In The Hitchhikers Guide to The Galaxy (H2G2 as we afficionados call it!), a magnificent and hilarious book and British Radio and TV series by the sadly missed Douglas Adams (and hopefully soon to be made into "a major motion picture"), a character called Slartibartfast (god knows!) tells the main protagonist (Arthur Dent) that he was responsible for designing Norway. Have you ever read this, BP??
Stay with me.....
He goes on to tell of how he was especially happy at winning an award for the design - the judges particularly liking and commenting on the 'crinkly' edges (check your Atlases!)
Pause for Breath...
Looking at lots of early (20th C) photos of courses got me thinking about this recently. I was struck by how many (if not all?) early course designs (Colt/MacKenzie come to mind) have been altered (mainly due to maint. practices?) where the 'crinkliness' has been 'sharpened out' and/or obliterated. Even just looking at some of the photos in threads in this site and in the books on our beloved topic, the changes can be startling..there's a beaut of Shivas 'strolling' down an 18th Fairway somewhere (famous-ish, sorry to our American cousins if I can't quite remember the exact locale) which illustrates my point perfectly.
I guess most Supers prefer smooth edges to work to - kind of like a neat place to stop one practice and begin another (mowing grass and raking sand for example).
What I'm getting at is that NOWHERE in nature are there 'sharp' edges - everything generally blurs into the next thing. It's only man-made, artificial things which have very distinct 'lines of definition'.
Is it just me or are those original designs, which seemed to try hard to mimic or reflect natural shapes, being 'diluted'?
And the real kicker is - Do Architects now purposely create shapes with inherent smoothness knowing that crinkly edges will/would get lost over time? Should Golf Courses be an attempt at re-creating/enhancing/overcoming nature OR are they the ideal place for MAN to subsume it and demonstrate his superiority over it?

What's the consensus? Is there one?

And please try and read H2G2 sometime. It's a real life-enhancing experience!!

FBD.

You are generally correct, FBD, but I think I shall wait another 41 posts to properly respond.......

You Sir,
Are clearly befuddled by the fine Fife-shire evening dappled sunlight and perchance a small dram of the finest Scottish Malt!!!!

FBD.

Firstly, thank you for bringing back the memories. And an excellent reply by Rich, which will leave a few scratching their heads in bemusement. Rich, I look forward to that post if we get there, if nobody else hijacks the great number.

The Yale #18 photos on the tragedy thread say it all. The loss of such a bunker, and part of the sprawling real estate that was the green are tragic.

The detailed spasmodic fingering of bunkers and terrain changes, Ran's current home page sandy expanse depiction and others of the like are not a common feature of modern design to say the least. Yet without them, are we inspiring the future young architects to look at the clean lines as the only way, and hiding a part of the golden age from their creative development stage until it's too late?

Cheers Tony,
It is most reassuring to hear of other H2G2 heads. How sad are we??? For indeed I have reached the sacred number of years of age this very AD. Gawd, am I really THAT old?
On subject though, I have no real axe to grind on sharp things, but I do feel that some controlled 'softness' might be the 'right' thing to do......is it THAT difficult?
BP showed me lots of pics of Sand Hills - which seemed to demonstrate to me that in Modern Times it is possible to have 'blurry' edges to features that are still maintainable.
I'd be dee-lighted to hear from Supers who might think otherwise though....

FBD.

Other than the bunkers, I don't think Colt's and Mackenzie's UK course are smoother.   But I agree it's a general problem with modern courses, that strip any individual character from the terrain.

Indeed PunderscoreT
C&M were mere illustrations of the point.
Isn't the terrain THE important thing???
I am of the opinion (but I reserve the right to change my mind...) that golf courses like any other MAJOR piece of earth-moving should at least RESPECT the piece of ground they are borrowing.
Any bit of earth-shaping we, as humankind, choose to mould, is surely only truly temporary? We are totally at the mercy of NATURE and the ELEMENTS. We only scrape the surface of the planet in minor ways and as such have no real say in how 'things turn out'.
Having said that - I think that golf courses could well be THE ultimate example of Land Engineering. And all in the pursuit of FUN!
How cool is it that a GAME should turn out to be one of the things that most changes the shape of our planet?

FBD.

FBD- You have touched on one of those teeny tiny variables that seem to make the whole thing work. Not exactly a catalyst, because it does matter, semi-unconciously or periphrially (visionwise).

I recently was fortunate enough to play Talking Stick North. A C&C course built on the flats in Scottsdale Az. What struck me was the mix of both smooth and crinkle (as u put it). I first noticed it on the par 3's. All the bunkers were smooth edged but on the 4's and 5's the feeling was different. I really didn't know what to think of it. I was internally disappointed (minorly) but outwardly I just chalked it up to the need to make everyone happy.

I just have one small comment on your statement about nature NEVER having straight edges. I too believed that until one day coming home from Albuquerque and seeing a huge rock that was perfectly square. As I noticed it my, buddy riding shotgun who has a thing for photography, mentioned how he always wanted to shoot that rock with some sort of film image on it, since it looked so much like a movie or television screen. My point is that generalities are often a dangerous(unfair) thing and especially to those individuals who don't fit the mold.

 As with any great course, I think that variety is important but when all the bunkers are of a cookie cutter nature, I find them uninspiring, sometimes.

 

FBD,

Clearly, "resistance is useless", the world will end in 12 seconds anyway..

Regards

....oh ,and fbd...

   form follows function[but if you can achieve both in equal measures its the ultimate]..
   substance before style[unless its abuse]...
   and 'all that glitters is not gold'[middle earth sage]...

 blah blah etc......i don't know why reading your posts makes me want to lift a pint ,but they do,and have,....gotta go....

fbd,

Even more so than bunker edges, the nature of fairway finish work has changed dramatically over the past twenty years ... all because of the golf cart.

On many older courses in well-drained soils, there are all kinds of little irregularities in the fairway surface.  When we were building High Pointe years ago, we tried to leave in the fairways the same kind of things that were in the fairways at Crystal Downs ... but most of the customers hate it, because it makes the cart ride bumpy!  And most golf course contractors today would never think of leaving the fairway like that ... they'll go over it with so many implements that it's perfectly smooth.  There are no drainage and mowing hiccups, but also no little subtleties to affect your shot.

In contrast, one of the neatest things about the Old Course at St. Andrews is how crinkly it is around the greens ... sometimes your choice of shots around the greens is influenced by the fact that the mower missed a little low spot because of the ruggedness.  (In the good old days there were always these imperfections, because sheep do not have drivers.)

High Pointe is just 14 years old (though it still seems like yesterday) and it is already desperately in need of restoration of its bunker edges ... the original course at Stonewall has lost a lot of this detail in ten years, too, so that the new course next door puts it to shame in the detail department.  

Will their maintenance staff lose the detail on the new course eventually, too?  Quite possibly so, but I'm still going to make the effort and hope that they will follow suit.  I'm sure a lot of architects and contractors are resigned to less, and unfortunately, that may be a driving factor in a lot of what's being built nowadays.