Mandell comments on the Ocean Course

[Jason Topp]

[size=78%]"[/size][/size]Over the years, the ‘natural’ reputation of The Ocean Course has grown while, ironically, the course has slowly become less and less natural."[/color]

https://www.golf-architecture.com/single-post/2017/04/04/Augusta-National-More-Influential-Than-Nature

[Peter Pallotta]

It strikes me that this is one of the major differences between naturalism and minimalism. No criticism intended or implied, but if tons of earth/sand are moved originally in order to 'create' a natural-looking environment, it is much easier for others to justify future changes to the site/course - whether because the tour is coming or to make it more so-called fair and playable or even simply to make it more like Augusta. Richard is preaching to the converted when he decries all three of these rationales - but to me the key point is that ethos and intention have long lasting consequences, ie  if the architect himself doesn't treat the original *site* as sacrosant (because, for example, he wants to create a more playable and visually appealing course than the site lends itself to), the likely consequence is that no one else will feel obliged to treat the *course* as sacrosant either...and they will change it for the very same reasons/rationale the designer used to justify the initial defacing of the site.

If you're going to move tons of dirt you're probably much better off aiming for an *unnatural* look - the ethos/intention is then more clear and honest if you're striving for a MacRaynor look than if you're aiming for naturalism.

Peter

[Sean_A]

If you're going to move tons of dirt you're probably much better off aiming for an *unnatural* look - the ethos/intention is then more clear and honest if you're striving for a MacRaynor look than if you're aiming for naturalism.

I gotta say this makes sense to me.  It is painful to see courses built on the model of the 50s-90s...trying to mimic nature but with a large garden element injected into the design.  This is Augusta all over, but Augusta has one advantage in being a compelling course.  Not many of the garden variety designs can say and most that can were built before the 50s.

Ciao

[Carl Rogers]

The last 3 times I have played at Mid Pines, at some point in the round, I see ground crews "re-working" or "maintaining" some of the "natural areas".  If some thing is "natural", why is "maintenance" necessary?

(btw, love the course)

[Mark Bourgeois]

If you're going to move tons of dirt you're probably much better off aiming for an *unnatural* look - the ethos/intention is then more clear and honest if you're striving for a MacRaynor look than if you're aiming for naturalism.

I gotta say this makes sense to me.  It is painful to see courses built on the model of the 50s-90s...trying to mimic nature but with a large garden element injected into the design.  This is Augusta all over, but Augusta has one advantage in being a compelling course.  Not many of the garden variety designs can say and most that can were built before the 50s.

Ciao

The "Uncanny Valley" concept applied to golf design...BUT this perspective of MacRaynor is "hindsight-ism" (I forget the actual term): at the time MacRaynor courses were built they were considered more natural-looking than other courses, at least the early ones. Macdonald writes in his book about how natural his courses were.

[Sean_A]

If you're going to move tons of dirt you're probably much better off aiming for an *unnatural* look - the ethos/intention is then more clear and honest if you're striving for a MacRaynor look than if you're aiming for naturalism.

I gotta say this makes sense to me.  It is painful to see courses built on the model of the 50s-90s...trying to mimic nature but with a large garden element injected into the design.  This is Augusta all over, but Augusta has one advantage in being a compelling course.  Not many of the garden variety designs can say and most that can were built before the 50s.

Ciao

The "Uncanny Valley" concept applied to golf design...BUT this perspective of MacRaynor is "hindsight-ism" (I forget the actual term): at the time MacRaynor courses were built they were considered more natural-looking than other courses, at least the early ones. Macdonald writes in his book about how natural his courses were.

Mark

It doesn't have to be MacRayBanks courses so far as I am concerned.  I look at some Fowler work etc and it stands out as very much unnatural.  Its the concept with which I am in agreement.  The concept of naturalism is fine, but not the only way to skin a cat. It just so happens that the current fad of minimalism is really naturalism to an extreme...almost to the point now where it is hard to beleive that so many courses which look so similar could be natural    For me, the over-riding principle should not be naturalism, but attractiveness.  If an archie finds ways to make courses look unnatural, but cool, more power to him.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Excellent point, Mark. And one I agree with.


In fact it brings to mind a debate / argument I had on the Kington thread a few years ago where I put forth that all the sharp, deliberate mounding was actually an attempt by the architect of the day to build something natural looking... See also MacKenzie's early pop-up bunkers.


I was roundly shot down.

[JJShanley]

Shamefully, I have yet to play a Pete Dye course during my time in Indiana.  I found my only visit to a Raynor course visually jarring, because it looked so different to anything I had seen before, but it looked in place with the wider terrain.  I might compare it to a Frank Lloyd Wright House: it took me a while to appreciate them when I loved to the midwest, but I appreciate their beauty, particularly how they fit in flat land here, but then also somewhere like Falling Water or in the mountains.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ally, Mark - a challenging topic (especially for someone like me, unlettered in such matters) to discuss: first because what the old architects intended and what they actually achieved might be two very different things, and second because whatever it is that they did achieve (save for bunkers shaped like clouds) is bound to look much more natural to us now, after 80 years of life and change.


On the general topic: Richard is saddened that the Ocean course is getting/looking less and less natural, and I meant to suggest that in one very real sense it was never natural to begin with - it simply *looked* that way, ie a kind of sophisticated and once fashionable eye candy one might say.

[Mike Hendren]

Yet another course is victimized by Augusta National Golf Club.  Invoking Augusta for the ills inflicted on other golf courses is so dang tiresome. 

I've been blessed to visit such iconic golf courses as Cypress Point Club, Pebble Beach Golf Links, Shinnecock Hills,  National Golf Links of America, Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes The Old Course, Carnoustie, Royal Dornoch, Sunningdale Old and New,  Royal St. Georges and Crystal Downs just to name a few.  While my opinion rightly carries little weight, I am firmly convinced that none are better than Augusta.  None.  You can't convince me otherwise.  The course is ingenious and the absurdly precise maintenance suits it well. 

In my opinion, any criticism of the course and its maintenance should be limited to tree plantings along the 7th and 11th fairways and the excessive distribution of pine straw between the playing corridors. 

As for The Ocean Course, I think the author is spot on in his assessment if not his reasoning.  While I am a big fan of Pete Dye and believe the course is quite good (I played it last year) too much of the hole corridors are occupied by very healthy rough which perhaps protect the resort player from run-aways into oblivion but gives the wonderful landscape a buffer that's strikingly out of place.  Don't even get me started on the ridiculous eyebrows on a handful of the pot bunkers.   Contrast the maintenance with that of the Honors Course, which highlights the indigenous beauty of landscape. 

Just a few thoughts to get my day started.

Cheers to all,

Mike

[Mark Bourgeois]

Peter, well I was getting more at the idea that the concept of "naturalism" is relative to the standards of the day plus perhaps the history that is built upon.


So that MacRaynor and Fowler courses were "natural" in their day but with everything that's come since now have slid more to the "unnatural" side of the spectrum.


Ally, that's a great point about Mackenzie's bunkers! Yes he wrote about imitating (natural) wave forms.


And off Sean's original post another question I had was about the notion of the Uncanny Valley, which in this case I am wondering if a little unnaturalism is more pleasing to the eye (and mind) because the golfer must know, at some level, that everything they see in a course is the product of a conscious decision and therefore not truly natural.


For if a course truly were "natural" wouldn't it be a random, disorderly mess?

[Sean_A]

Mark

Sure, there are levels and layers and naturalism.  It does, however, astonish me that Dr Mac ever believed his bunkers looked natural or that MacRayBanks ever believed their courses looked natural.  I don't know that Fowler ever preached the ideal of naturalism.

I think you are right in that the best archies today have nailed naturalism.  For me at least, I like a little or lot of unaturalism so long as it the garden aspects are left out of the picture. I find places like Yelverton, Kington, Huntercombe and the Fowler remnants of WHO very aesthetically pleasing.   Mind you, these places have the benefit of 80+ years to mellow the sharp edges.

BTW...I never thought Kiawah looked very natural.  The grass looked odd to me when I was there.  Some bunkers were odd as well.  But this didn't bother me too much.  I remember playing Yeamans on the same trip and thinking that place nailed the grassing issues much better than did Kiawah.


Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

When indeed does 'naturalist' start and end? Does it even end?
Why is playing over say an embankment made by men 3,000 yrs ago different to playing over an embankment made by men a few weeks ago?
Time may soften features and grass and weeds and scrub and trees and the like may spring up via the digestive system of birds and animals or through wind blow etc but many features globally are manmade. I believe I read herein recently that the Road Hole bunker came about through men digging for sea shells in an originally sheep scraped hollow......nature or a man made feature?
Would a separation depending on whether terrain was deliberately moved for golfing reasons or whether the features exited pre-golf give better clarity/define matters? Maybe not!
Atb

[Ira Fishman]

All great questions/points.  The issue I think is not natural v. non-natural but strategic v. non-strategic.  After all even the ODGs moved a lot of earth on occasion; hence Banks' nickname.  The problem with a lot of the 1950s-90s "modern" courses is that they confuse difficulty with strategy.  There may be a useful distinction between minimalist (i.e. using the land as it is as much as possible and adding little ornamentation) and contrived (i.e. lots of ornamentation for its own sake), but at the end of the day, there are many ways to design great strategy and the courses will look nothing alike, and it is the strategic value, including fun, that makes all of the difference.

[Bill Brightly]

Yet another course is victimized by Augusta National Golf Club.  Invoking Augusta for the ills inflicted on other golf courses is so dang tiresome. 

I did not read Mandell's article as a criticism of Augusta. Rather, he is criticizing clubs that use the playing conditions of AGNC as the gold standard, something to be pursued.

I think it is obvious that many private courses and high end public DO chase ANGC and THAT is a shame because it is not affordable. Heck, not even Augusta attempts to maintain those playing conditions all summer...