[Don_Mahaffey]

OK, I'm a little new to critiquing golf course architecture. I've spent most of my time on the course worrying about the turf or trying to find my ball so I never spent too much time studying the architecture.

But, in the last year or two I've spent a lot of time studying the courses I play and trying to see as many different courses as I can. One thing I've noticed is bunkering styles and how architects use various styles to either fit the land they are working with or differentiate their course from the one across the street. One style in particular that seems to be very popular is the "natural" or rugged look. Sharp Augusta like edges are out and the rugged, "there was already a hole in the ground so I filled it with sand" look is in. Brand new bunkers are being built to look like they've been there forever. I like the look so I have no complaints, but I do have a question? If that is the look of the bunkers, shouldn't the rest of the course look like that too? If the bunkers are irregular and random, should some of the features that are turfed also be irregular and random? I keep seeing new courses that have these bunkers, but really you could take them out and insert an Augusta like bunker and it would look like it belonged because the rest of the course is perfectly smooth with nice lines that flow together. Shouldn't there be some sharp lines and unbroken flow. Places where the super shakes his head and wonders how he is supposed to mow that! Rugged, natural looking bunkers on a course where everything is perfectly smoothed out looks a little incongruous to me. Anyone else out there see the same thing?

[RJ_Daley]

Don, I see what you're saying.  But can you think of an example anywhere that has a rugged field of play like you describe and would fit into what you see as the "new rugged old look" of bunkering?  Wouldn't rugged fairways that are not necessarily smooth and graded and conditioned (hopefully firm and fast) be just another feed lot?  Or, are you thinking along the lines of less than wall-to-wall irrigation that leaves some ruggedness or patchy areas that are irregular in their turf varieties, fertility and general health?  

[Don_Mahaffey]

I not suggesting poor conditioning, but you know how they say St. Andrews looks a little like the face of the moon. I'd like to see some of that abruptness, some sharp edges. It's not about turf quality, it's about the contours used and making them natural as well as one tries to make bunkers look natural.

[Richard_Goodale]

Don

Great post.  Almost as impressive as your golf game!

I think that Pacific Dunes and (to a lesser degree) Applebrook, meet this criterion. Perhaps that's why we like them so much.

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

Don:

I had a great post ready for you on this very interesting subject of yours. It may have been my longest ever, and fortunately for everyone, as I was posting it, Pffffft it flew into cyberspace and was gone.

Maybe another time!

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

I suspect that your "longest ever" post crashed all the servers in a 7-mile radius in New South Wales, Australia.........

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Probably so! It was about 39 of these GCA pages long and so far I haven't seen a thread longer than about 5 pages on here. It might also explain why after I got knocked offline and tried to get back on all the circuits in Philadephia were busy too!

[Don_Mahaffey]

TEPaul,
I'd be interested to read what you have to offer on this subject, so....crank it out again

Shivas,
I think Dye for the most part does take a theme and run with it through out the course. It seems to me that the architects who do their own shaping are a little better at creating a course where everything ties together. I would say Whistling Straights is a good example of what I'm trying to explain. I base that on the pictures I've seen because I haven't made it there yet.  

[RJ_Daley]

Don, that is why I wondered if you had an example of what you meant.  It seems to me Shivas may have zeroed in on your meaning citing Whistling Straits.  The only thing about that is the fairways are still well defined in terms of the irrigation allowing for uniform lines demarcating the maintained from the dry native and fescue areas.

Another course that comes to mind (though I've only seen pictures) is the Austin CC that Ben and Bill did recently in a pampas like setting that has vaguely defined fairway to rough boundries with complimentary rugged bunkers and dry washes strewn throughout the property.  

Perhaps one might have to look at some of the old courses of GB&I to see the mish-mash of grass varieties and cultivars in a not too defined irrigation boundry due to old single row - long through in high wind, or no irrigation at all to find the compliment of rugged presentation of the overall course that fits the ruggedness of the bunkers...

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Don
I think you've hit on an excellent point. My biggest complaint with a number of modern golf courses is the consistant and regular grading of the playing surfaces. Many times these fairways bear no resemblance to the natural contours in the area or bear no resemblance to nature in general (usually in the form flattish runway-like surfaces or soft flowing curves and undulations) I love the look of the shaggy naturlistic bunker but I also enjoy variety. There are plenty of distinctive styles that appeal to me from Raynor & Macdonald & Langford to Ross & Flynn & Fowler to many in between. The one thing they all seem to have in common was the use of interesting natural contours - even in the case of highly engineered look. Might the use of interesting natural features - mainly interesting contours - be one of the most important factors in exciting golf architecture?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()