who he thought would be a good collaborator for such a project -- not a Tour pro but a landscape architect who is way "out there" so I could serve as the golf expert for them. But, I doubt I will ever attract the sort of client who wants something like that; I'm typecast now as much as you are.
Our styles are just opposites, which is why it's so interesting they both attract attention. My associate Brian Slawnik was the one who contributed the little phrase on our web site about "Any edge of disturbance ... is strenuously examined and finessed until it is blurred beyond recognition." It's a lot different than your approach; for better or for worse, that's for others to say.
-
Jim,
I'd encourage you to post a picture from your new bunkerless course.
Do you think that course looks more natural than the Reynolds course?
Cheers
-
Joe
This is Ran’s website dedicated to issues related to golf course architecture. It is a subject most of us are obsessed with to the point that we spend time here that might be better spent with work, families or reading. I don’t spend much time on line anymore for a variety of reasons but I don’t know what your point is regarding the questions.
We spent some one on one time with a design associate who personally gave us some insight into bunkering schemes and strategies intended for member play at the course. Those insights also related to a quote “The noses and slender nature came from my belief that my profession is more about art forms and human spaces than the creation of a field on which to play a game." Jim made on this website. I found that to be as unique a statement from someone building golf courses as I have ever read in books or on this site. Are you saying that it is unacceptable to disagree and discuss it and dissect exactly what Jim means by this? Isn’t that EXACTLY what Ran intended for this site and one of the blessings some of us as amateurs have in directly questioning architects, superintendents and writers? Geez Joe – if we can’t discuss this and ask these questions why are we on this site?
Many know that I am a great admirer of Macdonald and Raynor golf courses. If anything is true it is that they function superbly as a field of play for the game of golf. I do consider some of them museum pieces but for different reasons then their being works of art. I thought my question to be one that got into a successful architects insights regarding his work and one that might be of interest to the entire group.
Perhaps I was wrong – See you in the spring when you are back this way and we can discuss it over an alcoholic beverage.
-
Jim,
I don't think that natural is the "ultimate" goal.
I think the ultimate goal lies within the framework of the architecture as it relates to the challenge presented to the golfer, vis a vis the impediments placed in his path as he attempts to venture from Point A to Point B in as few strokes as possible, through the workings of the architect's mind, the shaper's blade and the superintendent's care.
Golf is a game, a participant sport, not a spectator sport.
It's how the architect prepares the playing field in an attempt to frustrate the golfer's quest that determines the merits of the challenge and the value of the architecture.
The ultimate goal is to blend the task of the challenge with the excitement and joy of the pursuit of the lowest score, vis a vis the production of great shots relative to the golfer's ability.
The ultimate goal lies within the substance, not the form of the challenge.
There's little that's natural about the bunkers a Merion, Aronomink, Winged Foot, Quaker Ridge, Baltusrol or Plainfield.
There's nothing natural about the elevated foot pads at thousands of tees.
There's nothing natural about the greens at NGLA or Westhampton.
Yet, these courses provide a joyous challenge for most levels of golfers despite their unnatural genesis, construction and maintainance.
The ultimate goal is in the play of the game and not in the purity of the soil.
-
Grumpy:
Why so grumpy? Do I know you?
I actually agree with Jim that the "spaces" we create in a golf course are an important part of what we do, an aspect of design that's completely underrated and ignored by Patrick's narrow-minded definition of golf architecture, above. (Not that Patrick is especially narrow-minded compared to some others here, but that definition is.)
You can get great golf by starting with the spaces and then working on the golf part. The other way around, you just wind up with a bunch of templates.
-
Jim E - your post #32 asks some very fine questions.
Tom D - your post #46 was a very fine post.
This is a great thread. Thanks again gents
Peter
PS - Jim, I wish every architect thought that the profession was about more than creating fields of play -- that belief 'opens' up the world, whether or not one thinks nature the ultimate goal.
I'm convinced that the 'forms' and 'elements' of golf's fields of play are the most malleable of all things; but for some reason, they've become the most fixed and immutable.
-
For this golfer, there's no higher peaceful feeling of satisfaction than golfing in a natural setting with natures elements a bit on the extreme side.
-
Grumpy:
Why so grumpy? Do I know you?
I actually agree with Jim that the "spaces" we create in a golf course are an important part of what we do, an aspect of design that's completely underrated and ignored by Patrick's narrow-minded definition of golf architecture, above. (Not that Patrick is especially narrow-minded compared to some others here, but that definition is.)
You can get great golf by starting with the spaces and then working on the golf part. The other way around, you just wind up with a bunch of templates.
Tom - I'm just grumpy until spring, a new golf season and a renewal of my unobtainable goals for my golf game. Then winter inevitably comes and I'm grumpy again.
You make excellent points especially about Patrick's narrow mindedness. However, you have spent years on GCA talking about and educating us about strategies on your golf holes, integrating man made features with surrounds always I believed with playability in mind.
Your book on Dr Mackenzie as well as Geoff Shackelford's Cypress Point book with those wonderful old photos might be relevant as well. His work and use of camouflage is a good example I think of "natural design" but with at least (I think) equal focus on testing the golfer.
I think these examples are different then hearing that upslopes into bunkers and heavy grass to prevent balls entering are part of a philosophy to make the golfer "feel good" (my interpretation) and a golf course as a work of art more then a playing field.
Of course unlike Patrick I could be wrong.
-
Jim - one last thought
I'm also convinced that if we were but prepared to fail - and prepared to fail not through vaulting ambition but through a profound humility - we'd see that nature is offering us many more golf holes and kinds of golf holes than are dreamt of in our philosophies.
That's not a criticism, as who but one in a million of us is prepared to fail that way. I know that in my own vocation, I've never been.
Peter
-
Dr. Grumpy,
I'm sure I overreacted to a perceived tone in the line of questioning to Jim Engh. I apologize for not gleaning more information about said questions before I posted my words.
The gist of what I am trying to say is this: There are many methodologies, ideologies, etc., when it comes to the game of golf. Jim Engh, a hard working, well respected architect is taking the time to learn the ropes here at GCA.com, and my hopes are that a very civil, genuine reception would be our mantra. He has created golf courses that many love, yet many question. I hope he feels welcome enough here to share his side of the story.
I'm looking forward to that shared bottle of wine when I return out East!
:)
-
Natural:
being in accordance with or determined by nature b: having or constituting a classification based on features existing in nature
Naturalism:
1: action, inclination, or thought based only on natural desires and instincts
Naturalistic:
of, characterized by, or according with naturalism
Lets not confuse natural with naturalistic. For me it all comes down to the idea of sense of place, or genius loci, where design:
1. Designs for a unique point on the Earth
2. Identifies where you are
3. Manifests the sacred
All of which can be accomplished both apart from and adhering to naturalistic values.
-
Tom Doak
I am actually in agreement with Patrick Mucci and his post regarding playability being the primary goal of GCA.
The spaces of play are certainly of major importance but could you argue that the courses Patrick mentions, Merion East, Aronomink, Winged Foot, Quaker Ridge, Baltusrol, Plainfield, NGLA or Westhampton are not superb environments and glorious walks. I don't believe that anyone is calling for the return of geometric design for the sake of playability. However, the other end of the spectrum in its extreme woudl be Jim's quote. I'm sure/think that he doesn't intend his quote to go to that extreme but it might be nice to hear the expansion of his idea with regard to play vs. art.
Grandpa Joe
I totally applaud Jim's posting here. Its ALWAYS good to hear from people in the business. Hopefully he is here to contribute as do all the other distinguished fellows in the business. It certainly has to beat all the OT posts.
-
Two courses that stand out for me in this discussion are Chambers Bay and the Castle Course. They both have a "natural" look, but there is no tie in to the true natural area around them.
-
. . . . I was talking with a landscape architect recently and asked him who he thought would be a good collaborator for such a project -- not a Tour pro but a landscape architect who is way "out there" so I could serve as the golf expert for them.
I have often considered starting a new topic of who will be the next Desmond Muirhead?
Could it be Andrew Goldsworthy?
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61V7BV2C9PL._SS500_.jpg)
If ever there was a documentary for the beanbag, incense and a lava lamp, Rivers and Tides is it.
-
I have always thought that Mother Nature was the best designer around and I would love to see more of her courses exposed in the future. I think that is a bit along the lines of Tom Doaks comments. I'm not sure that natural needs to be the "ultimate" goal but I wish there was a bit more scrutiny and less "business sense" put into the selection of a golf course property. A great artist can work with many canvases and many of the worlds great golf courses are on entirely different types of properties but I think the memorable ones blend in with their surrounds and evoke a feeling of timelessness.
-
- I noticed in a past thread, I think started by Jeff Brauer, that the majority of you view the profession more as an artform than a technical function.( Jeff sorry if I didn't get that exactly right.) I tend to agree. In fact, I view the technical side of the profession to be more about solving problems created by the artistic process.
SOME MIGHT SUGGEST THAT SOLVING TECHNICAL OBSTACLES IS AN ART IN ITSELF. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN FORCED TO CHANGE ONE OF YOUR COURSES BECAUSE OF A TECHNICAL ISSUE (E.G. DRAINAGE, ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS) ONLY TO FIND THAT YOUR SOLUTIONS ACTUALLY ADDS TO THE ARTISTIC NATURE OF THE COURSE (WIN-WIN VS. COMPROMISE)?
FOSSIL TRACE COMES TO MIND, THOUGH I'VE ONLY READ ABOUT IT.
Back to your original premise: While naturalism may not be the ultimate goal, it probably should not be wholly ignored. ** See Trump National L.A.
-
I actually agree with Jim that the "spaces" we create in a golf course are an important part of what we do, an aspect of design that's completely underrated and ignored by Patrick's narrow-minded definition of golf architecture, above. (Not that Patrick is especially narrow-minded compared to some others here, but that definition is.)
You can get great golf by starting with the spaces and then working on the golf part. The other way around, you just wind up with a bunch of templates.
Since we're getting into Goldsworthy (who I agree is very evocative), consider this quote by JB Jackson: "I suspect no landscape, vernacular or otherwise, can be comprehended unless we perceive it as an organization of space." Further, by Lucy Lippard: "Space defines landscape, where space combined with memory defines place."
I think this is why most aspiring golf architects today are first steered in the direction of landscape architecture. Landscape architects are, IMO, first and foremost designers of "space". A golf course would not exist, or at least could not thrive, if it were simply a menagerie of obstacles through the green with little attention made to "space". Architects create spaces (here, holes) within the landscape (the golf course and its context) as priority, then adding obstacles and strategy to evoke lasting memory that causes one to think "I really enjoy that place." That's what brings you back. It truly is a symbiotic relationship.
Unfortunately, I don't foresee any "out there" landscape architects making a big impact on golf course architecture any time soon. In fact, I've had to tell myself that. As much as some would like to see it as a possible niche, I believe popular opinion of the golfing masses would make such an architect simply a sideshow for a brief time, which would likely fade to black. Strantz was probably the only artist that actually began to break the mold a bit, but he was by no means "out there" as far as landscape architecture goes - and look at some of the criticism he still gets.
Then again, I kinda hope I'm wrong.
-
Is natural the ultimate goal?
Jim
Landscapes of rarer character deserve to be allowed to exist as much as possible in their original forms.
Consider Carne Links, which I know you are very familiar with. It is land which is more important to be left as untouched as possible.
The land should be held in priceless regard, as a curator protects and presents irreplaceable artifacts in a museum. The land has been designing itself for centuries, so the artistry is in restraint.
-
Jim,
Excellent question.
Before I go and read other responses, I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote a few weeks back that I'll stand by today, esoteric as it may be. It's my take, and I'm sticking with it. ;)
I either need to drink a lot more of the good stuff or dig out my college bong to get in the proper frame of mind for this thread, but since it's late at night let me just try and get to what I think is the nucleus of the argument for naturalism, or obscurantilism in as few words as possible.
At its core, golf is illusion. It provides man with the happy fantasy that through his actions, he is in control. We talk about the challenge...of the land, of the elements, of the vagaries of life and fortune, and it seems that our greatest golfing dreams are seemingly hitting that perfect shot or even several reasonably satisfactory ones that termporaily overcome our physical insignificance and ineptness and allows us to feel momentarily powerful in a vast, unknown universe not of our own making.
To help complete the illusion, we need to travail and prevail against a canvas that at it's most genuinely, conspiratorially authentic , is almost indistinguishable from the hostile realities of nature at her most unpredictably complex, arbitrarily emotive, and seductively alluring.
Anything that obviously screams out the planned hand of man; whether some disdainful, unmerciful, sadistically penalizing attitude of an angry, frustrated artist towards his unfortunate patrons, or worse yet, a platitudinous, patronizing, and condescending attempt to neutralize naturally wild, random forces while ingratiatingly contriving to limit the silent, metaphysical conversation to simplistic man-made understandings...to arrogantly attempt to "tame" the earth, to limit her variables, and somehow stack the odds in our favor (i.e. the hated "containment mound"), causes some degree of inherent, reactive conflict between the primal urges we instinctively use our golf to satiate, and the fragile relevant reality of what our finite mortal limitations are contrastasted with what we hope they might be on this world.
Crossing a bridge, or driving a road, or building a shelter hold none of the same vain, valiant attempts at temporary immortality.
-
Jim Engh asked:
“Suppose that if art is in fact, supposed to be natural, how would you view the
following artists? Renoir? Picasso? Warhol?”
Sean Arble responded:
“I was rolling with you, though I admit it was a bit of a bumpy ride, until I hit "Suppose that if art is in fact, supposed to be natural, how would you view the following artists? Renoir? Picasso? Warhol?". I don't see how making architecture naturalistic went to art being natural. Do you really consider yourself an artist in the same way Renoir or Picasso were artists?
Gentlemen:
Sean’s point questioning if all art should be natural is an appropriate one, and his last question asking if a golf architect should consider himself an artist in the same way as a paint artist such as Renoir or Picasso is a good one. And it’s particularly interesting that the answer involving the difference between a golf course architect as an artist and a painter as an artist is fairly central to the roll and the necessity of naturalism in the art form of golf course architecture while the paint artist‘s art form does not involve such a necessary roll for naturalism.
I hate to do this to you guys again but the reasons for this difference just could not be and has not been better explained anywhere than by Max Behr when he wrote:
“The paint artist’s “medium” is paint and he has complete freedom to fancy and is the complete master over his “medium“. The golf course architect’s “medium” is the earth and he does not have complete fancy over his medium and can never be the complete master over it. Only Nature and the forces of Nature is the master over the “medium” of earth.”
To me that fact is virtually undeniable and if anyone doesn’t think so I’d like to see them try to prove why it must not be so. For example, golf course architecture is always outside and it’s an art form that supports the human interactivity of a game with human participation upon the art form. Clearly that constantly effects the art form in the same way human beings effect any other earthen forms they actually physically use. And the forces of Nature’s wind and water also massively effects that art form constantly.
This is just not the case with a paint artist’s art. It is almost always under glass and is not exposed to the physical intervention of humans or the forces of the wind and water of Nature.
For these reasons and due to this fundamental difference golf course architect inherently needs to consider the aspect of nature and the natural aspects of its “medium”---the earth and earth-forms far more than the art form of the paint artist. If the art form of golf course architecture doesn’t consider this aspect of naturalism involved with and in its medium properly clearly the risk of what is made will be more prone to destruction.
Another thing that should probably stop on here is the constant refrain from so many that simply because all things about golf courses are not natural then nothing needs to be natural or appear to be natural.
That is not the point at all. Almost nothing in art or in life is just an “either/or” thing! It’s simply a matter of degree and the fact is the “medium” of the golf architect----earth----is a natural medium always exposed to the ravages of natural forces and that fact cannot be denied or avoided. The same cannot be said of the medium or the art form of the paint artist, at least nowhere near to the same degree.
-
I'll just add the obvious, that the limits of GCA are defined for you both by a much larger subset of the laws of nature and the rules of golf, unlike painting. So not so with Renoir or Picasso, who were creating art under a whole separate context of ideas about perception and thought, never mind an "end-using" audience.
-
I think in any art form the ultimate goal is to have a chance at some point to do ones best.....however reality dictates that one must survive in order to eventually achieve such. While today naturalism seems to be the thing...it may not always.....this site is so over the top idealistic that it cannot phathom reality in golf design sometimesIMHO.
Have been in the middle of reading The Fountainhead for about the fourth time in my life.....should be required reading for this site.....
the ultimate goal for an artform is the masterpiece and with golf that takes the proper piece of land whether the course be designed as minimal or ultramodern.....JMO
Mike
-
Tom Doak said:
".....and I'll be the first to applaud when somebody pulls off the Picasso of golf course designs, really out there and yet fun to play."
TomD:
Someone already did that, and it became instantly infamous, and you and most of the rest of the world of golf condemned it almost completely! Of course I'm speaking of Muirhead's Stone Harbor.
The look and architectural lines of that course were probably as close to the look and artistic lines of the type of art Picasso became most famous for as anything ever done in golf architecture, at least to my eye of Picasso and SH. It was a product and expression of about as much "symbolism" in GCA as could ever be conceived.
Was it also fun to play?
Well, that's probably a subjective thing like all other golf architecture. How did you feel about the way SH played and how many times have you ever played it?
To me it actually was fun to play even if the only reason was because I'd just never seen or played anything remotely like it. I liked the fact that there was that extreme difference from most anything else I knew. And having said that I will also say there certainly could be plenty of other experimental things with golf architecture I probably would never want to play. I probably played SH once or twice a year and I looked forward to it even if I believe I also felt it wasn't something I'd like to do on a steady diet. Always in the back of my mind playing SH was the fact that the course and its architecture probably possessed the most razor thin margins for error imaginable. Playing golf with that reality is very interesting to me and it very much effected me strategically in ways I found both interesting and also exciting.
-
Mike and Tom both allude to a masterpiece, which I think is on the right track. Determining the style (like picking impressionism in art, for example) is but one task in creating that masterpiece, not the centerpiece, necessarily.
I also think in terms of relativity. As Mike notes, you take a lot of jobs to survive (at least most of us gca's do) I am still jazzed enough about golf architecture to try to take a flat site and make it the best it can be, basically a masterpiece in terms of what I was given to work with, and the role of the course (i.e., Whistling Straits bunkers ain't gonna happen ona muni) even if it falls short of being a masterpiece compared to the best courses in the world.
-
Mike Young said:
"The ultimate goal for an artform is the masterpiece."
That remark to me is about as appropriate as any remark on this thread, and at this point, could be. It also merges well into the underlying mentality of this website---which is to conceive of and discuss ideals and the idealistic.
And so, it would probably be appropriate to cite and discuss what those recognized masterpieces in the history of golf architecture are and certainly why so many accept them as THE masterpieces.
I submit that many of them were never planned or conceived to be golf courses that were intended to accommodate the games of everyone, and certainly not in that odd ideal that a golfer could putt a ball from one end of them to the other----the very ideal that so many on here seem to think is the ultimate goal or even ideal.
Perhaps a really good discussion along these lines will serve to get some on here to give up on some of their shop-worn cliches and limiting assumptions and mindsets! ;)
-
Mike Young said:
I submit that many of them were never planned or conceived to be golf courses that were intended to accommodate the games of everyone, and certainly not in that odd ideal that a golfer could putt a ball from one end of them to the other----the very ideal that so many on here seem to think is the ultimate goal or even ideal.
Based on my knowledge, the only Doak 10 that does not meet this ideal is Pine Valley. Others should correct me if my impressions are wrong.
Doak 10's
1-St. Andrews - playable for all
2-Pine Valley - not
3-Royal Melbourne (West) - playable for all
4-National Golf Links - I don't know, it seems playable
5-Sand Hills- playable for all
6-Cypress Point - don't know - seems playable
7-Royal Dornoch - don't know - seems playable
8-Shinnecock Hills - don't know - seems playable
9-Crystal Downs- don't know - seems playable
10-Ballybunion (Old) - don't know - seems playable
11-Merion (East) - don't know - seems playable
12-Muirfield - playable for all
-
Richard - very interesting take on the different styles of those artists and I must agree in whole. I do however, feel that the ultimate goal of any artform is to invoke an emotional response. As I view my profession as a form of art, I personally choose to work to that goal. We have the advantage of having a captive audience for 4 hours and have 200 acres of a 3 dimensional canvas. During that time period, I feel that things can become repetative and boring very quickly. It is my ultimate goal to create a place that is interesting, unique and fun and will have variety each time. Of course this includes the fun aspect of playing the game. That is what makes this artform so special compared to others. Envisioning those spaces with emotions before they are created is my personal definition of design. I realize that I am probably considered to be on the moon with my views, but isn't that what makes things fun. Thanks for the fun banter!
Jeff - great point! I find myself sometimes getting well wrapped up in the experience. At the end of the day this business had better be treated as a business, because that is exactly what it is to our clients. It always takes ones mentor to bring the student back to earth. By the way, I fully agree that the method of design must be chosen very carefully to compliment the setting. Great analogy with Whistling Straits and Sand Hills.
Sean - I agree that a gca has a goal to provide a product that is functional. To me that function is to provide an emotional human experience. Whether that is derived from the spaces and the visual landforms or from the playing of the game or most likey from a combination of both, the goal is to invoke emotion. It is my belief that most artforms have a similar goal.
Phillippe - "if you become stagnant your dead"..... nicely stated.
Grumpy - as I have stated several times, my first priority is to create an art form that evokes emotion from the experience, preferably good emotion. However, when designing a space and envisioning how that space relates / feels in relationship to the previous and future spaces, I will intentionally intimidate or frustrate as a change of pace or to simply to make sure that everyone is paying attention.
I have also stated that the playing of the game is a vital element toward creating that desired experience. In short, do my bunkers provide tremendous visual value to the artistic landscape, yes. Are they intended to be hazards of playing the game, yes. Do they carry a predetermined value as to thier difficulty, I hope not. As you stated, they are difficut to get into and very difficult to get out of. I suppose that in itself is a strategy for thier difficulty. I suspect that some of my following remarks might further clarify my position to your questions. Thanks.
- RJ - you mention that "you believe that you must provide the field of play of the game considerations first"....... Certainly that is a common and valid point of view. Let me ask you, on the links courses of Ireland, did they choose land and locate holes in places that happen to fit into a specific or predetermined playing strategy? I would contend that they placed holes (for the most part) through terrain that allowed for the hole to be possible on the rugged ground. It was then up to the players to find thier own best way to play through the setting. That's fun!Fortunately, the exisitng setting had already dealt with the issues of artform in a 'natural' way. From my point of view, I find this to be a very cool process and the best way to play golf. However, for a thousand reasons, that is not always practicle, so it is important to find new ways to achieve that same feeling...... I will say that my views have changed greatly with age. Instead of predetermining how a hole should be played, I am now looking toward the creation of very cool places and letting the golfers find thier way through them in very interesting ways........ Grumpy does that help to clarify my point a little more?
- Tom - as you and I have discussed many times, we are not that far apart in our goals, just the roads we take to get there.... You mention that you are always trying to attain perfection with "natural". I am always looking for perfection with interest and intrigue. For example when I find a feature or concept that is very interesting to me, I will repeat it a couple of times until I get it just how I like it. Then it's off to the next new idea....By the way tell your guys to call again for lunch, it would be fun..... and congrats on Sebonic!
- Mike - as winter set in upon us quickly this year we were scambling to get seeded. I am sad to say there are not many photos of great quality. I will try I promise.....The fact that we moved very little earth at Four Mile might predetermine that answer..... I personally do not feel that Creek Club at Reynolds looks unnatural. If you consider, as has been stated by someone in this thread, that golf courses placed upon the landsacpe designed to play a game is not natural to the landscape in concept. I would admit that Creek Club is in fact quite unique to the preconcieved notions of '"how golf should look" and be placed upon the landscape.
- Patrick - do you feel that the gca should predetermine how a golf hole should be played? If "the ultimate goal is in the play of the game", does that mean the environment within which the game is palyed has no effect upon the enjoyment of the playing, either perceived or not perceived?"
- Peter - Very cool post! Please tell me why it takes me two pages to say what you stated in two lines? ..... I am much more afraid of one day looking back and realizing that I did not follow my heart, but was swayed to follow the norm, than I ever am of failing..... Whether because I have a greater variety of settings today or because I am older and wiser, I am in fact seeing more golf holes in thier natural forms than previously. Four Mile ranch is the perfect example of that.
- Adam - totally agree.
- Joe - thanks for understanding that I am new here and cutting me some slack. I appreciate your thoughts on the free exchange of ideas. Much more can be learned from those that have a different perspective than those with the same.
- Peter - well stated. Would those naturalistic values be reflective of nature itself or are they perceived values as they realate to the game of golf and it's history?
- Jeremy - I also would love to see more of natures coures exposed in thier natural form. If that is not possible, what is the alternative?
- Kyle - I have discovered that in many cases necessity is in fact the mother of invetion. That thought is spot on. Is does however, take a predisposition toward the creative side to see such opportunities.
- B -great quotes and thoughts. These are the types of things that increse the human experience. Mostly in an nonperceived manner.
- Slag -I agree that rare and unique character must be preserved. Funny that you mention Carne. This issue has been a point of friction with myself and the the committee people involved. It was my preference to leave holes in the natural and quirky form.
Boys, thanks for the fun! Gotta get back to work. Hockey tournament this weekend for the kids. Also my figures are numb with my single finger typing style. Will try to post again soon.
-
Good Stuff, Jim. Now get back to work!!!
Lester
-
Lester, ya ole dog! How have you been? Hope we cross paths again one day!
-
Jim, I hope that you feel you have had a better chance to more fully develope your thoughts beyond the quote of yours that some of us questioned. That was my intention.
You asked me a direct question above...
Let me ask you, on the links courses of Ireland, did they choose land and locate holes in places that happen to fit into a specific or predetermined playing strategy? I would contend that they placed holes (for the most part) through terrain that allowed for the hole to be possible on the rugged ground. It was then up to the players to find thier own best way to play through the setting. That's fun!
I agree with your thoughs to the extent I can. But, I have never had the pleasure of seeing in person some of those Irish courses you speak of. Going strictly be impression I have from photos, I think those natrual land forms were the location where the course designers were asked, or some process led them to be challenged to site a golf course. The fact that those that wanted a golf course there had prior understanding that such a site is conducive for golf (since similar landforms is where golf originated), it was only natural to decide that such location was the best place. So it isn't a 'what came first, chicken or egg'. We know the land came first, the dsire to creat golf came next, and the architect's notions of what a golf course should be, came after that.
However, the task of a routing upon, over and through that natural land had to have a predetermined goal by definition, to create a place for golf. At every twist and turn of the routing, a predetermined goal of providing an interesting space for golf was the challenge, that presented options to the designer at ever step of the route. Whoever routed whichever course you speak of within those natural landforms, had a predetermined notion of what a game of golf required - to some degree of their own previous experience or understanding of the game. Those predetermined notions may have been refined into a basic philosophy that favored penal or heroic styles. They may have predetermined that it had to be 18 holes adding up to a par of something between 68 and 73. They may have predetermined that there should be no more than 4-6 par 3s, etc.
Take any one of those tracts of natural land forms, and put any competent and experienced GCA upon that land, and it is almost certain that different routes through that land will be selected based on each individual designer's predetermined concept or understanding of goals and strategy of the game.
They had to have a predetermined notion and set of values, no matter how natural or conducive the land was for interesting routing and for likelihood of turf growth, etc.
But, If you have land where you as a landscape architecture artist intend to create interesting spaces artificially, I ask if the artistic landform you are about to create considers the aesthetic artfulness of the effort first, or the utility and usefullness of the space for golf first? You speak of creating a space that evokes emotion leading to not just a space but a place where memory of that emotion is retained. Is the memory of the space just a visual emotion, or an interactive emotion of visual and functional experience of how the golfer challenged or conquered the place you created? Did you think of giving him that challenge of a field of play first, or create the place, and let all the golfers figure it out, with no predetermined notion on your part as to what they were intended to do there?
This stuff gets awfully esoteric, and maybe it is beyond my ken. But, I'm trying here on good old GCA.com, which is about the only place I can go for trying to learn or understand this stuff, from some horses (for courses) or architects mouths... ;) ;D ::)
-
RJ,
Heady stuff! Keep that up and you'll Have Peter Pallotta all over this thread!
;D
Joe
-
Joe, a good writer and clear thinker like Peter must feel like fingernails on the blackboard when reading my stuff. Not to mention Kelly going to his special medicine cabinet for a chill pill. ::) :-\
I will say however, in keeping with the theme of the day, watching the TV hearings, on the subject of my writing here, "it is what it is"... ;D
-
RJ:
Congratulations on post #75. You did good, pal!
I have to think on some of those old linksland courses that were so early in golf course architecture (some such as TOC I believe pretty much preceded GCA as we know it) were so different than anything we relate to today. I call them "paths of least resistance" courses or architecture. In other words, the latitude for differing alternatives were probably really limited compared to what we know and do today.
Many of those really old linksland sites were so narrow and limited by the locations of their natural "swards" (original natural bent and fescue areas utilized as the fairways without doing anything to them) and dunes limitations on the sea side and farmland limitations on the other side they probably basically were an obvious "golf walk" in a routing sense. In other words, they basically routed themselves naturally or because of their natural characteristics.
And then when I see holes like Old Head's #6, I think it is, it's just so naturally occuring and so obviously a complete golf hole tee to fairway to green, I don't think any architect could help but see it in its natural state and the wonderful golf possibilities of its natural state and just try to fit the sequencing both to it and away from it because it is so wonderful in its natural state and potential for golf just as it is.
In my opinion, such things can be some of the obstacles to golf architecture and particularly routing. What I mean is on really great land sometimes you find holes that seem so perfect in their natural state you have to figure out the balance and variety and creation of things getting to them and then away from them. And if for whatever reason the getting to them and away from them is creating real problems with balance and variety and sequencing then you realize you have a real problem and the question becomes do you hold on to those wonderful natural landforms just as they are at the expense of the whole.
Bill Coore sort of taught me that. He said that it's not unusual to have really great land become more problematic in the overall than land that's sort of bland and easy to make things on.
I think the analogy of golf architecture to a jigsaw puzzle, particularly routing, really is such a good analogy. But then one needs to add that GCA, particularly on great and potential land, is like finding great jigsaw puzzle PIECES and then realizing you have to make some other pieces to fit well to them with balance and variety just to maintain their wonderful natural integrity!
-
Bill Coore sort of taught me that. He said that it's not unusual to have really great land become more problematic in the overall than land that's sort of bland and easy to make things on.
TEP - do you think that a place like Sand Hills would fit that description? The picture in the clubhouse with the 120 or so "found" holes - did that create a problem trying to find the perfect fit?
-
Sean - I agree that a gca has a goal to provide a product that is functional. To me that function is to provide an emotional human experience. Whether that is derived from the spaces and the visual landforms or from the playing of the game or most likey from a combination of both, the goal is to invoke emotion. It is my belief that most artforms have a similar goal.
Jim
It isn't often that I am given over to strong emotion on a golf course - well, due to the course anyway. Oddly, Carne is one of the places that blew me away. I couldn't believe that the fundamental characteristics of the land could be left intact and still provide such a thrilling canvas that was just about playable (unlike Ballybunion Cashen). In this case I definitely think what the archie didn't do was as important as what he did do. In other words, for an archie to impart a strong emotional experience to me he will will have to rely very heavily on what mother nature gives him. Do you think such a heavy reliance on what many don't call architecture (using natural landforms) - though I strongly disagree with this assessment - is generally positive or negative?
Ciao
-
"TEP - do you think that a place like Sand Hills would fit that description? The picture in the clubhouse with the 120 or so "found" holes - did that create a problem trying to find the perfect fit?"
Peter:
Absolutely. Sand Hills, according to Coore was such a wealth of potentially natural holes and routings and such it was nigh on impossible for them at first to decide what to pick and what to do. In that way SH just may be wholly unique in GCA.
When something that unique happens I guess I can see the dilemma for an architect. That would be, even if you think you have found the best 18 holes out of perhaps 130 holes and the best routing out of all those possibilities still the feeling is you have left so many potential natural holes out there unused! ;)
-
PeterN:
I hate to say this but if Coore and Crenshaw and Mr Youngscap were to develop all those natural landforms into golf holes that seem naturally perfect for golf holes how exactly to use them all for golf in a limited play atmosphere like that really would be one of the most mindbendingly interesting questions that golf and golf course architecture was ever confronted with. That, of course, is just the first strata of amazing possibilities for the use for golf of the "natural". The next order of difficulty would be how to maintain them and pay for it. ;)
But seriously, if they actually did develop all those potential natural landforms for golf holes into golf holes that apparently numbered around 130 the possiblitiy for the ultimate expression of all in golf and golf architecture---eg "COURSES WITHIN COURSES", would be almost too much to imagine! ;)
To me, Peter Nomm, THAT would be the absolute ULTIMATE expression and example of the blow-away ideal in this entire art form and subject of golf and GCA and it occurs to me that it probably never will or never can happen.
But, I'll tell you one thing, if I were Youngscap and I had unlimited dough-rey-me, I'd do it just to do it!! ;)
-
And then we could all get into a great discussion of choosing the selected holes for each round (just like our switching tees debate!).
But I have long wondered about architects looking back on courses like that wondering "what if?" No doubt they should be proud of SH but I do you think that each time C or C visits he doesn't look around and think of how one of those other holes might have played out.
-
My quick take on things:
1)The ultimate goal of an artist/art is expression. Not creating specific works for people, not masterpieces. Those ends enter into subjective realm.
2) Golf courses/golf course architecture are in that subjective realm because of the people who pay to play and build them, so golf design is not art. It is a service. But that doesn't mean that this service isn't dynamic enough to create great beauty and emotion like art. Also, one's ideal course design-wise or playability-wise is different from person to person because of unique golf experiences, which lead people to create opinions about ultimate golf design styles. I grew up in the middle of nowhere-likewise, I prefer a natural-looking golf course.But I think natural is not the ultimate goal. Subjective has no ultimate goal other than a unique, personal one (man, that's DEEP!! ;))
3)I hope someone has the backing to produce a rectilinear course someday because of the variety and discussion it will inevitably incite.
I think the "ultimate" (again, subjective) goal in course design for a designer is satisfaction. As soon as a course opens and enters into a public realm, the ultimate goal changes and the criteria is completely different. I believe there is a separation of ideals.
-
- Patrick - do you feel that the gca should predetermine how a golf hole should be played?
I think that's an inherent function of the GCA.
GCA's determine angles of attack, alternate routes, prefered routes, risk/reward, etc., etc..[/color]
If "the ultimate goal is in the play of the game", does that mean the environment within which the game is palyed has no effect upon the enjoyment of the playing, either perceived or not perceived ?"
That would depend upon the context in which you place the word, "environment"
Certainly it means something different at Shadow Creek than it does at Sand Hills.
At Shadow Creek the environment was hostile.
The golf course, in a form, sterile, not related to the environment, was inserted within that environment.
At Sand Hills the environment became part of the golf course.
At both courses, and all courses, the GCA dictates play in a universal sense.
In many cases, it's shot specific, clearly predetermined, in others, the GCA provides more latitude in the play of the holes.[/color]
-
Oops! Sorry this was supposed to be a new topic. ROOKIES!!!
Greetings all! Apologies for not posting in a while.
Tom Doak made a post a couple of months ago as follows.....
"Heck, when I can have a friendly exchange with Jim Engh and not even mention how artificial his courses are, you know there's something wrong here."
I consider Tom a friend and we have had some fun conversations over the past few years. Yep, his delivery style does make me giggle. Alas, the point of the issue is that his comment has peaked my curiosity.
Is natural the ultimate goal?
Jim
I don't want to offend my wife (especially the day before Valentine's Day)but I think that there is a correlation between this topic and the topic of breast augmentation. If it/they look good and are appreciated, what does it matter if it/they are real or fake? It's all in the eye of the beholder. I am sure that there are Desmond Muirhead groupies out there? People love Nicklaus and Dye courses and people obviously love Baywatch, ..... same thing. Things are beautiful in their own way.
-
RJ - like TE said, very good post there. But you got the other part wrong - my own writing sounds like nails on a blackboard to me; though sometimes the noise is worth it, at least to me.
JIM ENGH - thanks very much for your posts. I think post #72 is an extremely important one, for many reasons.
It highlights the vital role that choice and intention plays in the architect's art. With all the grown-up talk about practical constraints and business demands and consumer expectations, that fundamental aspect/component of golf course design gets missed too often around here, by the professionals and amateurs alike. I think choice and intention determine all, or very nearly all.
Secondly, your thoughts on evoking emotions strikes a real chord. I'm not sure, however, that two emotions in particular can be evoked except via a purely naturalistic approach, those emotions being wonder and awe.
Someone asked me a while back to realize that few golfers seek such a refuge (a place of awe and wonder) on a golf course. Maybe he was right; but I think we'll never know for sure until a few examples of such refuges actually exist. I think they can and would exist, except for the predominant weight that most architects (despite the occasional denials) place of having their golf courses manifest the traditional shot-testing concepts.
Pat Mucci always articulates those concepts very well. I think I understand their value. I too like to compete on a golf course, and to be tested. I just think the concepts regarding what tests a golf shot have become very narrow and fixed -- in fact, probably became very narrow and fixed quite early on in American golf, say around 1930.
It'll take a very bold step to swing that pendulum back into balance; maybe it's the boldness of seeking wonder and awe on a golf course, through nature and through a profound humility in the face of nature's shapes and forms on a site-specific basis, that'll do the trick.
Thanks again, Jim.
Peter
-
Peter,
Not too long ago, when I lost 70 pounds and had no strength, I couldn't hit the ball very far and I had a great deal of difficulty getting any, let alone adequate, trajectory.
Yet, I loved to play even more.
I had to think and tack my way around the features that I otherwise would have discarded.
While my scores soared, so did the joy of playing the golf course along with the challenge of interfacing with almost every feature on it.
To hit a big low draw/hook around a fronting bunker instead of merely flying it was fun, and when I succeeded, I was ecstatic.
And when I failed, I paid the price I was meant to pay.
I've always loved the process of observing, analyzing, planning, creating and executing. It probably provides the greatest thrills for me.
Not long ago, on the 2nd hole at Seminole, into a good wind, I hit my drive into the front right fairway bunker. I was about 180 yards from the green.
I took a 3-wood, choked it up, punch-cut it up the left side, into the left side opening where it ran up onto the green, not far from the hole.
I did the same thing with a 3-iron on # 11, a 3-wood on # 15 and # 18.
I got far more joy out of those crazy shots than I did when I hit a normal 3-wood 20 feet from the hole on the par 5 3rd hole. Maybe, if I'd have one putted instead of three putting I would have liked that shot better ;D
There's more, far more, to golf than scoring, and, I like to score well, but I really love to think up and execute crazy shots to counter or defeat the architectural features. That remains one of my greatest joys on the golf course.
-
"Pat Mucci always articulates those concepts very well."
Peter:
You've been on quite a roll on here for quite a time but please don't stretch your run with thoughtless and irresponsible statements like that about Patrick Mucci. A 2% accuracy percentage on Patrick Mucci's part doesn't come close to being remotely synonymous with "always" in anyone's book.
Matter of fact, Patrick Mucci's accuracy percentage doesn't even come close to the "Black Swan" random test percentage of seemingly al dente spaghetti sticking to the wall.
-
PeterN:
I hate to say this but if Coore and Crenshaw and Mr Youngscap were to develop all those natural landforms into golf holes that seem naturally perfect for golf holes how exactly to use them all for golf in a limited play atmosphere like that really would be one of the most mindbendingly interesting questions that golf and golf course architecture was ever confronted with. That, of course, is just the first strata of amazing possibilities for the use for golf of the "natural". The next order of difficulty would be how to maintain them and pay for it. ;)
But seriously, if they actually did develop all those potential natural landforms for golf holes into golf holes that apparently numbered around 130 the possiblitiy for the ultimate expression of all in golf and golf architecture---eg "COURSES WITHIN COURSES", would be almost too much to imagine! ;)
To me, Peter Nomm, THAT would be the absolute ULTIMATE expression and example of the blow-away ideal in this entire art form and subject of golf and GCA and it occurs to me that it probably never will or never can happen.
But, I'll tell you one thing, if I were Youngscap and I had unlimited dough-rey-me, I'd do it just to do it!! ;)
How would Sand Hills have worked as a kind of Sheep Ranch layout, either with the existing greens or different/additional ones?
Jim Engh -- I haven't read all the thread, so if you already answered this, please don't bother to repeat yourself. Have you ever designed a "natural" or "minimalist" style of course? If not, can you see yourself doing that, ala Pac Dunes, or Sand Hills, or Barnbougle Dunes, or whatever fits some particular land?
-
What does everyone think of this - sorry if these points have been made already, I am unable to read the entire thread:
"Naturalism" is wholly within the conception of the human mind. As such, naturalism is a means to an end for an architect.
The end must be something associated with the play of the sport, such as MacKenzie's "greatest pleasure for the greatest number."
"Naturalism" is more than a tool, it's a strategy architects can use alternately to confirm or confound the expectations of golfers. Whether to confirm or confound is decided by whichever one provokes the appropriate reaction of pleasure. (or related emotions such as awe.)
It's not the only strategy, and furthermore it can employed to various degrees.
But I say naturalism can provide two useful benefits for the architect: aesthetics and play of the game.
Some may use it simply to hide the hand of man (aesthetic), and therefore to assist in the craft of course construction, whereas others will use it to affect the play of the game by playing on golfers' conceptualization of nature in the form of heuristics, and confirm or confound those heuristical calculations.
For example, they will use humps and hollows not simply to add a physical challenge, but a perceptual and conceptual mental challenge: depth misperception.
So, no, naturalism isn't the goal it is one strategy for accomplishing the goal, which is the play of a sport!
Mark
-
Here's a quote from Colt:
"As regards the construction of artificial hollows, mounds, and bunkers, the model should be the natural sand-dune country which is found near the sea."
Three things I'll note:
1. use of artificial (artifice) to imitate natural
2. model of natural sand-dunes
3. you pick your role models.
-
"Pat Mucci always articulates those concepts very well."
Peter:
You've been on quite a roll on here for quite a time but please don't stretch your run with thoughtless and irresponsible statements like that about Patrick Mucci. A 2% accuracy percentage on Patrick Mucci's part doesn't come close to being remotely synonymous with "always" in anyone's book.
Matter of fact, Patrick Mucci's accuracy percentage doesn't even come close to the "Black Swan" random test percentage of seemingly al dente spaghetti sticking to the wall.
I see you know as much about pasta as you do about golf course architecture.
Al Dente, the pasta, not the plumber, DOESN'T stick to the wall.
It's cooked "al dente", to prevent it from becoming soft.
It's hard or "to the tooth".
You've got so much to learn and I have so little time, but, I promised your dear mother that I'd look after you and teach you the ways of the world. Sadly, I'm failing in that endeavor.[/color]
-
Pat:
Although I've been aware of the meaning of Al Dente for over half a century thanks for the lesson anyway! ;)
By the way, can you identify and explain the epistemological point at which spaghetti passes from the commonly accepted state of Al Dente and has a 50% chance or better of sticking to YOUR kitchen wall?
Pat, PAT, PATRICK, no, NO, NO, STOP! The metal door of you refrigerator or your wife's forehead is not considered to be your kitchen wall!!!!!
-
TEPaul,
My wife's spaghetti only travels a limited distance, from the plate, to the fork, to my mouth.
The only things hanging on my kitchen walls are dart boards with your picture on them.
-
Patrick:
It is not your wife's spaghetti I'm concerned about. It's yours!
When I come up there to have dinner with the two of you maybe we better not go to an Italian restaurant. I don't want to be embarrassed at dinner when you throw a couple of strands of spagehetti against the back of the dress at the lady at the next table.
By the way, what does one call a single piece of spaghetti? Is it a strand, a rope, a thread or just a piece? If you're going to eat spaghetti one really does need to know these things first.
-
There's a question within is natural the ultimate goal? It's: what is natural?
I would say that what we call natural is in fact landscape (I know I'm going into deep theory and probably pointless) but not a lot of land in the world can be called nature (or wilderness).
If you guys believe that the Old Course is natural... It's more the product of 500 years of maintenance, helped with a public agreement of the value of the land as a playing ground over private development.
There's nothing natural at Barnbougle Dunes... the dunes were stabilized by marram grass imported from British settlers in 1920 or so.
The links courses existence were helped by a social consensus to proclaim sand dunes common grounds and let people and animals wandered around.
I could go on and on on every site. The point I want to make is that a golf course is a gesture on the landscape and the architect job is to establish that gesture following a personnal process (or vision) to organise it.
Whether he choose to try to copy the landscape (Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes etc) or to go totally against it (Shadow Creek etc) is a matter of perception from the architect.
Some architects (I'm partly from this side) believe that a golf course should blend has good has possible into a landscape and ultimately in a 100 years of smart maintenance, it will be part of the landscape.
Some other architects believe that there's no way a golf course can be natural, even Sand Hills relies on mowers and sprinklers and maintenance... a 40 yard wide by 300 yards surface of uniformely mowed surface has nothing natural... So those architects allow themself to shape the land the way they wish and create a golf course that would be in itself a landscape.
In other words, what makes a better golf course is definitely somewhere in between those two extremes. It's just whether the architect wants to make his shaping visible (on the land or in his words) or not...
The last thing I want to hear is that everything was natural...
-
Philippe:
Once again, the point in golf course architecture is not that things should be actually natural but that what is made should look as natural to a golfer as it possible can under the circumstances and the necessary requirements of golf. If the discussants on here or anywhere else can't get past that I don't think they ever will get anywhere on this subject about the aspect of naturalness in golf and architecture.
-
Is natural the ultimate goal - just perhaps if it heads us in the direction to the original ideas and concept of the uncorrupted game of the mid to late 1850’s-1900’s. Played on real courses (as I previously mentioned - view Askernish web site www.askernishgolfclub.com to see what an original course may have looked like).
If we are going to move mountains to create a course, then it will never be natural. Just look at the Castle Course, St Andrews – look at the wider picture incorporating the land around the course – its sloping farm land and does not relate to the Castle Course – no matter how it plays or how brilliant some believe the design, IT IS ARTIFICIAL and looks unnatural and of out place with its surroundings. Give me Askernish, Cullen, Bridge of Allan, Warkworth, Tarland, Tain etc., etc. Carbuncles like the Castle Course should not, in my view, be allowed. Yes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder – but if you believe that unbalanced massive breast implants are beautiful, then artificial courses will be totally acceptable to you. Sorry they can never be natural, so should not be considered as part of any ultimate goal.
I accept that we all have a right to our opinion, thank God for GCA which lets us air our views in a constructive way.
-
I don't want to offend my wife (especially the day before Valentine's Day) but I think that there is a correlation between this topic and the topic of breast augmentation. If it/they look good and are appreciated, what does it matter if it/they are real or fake? It's all in the eye of the beholder.
The difference is how it feels when you play them.
-
Melvyn:
What if a very large slice of golfers actually prefer golf courses that do not fit in naturally with their surrounding area? If that's true, would you admit to their usefulness even despite your own personal opinions about what all golf courses should be?
We should all be at least willing to admit that perhaps a good many golfers actually like golf courses and golf architecture that represents some artistic creation of man even if it looks artificial.
To me this is all part and parcel of the "Big World" theory that I think applies to golf course architecture as it probably applies to any other art form. In other words if there are vastly varying TASTES out there the art form should accommodate all of them, and obviously that should include extreme naturalism too.
-
Can golf course design be equated in some way to the form and function of clothing fashion?
Are some looking for the blue blazer with a crisp dry cleaned white shirt (bunker sand)?
Do others look for the athletic and muscular UnderArmor look?
Do others opt for broken in blue jeans and a leather jacket?
Do others want Mossy Oak camo?
My preferences run to all of those depending on the day and the setting. No camo in my closet and my body does not do the UnderArmor thing well, but I wish it still did! Maybe that's why golfers want to play the back tees at a course with a 150 slope.
-
I love a good philosophical thread.
Stupid questions: Are humans and all their creations unnatural? If termites build a huge mound to live in, is that unnatural? Where exactly is the line between a natural construct and an artificial one? For humans to live in a "state of nature" do we all need to live in caves? Is it more natural to live in a hut than in a house made of stone? Can you really "get back to nature" by driving somewhere in an automobile, sleeping in a tent made of nylon, catching fish with a fiberglass rod, cooking them in a cast-iron pan? If a golf course is carved out of the ground using horse-drawn scoops and teams of men with shovels, is that course inherently more natural than one built with bulldozers? Is it more natural to design a course with a pencil and paper than on a computer?
-
Felix Unger - "It's not spaghetti. It's linguini."
Oscar throws it against the wall.
Oscar Madison "Now it's garbage."
In this scenerio, the organic, naturalness of the food did not fit in well with the clean environment.
-
... Oddly, Carne is one of the places that blew me away. I couldn't believe that the fundamental characteristics of the land could be left intact and still provide such a thrilling canvas that was just about playable (unlike Ballybunion Cashen). In this case I definitely think what the archie didn't do was as important as what he did do. In other words, for an archie to impart a strong emotional experience to me he will will have to rely very heavily on what mother nature gives him...
Sean -
Your visceral (?) response to natural landforms is exactly right. There is something very special about the interaction. It goes to the heart of why "natural" courses seem to matter to so many people. There is more going on than just posting a score when you play those sorts of courses.
The irony here is that everything about such courses can be designed. I happily buy into what I've called the "naturalism conceit". I don't mind for an instant being fooled by an architect into thinking I'm playing on natural landforms. In fact, I encourage them to do so.
Bob
-
... Oddly, Carne is one of the places that blew me away. I couldn't believe that the fundamental characteristics of the land could be left intact and still provide such a thrilling canvas that was just about playable (unlike Ballybunion Cashen). In this case I definitely think what the archie didn't do was as important as what he did do. In other words, for an archie to impart a strong emotional experience to me he will will have to rely very heavily on what mother nature gives him...
Sean -
Your visceral (?) response to natural landforms is exactly right. There is something very special about the interaction. It goes to the heart of why "natural" courses seem to matter to so many people. There is more going on than just posting a score when you play those sorts of courses.
The irony here is that everything about such courses can be designed. I happily buy into what I've called the "naturalism conceit". I don't mind for an instant being fooled by an architect into thinking I'm playing on natural landforms. In fact, I encourage them to do so.
Bob
Bob
The only problem with creating this stuff is that it often fails to hit the mark or if it is spot on then the green fee is often out of control. Playing on a good natural canvas affords the best opportunity for treating the experience as what it is - just a game. Somehow, when the ordeal gets lifted to playing a top whatever by the top whoever, the day is a bit diminished. Thats not to say that an archie is at fault, but I never claimed that golf was even close to being all about the architecture. There is an intangible hint of a sense of wonderful that is different for each and everyone of us.
Ciao
-
Sean:
I disliked Carne for precisely the same reasons you liked it. There are only a handful of earthmoving pieces there, but they are not well done, particularly in the 17th and 18th fairways. For a few pennies more they could have pushed more dirt and made those alterations invisible.
-
Sean -
My point is that "natural" courses need not be truly "natural". They can and often are built. That end state ought to be an important goal of the architect. Because the additional dimension that such courses afford is important.
And as TD notes above, what is natural can be made to appear more natural with a little assistance.
Bob
-
Sean -
My point is that "natural" courses need not be truly "natural". They can and often are built. That end state ought to be an important goal of the architect. Because the additional dimension that such courses afford is important.
And as TD notes above, what is natural can be made to appear more natural with a little assistance.
Bob
Bob
I don't know how it is possible to make something natural appear more natural with the help of man. Give me an example. I take your point about unnatural appearing natural. Colt was generally a master of this. Its why I wonder what happened at Burnham's 1st hole. I know Colt called for a gap to be created in a the dune, but usually he was a bit more subtle and made things make sense. Even with time, the gap in Burnham's 1st fairway looks wierd.
In the case of Carne its a difficult call to make and I think Tom is perhaps being a bit harsh with his judgement. First off, Carne was built on a shoestring and it may well have been that all the money/free labour available was spent. Secondly, the course is still quite young and it will naturalize a bit over time. In any case, some of the dune formations at Carne are so wild that one could be forgiven for thinking they are not natural.
Ciao
-
Bob, Sean - your exchange gets to the heart of this for me. I ping-pong back and forth between your two views. A while after I joined the discussion board, I posted on having confused minimalism with naturalism, and noting that what moved me most was the 'freedom' of naturalism. A very knowledgeable poster replied that the one question was whether anything 'manufactured' could ever fully capture the essence of the naturalism I sought. I'm still not sure of the answer...but I think it's a question worth asking over and over again, and in various different ways (even without reference to lower costs of construction and more minimal maintenance practices). I think that, every once in a rare while, looking at questions in a black and white way helps to bring a little more understanding of the grey areas in between.
Peter
-
All course are built, even the early ones, to my mind it’s a question of what do you have to destroy to achieve a natural course for that ultimate goal. But if you change things - think very, very carefully before doing so because in the majority of cases its hard to turn the clock back. I have no problem with those who prefer to move away from the original game.
Every generation of my family from the early 1840’s have been playing golf – the history of the game is in our blood. My father came from St Andrews and learnt to play on the Old Course, his father lived and played at St Andrews, my great grandfather was James Hunter co-founder of Royal Quebec G C and its first champion as well as being a first class golfer in Scotland and married to Old Tom’s daughter. Then there is Young Tom and of course Old Tom. Yes, golf is in my blood, it’s a beautiful and most satisfying game that can be enjoyed alone, with friends or in a competition. I care for golf, its future, which I see moving away from its original concepts. Money, big money talks, millions are spent designing super courses with all the facilities – soon if we are not careful we may all be playing on our screens at home, as courses become to expensive to create or maintain, their carbon foot print being no longer acceptable. This could be the ultimate goal.
I have mentioned on a few previous occasions that I am of the old school, I hate buggies and their super tarmac highways running adjacent to a course, the brilliant kept and manicured fairways – this is not progress, its pure corruption of the game of golf. It may be the modern way to play but it’s not my way.
I am only a lone voice in the wilderness, I enjoy playing on this more natural land. Play the super courses, but if we end up with Astroturf fairways/greens you have only yourself to blame. Having said all that I don’t suppose for one minute that our views are really that far apart.
I will not apologise for my passion – but when you come over don’t just settle for the Old / New Courses or Royal Dornoch, try the other courses from Askernish through to Tain, Bridge of Allan, Warkworth, Newtonmore, St Michaels (Leuchars), Tarland, Strathpeffer, Rosapenna, Pwllhelie (Wales), Crieff, Kirby Muxloe (England) and Royal North Devon to name but a few.
-
Sean:
I've been called harsh before for criticizing Carne -- perhaps it was you. But, once the decision was made that the only way to play golf over a couple of those holes was to alter the landscape -- in just one or two spots on the whole course -- don't you think they should have done a better job? Or are you telling me those shelves in the fairway on 17 are natural? I would forgive it entirely in that case, but I don't believe it's true. (Perhaps then you'll tell me that the shelf on 17 at Pennard is natural, too ... although it bothers me much less.)
Architects always cry "budget" about such issues [although in this case it is you and not Eddie Hackett making the case], but there is really hardly any extra money involved. All we're talking about is running a dozer for an extra day or three in order to make the work appear more natural. I'd be willing to bet they rented the dozer by the month, so it's down to a few hundred dollars for the fuel and the shaper. In truth, they probably didn't have a real shaper -- the work was done by someone inexperienced and he needed more time to get it right.
-
"My brain hurts!"
-DP Gumby
-
Melvyn,
That is some very cool stuff on Askernish Golf Club website. Thanks for sharing. Put me down in the group that perfers natural looking golf course. There is just something about playing a course that blends in beautifully with its natural surroundings that hieghtens my enjoyment of the game. Yes I can have a great deal of fun on a course that is heavily shaped, but on a course that is one with its surroundings I not only have fun but am also inspired by the experience.
Brendan
-
Joe H -- maybe this might help.
Sundance: What's your idea this time?
Butch: Bolivia.
Sundance: What's Bolivia?
Butch: Bolivia. That's a country, stupid! In Central or South America, one or the other.
Sundance: Why don't we just go to Mexico instead?
Butch: 'Cause all they got in Mexico is sweat and there's too much of that here. Look, if we'd been in business during the California Gold Rush, where would we have gone? California - right?
Sundance: Right.
Butch: So when I say Bolivia, you just think California. You wouldn't believe what they're finding in the ground down there. They're just fallin' into it. Silver mines, gold mines, tin mines, payrolls so heavy we'd strain ourselves stealin' 'em.
Sundance: (chuckling) You just keep thinkin', Butch. That's what you're good at.
Butch: Boy, I got vision, and the rest of the world wears bifocals.
It's an analogy, Joe. An a-n-a-l-o-g-y ;D
-
"Who ARE those guys?"
-
Butch:
"What do you want in a girl, Sundance?"
Sundance:
"Aaah, I'm not picky---just as long as she's sweet, and good-looking, and a good cook, and...., I'm not picky."
And shortly after that the movie-going world was treated, once again, to the earth-shattering visage of Katherine Ross.
When the camera cut for the first time to the face of Katherine Ross in The Graduate, I swear to God, an entire generation of movie-going young men were never the same again, including me.
It was one of the few times in movie history that something totally non-verbal on the screen got a massive audial reaction from the audience.
And furthermore, if you want to see really great non-verbal acting catch about the last two seconds Katherine Ross's face is onscreen as she sat in the back of that bus in her wedding dress. Her expression absolutely says it all.
-
Nice, Tom!
A real natural beauty that Katherine Ross, wasn't she?
I didn't catch "The Graduate" when it first came out. But when I did, as striking as Katherine Ross was, I had an even more lasting impression -- that of Anne Bancroft in profile, one leg drawn up, smiling slyly as she says "Do you WANT me to seduce you, Benjamin, is that it?".
Wow. And since I knew even back then that she was married to Mel Brooks, I could figure that a guy like me had a shot...sort of
Another natural beauty she was - Anna Italiano, from Brooklyn, New York.
Peter
-
"A real natural beauty that Katherine Ross, wasn't she?"
WELL, Peter, beautiful she most definitely was, but seeing as where this discussion is going on what "natural" REALLY is I'm not that sure I could speak that intelligently to how natural she was. But I'll tell you one thing for sure, I would've loved to have the opportunity back then to check out about every last inch of her to see how natural she was!
-
Peter:
Did you ever get the opportunity to check out Anne Bancroft's REAL accent?
It was the damndest thing you ever heard. Most people just couldn't believe it was Anne Bancroft.
Maybe you have a lot to learn about those old movie icons. Like I bet you never knew Burt Lancaster was gay, did you? ;)
Yep, gay as could be, but I'll tell you one thing about him from seeing a fair amount of him in the Tunney campaign----he was very natural! ;) Yep, very down to earth and natural. He was a great guy.
"....to get your minds off of Katherine Ross (who wasn't even as hot as Anne Bancroft, anyway)?"
Shivas:
Nothing will ever get my mind off Katherine Ross in that GRADUATE scene. And maybe she wasn't as hot as Anne Brancroft. All Katherine Ross was, was about the most drop-dead gorgeous looking thing any of us had EVER seen!
-
Shivas
This is what I'm talking about - you can't tell anymore, but I can - her hair is NOT Natural but after a few drinks I know a few Guys who would like her as their ultimate goal! 8)
-
Jim Engh:
I'm sorry about this. Do you see what your thread on "NATURAL" has done? It was inevitable amigo, just inevitable!
But your mission, if you choose to accept it, is to someday, somewhere, create a golf hole that mimics the beauty of Katherine Ross in The Graduate.
Do you think you can pull that off pal?
Nope, nope, NOPE, nah, nah, nah, I don't even want to talk about it.
-
Shivas:
It's meretricous allure in its worst and most tawdry form!
Give me Katherine Ross any day.
Like Henry Higgins, I'm a kind and thougthful and sensitive man, the kind who never could and never would, and....
-
"Tawdry" ...is that a word I can use in discussion somehow when I take my wife out for Valentines dinner? I hope so, because it sounds cool.......
Joe
-
"Tawdry" ...is that a word I can use in discussion somehow when I take my wife out for Valentines dinner? I hope so, because it sounds cool.......
Joe
I'm hoping to use "meretricious" at a very passionate juncture this evening.
-
It isn't such a "Big World" after all, is it boys?
-
Rather apt to this topic..."do you think you used enough dynamite there Butch?"
-
Are you people all drunk? At 4 o'clock in the afternoon?
-
YA BABY!!!!!!
I for one consider the post by Shivas to an artform!!!!!!! Natural???? Who cares!!!!!
That is the perfect way to end a discussion that has no right answer!
Way to go Shivas!!!
Very cool that ya'll gave such great perspective to an unanswerable question. Thank you!
Jim
-
That is the perfect way to end a discussion that has no right answer!
Way to go Shivas!!!
Yea, Shivas.....way to go.....we finally get the thread to a point where we have sex, drinking and cool words.....and you perfectly end it......
Dumbass.......
;D
-
...
- If a piece of land is flat and boring, is it the gc architects duty to design to mimic the land or provide an unique human experience through art?
...
Not worth asking. You are designing a golf course, not a bowling alley or a pool table.
-
Sean:
I've been called harsh before for criticizing Carne -- perhaps it was you. But, once the decision was made that the only way to play golf over a couple of those holes was to alter the landscape -- in just one or two spots on the whole course -- don't you think they should have done a better job? Or are you telling me those shelves in the fairway on 17 are natural? I would forgive it entirely in that case, but I don't believe it's true. (Perhaps then you'll tell me that the shelf on 17 at Pennard is natural, too ... although it bothers me much less.)
Architects always cry "budget" about such issues [although in this case it is you and not Eddie Hackett making the case], but there is really hardly any extra money involved. All we're talking about is running a dozer for an extra day or three in order to make the work appear more natural. I'd be willing to bet they rented the dozer by the month, so it's down to a few hundred dollars for the fuel and the shaper. In truth, they probably didn't have a real shaper -- the work was done by someone inexperienced and he needed more time to get it right.
Tom
I think the 17th fairway at Carne was shaved. I can only guess the shelf you are talking about at Pennard's 17th is in the landing zone for the tee shot.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/SAPennard17a.jpg)
There is absolutely no way that botch job is natural. It has to be one of the worst efforts at shaping a fairway I have ever seen. Again, that nightmare is down to budget constraints. The entire fairway needs work to accept tee shots better. I am surprised the club hasn't just widened the fairway by 10-15 yards. They cleared a lot of the rubbish away on the low side so balls aren't so easily lost.
I think you are dead right about Hackett not having a proper shaper at Carne - which is down to budget and probably some sort of stipulation about using local labour. I am not even sure Hackett was paid for his work - if he was it wasn't much! I am not getting on your case for criticizing Carne. I am saying that perhaps your are criticizing Carne based on unrealistic expectations. Place the work in context of the budget and I don't see how one can't be amazed at the results. Carne certainly isn't perfect, but its a hell of a lot closer to perfect than many a big name course in GB&I.
BTW When are you gonna build a wee course on all that empty land on the Swansea side of the Pennard property? There has to be a cracking little par 3 course sitting there.
Ciao
-
""Tawdry" ...is that a word I can use in discussion somehow when I take my wife out for Valentines dinner? I hope so, because it sounds cool......."
Joe Hancock:
You and some of the things you say on here just never cease to amaze and amuse me.
NO, tawdry most certainly is NOT a word you should use in a discussion with your wife when you take her out for a Valentine's dinner tonight. The only possible reason to use that word at a Valentine's dinner with your wife would be to describe the hot babe at the next table if your wife happens to catch you ooogling her anatomy.
And Mike Cirba, meretricious is not a word you should be using either when the lenses start to get condensation on them. Meretricious is just a New York City word that should only be used in New York City by sophisticated New Yorkers when they describe the lack of taste and lack of fashion of women in and around Hollywood, California.
-
Tom,
It works really well for role-playing activities. Joe would have applauded the tawdriness.
-
There are presently 182 guests and 65 "users" signed on to Golf Club Atlas at 9:47pm EST on St. Valentines Day. :-[
I can't imagine that many of us are engaged in romantic or passionate activites at the moment. ::)
Oh...wait...maybe we are. ;)
Yikes...what a realization.
Wait...now 204 guests and 68 users at 10:02 pm.
Someone better serve oysters at the next GCA get together.
oh sheez...230 guests and 75 users at 10:13 pm.
No wonder there are all those ads on tv.
Now, this is what I call "unnatural"! ;D
-
Acording to Hackett, 14 or 15 of the holes at Carne are just as he found them, while he had to move heaven and earth for the others. I don't know which holes these are, but the 17th may be one. Interestingly, though, the 17th is many people's favourite hole on the course - it's certainly mine.
-
Acording to Hackett, 14 or 15 of the holes at Carne are just as he found them, while he had to move heaven and earth for the others. I don't know which holes these are, but the 17th may be one. Interestingly, though, the 17th is many people's favourite hole on the course - it's certainly mine.
Jack
You got that right. 17 has to be one of the best par 4s in Ireland. Of course, I view the hole from a golfer's perspective rather than an archie's perspective. Reading about the how the course came about its amazing that anything was built. I seem to recall that six different grants/loans had to be secured for the project which in total was about £1.9 million. I think local unemployed folks had to be used as part of one of the grant schemes. The club has also been very smart in developing in stages - though it had no choice because the money came in at different stages.
Its a shame there seems to be some sort of hangup with the new 9. I gather there are a few awkward areas that have caused some concern. Do you know when the course may be completed?
Ciao
-
"Acording to Hackett, 14 or 15 of the holes at Carne are just as he found them, while he had to move heaven and earth for the others. I don't know which holes these are, but the 17th may be one. Interestingly, though, the 17th is many people's favourite hole on the course - it's certainly mine."
Jack Marr:
If you have any kind of eye at all for identifying what's created by man and what's natural and it's true what Hackett said that 14 or 15 holes are just as he found them and he had to move heaven and earth on the others, that's pretty much what good natural looking architecture is all about in my book. The idea is to hide the hand of man, after-all, and it sounds like Hackett did that.
Personally, I have two definitions for "minimalism." One is when very little earth was moved and the other is when a lot of earth may've been moved but few can tell where or how. The first type is actual minimalism and the second type is the "look" of minimalism. In the end the goal is the same thing---eg to create something that looks like nothing much was created.
-
Based on my experience, moving little earth on 14 holes and a lot on 4 is pretty typical. On rolling ground, its hard to make all the holes fit perfectly, but that's a pretty good ratio. And, as my mentors used to say, you have to get some cut from somewhere to build your greens and tees, so a few made holes aren't all that bad.
Tom Doak once wrote here that Jim Engh was one of the few gca's who didn't care if his stuff looked natural. I guess I fall into that category to a degree, for a few reasons. First, we both had Nugent as a mentor, who was trained at U of I, as was I. The most famous U of I LA grad was Hideo Sasaki, who is famous for the phrase, "The land is putty." Its fair to assume some of that filters through forty years later. Not that I haven't given it some thought since then, in a philosophical way.
It has always seemed a bit odd to me to have to move 400K dirt to be a minimalist! In truth, on many sites, its required. Once you shape a green to any style and start tying in the contours, sometimes you find you need to shape all the way down the fw - whether in minimalist or Rees Jones mound style. To me, it seems more "sincere" or "true minimalist" to simply accept the fact that greens, tees, and bunkers are built. For that matter, I never had the budgets to move 400K to be a minimalist, and found I can move less earth (100-200K) with the "accept it" philosophy.
Most golfers and people accept that, sort of like ignoring the puppeters running the marionettes and "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." In those cases, the human mind can suspend that kind of reality and see what its "supposed to see." In golf, most will see it as natural because of the grass and trees, even if those, and the bunkers are far from natural.
If we tie those contours back to nature in a flowing way (usually by making sure the bottom of slopes flare out rather than hit ground abruptly) then most people think its natural, esp. after a few trees are planted mid slope. There are many golden age courses where the cuts came from the rough that this is the case and that fill was used to build up greens, etc. Whether nature covering up, or the human mind presuming older equal better, golf courses do get better with age.
I agree that many modern designs, mine included, crept away from that ideal, experimenting with the land is putty theory, making golf courses as visual as TV, etc. Perhaps there is room for all, and someone probably had to try different styles and directions to make their golf courses stand out.
And standing out may not have the objective on most courses. In most designs are seeking to provide reasonably priced golf, as in the old days of Scotland, and which is so sorely needed. They start out in the "struggle just to get buit" style! Do you pick a design style on anything other than the lowest cost to build and maintain? While we like to talk about the top 2% of the courses in the country, for the other 98%, practicalism or necessitism reigns. Not that minimalism isn't part of that, but minimalism while moving 400K isn't.
To us a Clinton paraphrase, since its another election year - "It's the golf, stupid!"
-
JeffB:
It's still just amazing to me that so many on here seem to think that minimalism is only moving very small quantities of earth and that by doing that anywhere one is serving some higher purpose for the interest and challenge of the golf involved as well as the aesthetics of every site.
That perception or fixation is generally no more than half the battle and in some cases on some sites a whole lot less than half the battle.
-
Sean:
Your photo of the 17th at Pennard on the last page was an inspiration. (I hope that's your ball sitting nicely on the shelf, though if it is, you shouldn't complain so much about it.)
Yes, the work there is pretty poor from a naturalist standpoint, but I think of that differently than Carne because the work at Pennard was done long after the course opened, and they didn't want to take the whole fairway out of play; whereas at Carne it was all sand in construction and they could have fixed it then. But, that's not why I'm bringing this back up.
I've brought it up because I realized I had seen the answer to how to handle such a steep sidehill fairway for zero dollars, back when I was in Scotland in 1982, on a short par-4 at Crieff, up north of Gleneagles.
They simply didn't mow any fairway on the hole, and left everything in short rough, so the ball wouldn't bounce away down the side of the hill. Problem solved.
Today we would be considered nuts for that, so we spend $10,000 reshaping the fairway instead. But it's not really any better of a solution, playability-wise. It's only that golfers are too conditioned to believe there has to be a fairway at the length of their drives.
-
If someone did that again in the US of A, I think it would be considered a new idea for the 21st Century - the par 4 with no fw cut. Ya know, it may happen someday, keeping steep fw contours and longer grass just to save the maintenance! Of course, in the US it would probably be "first cut" rather than rough but I wonder if anyone would dare try that here?
-
TomD:
Would you condone doing a hole today that had light rough (or something like a first cut) and no fairway height grass just to slow down golf balls?
In a sort of compromise sense we actually did something like that at GMGC on the 10th. The slope down and away from the direction of drive was causing most balls to just automatically get to the rough so the solution was to simply massively increase the area of first cut in that area. Frankly, I think it's an even easier lie than the fairway.
-
Sometime in the '50's Jones noted that the biggest change in golf courses was the heights at which fw's were being cut.
I suspect that normal fw heights back in the 20's prevented a lot of the roll-off problems noted above.
Bob
-
Sean:
Your photo of the 17th at Pennard on the last page was an inspiration. (I hope that's your ball sitting nicely on the shelf, though if it is, you shouldn't complain so much about it.)
Yes, the work there is pretty poor from a naturalist standpoint, but I think of that differently than Carne because the work at Pennard was done long after the course opened, and they didn't want to take the whole fairway out of play; whereas at Carne it was all sand in construction and they could have fixed it then. But, that's not why I'm bringing this back up.
I've brought it up because I realized I had seen the answer to how to handle such a steep sidehill fairway for zero dollars, back when I was in Scotland in 1982, on a short par-4 at Crieff, up north of Gleneagles.
They simply didn't mow any fairway on the hole, and left everything in short rough, so the ball wouldn't bounce away down the side of the hill. Problem solved.
Today we would be considered nuts for that, so we spend $10,000 reshaping the fairway instead. But it's not really any better of a solution, playability-wise. It's only that golfers are too conditioned to believe there has to be a fairway at the length of their drives.
Tom
Thats one way of stopping the ball. I was thinking of the problem from another angle. An awful lot can be excused from a design perspective if the problem can be seen and the ball can be found - make the landing zone visible from the tee. Of course, Braid designed the hole as the tee on the ground near the present 16th green. The change was made later to move the tee down to its present position when the 16th green was moved to the dunes.
Ciao
-
Tom P: Would I "condone" that? Do I have that much power?
I think it would be a very sensible solution for a course in a rocky area with some steep sidehill fairways, where regrading the area would be cost-prohibitive. It would be controversial among players to be sure, but I suspect that there are probably some holes of this description on nine-hole townie courses in the western USA.
-
I think we will be pushing the envelope at Old Macdonald far more than most people expect, and I'll be the first to applaud when somebody pulls off the Picasso of golf course designs, really out there and yet fun to play. I was talking with a landscape architect recently and asked him who he thought would be a good collaborator for such a project -- not a Tour pro but a landscape architect who is way "out there" so I could serve as the golf expert for them.
Tom:
Off the top of my head, I would say George Hargreaves. He's abstract and creative; but, he's also sensitive to building healthy landscapes. He's also worked on projects with a scale comparable to a golf course. He won't be intimidated by the size of your project, he's comfortable moving earth, and he could give you some insight into making your designs benefit the environment.
I've never met him. I've studied some of his work, but only from photographs. For whatever reason, when I read you were looking for a "Picasso" designer, I immediately thought of him.
http://www.hargreaves.com/
Carlyle
-
Carlisle, thanks for the link. Here's a classic from Hargreaves in Napa, California . . .
(http://www.hargreaves.com/projects/Residential/VillaZapu/VillaZapu_1.jpg)