GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's eternal compliment

[TEPaul]

I was just reading the thread on Myopia and the posts about how natural the turf covered rock pile mounds of Myopia look compared to some of the mounds Rees Jones, for instance, has done in the past.

I sure don't think many of the Rees mounds I've ever seen look particularly natural and I don't think the turf covered original rock pile mounds of Myopia do either. I makes me laugh to hear some on here say those original Myopia mounds look natural--really natural like the natural original grade "lines" of Myopia's site.

Someone very astutely pointed out that the Myopia turf covered rock pile mounds look more natural than some of Rees's symetrical mounds because the Myopia mound's grassing is far more rugged than Rees's close cropped grass mounds. That's very true, in my opinion. It's pretty amazing what a little rugged grassing can do for the look of some man-made golf architecture, isn't it?

But it seems to me the eternal compliment on GOLFCLUBATLAS if the website likes something is to call it natural looking.

I think this is missing a very large point in the evolution of golf architecture in the last century of this country---and elsewhere. The architecture of a course as early as Myopia, or even NGLA, and a number of other great early ones has a lot about their architecture that looks far from natural to me.

The rudimentariness of some of the construction techniques way back then was so far removed from what we expect and can do today that making all man-made architectural features on some of those early courses look really natural (particularly in their "lines") had to be nigh on impossible---certainly impractical---and that to me is the fascination of some of the best of those early courses like Myopia or NGLA and some others.

In those early days form really followed function in that if you had a bunch of rocks lying on the preconstruction site you sure didn't load them on some enormous CAT and haul them off the site or bury them in an hour. You obviously had to get a couple of scores of hands and bunch of horses to pile them up within yards of where they originally were and turf them over and what do you know but you had some odd, quirky and random man-made architectural feature that added uniqueness and a certain function to the golf!

That to me is the beauty and definitely the fascination of early architectural features like the turfed over random rock pile mounds of a course like Myopia---they're there and they look like that because there wasn't much else they could do back in that day!

I guess one would have to say Rees's mounds are faux while the turfed over rock pile mounds of original Myopia were sort of necessary, certainly practical---and to me that's most of the interest of them.

But do they look like any of the natural "lines" of the preconstruction site? Maybe they do to some for some reason but not to me. And just because I can't bring myself to label them natural looking doesn't mean I don't appreciate them and their uniqueness any less--but always sort of founded on why they were there that way in the first place. That to me is coming to understand better the real evolution of golf course architecture and understanding better what various ERAS were all about!

As far as imitating things like the original Myopia turfed over rock pile mounds in architecture today I guess that's another story altogether. It's probably not that different from what Pete Dye came back from his year in Scotland fascinated by. Did he get fixated on the incredibly beautiful rugged natural "lines" of the landscapes of the old golf courses of Scotland? Apparently not as much as he got fascinated and fixated on the rudimentary incredibly artificial early man-made architectural features like bunker sleepers and such. And so Pete became semi-famous for his "railroad tie" holes and courses.

But did those early Scottish sleepers look natural? Did Pete's railroad tie features look natural? Not even close to me! But so what? Many to most of them played well and created interesting thought and golf.

If you really like something I don't think it's always necessary to always label it natural looking. Natural looking and naturalism in man-made architectural features is good--sometimes very good but I'm not sure it's always essential.

[Joe Hancock]

Tom,

Good read, good perspective. I like your closing sentences particularly.

Joe

[Mike_Sweeney]

Tom,

I think your post also underscores that Supers don't get enough credit around here for maintaining the Natural look of some of our most beloved Un-Natural features from the Golden Age architects.

[A_Clay_Man]

Tom- Another thought came to mind while reading your post. That is the practicality of NOT even trying to make these features "natural looking" since the process of bunker creation is by definition "fake", when compared to the cradle or the linksy origins.

Pete Dye was also in my mind as you described the texture aspects of mounding. Specifically, the mounds on the 2nd at Blackwolf Run (named "burial mounds" and the faux dunesy mounds, created at Riverdale outside of Denver.

I am still floored by the look of the "el Campeon" and how Pete had to go to Scotland when the whole time it was all in Howey-in-the-Hills, Fla.

[paul cowley]

   Tom , amen...

good golf relies on function first ,regardless of its natural or manmade appearance.

i much prefer a hole that plays better than it looks , than looks better than it plays.....17 at st. andrews comes to mind.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

I agree wholeheartedly with the point you're making. However, I still say those Myopia mounds look more natural than those common types of meticulously shaped mounds on so many modern golf courses.

Even if those old dirt covered rocks piles don't truly fit the inherent lines of the Myopia property, they more so appear to have been created by random acts of nature than a bulldozer operator.

[ForkaB]

Jeff, et. al.

I can't think of any "random act of nature" that would plunk moderate sized piles of rock and stone onto a rolling pastureland like at Myopia.  Even if they were put there by glaciation, over time, gravity would spread the piles relatively evebnly over the land.  No?

Why can't we just accept the fact that many features on golf courses (even the oldest ones in Scotland) are man made and not to any degree "natural" other than the fact that they were created by a particularly noble act of nature, i.e. Mankind?

[Joe Hancock]

Jeff,

I'm not familiar with Myopia, other than pictures, so I can't say how they fit the locale. I do know that mounds on courses, while not particularly natural, can be shaped to mimic the surrounding land forms that do occur naturally. Think about Northern Michigan. It is quite hilly, but the land forms are for the most part large and gentle in their appearance. To shape smaller mounding on a course that mimics those naturally occuring shapes on a smaller scale is very doable. If a site is situated where land forms are more rugged, sharped edged and assymetric, then so should the unnatural mounds be shaped, if the goal is to appear "natural".

Perhaps this is why any mounding in the flattest parts of Florida(or any other flat site) will never take on any sense of naturalness.

Joe

[Jeff_Mingay]

Rich,

I can accept the fact that certain wonderful golf course features are man-made. All I'm saying is, such mounds appear more natural than otherwise when they're not meticulously shaped.

The only point I've been trying to make regarding the difference between the Myopia mounds and, say, a typical Rees Jones designed mound is that it boils down to the construction technique. And that dumping a pile of whatever on the ground, covering it with dirt and random grasses appears slightly more natural than a mound meticulously shaped by a bulldozer operator, covered with cropped bluegrass sod.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Either way, I'm done splitting hairs  

[A_Clay_Man]

Rihc- Maybe not in the same scale, but I can see two such mounds right out my back door. These "twin peaks" are basically pimples on relatively flat to sloping terrain. Not moraine-like. Other natural instances where mounding occurs are the sand dunes near alamosa, co. and alamagordo, nm..

On a micro scale, after a decent rain, I have seen formations in the sand, that were moundesque, multi- mogul-like shapes, created in an almost diamond like repetitive pattern, with the micro-moguls forming the diamond.

[T_MacWood]

"Why can't we just accept the fact that many features on golf courses (even the oldest ones in Scotland) are man made and not to any degree "natural" other than the fact that they were created by a particularly noble act of nature, i.e. Mankind?"

We can and do accept the fact....after all golf courses are made by men. This is an exercise in indentifying why one man-made feature is more appealing than another.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom — Great discussion. And good comments. So, too are those that follow yours.

There is a misperception that one "plans land"...i.e., the "land planner." Golf architecture is very much like the act of "land planning", but certainly with its very unique set of aspects.

Desmond Muirhead, who is the heart of other discussions going on now, pointed out once that we (mankind)  don't "plan" land, wedesign land. I agree.

Even in the moments when we choose the "natural" path, which may seem at the time like good "planning", we are actually designing a condition for our own enjoyment: We are designing.

[Keith Durrant]

CB MacDonald, Scotland's Gift - Architecture (1928):

"Motoring to Southampton, I pass a goodly number of new courses...scattered over the side of the fairway are mounds modeled after haycocks or chocolate drops. The very soul of golf shrieks!"

So even in 1928, there wasnt universal agreement on chockie drops

[Pete Lavallee]

I'm sure most would agree that turfed-over piles of rock and ruble are more pleasing to the eye than the bulldozed mounds so prevalent today. How about these mounds; pleasing, natural or man made?

[A_Clay_Man]

It also seems that a discussion of mounding would be incomplete without referencing the 8th green at ANGC.

Any thoughts from those who personally know them?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Many early mounds were simply function over form.

Debris piles, usually offset, that served a vital function and kept construction costs down.

Tillinghast's dolomites are as about as unnatural as you can get at Somerset Hills, yet few, if any, ever criticize them as unnatural looking, or out of place or out of context with the surrounding holes and land.

Many clubs, not understanding their intent, put plantings, shrubs, flowers and trees on top of, or blocking agents to hide these neat features.  My club in NJ had many of these debris mounds, in different shapes, elevations and dimensions.
Almost universally, they've been planted and have lost their unique contribution to the feel of the golf course, and the architecture.

There is an early aerial of the golf course which shows the major mounds as a dominant feature on the golf course, seperating a dogleg hole from a relatively straight one, hence the architect incorporated a debris mound into an important component on both holes.

In addition, many greens have elevated wings at the rear corners, and I've always been curious to see the results of a soil probe in these areas to see if they served a dual purpose.

Today, large mounds can serve a valueable purpose.
They can screen off eyesores, serve as sound barriers, safety barriers, for drainage and be used to bury debris that would otherwise cost a fortune to dispose of off property.

I think you have to analyze them in the context of their purpose.

[TEPaul]

rottcodd:

One may say when Macdonald made that remark on the way to Southampton most of us have very little idea exactly what he was looking at. For a possible indication of what he may have been looking at refer to the first photograph in Geoff Shackelford's "Golden Age of Golf Design" in the Introduction section of a hole at the Annandale G.C. in Pasadena, Calif. in 1900.

Chocolate drop mounds like that make the worst mounds Rees ever did look like the hand of God in his finest hour!

[TEPaul]

Pat said;

"TEPaul,
Many early mounds were simply function over form."

Thank you Pat for that important clarification! I thought that's what I said when I mentioned above;

"In those early days form really followed function....."  

You also mentioned;

"I think you have to analyze them in the context of their purpose."

Again, thank you for that important clarification too---I thought that's precisely what I was doing and saying in the intial post on this thread!  

Pat--you've been repeating after me so damn long now I guess it's gotten to be second nature, huh?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

It must be the after affects of the anesthesia.
I said a lot of outlandish things under the influence, and agreeing with you has to top the list  

But, you, Mike Cirba and others should pay a visit this summer.
You'll find a neat little golf course where fairways transition seemlessly out of the fairways, a great variety of mounds, and a golf course that you never get tired of playing, despite the many alterations forced upon the golf course over the years by misquided green chairman/committees, boards and Presidents.

Hopefully a Master plan will put an end to amateur alterations.