Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Marty Bonnar on September 08, 2013, 07:07:38 PM
-
I didn't think so. I thought there were some really 'clunky' landscape features which may have been acceptable in 1911, but looked really artificial and even jarring today. I still loved the look though, and thought it was a marvellous history lesson. Just please don't anybody design or build anything similar today.
And no, Patrick, I've never been, so bite me,
F.
-
Hi Martin,
Will always remember our time together when you were kind enough to show me one of MacKenzie's early golf courses.
I have always liked this simple quote from one of my favorite landscape painters and think it also applies to McDonald's work.
"Nature is random and it is your job to give it order"
Russell Chatham
-
You are going to take a hit on this one FBD ;) Now watching the replay as I could not get out to Southampton and it looks fabulous to me. Most fun course I have ever played, and that is due in part to those features.
The perfect match play course, even for long hitters.
-
When you are playing there, it is not jarring at all, just one wonderful hole after another. The greens are very tricky, with lots of interesting contours.
-
Tim,
A pleasure. Come on back soon. I still haven't been back to play your new holes at the Dukes.
Brer Mike,
I agree it 'looks' fabulous and all, but it also 'looks' totally man-made. Not a huge issue or problem, just not what the good doctor and other 'proper' architects would do/have done. Woah, controversial!
Unc,
Agreed, but there were too many things which I found lacking in artistry. I do give it some slack, but the old boy was here for bloody ages and should have learned more!
F.
-
I agree it 'looks' fabulous and all, but it also 'looks' totally man-made. Not a huge issue or problem, just not what the good doctor and other 'proper' architects would do/have done. Woah, controversial!
Unc,
Agreed, but there were too many things which I found lacking in artistry. I do give it some slack, but the old boy was here for bloody ages and should have learned more!
F.
There really are no courses in the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks family that look natural due to many of the angles that are featured in the bunkers. I personally think this is why they are so much fun to play.
Are you going to sell us how some sheep made this :D
(http://www.geoffshackelford.com/storage/OldCourse4thfairway2010_2.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1353746681505)
An argument can be made that the Doak/ Blue is the National of Streamsong in Florida, and the Red/Coore is the Shinnecock, so they are building them. Never been to Bandon, but Old Macdonald would be my first play....
-
Tim,
A pleasure. Come on back soon. I still haven't been back to play your new holes at the Dukes.
Brer Mike,
I agree it 'looks' fabulous and all, but it also 'looks' totally man-made. Not a huge issue or problem, just not what the good doctor and other 'proper' architects would do/have done. Woah, controversial!
Unc,
Agreed, but there were too many things which I found lacking in artistry. I do give it some slack, but the old boy was here for bloody ages and should have learned more!
F.
Martin,
You are very correct... there are many features of NGLA and most other McDonald/Raynor courses that look manufactured or unnatural, because they are. The bunkering in particular is often unnatural looking with severe angles and steep banks.
Having said that, everything knits together perfectly and seems as smooth as silk within the context of playing the holes. It's the aerial shots that show up the awkward visual lines... you don't really see that from the ground.
-
Tim,
A pleasure. Come on back soon. I still haven't been back to play your new holes at the Dukes.
Brer Mike,
I agree it 'looks' fabulous and all, but it also 'looks' totally man-made. Not a huge issue or problem, just not what the good doctor and other 'proper' architects would do/have done. Woah, controversial!
Unc,
Agreed, but there were too many things which I found lacking in artistry. I do give it some slack, but the old boy was here for bloody ages and should have learned more!
F.
I took my 13 year old son there today and to the opening ceremonies.
He has NO interest in golf architecture.
I NEVER walk courses without playing them.
After the opening ceremonies Friday night, we walked the course and both agreed it was awesome.
Today we walked it again, even though there were no matches on many of the holes we walked.
I don't think he knows it, but he's interested in architecture now ;)
I turned around and he was looking in to see how deep the Road hole bunker was.
.........and I'm considering changing my policy regarding walking courses ;D
NGLA is freaking awesome, and is the best it has been in my lifetime.
You should visit Martin.
-
This is the great dichotomy of golf architecture. We worship at the altar of minimalism but are blown away by the sharp lines and angles and templates of MacDonald-Raynor courses! (I know I am!)
-
This is the great dichotomy of golf architecture. We worship at the altar of minimalism but are blown away by the sharp lines and angles and templates of MacDonald-Raynor courses! (I know I am!)
The other dichotomy for me personally is I don't care for Pete Dye courses but love MacRaynor courses....
I think "minimalism" is a sales pitch. I love courses on great land where little has to be done. Of course, I love Yale so that theory gets killed every time I tee it up in the rocks and clay of New Haven. ???
-
This is the great dichotomy of golf architecture. We worship at the altar of minimalism but are blown away by the sharp lines and angles and templates of MacDonald-Raynor courses! (I know I am!)
The other dichotomy for me personally is I don't care for Pete Dye courses but love MacRaynor courses....
I think "minimalism" is a sales pitch. I love courses on great land where little has to be done. Of course, I love Yale so that theory gets killed every time I tee it up in the rocks and clay of New Haven. ???
LOL. See my post re: "Great dichotomy." According to everything we espouse about minimalism over artificiality, we should detest NGLA and its ilk. But....... ;D
-
I didn't think so. I thought there were some really 'clunky' landscape features which may have been acceptable in 1911, but looked really artificial and even jarring today. I still loved the look though, and thought it was a marvellous history lesson. Just please don't anybody design or build anything similar today.
And no, Patrick, I've never been, so bite me,
Not surprised with your perception, proof positive that ignorance is bliss.
Would you identify what you perceived as the "clunky" landscape features ?
Especially the features that "looked really artificial and even jarring" ?
Would you also indicate the camera angle/location that led you to come to these perceptions/conclusions ?
-
There's nothing natural looking about MacRaynor shaping. It's pretty easy to tell where nature ends and the hand of man starts. Ditto for Dye, Langford & Moreau, and plenty of other architects that most of us love.
I like minimalism as much as anybody. But if there's no room in the world for those engineered features we saw at National during the Walker Cup, then our Kool Aid has gone rancid. That joint looked fantastic, though it's true that there's nothing minimalist about it.
-
There's nothing natural looking about MacRaynor shaping. It's pretty easy to tell where nature ends and the hand of man starts. Ditto for Dye, Langford & Moreau, and plenty of other architects that most of us love.
I like minimalism as much as anybody. But if there's no room in the world for those engineered features we saw at National during the Walker Cup, then our Kool Aid has gone rancid. That joint looked fantastic, though it's true that there's nothing minimalist about it.
Jason,
Have you ever been there and seen the golf course as seen thruogh the eyes of a golfer playing each and every hole ?
What specific features looked artificial ?
-
There's nothing natural looking about MacRaynor shaping. It's pretty easy to tell where nature ends and the hand of man starts. Ditto for Dye, Langford & Moreau, and plenty of other architects that most of us love.
I like minimalism as much as anybody. But if there's no room in the world for those engineered features we saw at National during the Walker Cup, then our Kool Aid has gone rancid. That joint looked fantastic, though it's true that there's nothing minimalist about it.
Jason,
Have you ever been there and seen the golf course as seen thruogh the eyes of a golfer playing each and every hole ?
What specific features looked artificial ?
The WINDMILL.
-
I loved the look of the course on television. It doesn't look "unnatural", it looks like a...wait for it...golf course! And a fascinating one at that.
Couple of questions for those that have played it--
1) why did the USGA allow removal of rocks from the bunkers as a local rule. On the telecast yesterday, I saw this occur and thought, surely if the members of NGLA wanted the rocks removed they would be gone. If they don't want rocks removed from the bunkers, why should the USGA see the need to make a local rule covering this meddling with a hazard? Play it as it lies, no?
2) the "Eden" green looks huge--does it play at all like the original or more like a CB Macdonald original?
Thanks...
-
Pat, I prefer the term "engineered" over "artificial." I've not played National. I contextualized my post in reference to MacRaynor shaping in general. I've played several Raynor courses. I love the look of Raynor shaping. It's not natural looking, but I have no idea why anyone would complain about that in a vacuum. There damn sure isn't anything natural about stuff like this, but it still has excellent visual appeal:
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/NGLA%203rd%20Green%20Right.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000574.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000577.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000581.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000002171.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000002181.jpg)
(http://img2.findthebest.com/sites/default/files/1788/media/images/Metairie_Country_Club_-_Metairie_371677.jpg)
(http://www.linksmagazine.com/upload/0/26/2669/asset_upload_file949_2669.jpg)
What I love about MacRaynor in general is that, while their shaping is obviously manmade in many spots, I find that their courses still generally follow an intuitive routing and locate greensites and fairway corridors in natural positions. As a result, the holes themselves sit beautifully on the land while the features really "pop" thanks to their sharp, geometric definition. It's a wonderful juxtaposition between what is natural and what is engineered, and the result is very appealing visually. I can't speak to National having never played it, but it certainly appears from photos and the coverage this weekend that it follows the same formula with excellent fairway corridors and greensites that take advantage of the natural terrain combined with shaped features that deviate from it.
-
FBD
For sure these Macnor courses look engineered, but the important aspects which set them apart is
1. There is no attempt to mimic nature - so the courses have a functional beauty which is just as attractive as natural beauty - if you are a golfer
2. The features are meant to be in play rather merely on the edges working as a frame
NGLA looks odd compared to most golfers' steady diet, but it looks incredibly interesting and very much like a golf course.
Ciao
-
I think the question 'Why do many people whose general preference is for natural-looking courses really like the aesthetic of Macraybanks courses as well as their playability' is one of the most interesting in golf design. I've given it a fair bit of thought, and basically agree with Sean, except that I would add a third reason:
3. Most (not all, but must) of the obviously artificial features are relatively low-profile and thus don't jar so much on the eye. I contrast this to the sort of wavy artificial framing mounds seen on so many modern courses, which are far more intrusive. Straight lines may be rare in nature, but the clean nature of the MRB look doesn't interfere with the beauty of the rest of the golf course and landscape.
-
Adam
#3 is a good point. Do you think time helped soften the "sharpness" of the lines or was NGLA always easier on the eye regards the engineered look?
Ciao
-
NGLA is not only a tremendous golf course - it is Art.
It tugs at your heartstrings. It moves you.
Nothing clunky there.
I love the audacity of NGLA and I would love to replicate its features - yes even today given the opportunity and the maintenance budget.
It is what it is - absolutely enchanting!
Lyne
-
Have a read of this regarding NGLA, great article, Bamberger on golf.com:
http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/2013-walker-cup-showed-golf-its-best-when-it-hews-closely-its-scottish-roots
"You take what you want from this Walker Cup. This is what I’m taking. Less water. More brown. Wider fairways. Shorter holes. More fun. More match play. Less talk. More walking. More wind. More salty air.
Amen to that!
-
Jason,
First you have to eliminate the photos that aren't photos of NGLA as they are irrelevant when discussing NGLA.
The photo of just the right corner of a huge 3rd green distorts the nature of the green/hole.
And, the fact is that that green and especially what's depicted in the photo is INVISIBLE to the golfer as he hits his approach from the fairway DZ.
With regard to the "Road Hole" bunker on # 7 and the photo you posted, you should know that the bunker is virtually invisible to the golfer's eye as he plays the hole on his second shot and approach. It's only when you're on top of the feature that it reveals itself in full.
The next photo, depicting a portion of # 8 green doesn't reveal the land form to the left of the green, which when revealed, presents the 8th green as a natural feature within the global land form.
The next photo of # 11 green, taken from near the 12th tee is not what the golfer sees as he plays the hole.
Your lack of familiarity and dependence upon limited photos taken from but one vantage point inhibits your ability to grasp NGLA in it's true form.
You're like the three blind men examining an elephant.
You have to play NGLA, more than a few times to understand it's architecture, bold and especially, nuanced.
-
Pat, there's a whole discussion happening around you. Nobody wants to watch you derail ANOTHER thread. Go outside and play golf or something.
If you really want to call NGLA's appearance "natural," that's your prerogative. It's obvious from your previous post that you have no sense of context whatsoever, and my bet is that real and untouched nature is much too "unwashed" for your tastes so you probably don't have a good frame of reference for evaluating whether something resembles it or not. Admittedly, it is very difficult for a New Yorker to have any real recollection of what "natural" looks like. I guess you probably think the Statue of Liberty looks natural since you can only tell that it's manmade when you look at it in full scale and full color, as otherwise it pretty much looks like a person wearing funny clothes.
Your "The features only look manmade if you look at them!" argument is akin to a two year old who believes he can hide from others by covering his eyes. It is entertaining though, as always, to watch you come up with this crap.
-
Disclaimer: I haven't played, nor seen NGLA in person. I have set foot in NY state, but that was at Niagara Falls. :D
I also wondered about the routing. I acknowledge that the back tees are generally pushed back into rather awkward positions, solely to increase yardage, but the teeing area for the 7th looks a bit squashed.
Some of the holes looked a bit cluttered. The 15th has bunker after bunker up the right side; are all these necessary? Penal architecture perhaps? And all those teeny weey bunkers on 17 and 1; couldn't most of them be filled in? If a modern day architect sprinkled a course with so many bunkers, I'd start to wonder if he had run out of ideas.
Having said all that, I'd love to play it someday and staring at a satellite image gives a very distorted view of any course.
-
Without context, I think NGLA did look a little jarring on TV. In fact, watching it with my non-golfing father, he commented on how weird the berm looked on #17. However, he also thought it looked fantastic - and with a little explanation of the theory behind the course, seemed to be genuinely interested in the design.
My opinion, is that NGLA seems to be the perfect melding of engineering and minimalism. The features that were created were done so only to maximize the strategic concepts and playing properties. While the best of the land was left untouched, I especially noticed it on #17 (as I got to see more of that hole than any other). The fairway looked crumpled, firm and natural - flowing perfectly into the green. However, the berm and bunkers were very engineered but supremely strategic and really forced the players to commit to their chosen shot.
-
Kelly,
On Thursday afternoon, I spent about 45 minutes with all of the Walker Cup caddies from NGLA, a great crew of knowledgeable fellows, many of whom have caddied for me wheni've played NGLA.
They were surprised by how few rounds the GB&I team had played at NGLA.
I'm pretty sure they played Pine Valley, Bayonne and other courses, but they didn't spend much time playing NGLA.
Saturday morning, while on the 6th tee, I ran into a very good player who's a member of NGLA and we watched all four groups play # 5 and # 6.
We commented on how important local knowledge is at NGLA.
He named a number of very good players who could beat him every where else, but not at NGLA, due to his body of knowledge and playing experience at NGLA. We saw some "management" mistakes, and when I told him what the caddies had told me, he said, there's no way the GB&I team could win with so little playing experiences under their belt.
We talked about how different the course plays without wind, with the typical trade winds and with other winds and that you couldn't load that into your data base without playing the course under those conditions. We also discussed the impact on play, of increased wind velocity.
When each member of the GB&I team was introduced, they received the same applause as the American team members, and when good shots were hit, they received applause and verbal accolades, so, I'm at a loss regarding the basis of their sentiments.
The crowds I was with were polite, informed, appreciative and sportsmen like.
P.S. it was nice to see and chat with you and your son
-
Jason,
I typed a lengthy reply but lost it.
I'll repost later today
-
Well, it's not exactly like Ernest Hemingway losing his manuscript.
Even God is trying to stop the green spam. At least the rest of the forum knows that they have about 3 hours left for intelligent discussion before this topic gets completely filibustered.
-
I am very surprised at the negative tone the Brits have taken toward this course, its members, and the type of people that attended the event; not really certain why there is so much hatred for it and its people.
KBM,
Are you referring to the comments made in this thread, or something that was said/written in the British press in the run-up/aftermath of the WC?
I haven't read anything of that nature myself.
-
This is the great dichotomy of golf architecture. We worship at the altar of minimalism but are blown away by the sharp lines and angles and templates of MacDonald-Raynor courses! (I know I am!)
Pithy and quite accurate, as usual.
-
Kelly,
Are you seriously extrapolating a genaral dislike for NGLA amongst Brits from the writings of John Huggan?
-
I think that Sean's 2 points and Adam's 3rd, Wild Bill's observations along with KBM's posts all make a great deal of sense to me.
One thing I was wondering in regards to the manufactured lines and angles, along with placement of the hazards, particularly in the flatter areas, is the context of the ongoing building and tweaking the course design at its inception in its time period of 1907-1915. Obviously the idea of templating or recreating the playing strategies of the iconic golf holes and corridors that CB studied and as he intended to recreate them on this land parcel required the need for shaping material. Then, when one considers the tools of earth moving that were at their disposal, along with engineer-surveyor Raynor's unfamiliarity with golf course's of the British Isle's origin in general, and one might see how the manufactured hard line, unnatural look came into being. Their was a great deal of need for manual labor. I'm not sure what dredge and earth carts on tracks were, although George Bahto has at least one or more photo's in his book, "The Evangelist of Golf", showing the rudimentary and clunky earthmoving apparatus of the day from the work at Lido.
So, with a keen understanding of the strategy and placement of hazards and angles that CB brought back, along with the need for feature shaping, green's platform embankments and teeing grounds and such, was born the sharp and manufactured angles. One only need look at the many courses of GB built away from the links land dunes that were constructed in-land with the era of geometric shapes of bunkers and such to see that the manufactured and angular geometry of the game hadn't met the more advanced technology of earthmoving and shaping with more artistry. While it would seem Dr. MacKenzie had it more on his repitoire of shaping in those days to mimic nature, most other archies did not incorporate that aspect of shaping to mimic or compliment nature so much, and it was more about digging pits for hazards and placing them for playing strategical effect rather than the aesthetics involved.
So, with NGLA being such a new entry on the U.S. golf scene on such a large scale, and lack of a tradition or historical evolution of blending artistic complimenting of artificial earth works with natural surroundings, we got this more manufactured look with great playing strategic angles and geometric shapes. As noted, CB and perhaps Raynor paid attention to the look from eye level and that may have mitigated the angular and manufactured look a little, but the views from above make the geometry and manufactured look more dramatic. At least that is my take...
-
Well, it's not exactly like Ernest Hemingway losing his manuscript.
Even God is trying to stop the green spam. At least the rest of the forum knows that they have about 3 hours left for intelligent discussion before this topic gets completely filibustered.
Enjoy your gloating while you can, you'll soon be licking your wounds.
But in the meantime, why haven't you answered my questions and cited exactly which features look artificial.
That's what you stated, so you should have no difficulty identifying all of those artificial features.
Cite the artificial features on a hole by hole basis.
That should be easy for an expert such as yourself
-
I was fortunate enough to be there on Friday and Saturday. I watched almost nothing of the practice rounds, but spent the entire day walking the course and seeing something new every time. I'm not sure how much benefit there is to walking all courses, but like The Old Course this one shows you so much more when you have time to spend looking around. Like Jeff Warne, I'm reconsidering my attitude towards looking at a course w/o playing, though I cannot see ever choosing walking over playing.
While I was there, I talked to quite a few of the visitors from overseas. Perhaps they were just being polite, but I heard nothing but praise for the course and the event. People seemed to appreciate how unique and special National is. After seeing comments earlier on this thread, I took a look at Huggan's tweets. He's all caught up in the difference in visitor practices between US and UK clubs. I'm sure that all of us would like to be able to go play places like National whenever we want, but the members haven't chosen that approach. It does not make the course any less special in the world, but nor does it make it more special.
National is the most fascinating, compelling course I have seen in person. I cannot see how anyone would be able to visit there and not be blown away.
I'm not sure if all of the GB&I players took local caddies, but most did. I had a laugh with Alex Fitzpatrick (Matthew's younger brother) over his being fired (sacked) after the US Amateur win, but all agreed that local knowledge was important. In the play that I saw, both sides were a bit too reluctant to alter approach shot play (i.e. wedge distance doesn't always mean you have to fly a wedge there) based on the hole positions.
-
I'm not sure if all of the GB&I players took local caddies, but most did. I had a laugh with Alex Fitzpatrick (Matthew's younger brother) over his being fired (sacked) after the US Amateur win, but all agreed that local knowledge was important. In the play that I saw, both sides were a bit too reluctant to alter approach shot play (i.e. wedge distance doesn't always mean you have to fly a wedge there) based on the hole positions.
It was great to see a course where angles mattered even for elite players (and I consider Walker Cup players elite), and also great to see firm and fast on display. It's unfortunate that coverage was relegated to two hours a day on cable channels, and also unfortunate the the announcers waited to extoll the virtues of fast and firm until the outcome was decided. But it was still refreshing.
I watched a bit on Sunday in the tavern at my club after finishing a round. The course was clearly the star of the show, as members were asking a lot of questions about it and discussing their thoughts on the features. While there were a few puzzled looks ("Who would want to be a member of a course with bunkers so deep they need stairs!?!"), there were also a lot of intrigued ones ("Wow, I didn't know Shinnecock had other great courses next door").
For the record, there are at least 20 bunkers at our club with grass faces at least 5-10 feet deep, so it's a bit of a funny criticism to hear in our clubhouse.
-
John,
I thought the conduct of the players and spectators was exemplary, so I'm puzzled by any negative comments regarding same.
While the networks seem to have mastered televising the PGA Tour, I'm not so sure that they've perfected how to present match play and the golf course.
The paucity of coverage on #'s 1, 2, 3 and 4 would seem to confirm same.
Is there any more scary first green in golf than # 1.
And # 3, the Alps and # 4 the Redan, how can you not televise play on those holes.
Ditto 6, 7 and 8.
I think the PGA tour and Major telecasts are focused on the end result, the drama on # 18, whereas match play builds to a crescendo/conclusion, not with the score on any one hole, but with the collection of holes.
The cameras missed much of the genius of CBM
-
Pat, there's a whole discussion happening around you.
Nobody wants to watch you derail ANOTHER thread.
If by derail, you mean to question and contest your opinion of the golf course, an opinion gleened solely from watching a limited telecast of the Walker Cup on the TV in your club's grille, then yes.
And, if you think you're going to divert the focus from NGLA to other courses, by claiming that I'm derailing the thread, that won't happen.
This thread is about NGLA, and not any other course.
You, and you alone introduced other courses when you posted those photos of other courses.
You clearly stated your position about NGLA, an opinion based on infinitesimal and limited exposure to the course itself.
An opinion based on views of the golf course as seen through a perspective other than that as seen by the golfer's eye.
So, which specific features are or look artificial ?
Please cite them, with specificity, on a hole by hole basis so that we can discuss them in ernest.
Start with hole # 1.
What features seem "artificial" to you ?
Or, if you'd prefer to work backwards, start with # 18.
What features seem artificial to you ? The Clubhouse ? The flagpole ?
Go outside and play golf or something.
I'd rather have you provide evidence supporting your opinion, an opinion gleened from grille room viewing.
If you really want to call NGLA's appearance "natural," that's your prerogative.
It's not just my perogative, it's my opinion based on innumerable play of the golf course over forty years............ as compared to your opinion, based solely on a telecast as viewed from your grille room.
It's obvious from your previous post that you have no sense of context whatsoever, and my bet is that real and untouched nature is much too "unwashed" for your tastes so you probably don't have a good frame of reference for evaluating whether something resembles it or not.
"No sense of context" ? ? ?
You can't be that big of a moron.
"Sense of context" ?
You're sole context is based upon your interpretation of the views presented by the cameras as you watched the Walker Cup from your grille room.
My context is based upon hundreds of rounds over 40 years.
If I had to hazard a guess regarding context and your opinion, I'd suspect that you were overserved
Admittedly, it is very difficult for a New Yorker to have any real recollection of what "natural" looks like. I guess you probably think the Statue of Liberty looks natural since you can only tell that it's manmade when you look at it in full scale and full color, as otherwise it pretty much looks like a person wearing funny clothes.
This shows how little you really know.
I'm not a "New Yorker".
Never lived there.
But, Charles Blair Macdonald was a New Yorker.
How many courses have you designed/altered/renovated ?
How does your body of work stack up to his ?
How does you ability to blend a golf course into its surroundings compare to his ?
And, I can assure you that my "architectural eye" and ability to discern features, natural and manufactured are far, far keener than yours.
And, I can assure you that my familiarity with NGLA is exponentially greater than yours, even if you did stay in a Holiday Express last night.
Your "The features only look manmade if you look at them!" argument is akin to a two year old who believes he can hide from others by covering his eyes.
Well, if you don't look at them, how can you tell if they're manmade of not ?
Oh, I know, ask the guys in the grille room who are looking at them.
They'll know.
It is entertaining though, as always, to watch you come up with this crap.
I see, when asked to support your moronic position you try to divert and avoid the questions and the issue.
So again, cite for us, with specificity, those features that look artificial at NGLA.
Start on hole # 1 or hole # 18 and work your way through the course and share with us your abundant knowledge of the features as they appear to the golfer as he plays his round.
Share with us, your infinite wisdom, gleened from a few beers and an occasional glance at the TV in your grille room.
We're waiting
-
I thought there were some really 'clunky' landscape features which may have been acceptable in 1911, . . .
I think it may be a mistake to assume the look today is exactly as it was in the beginning. Here are some photos of NGLA circa 1911 . . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/nglaSaharaGreensideBunker.jpg?t=1286300756)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/AlpsCrossBunker.jpg?t=1286300605)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/CapeGreen2.jpg?t=1286300649)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/ngla18bunkers.jpg?t=1286300709)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/nglaSaharaBunker2.jpg?t=1286300800)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/SaharaWide.jpg?t=1286300873)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/First.jpg?t=1286300912)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/short.jpg?t=1286301471)
-
I love NGLA. But, if it were left to nature in an unmaintained state, starting today, how long would it be before you couldn't see any evidence of it being a golf course previously? I think it would be easy to see the evidence well into the future, assuming trees wouldn't take over the property. So my opinion is that it isn't natural.
Natural or not, why does it matter? It's great golf.
Joe
-
I think that is a pretty interesting point, Joe. Maybe this isn't the right thread to explore that idea and maybe merits a new thread. But, I for one, would be interested in a list of courses that NLE, that have been fallow for 30 or more years where the ground is still basically there and the old bones can or can not be found, depending on how natural the site was before being abandoned.
Here in Green Bay there is a course that is still a heavily wooded with FWs and decent green platforms that is the remaining 9 holes of a previously 18 hole course. It was a private club and half the land was taken by UWGB. The half that was taken was a prairie 9 holes, completely opposite from the wooded 9 that remains. I have gone out there many times in areas that are still native prairie and some of the old greens and tee boxes can still be found if you know what you are looking for among the foot and a half or two foot native grass. Interestingly, there isn't much broad leaf that ever took hold on that prairie, once maintained golf turf. It is about 40 years that it lies abandoned. But, it was not a highly manufactured course either. It was basically prairie turned over and little shaping of green sites and tee boxes in an otherwise natural meadow.
So, given the climate and turf that is there, I'd have to think that NGLA might be something like finding the old remnants of a civilization past if we get into a planet of the apes scenario, where the top of the Statute of Liberty, and the Alps hole and road hole bunker along with other features of NGLA are still there for someone that knew what fields of golf were about back in the pre-armageddon days. ::)
-
Its quite clear NGLA was built, not found, but as Joe says, Natural or not, why does it matter? It's great golf.
Ciao
-
It never ceases to amaze me how people go on about courses needing to look natural but are fine with bunkers on clay soils ::) That this includes Mr. Marty is a shock to me but then he is in good company as Tom D worries about mounds but not bunkers as well ???
Jon
-
Jon, Sean,
I think there is a big difference between making something look as though it has always been there (i.e. natural).... And then that ugly middle ground of containment mounding and maintenance friendly curves that are the long distant relation to "natural" looking shaping...
Bunkers on clay sites - well you just have to live with them, don't you. Because without them, you can't create a "great" golf course apart from on the very rare occasions that the topography & vegetation can do all your bidding for you. Either that or you end up having to create those shapes and features that allow some strategy in to the game.
Plus obvious man-made objects dotted around a very natural landscape can sometimes look very appealing - like a sculpture exhibition in the botanic gardens...
-
The fact that bunkers on clay soil are unnatural doesn't mean they have to look it!
-
I think there is a big difference between making something look as though it has always been there (i.e. natural).... And then that ugly middle ground of containment mounding and maintenance friendly curves that are the long distant relation to "natural" looking shaping...
Yes, I have long had a distaste for what I call mimicing nature. Because nature is often circular in shape is no reason to think mounding will pass the grade. Why not be bold even if there can be no mistake about the origins of the feature?
Bunkers on clay sites - well you just have to live with them, don't you. Because without them, you can't create a "great" golf course apart from on the very rare occasions that the topography & vegetation can do all your bidding for you. Either that or you end up having to create those shapes and features that allow some strategy in to the game.
Very tricky this is, and one reason I think clay sites require extra care in design. If ever there is a site which should feature the complete range of features, a clay site it is. Because so much would often have to be built, there must be a strong temptation to mimic nature - often resulting in a very bland course.
Plus obvious man-made objects dotted around a very natural landscape can sometimes look very appealing - like a sculpture exhibition in the botanic gardens...
I agree completely. Sometimes, it makes sense to push the boat out with shaping features. I think many of the courses and features we love today that are a bit on the wild side may still look extraordinary today, originally they must have been extraordinary x2. In other words, archies have to look to the future for their courses to be complete. I am not sure that is the case these days. My favourite course on the planet is a shaping nightmare and the contrast of green sites with surrounds is jarring. But the simple concept works and has a visual appeal that is unique.
Adam - if bunkers aren't natural to clay soil, exactly how does one make them look natural?
Ciao
-
Here are some photos of NGLA circa 1911 . . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/short.jpg?t=1286301471)
In this circa 1911 photo would those be vertically positioned railway sleepers across the front of the green?
All the best.
-
Adam - if bunkers aren't natural to clay soil, exactly how does one make them look natural?
I was partially joking, but it seems to me that one doesn't normally look at a piece of property and say 'that's sandy soil' or 'that's clay'. I've remarked on many occasions, in the US and elsewhere, at vegetation (especially pines) growing on clay that, if your experience was solely UK, you would think normally mark out sandy property. Even on sandy sites, it's not that common to see loads of exposed sand. And outside the links it's pretty rare to have bunkers that are filled with native sand. So I don't really see why sand bunkers should stand out more on a clay property, if they're built with an eye to the natural contours (ie not cut into obviously artificial mounds) and they don't dominate the view.
-
Adam
I think one of the inherent issues with clay is the bunker can only be dug so deep. The usual choice is to either leave it two feet deep (crap no?) or create a berm to play over. Usually, these berms aren't tied in very well with the surrounding land probably because of lack of funds and/or lack of imagination. That isn't to say the bunkering can't look attractive, but looking natural is another story. Very few courses have sand bunkers which could be mistaken for being natural so its never been a big deal for me. Unless there are too many bunkers or unusually ugly bunkers, I can suspend my disbelief for 4 hours, but I would rather see bold solutions for aesthetics rather than the same old mimicy job that we see all too often. This is one of the area that Dye excels. On the surface from a natural PoV, some of his work is miles out, but from a golf PoV, it can be creative and attractive in its own way.
Ciao
-
Adam
I think one of the inherent issues with clay is the bunker can only be dug so deep. The usual choice is to either leave it two feet deep (crap no?) or create a berm to play over.
I think that depends on the terrain. If you have enough contour that you can find somewhere to run a drain out of it, you can go deeper. How does Oakmont keep its bunkers dry? (I haven't been to the course). Presumably they are all drained.
-
Adam
I think one of the inherent issues with clay is the bunker can only be dug so deep. The usual choice is to either leave it two feet deep (crap no?) or create a berm to play over.
I think that depends on the terrain. If you have enough contour that you can find somewhere to run a drain out of it, you can go deeper. How does Oakmont keep its bunkers dry? (I haven't been to the course). Presumably they are all drained.
For sure, but aren't all these measures with draining, keeping bunkers in place and rocks/debris from coming to the surface really about fighting the nature of the site? They have the furrow deal and mega numbers going on to set its scheme apart from most parkland sites, but do Oakmont's bunkers look naturally occurring to you?
Ciao
-
Bravo, Joe Hancock: Natural or not, why does it matter? It's great golf.
Plenty of ground moved on MacRaynor courses, but almost all of it moved on the path from tee to green, not on the sidelines where it doesn't affect the golf.
I'm all for "unnatural" if it means great golf holes and fun shots. And with Macdonald and Raynor, that's exactly what it means.
-
A relevant old thread that deals with this point in some depth.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4760.75.html
....in which there is this tasty quote:
"TEPaul,
I agree with you in that I think NGLA is highly manufactured.
I think one of the best ways to observe this, on almost every hole, is to start 50 yards behind every green and head back to the tee. What is revealed differs from what you see when you start at a tee and end up at the green.
Hole # 2 is a perfect example. Go fifty yards in front of the tee on # 3 and look back at # 2 green. Then circle # 2 green from 50 yards out. Climb up onto # 2 green from the rear and observe the surroundings. Walk back toward the tee and make 360 degree sweeps every 50 yards. I think you could reasonably conclude that the entire hole was manufactured, especially the green and its immediate surrounds.
That same process is an eye opener at almost every hole.
But, that's just my opinion."
Now I wonder who said that?
-
I thought there were some really 'clunky' landscape features which may have been acceptable in 1911, . . .
I think it may be a mistake to assume the look today is exactly as it was in the beginning. Here are some photos of NGLA circa 1911 . . . .
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/nglaSaharaGreensideBunker.jpg?t=1286300756)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/AlpsCrossBunker.jpg?t=1286300605)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/CapeGreen2.jpg?t=1286300649)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/ngla18bunkers.jpg?t=1286300709)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/nglaSaharaBunker2.jpg?t=1286300800)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/SaharaWide.jpg?t=1286300873)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/First.jpg?t=1286300912)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/short.jpg?t=1286301471)
Wow! These photos show an amazing difference in presentation.
Is the last photo #6? Is that a sleeper wall fronting the green?
-
See my post above. Great minds obviously think alike!
Can anyone throw any light on whether they are indeed sleepers in front of this green?
All the best.
-
Plus obvious man-made objects dotted around a very natural landscape can sometimes look very appealing - like a sculpture exhibition in the botanic gardens...
I agree completely. Sometimes, it makes sense to push the boat out with shaping features. I think many of the courses and features we love today that are a bit on the wild side may still look extraordinary today, originally they must have been extraordinary x2. In other words, archies have to look to the future for their courses to be complete. I am not sure that is the case these days. My favourite course on the planet is a shaping nightmare and the contrast of green sites with surrounds is jarring. But the simple concept works and has a visual appeal that is unique.
I agree with you both. I know a lot of us complain about artificiality and overshaping. I wonder, though, if the real problem is simply unattractive or poorly placed shaping.
I love the clean lines of Raynor and Langford, and the way they juxtapose against the natural terrain. I recently played a more modern course and was looking back down one of the fairways. The way it was pushed-up on one side and almost "terraced" was fairly Raynor-esque in concept, almost like a redan kickplate, but the shaping of the edge was all squiggly and very busy. I didn't object because it looked artificial. I objected because it was just plain ugly.
National doesn't look very natural to me, but it has more visual appeal than most courses that do. Research says that we find things visually appealing when they make our eyes move across something in vertical and horizontal patterns, and I know I feel my eyes start to zip from one edge to another whenever I look at hole corridors on a Raynor-shaped course with all the edges staggered down the fairway and then flattening into the surrounding landscape.
-
A relevant old thread that deals with this point in some depth.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4760.75.html
....in which there is this tasty quote:
"TEPaul,
I agree with you in that I think NGLA is highly manufactured.
I think one of the best ways to observe this, on almost every hole, is to start 50 yards behind every green and head back to the tee. What is revealed differs from what you see when you start at a tee and end up at the green.
Hole # 2 is a perfect example. Go fifty yards in front of the tee on # 3 and look back at # 2 green. Then circle # 2 green from 50 yards out. Climb up onto # 2 green from the rear and observe the surroundings. Walk back toward the tee and make 360 degree sweeps every 50 yards. I think you could reasonably conclude that the entire hole was manufactured, especially the green and its immediate surrounds.
That same process is an eye opener at almost every hole.
But, that's just my opinion."
Now I wonder who said that?
Could it be the same person that wrote this? ;) :D ??? ::)
I have a very limited knowledge of construction, but my impaired vision tells me that a lot more than 10 % of NGLA was manufactured. Virtually every one of the MASSIVE green complexes appears to be manufactured or built rather than found just lying there.
-
I have a very limited knowledge of construction, but my impaired vision tells me that a lot more than 10 % of NGLA was manufactured. Virtually every one of the MASSIVE green complexes appears to be manufactured or built rather than found just lying there.
Donal,
Would you say that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 16th, 17th and 18th greens were't found lying there just needing a little help from the hand of man ?
-
A relevant old thread that deals with this point in some depth.
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4760.75.html
....in which there is this tasty quote:
"TEPaul,
I agree with you in that I think NGLA is highly manufactured.
I think one of the best ways to observe this, on almost every hole, is to start 50 yards behind every green and head back to the tee. What is revealed differs from what you see when you start at a tee and end up at the green.
Hole # 2 is a perfect example. Go fifty yards in front of the tee on # 3 and look back at # 2 green. Then circle # 2 green from 50 yards out. Climb up onto # 2 green from the rear and observe the surroundings. Walk back toward the tee and make 360 degree sweeps every 50 yards. I think you could reasonably conclude that the entire hole was manufactured, especially the green and its immediate surrounds.
That same process is an eye opener at almost every hole.
But, that's just my opinion."
Now I wonder who said that?
I said it and it's in complete harmony with my posts on this thread.
Just because something is manufactured doesn't mean it can't look natural.
And you'll note that my statement, that you cited, centers around viewing the greens from behind them, and not from the perspective of the golfer's eye, where all appears quite natural.
A gorgeous super model can look natural even if she's had her teeth capped, her hair dyed and her breasts augmented.
On the surface she looks natural.
Do you care how she came to look that way ?
Wayne Morrison's book about Flynn is titled, "The Nature Faker" for the very reason that Flynn was able to present a natural looking golf course despite the hand of man.
Hence the quote you cited is not in conflict with anything I've stated in this thread.
I'd be remiss if i didn't say that I find your reply to be disingenuous to intellectually dishonest.
You knew the context of my earlier post in terms of "manufacturing" a golf course and that it has nothing to do with how the finished product looks, as viewed from the golfers eye. Plain and simple, it's a wise guy dirt bag move on your part
-
Mucci reminds me of the black knight from The Life of Brian in this one! ;D
-
Mucci reminds me of the black knight from The Life of Brian in this one! ;D
It's just a flesh wound!
-
Here is a photo I took from directly behind the 17th green looking back up the hill to the tee. Natural green site? I don't think so!
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6g4QCYmhRKU/UioZpJ2gENI/AAAAAAAAIJI/k2mpvkh4d3M/s1024-no-k/IMAGE_376.jpeg)
-
Michael,
Is that how the golfer views the green as he plays the hole ?
Photo if from in front of the green and tell me that it doesn't look natural, especially since the green is at grade with the approach and fronting fairway for 80 yards.
Here is a photo I took from directly behind the 17th green looking back up the hill to the tee. Natural green site? I don't think so!
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6g4QCYmhRKU/UioZpJ2gENI/AAAAAAAAIJI/k2mpvkh4d3M/s1024-no-k/IMAGE_376.jpeg)
-
Scott & Bill,
You'd have to be a "flaming" (new category) moron if you can't discern the difference between construction and appearance.
But, maybe that shouldn't surprise me.
-
Mucci reminds me of the black knight from The Life of Brian in this one! ;D
Except for "calling it a draw" Mucci is the Black Knight in this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiKvgvXt86g
Ciao
-
I have a very limited knowledge of construction, but my impaired vision tells me that a lot more than 10 % of NGLA was manufactured. Virtually every one of the MASSIVE green complexes appears to be manufactured or built rather than found just lying there.
Donal,
Would you say that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 16th, 17th and 18th greens were't found lying there just needing a little help from the hand of man ?
Pat,
Read the line I quoted very slowly. If you need help, pop outside your house and ask one of the 5 year old kids playing on the street for help. ;)
You wrote;
Every one of the MASSIVE green complexes appears to be manufactured or built rather than found just lying there.
Pay particular attention to the word appears.
So which is it; NGLA looks natural or appears manufactured?
Maybe in a Multi-Mucciverse, it's both. ;D
-
Donal,
Why did you avoid answering the specific questions.
Start with # 4
Was # 4 just found there or was it manufactured ?
We know that some were manufactured, that's not the issue, the issue is how they appear to the golfer as the golfer plays each hole.
Maybe those 5 year olds you hang out with can help you with that.
You and others are confused, it's TOC, that's played in reverse, not NGLA.
So tell us, as the golfer plays the holes, do those greens appear to have been found there or just created out of the blue ?
-
I thought there were some really 'clunky' landscape features which may have been acceptable in 1911, but looked really artificial and even jarring today.
Martin,
We're still waiting, WHICH features were "REALLY CLUNKY" ?
WHICH features looked "REALLY ARTIFICIAL AND EVEN JARRING" ?
I still loved the look though, and thought it was a marvellous history lesson.
Just please don't anybody design or build anything similar today.
And no, Patrick, I've never been, so bite me,
Evidently you're too busy biting yourself, to identify the features you described as "clunky", "artificial and even jarring"
If they were "clunky, artificial and even jarring" you should be able to identify them in a New York second.
Why have you failed to identify those features ?
Did you open your mouth for the sole purpose of changing feet ?
-
My attention was drawn to this thread by a participant. Good to see that Pat can fight on two fronts, waging war here and on the Biarritz thread. I knew Pat was a serious golfer, an understanding that is confirmed by the astonishing revelation in this thread that, when playing a course, he only ever looks where he is going. He never looks back, or to the rear but simply focusses on the shot ahead. Admirable and remarkable.
-
One thing I was wondering in regards to the manufactured lines and angles, along with placement of the hazards, particularly in the flatter areas, is the context of the ongoing building and tweaking the course design at its inception in its time period of 1907-1915.
What holes and features are you referring to in the "flatter" areas
Obviously the idea of templating or recreating the playing strategies of the iconic golf holes and corridors that CB studied and as he intended to recreate them on this land parcel required the need for shaping material.
Not true, you're suffering under a misconception borne of your lack of familiarity with the holes as they lay upon the land.
It's the build up of the greens that employed shaping, not the playing corridors.
Then, when one considers the tools of earth moving that were at their disposal, along with engineer-surveyor Raynor's unfamiliarity with golf course's of the British Isle's origin in general, and one might see how the manufactured hard line, unnatural look came into being.
WHAT "manufactured hard line, unnatural look" ?
Could you identify where that occurs when the golfer is playing the golf course ?
Their was a great deal of need for manual labor. I'm not sure what dredge and earth carts on tracks were, although George Bahto has at least one or more photo's in his book, "The Evangelist of Golf", showing the rudimentary and clunky earthmoving apparatus of the day from the work at Lido.
So, with a keen understanding of the strategy and placement of hazards and angles that CB brought back, along with the need for feature shaping, green's platform embankments and teeing grounds and such, was born the sharp and manufactured angles.
Are you basing your opinion on your personal observations when you walked/played NGLA, or based upon what you gleaned from the limited telecast of the Walker Cup.
One only need look at the many courses of GB built away from the links land dunes that were constructed in-land with the era of geometric shapes of bunkers and such to see that the manufactured and angular geometry of the game hadn't met the more advanced technology of earthmoving and shaping with more artistry.
What "advanced technology" ?
While it would seem Dr. MacKenzie had it more on his repitoire of shaping in those days to mimic nature, most other archies did not incorporate that aspect of shaping to mimic or compliment nature so much, and it was more about digging pits for hazards and placing them for playing strategical effect rather than the aesthetics involved.
Is that your opinion of NGLA ?
Is it based upon your play of the course or from watching the Walker Cup ?
So, with NGLA being such a new entry on the U.S. golf scene on such a large scale, and lack of a tradition or historical evolution of blending artistic complimenting of artificial earth works with natural surroundings, we got this more manufactured look with great playing strategic angles and geometric shapes.
What "manufactured LOOK" ?
Would you identify exactly where this "LOOK" reveals itself to the golfer as he plays the course ?
As noted, CB and perhaps Raynor paid attention to the look from eye level and that may have mitigated the angular and manufactured look a little, but the views from above make the geometry and manufactured look more dramatic. At least that is my take...
"Views from above" ? ? ?
You've got to be a moron to now put forth the idea that golf course architecture should be evaluated by how it presents itself from a blimp
-
Donal,
Why did you avoid answering the specific questions.
Start with # 4
Was # 4 just found there or was it manufactured ?
We know that some were manufactured, that's not the issue, the issue is how they appear to the golfer as the golfer plays each hole.
Maybe those 5 year olds you hang out with can help you with that.
You and others are confused, it's TOC, that's played in reverse, not NGLA.
So tell us, as the golfer plays the holes, do those greens appear to have been found there or just created out of the blue ?
Pat,
That's correct; I didn't answer your question as I had already stated that I have not played nor seen the course in person. Besides, it doesn't matter what I think of all those greens. It was you that wrote that NGLA looked natural in this thread, but also wrote that it appears manufactured in the thread that Rich linked. You're the confused one. :D
Those five year olds won't play with me; they're too busy scribbling "moron" on the road with green chalk. ;D
-
My attention was drawn to this thread by a participant. Good to see that Pat can fight on two fronts, waging war here and on the Biarritz thread. I knew Pat was a serious golfer, an understanding that is confirmed by the astonishing revelation in this thread that, when playing a course, he only ever looks where he is going. He never looks back, or to the rear but simply focusses on the shot ahead. Admirable and remarkable.
Mark,
Only a colossal moron could miss the quote provided by Rich Goodale.
The one where I went into great detail about viewing each green site from behind the green and at the flanks.
Either your reading comprehension skills are lacking or you're dishonest and lacking integrity.
Irrespective of which it is, you're a colossal moron,
-
Scott & Bill,
You'd have to be a "flaming" (new category) moron if you can't discern the difference between construction and appearance.
But, maybe that shouldn't surprise me.
;D ;D
-
;D ;D
He is on a pretty good roll isn't he?
-
(http://i.imgflip.com/3jnp3.jpg) (http://imgflip.com/i/3jnp3)via Imgflip Meme Maker (http://imgflip.com/memegenerator)
-
Pat,
I did see the quote from Rich. The one where you contradicted what you are now saying. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the new, really serious Pat Mucci, who only looks at the target area for his next shot, no longer looked sideways or backwards and that was the reason for your change of position. I'd be careful, by the way, about escalating the levels of moronocity too far. There's little space above colossal for the next time you search for hyperbole.
-
Reminds me of the old saying
"It takes one, to recognise 1499 others".
-
Pat,
I did see the quote from Rich. The one where you contradicted what you are now saying.
You are a colossal moron, there's NO contradiction in those opinions.
There's an inherent difference in how the features are created and how they appear to the golfer as he plays them.
The 4th hole at Sand Hills might be a good example
Bozos, who are close to or have reached moron status, claimed that the features looked "clunky", "artificial and even jarring", based on limited TV viewing. Yet, when asked to identify the specific features, they've been unable to do so.
Why have they been unable to provide specific identity to those features THEY DEEMED, "clunky", "artificial and even jarring" ?
Why don't you try prodding them regarding their inability to produce the identity of those specific features ?
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the new, really serious Pat Mucci, who only looks at the target area for his next shot, no longer looked sideways or backwards and that was the reason for your change of position.
That's why you've been elevated to colossal moron status.
Why would I look backwards or sideways as I get ready to hit a five (5) iron into a target green ?
Would you name just five (5) PGA Tour Pros who don't focus on their target as they get ready to hit their shot ?
Just five (5) who choose instead to look behind them and to their sides as they get ready to hit.
Hey, I know why your handicap is so high, "it's the target stupid" ;D
I'd be careful, by the way, about escalating the levels of moronocity too far.
There's little space above colossal for the next time you search for hyperbole.
Not to worry, I'm sure you'll ascend to the next level of moronocity irrespective of it's category, in fact, you're fast approaching Supreme moron status as I type.
No doubt, you'll probably be elevated beyond Supreme moron status to an even higher classification of ignorance and/or idiocy. ;D
You strike me as the sort who would wear white knee socks while playing golf in shorts.
I'll leave participants and lurkers to dwell on that image, .........yikes.
-
Why would I look backwards or sideways as I get ready to hit a five (5) iron into a target green ?
Would you name just five (5) PGA Tour Pros who don't focus on their target as they get ready to hit their shot ?
Just five (5) who choose instead to look behind them and to their sides as they get ready to hit.
Really? I'm starting to get embarrassed for you, but this is too easy. Now that I know the twerking girl who caught her pants on fire was a hoax, this is turning into the best FAIL on the Internet.
First, just because you're too predictable, I'll remind you that Mark's post mentioned nothing about "as they get ready to hit." That was a detail you added in order to try and give yourself an angle, but you're becoming far too transparent. The fact is that golfers look all over the course during a round, and there are plenty of times when they look sideways or backwards. Of course, you know that just as sure as you know that your whole thesis on this thread is preposterous, since you made the exact opposite argument in another thread. This argument that "Features that look engineered from an angle don't count because golfers only see them from the fairway" is probably the dumbest one that you've ever stuck with for four pages, and that's saying a lot.
So, five (5) PGA Tour Pros looking away from their next shot's target, either backwards or to the side:
Tiger looking right of target, preparing a shot.
(http://ww1.hdnux.com/photos/10/77/41/2357368/7/628x471.jpg)
Rory looking left of target, waiting for a playing partner.
(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/.mnp8M_ky7vw9hRd_MLc5w--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3M7Y2g9MzYwO2NyPTE7Y3c9NjQwO2R4PTA7ZHk9MDtmaT11bGNyb3A7aD0zNTU7cT04NTt3PTYzMA--/http://media.zenfs.com/en_GB/Sports/Eurosport/874344-14727874-640-360.jpg)
Mark Wilson looking backwards prior to choosing his club.
(http://onlineathens.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full/11879130.jpg)
Bubba Watson looking back at the last green played.
(http://thevsky.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/10PGAChampionship-20120807.jpg)
Lee Westwood looking right at an adjacent hole as a partner plays behind him.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/08/06/article-0-0D5234A300000578-998_468x295.jpg)
Can't wait to see the next few paragraphs of green nonsense!
-
I get confused on what people are looking for when they criticize NGLA for not looking natural enough. Of course it is distiniguishable from nature. It is a golf course. It has to function as such. CBM believed in severe bunkers and drop-offs, especially around the greens. For strategic purposes he believed in hazards that punished the almost perfect shot. Aesthetically this isn't what we are used to, but overall the course uses the existing landscape about as well as any I have ever seen.
This thread suggests to me that perhaps some people are a bit too caught up in irrelevant aesthetic frills over actual substantive quality golf course design.
Just please don't anybody design or build anything similar today.
Ironic statement considering so much of what is considered great "golden age" architecture directly or indirectly emulated NGLA.
My reaction upon first seeing the course was exactly the opposite. I did not understand (and still don't) why more courses aren't trying to design and build similar courses today. I said that over and over. If you ever see it I suspect will say the same. The television coverage didn't do NGLA justice. It really is a course one must see in person.
-
David, you raise some points that have been lost a bit in the "watch Pat squirm" spectacle that's developed over the last few pages.
I don't think many people are in agreement with Martin's statement that you quoted. In fact, I generally think the shaping and aesthetics of National are well received. They obviously are lauded outside the confines of this website, but I think they're equally popular here with most people at least.
I wonder the same about why we see so few of those bold lines of MacRaynor, Langford and Moreau, and their contemporaries today. To be fair, I played Harrison Hills a week or two ago and saw Tim Liddy's holes had some similar lines on them. I thought his holes looked fantastic and complemented the Langford holes nicely. I also think Pete Dye occasionally has done some similarly bold shapes, notably on the Meadow-Valleys course at Blackwolf Run. But I wonder if earth movement has just become too easy now, and thus the tendency toward squiggly and busy shaping instead of the clean and sharp features of Raynor has taken over. Restraint is a tough thing to practice in all walks of life, whether shaping a golf course or trying to pull one's foot out of one's mouth.
-
This thread suggests to me that perhaps some people are a bit too caught up in irrelevant aesthetic frills over actual substantive quality golf course design.
Absolutely spot on David. Having seen the responses to my earlier post I just couldn't be bothered to argue the obvious that when people talk about a golf course looking natural they forget that there is no such thing. Golf courses are always manmade in appearance.
Jon
-
Jason,
Nice photos, but NOT ONE GOLFER IS PREPARING TO HIT HIS SHOT.
In the future, try to read with a modicum of comprehension
-
Pat, take a look at this section of the post again: ::)
First, just because you're too predictable, I'll remind you that Mark's post mentioned nothing about "as they get ready to hit." That was a detail you added in order to try and give yourself an angle, but you're becoming far too transparent.
Try to follow your own advice when reading Mark's or my posts in the future. Good try though. Your current apparent strategy of feigning perpetual obliviousness might be your best shot at this point.
-
That's correct; I didn't answer your question as I had already stated that I have not played nor seen the course in person.
Besides, it doesn't matter what I think of all those greens.
But you stated the following:[/size]
Virtually every one of the MASSIVE green complexes appears to be manufactured or built rather than found just lying there.
But, we know otherwise, starting with the 4th green
It was you that wrote that NGLA looked natural in this thread, but also wrote that it appears manufactured in the thread that Rich linked.
You're the confused one. :D
Not at all, just because elements of the course were crafted or manufactured doesn't mean that the course doesn't look natural to the golfer
Those five year olds won't play with me; they're too busy scribbling "moron" on the road with green chalk. ;D
I have to presume that they're doing this on the street in front of your home. >:( ;D
-
David, you raise some points that have been lost a bit in the "watch Pat squirm" spectacle that's developed over the last few pages.
Jason,
There's no squirming on my part what so ever.
My statements, in this thread and the other cited, are in harmony with one another.
Obviously you possess neither the intellect nor the architectural eye to understand the distinctions presented in those two threads.
Only a moron wouldn't understand the distinction, especially after the "model" analogy was presented.
You, and others, who have no playing experience or familiarity with NGLA leaped at what your ignorance perceived as an inconsistency, when no inconsistency existed. Surely, you can't hold me responsible for your ignorance and your reckless desire to find a flaw in my logic when none existed.
I don't think many people are in agreement with Martin's statement that you quoted. In fact, I generally think the shaping and aesthetics of National are well received. They obviously are lauded outside the confines of this website, but I think they're equally popular here with most people at least.
I wonder the same about why we see so few of those bold lines of MacRaynor, Langford and Moreau, and their contemporaries today. To be fair, I played Harrison Hills a week or two ago and saw Tim Liddy's holes had some similar lines on them. I thought his holes looked fantastic and complemented the Langford holes nicely. I also think Pete Dye occasionally has done some similarly bold shapes, notably on the Meadow-Valleys course at Blackwolf Run. But I wonder if earth movement has just become too easy now, and thus the tendency toward squiggly and busy shaping instead of the clean and sharp features of Raynor has taken over.
Restraint is a tough thing to practice in all walks of life, whether shaping a golf course or trying to pull one's foot out of one's mouth.
Restraint should definitely be exercised when discussing a golf course you've never set foot on, let alone played, but that hasn't stopped you from changing feet.
Stick to discussing courses and analyzing replies about courses where you have a reasonable degree of actual experience in playing or walking them.
Otherwise, you're just another moron chipping in his worthless opinion
-
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7446.msg144085.html#msg144085
Another great "blast from the past" dealing with this issue.
-
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,7446.msg144085.html#msg144085
Another great "blast from the past" dealing with this issue.
I don't get it. What does a thread about the Lido project have to do with a thread on whether NGLA is (or should be) indistinguishable from nature? Lido and NGLA were very different projects, which was part of the point of that old thread.
I can't recall if you have been to NGLA or not. If you have been to NGLA then surely you realize that these comments about NGLA being excessively unnatural are way off target.
-
Dave
I've played NGLA (November 2001), and I fully agree with Pat Mucci and others that the course is highly manufactured. I reposted that thread in that there were several comments in there from thoughtful posters regarding the "naturalness" (or lack thereof) of NGLA.
Hope all is well
Rich
-
The nearly inscrutable semantics of "nature" and "natural" are bogging this thread down...
...that, and PM is magnet for contention when the question is one of pure opinion, without discrete data at the bottom.
I figure that, to the extent that we're all talking about the same thing when we say "nature" - I agree with PM on two counts of the topic question
1. I think it's "natural" in that it is "natural" for golf; this is the whole damn point that's readily missed in the many discussions of MAC/Raynor/Banks work, Template holes, and "engineered style." It's how each element of the design, each hole, tends to elicit the SHOT VALUE the early modeling architects found worthy from the GB/Euro courses to which they were exposed...
Biarritz - SHOT VALUE - a long, lower, centered hit where proper judgement of carry and overspin release are rewarded...
Redan - SHOT VALUE - a risk/reward of executing distance and shape ratio where the shorter and safer the player goes, the more that the fortune of the front contours work can thwart him and the longer and deeper into the green he goes, the more precious becomes his evaluation and execution of distance, as the green is oblique and thinner.
Short - SHOT VALUE - precision of distance control with a shorter club in your hand. The risk is the moguls, pimples and/or pockets of the traditional "Short" putting surface, which can range from "Dolomites" style..."bathtub style" to just about anything devious The designer gave you an 8, 9 or PW in the hand, if you come to rest 40 feet away on a Short, you're supposed to have issues
and on and on...each of the Templates is replicating the shot value of its model, or in the case of some CBM/Raynor originals... discovering a shot value that's worthy of presentation.
Of course the whole damn sport is artificial, as is all game-recreation, and all architecture is artificial because it was made by man, not by nature and in the case of golf, the use of what the sea revealed, the bird shit seeded, the sheep huddled and the rabbits' warrened is...all non-natural and artifical. We made that use; it didn't occur in nature.
so, the first part of agreement that ngla is more natural than it appears from watchign it on TV is because the shot values - the natural elements/measures of competence for a game of golf as we understand it - are very harmonious, they are not wrought from the terrain, they feel justly placed for what a golfer is trying to do there.
2. To me, while the pins are in, the greens are mowed, the fairways clipped and the bunkers edged, the course cannot be "Indistinguishable from nature" However, I offer the speculation that if the NGLA were untended and allowed to grow wild for one season, when you returned, it would appear like any protected bay-side preserve...long grasses, exposed sand, bluffs and scrubby meadows, sea and brush birds twirting, small game tickling about. To that extent, it seems very natural to me.
MORE:
Now, on a comparative basis, I'd have to say that neighbor Shinnecock seems more "natural" to me and perhaps comparisons of such courses on a point by point basis elicits what the properties of "nature" and "natural" should be called/defined.
cheers
vk
-
Good post, Mr. Kmetz, but you and virtually everybody else on this thread seem to miss the point of FBD's initial post which was (I assume) meant to ask thoughtful people on this forum as to how to resolve the inherent contradictions between the theory (and practice?) of Dr. MacKenzie that golf courses should be "indistinguishable from nature" and the practice (and theory?) of Mr. Macdonald, who seems to have adopted the role of "nature maker" in the courses that he and his associates designed and built.
I happen to think that both concepts can co-exist within the "big world" theory of GCA, but others seem to think that one of the other is pre-eminent.
Rich
-
To say that CBM adopted the role of "nature maker" at NGLA is more than a bit of a stretch. He "manufactured" some greens. So did MacKenzie. MacKenzie was more into hiding the beams.
-
Dave Moriarty:
I share your view that the television coverage of NGLA wasn't very good. When I saw the telecast after spending the weekend on the golf course, I almost felt like I was seeing a different course.
Anyone judging NGLA based on that telecast is doing himself a disservice. It is a place golf architecture junkies should go for several weeks (if at all possible) to study. There are an amazing amount of details to take in.
I don't think focusing on the question "is it natural?" makes much sense. CB obviously wasn't trying to build a Mackenzie course, but that hardly makes NGLA less of an accomplishment.
-
Rich Goodale,
This is what FBD stated and it had nothing to do with MacKenzie
I didn't think so.
I thought there were some really 'clunky' landscape features which may have been acceptable in 1911, but looked really artificial and even jarring today.
I still loved the look though, and thought it was a marvellous history lesson.
Just please don't anybody design or build anything similar today.
And no, Patrick, I've never been, so bite me,
F.
-
Pat
Please read the title of this thread, and then please think about it and then please recognise that, yet again, and like all of us, you were wrong.
Rich
-
Pat
Please read the title of this thread, and then please think about it and then please recognise that, yet again, and like all of us, you were wrong.
Rich,
I've done that, and FBD's focus was on "clunky" "artificial and even jarring" features at NGLA.
I asked him to identify, with specificity, those "clunky", "artificial and even jarring" features and he's been unable to do so.
The introduction of Macakenzie represents a departure from FBD's focus and an attempt to protect him from having to respond and identify those features as seen through the camera, and not as the golfer plays the course.
Since you've played NGLA, can you tell us, from the following tees, what appears to be unnatural about the view of the DZ and the hole.
#'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
And from the DZ, tell us what looks unnatural about the following approaches ?
#'s 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18.
Thanks in advance for your prompt reply
-
To say that CBM adopted the role of "nature maker" at NGLA is more than a bit of a stretch. He "manufactured" some greens. So did MacKenzie. MacKenzie was more into hiding the beams.
I've yet to see a course that didn't look manufactured in some places. While CBM's style of doing so may have been bolder and less artistic than some others, it's laughable to think about any golf course I've played as indistinguishable from nature. Do people really have this romantic notion of a frilly-edged bunker as being something a flock of sheep emerged from just before the sand groomer went in prior to their morning round?
I'm not sure what Martin considers the "clunky" landscape features, but saying "please don't anybody design or build anything similar today" is a bizarre reaction. CBM took a nice piece of land and fitted an amazing golf course on it. In order to do that, he manufactured features. He built up green pads and dug out bunkers. What he did works spectacularly well. The features he added do not look completely natural, but they also do not look bad. The entire course still fits the land remarkably well.
The second green is clearly built up from the sides and back. Yet play the hole, and you understand why. This adds so much more risk to the tee shot racing down the hill. Can someone really walk behind the green and be bothered by this?
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/ngla%20walker/DSC07741_zpsac84b08b.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/jmayhugh/media/ngla%20walker/DSC07741_zpsac84b08b.jpg.html)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/ngla%20walker/DSC07742_zps700a5e62.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/jmayhugh/media/ngla%20walker/DSC07742_zps700a5e62.jpg.html)
How about the green complex on the 7th? Huge bunkers with steps (distinguishable from nature, I fear). These horrid man-made features combine with the brilliant angled green (that fits the land naturally) to make a hole that plays perfectly. What's wrong with that?
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/ngla%20walker/DSC07829_zpsde34441b.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/jmayhugh/media/ngla%20walker/DSC07829_zpsde34441b.jpg.html)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/ngla%20walker/DSC07840_zpsa6b965e2.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/jmayhugh/media/ngla%20walker/DSC07840_zpsa6b965e2.jpg.html)
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s196/jmayhugh/ngla%20walker/DSC07841_zps72f2500c.jpg) (http://s152.photobucket.com/user/jmayhugh/media/ngla%20walker/DSC07841_zps72f2500c.jpg.html)
-
My wife attended the Walker Cup with me and walked the entire course twice over two days, from 1-18 in sequence. She does not play golf, but grew up in a golfing household, is a keen fan of the game, and has visited more quality courses than many of you "aficionados." Her initial reaction to NGLA was that it was not a very "attractive" course and had too many sharp lines and angles for her eye.
I don't think this is an unusual reaction from golfers when first introduced to Mac/Raynor courses. My first such course was Yeamans Hall, which I played long before I'd ever heard of GCA.com. I initially thought it had been created by some ultra-modern designer!!! You can imagine the shock when I learned it was built in 1925.
-
My wife attended the Walker Cup with me and walked the entire course twice over two days, from 1-18 in sequence. She does not play golf, but grew up in a golfing household, is a keen fan of the game, and has visited more quality courses than many of you "aficionados." Her initial reaction to NGLA was that it was not a very "attractive" course and had too many sharp lines and angles for her eye.
I don't think this is an unusual reaction from golfers when first introduced to Mac/Raynor courses. My first such course was Yeamans Hall, which I played long before I'd ever heard of GCA.com. I initially thought it had been created by some ultra-modern designer!!! You can imagine the shock when I learned it was built in 1925.
Did the era and brand make it more acceptable to you? I wonder how we would feel about individual golf courses in terms or their architectural merit if we didn't know anything about their history and went into our rounds without expectations.
-
Lou - it wasn't "unacceptable" to me from the first play, so your question doesn't fit. I liked the uniqueness of YH right away. Learning about the "brand" only made me interested in knowing more about Raynor and why he constructed such a "strange" golf course. At the time I had never heard of Raynor, Macdonald, or any of the ODGs except Donald Ross... and, I'd only heard of him because of Pinehurst.
On second thought, I had heard of MacKenzie in connection with ANGL, but not any of his other courses.
-
Very good point, Lou. Few, if any, of us are immune to the powers of common knowledge and conventional wisdom.
Pat
I asked you to read the title, and you read the text. Naughty boy, you!
The title is a direct quote from MacKenzie, which summarized what he thought a great golf course ought to be. MacDonald obviously thought differently. Most of us can enjoy both philosophies and styles if they provide interesting golf. That is the point of this thread.
As John Mayhugh rightly said, NGLA is a very fine golf course, but so is Pasatiempo, even through the two of them were designed by competent gentlemen with strongly contrasting styles and beliefs. As your bosom buddy TE Paul would say, its's a great big world out there, but if you try to turn it into some sort of black and white fantasy world you take all the fun out of the game. IMO.
Rich
-
So far as I can tell, nobody is saying NGLA is a lesser course because of its engineered look. Folks are merely saying its much easier to see how the course was manufactured then perhaps a more natural looking Doak course. On the continuum or architecture NGLA looks more engineered than many other courses. Engineered doesn't equate to ugly, well not to me anyway. Is this some sort of taboo judgement to make? Do MacRayBanks fans really find this truth upsetting? Making mountains out of mole hills...
Ciao
-
Does these look natural?
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Prestwick4a.jpg)
(http://www.fairway.com.ve/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/que-nos-dice-muirfield-10.jpg)
(http://0.tqn.com/d/golf/1/0/V/b/1/muirfield-8th-hole.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/sUcAaUZ.jpg)
Damned if I know. Sure look gorgeous, though.
And any comparison between these and the manufactured ugliness at many modern courses strikes me as overly simplistic.
In my work, I see a great deal of art. Some of it is beautiful, some of it is ugly. Some of it is natural, some of it is manufactured. There's no direct correlation between natural and beautiful, nor ugly and manufactured.
I thought NGLA looked beyond fantastic, far better than I ever dreamed. Made me feel sad I haven't had the opportunity to get there, while also inspired to dream more about the game. Can't ask for much more than that.
-
So far as I can tell, nobody is saying NGLA is a lesser course because of its engineered look.
The original post seemed to have two main points:
1. The course did not look like it was "indistinguishable from nature"
2. "please don't anybody design or build anything similar today."
My simple thoughts:
1. I have never played a course that was indistinguishable from nature. NGLA and the other CBM/Raynor courses that I have played fit their landscape very well, even if there are features engineered to make the course more fun and/or challenging.
2. Why wouldn't we want loads more courses like NGLA built today??? If you are actually playing golf and not talking about it, they work superbly.
-
So far as I can tell, nobody is saying NGLA is a lesser course because of its engineered look.
The original post seemed to have two main points:
1. The course did not look like it was "indistinguishable from nature"
2. "please don't anybody design or build anything similar today."
My simple thoughts:
1. I have never played a course that was indistinguishable from nature. NGLA and the other CBM/Raynor courses that I have played fit their landscape very well, even if there are features engineered to make the course more fun and/or challenging.
2. Why wouldn't we want loads more courses like NGLA built today??? If you are actually playing golf and not talking about it, they work superbly.
Tucky
I took the comments with a large pinch of salt - remember who the author is. Maybe I am wrong, but regardless, there is no need for angst.
Ciao
-
So far as I can tell, nobody is saying NGLA is a lesser course because of its engineered look.
Sean,
What engineered look ?
I've repeatedly asked, as the golfer plays the course, from tee to green, where the course looks unnatural ?
So far, no one has been able to cite a single view.
Anyone can post photos from behind a green, but that's not how the golfer sees the course as he plays it.
At the theatre, what does the audience see ?
Backstage or the production from their seats that's intended for their eyes ?
Folks are merely saying its much easier to see how the course was manufactured then perhaps a more natural looking Doak course. On the continuum or architecture NGLA looks more engineered than many other courses. Engineered doesn't equate to ugly, well not to me anyway. Is this some sort of taboo judgement to make? Do MacRayBanks fans really find this truth upsetting? Making mountains out of mole hills...
Ciao
-
A couple more images of the course.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/fd9a647e.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v249/dmoriarty/Golf%20Courses/Old%20Photos/Old%20National%20Pics/701e5648.jpg)
-
Making mountains out of mole hills...
Now *there's* an engineering project...
-
I still loved the look though, and thought it was a marvellous history lesson. Just please don't anybody design or build anything similar today.
Fwiw, I think this is what caused the angst. I love FBD as much as the next guy :), but I'd be more than thrilled if someone built such an eyesore in my neck of the woods, or anywhere else, for that matter.
-
NGLA is the most visually compelling golf course I have played. It shimmered like a jewel. I have seen better views from a golf course, but I don't think I have actually seen a course itself look better. It may be manufactured, but it felt like a sublime piece of art, surely a function of the harmony of all its component parts. Whether it was indistinguishable from nature was entirely irrelevant.
-
Philip & George,
I'm getting in my car in five minutes and driving out to the East End of Long Island to see if I can locate those "clunky", "artificial and even jarring" features that FBD, Rich and others keep referencing.
Since they've been unable to identify and/or locate them, I have no reference point and shall have to take a day or two searching for them.
I've asked a reliable architectural critic, with a discerning eye, Ran, to join me, but, he's incognito and hasn't responded, thus, I'll have to do it all by myself.
-
You're a lucky man Pat! Don't hurry too much....
-
Well,
Sorry I've been away enjoying a week of super golf in the north of my fair country and have been avoiding replying as I didn't have enough time to take in all of these replies. Some really brilliant debate, thought and reasoning. Such a shame it's all centred around some asshat's (that's me, btw, just to avoid more unnecessary controversy) comments on golf course design and not on some important subject of the day.
Look, I've never seen Raquel Welch in the flesh, but I think she's hot. I've never seen ngla in the grass, but I think I prefer the look of other golf courses, either from the telly or in reality.
I didn't like the LOOK of the mound thing 'protecting' the road. I didn't like the LOOK of the feature on 17(?) with the bunkers BEHIND the mounding. Thought that looked a bit strange.
In the last few weeks I've PLAYED Leven and Lundin Links and just can't help feeling old Charlie boy didn't reflect the naturalness of the dunes landforms at ngla as well as he might have. Having said that, could YOU replicate Michelangelo's David back home after one viewing?
F.
-
Oh, and PS,
GOODALE, as always is most astute in his comprehension. The thread title is of course a direct reference to Ally Mack.
F.
-
Mr. B,
good to see you back. Hopr yu enjoyed yur trip.
Jon
-
NGLA is the most visually compelling golf course I have played. It shimmered like a jewel. I have seen better views from a golf course, but I don't think I have actually seen a course itself look better. It may be manufactured, but it felt like a sublime piece of art, surely a function of the harmony of all its component parts. Whether it was indistinguishable from nature was entirely irrelevant.
Fully agree. Did anything there remind you of Huntercombe? They aren't far apart in age.
-
Michael Whitaker:
Actually, I have some sympathy for the perspective your wife expressed. Being "attractive" does not, IMO, capture the essence of NGLA. Instead, I believe what makes the course so outstanding is the countless number of details that add to the interest and challenge of playing every shot.
Put another way: NGLA is not a "walk in the park"; it is a test that keeps the golfer focused on the task at hand.
-
Philip & George,
I'm getting in my car in five minutes and driving out to the East End of Long Island to see if I can locate those "clunky", "artificial and even jarring" features that FBD, Rich and others keep referencing.
Do be careful in that big Duesy.
Here's an unquantifiable quote about NGLA, for what its worth. The National isn't the prettiest course I've ever played, but it is the most beautiful. No it doesn't sit on the land as delicately as some of the modern minimalist wonders. But every feature fits in, and it is maintained better than any course in the country. It's not perfect--no course is--but it's the closest I've seen.
-
NGLA is the most visually compelling golf course I have played. It shimmered like a jewel. I have seen better views from a golf course, but I don't think I have actually seen a course itself look better. It may be manufactured, but it felt like a sublime piece of art, surely a function of the harmony of all its component parts. Whether it was indistinguishable from nature was entirely irrelevant.
This comment hits the nail on the head to me.
I attended the Walker Cup on Saturday and Sunday. It was my first time at National itself, though I have played Shinnecock and Sebonack so am familiar with fine courses in the neighborhood.
National is one of the most inviting looking courses I have ever seen. Not only is it just extremely attractive looking and with great views, the holes themselves were incredibly compelling. The words interesting, quirky, bold, and most importantly, FUN came to mind as I walked the course. Not once did I think anything was clunky, artificial or jarring. My main takeaway was that I simply can't wait to play the place, and hope I eventually get the opportunity! I also thought that it's a shame courses like National, Yale and Garden City don't get built any more. It takes a lot of guts to build something as bold and quirky as these courses.
I would also add, from a spectator point of view, it was fantastic. This was my first Walker Cup, and the ability to both walk up right behind the players, as well as walk along the fairways on holes not in play, was simply wonderful. The spectators all seemed appropriately respectful as well.
Some family members who are not golfers (though have some appreciation for golf) came with me, and they had a great time as well. I was especially appreciative of the fact that my mother, who has a foot injury and has some trouble walking, was driven in a cart up to a spot just below the windmill on 16 by one of the very nice volunteers.
I suppose there are other courses that are more natural looking - say, Sand Hils or Ballyneal, or perhaps veen Shinny next door. But having been there, I have no doubt this is one of the great courses of the world, and they put on a fantastic golf tournament. Kudos to all involved on a wonderful job done.
-
Bill, in truth I did not think too much of Huntercombe while at NGLA. NGLA is so bold and so open while Hcombe is much tighter with so many trees and largely on flat ground, so they conjure up pretty different feelings to me. Did you see some resemblance?
-
Bill, in truth I did not think too much of Huntercombe while at NGLA. NGLA is so bold and so open while Hcombe is much tighter with so many trees and largely on flat ground, so they conjure up pretty different feelings to me. Did you see some resemblance?
I was just thinking of some of the angular and somewhat manufactured aspects of both courses. Obviously Huntercombe is on a much smaller scale. I just love the feeling when you play both courses that you're getting a history lesson. ;D
-
I've never seen ngla in the grass, but I think I prefer the look of other golf courses, either from the telly or in reality.
The above statement tells you all you need to know about Martin Bonnar's position and his ability to discern the qualities of the architecture of a golf course he's never played, or one that's he's only seen as the producer intended you to view it, and not as the golfer sees it as they play the hole.
I didn't like the LOOK of the mound thing 'protecting' the road.
The berm protecting the road, and required, is quite natural looking to the golfer as he stands on the 8th tee.
It is invisible to the golfer as the golfer stands on the 11th tee.
I have to presume that FBD doesn't like the look of that "mound thing protecting" the 17th green at Prestwick.
I didn't like the LOOK of the feature on 17(?) with the bunkers BEHIND the mounding.
They are INVISIBLE to the golfer, as the golfer stands on the tee, and in the fairway.
They only become visible when you round the dune and are almost standing on the green.
Thought that looked a bit strange.
What a surprise
In the last few weeks I've PLAYED Leven and Lundin Links and just can't help feeling old Charlie boy didn't reflect the naturalness of the dunes landforms at ngla as well as he might have.
What "dunes landforms" are you referencing ?
Could you list the hole and the "dune landform" ?
Having said that, could YOU replicate Michelangelo's David back home after one viewing?
In that case, maybe you should have remained silent and had people think you a fool, rather than typing and proving them right. ;D
-
Paddy-lad,
I'd rather people thought me a fool than a green italic-waving boorish troll. Those will be my last words to you on this website, sir. Have a nice life.
M.
-
I recently spent an entire day at NGLA, and paid particular attention to the areas of transition, between fairway and green.
Based on my observations, those who claim the course looks unnatural............. are all morons.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Green after green emerges seemlessly from the fronting fairway and the fronting fairway is a continuum of the fairway in the DZ.
What's manufactured is the back of the green.
It's built up from grade, but, looks perfectly natural.
The greens, with rare exception flow along the landform along with the fronting fairway.
So, again, please identify, on a hole by hole and feature by feature basis, where the course looks unnatural.
Thanks
P.S. Several caddies approached me and some were asking if some or many of the posters on GCA.com were living in their parent's
basement and not getting out into the real world, let alone golf courses, often enough.
They said, where do these guys, who have never set foot on the golf course, or who have played it once, come up with their
positions ? I answered their question with a question. "Why do you think I annoint them as morons"
One caddy approached me on the 5th green and asked if I was a "moron".
I responded that I was the "Chief of Morons" and after some conversation, annointed him as an MIT (moron in training)
After an incident on the 15th hole, I elevated him to full moron status, and informed the other caddies that he was
bordering on "Flaming Moron" status. Great guy, alot of fun, and like so many caddies at NGLA, knowledgeable about the course,
and lurkers on GCA.com.
I think one of the neat things about the caddies at NGLA is that they understand the architecture and the different methods of
play it presents and that they have to consider and blend the ability of the player with the options that the architecture
presents. I'll start another thread on playing NGLA and trying to introduce a relative new golfer to it's challenge
In addition, I spoke to several members who laughed at the comments, based solely on watching the
Walker Cup on TV, or a solitary play. I think most lamented that the coverage didn't present the entire golf course, rather,
some of the later holes. Some indicated that my conveying "moron" status on GCA.com posters was an act of kindness. ;D
Other architects have told me that they see something new every time they visit NGLA.
That the course contains incredible subtlety in addition to the basics.
I found that interesting in light of the analysis of the course by those whose perception of the course is what they've gleened
from some random views and/or a single play on a given day.
-
Paddy-lad,
I'd rather people thought me a fool than a green italic-waving boorish troll.
Martin, after your post/s, people no longer think you a fool, you've confirmed and solidified that assessment.
Those will be my last words to you on this website, sir.
Thanks, what a bonus.
I think you initiated this exchange in your opening post, and now, with bloodied nose, you retreat, snifflling, to your den.
Have a nice life.
Indeed I will.
Just came back from spending an entire and truely wonderful day with my son at NGLA, basically, from dawn to dusk.
Not a bad way to start a "nice life"
You threw down the gauntlet, and when I rose to the challenge, you whined and crawled away.
AMF
-
Based on my observations, those who claim the course looks unnatural............. are all morons.
Hi Pat
Glad to see that you have looked in the mirror recently and realised that your are a moron too. Welcome to the club.
Rich
-
Based on my observations, those who claim the course looks unnatural............. are all morons.
Hi Pat
Glad to see that you have looked in the mirror recently and realised that your are a moron too. Welcome to the club.
Rich,
I think you're confused.
I'm not sure that you understand the difference between how things look and how they're created.
The 4th at Sand Hills might help you. ;D
-
Pat
The only thing that confuses me on this thread is your unwillingnes to admit that you are wrong, which you may be, and hopelessly contradicitory, which you surely are. IMHO it's time for you to "man up" and accept that you are a moron (at least GCA-wise) and go back to enjoying your golf rather than trying to pretend that you know diddly-squat about many things related to GCA.
Vis a vis my confusion, I understand many things that you do not and fully admit that I do not understand many things that you seem to understand (eg. Mani T'eo). So be it. Vis a vis Sand Hills, I've (hopefully) graciously turned down several chances to play there, and have only played NGLA once but when one lives in the Kingdom of Fife, and can drive for 3 hours to play Royal Dornoch at ones will, why spend days of one's life and thousands of one's Benjis just to fly and then drive to inferior (or at the best closely equivalent) golfing venues?
I call your 4th at Sand Hills (with the 4th at Dornoch, which is the greatest golf hole in the world, IMHO) and raise you the 11th at Royal Dornoch!
Hopefully, one day we shall play golf together and enjoy the apres golf and resolve your inability to admit that you are a moron. But one can just dream, can they not.....?
Yours Truly
Rich
-
Pat
The only thing that confuses me on this thread is your unwillingnes to admit that you are wrong, which you may be, and hopelessly contradicitory,
Your state of confusion is nothing new and is to be expected.
As to me, There is NOTHING contradictory about my positions.
One clearly states that if you go behind the green you can see how the back of the green was crafted/manufactured.
The other clearly states that as you play the golf course, it looks natural
You'd have to achieve flaming moron status ( a promotion) not to know the difference, especially given the two analogies I cited of the model and the theatre production
which you surely are. IMHO it's time for you to "man up" and accept that you are a moron (at least GCA-wise) and go back to enjoying your golf rather than trying to pretend that you know diddly-squat about many things related to GCA.
It's obvious, that my knowledge of NGLA, no matter how small in the absolute, is exponentially, if not infinitely greater than yours, FBD's and others.
Vis a vis my confusion, I understand many things that you do not and fully admit that I do not understand many things that you seem to understand (eg. Mani T'eo). So be it.
Vis a vis Sand Hills, I've (hopefully) graciously turned down several chances to play there, and have only played NGLA once but when one lives in the Kingdom of Fife, and can drive for 3 hours to play Royal Dornoch at ones will, why spend days of one's life and thousands of one's Benjis just to fly and then drive to inferior (or at the best closely equivalent) golfing venues?
If you managed to spend the Benjis to come to New York and dine at Il Nido on 53rd St, why not spend a few more to play NGLA, just an hour and a half from Il Nido. ;D
How could you waste that opportunity ?
I call your 4th at Sand Hills (with the 4th at Dornoch, which is the greatest golf hole in the world, IMHO) and raise you the 11th at Royal Dornoch!
I won't argue that as I've never played RD, but, the 4th at SH is manufactured, but few know that because they see a hole that looks completely natural despite being heavily manufactured.
Hopefully, one day we shall play golf together and enjoy the apres golf and resolve your inability to admit that you are a moron.
I hope so, and would love to visit and play RD with you, but,
If the glove don't fit, you cannot convict, regarding the "admission"
But one can just dream, can they not.....?
Yes, isn't that what we all do as we approach the 1st tee ? ;D