"....Was there any indication on the card or rules sheet what was a waste bunker and what wasn't"

I saw it written in the yardage book. I dont think it was on the card.

I know I shouldn't say this but if you stepped onto a piece of natural ground such as the Sand Hills before it was the Sand Hills G.C. or TOC before man-made architecture on it, do you think all the natural sand dunsy/ bunker type stuff was all arranged in the exact places where it's strategically significant to a golfer?  Did it ever occur to you Nature itself may not have arranged that dunsy/bunker type stuff for the golfer?

We all know the sand bunker is and has been for a hundred and more years perhaps any architect’s best expression for creating golf strategy but if an architect were to place bunkers in some places of no significance whatsoever to golf does that have to be labeled eye-candy, and if so why?

Max Behr sometimes talked about completely natural golf, what he occasionally referred to as “Wild Golf”. That was golf played across raw land and natural landforms almost completely unenhanced by man or architects for golf. I call that kind of raw golf “path of least resistance golf”. This was basically the way golf was in the Scottish linkland for hundreds of years before man-made architecture began.

What if a golfer playing “Wild Golf” decided to tee off at some convenient spot to go from point A to B to C etc, and there was a natural sand dunsy/bunker type thing 20 yards in front of him to the right or 352 yards way out to his left well away from the course he proposed to take? Are those random sandy dunsy/bunker things eye-candy? Is that Nature’s “eye candy” for golf? Hardly, since I’m sure Nature couldn’t care less about golf or golfers but they sure needed and utilized her randomness for hundreds of years however she arranged it.

This is what I probably shouldn’t mention because most on here might take it all wrong somehow but because Coore & Crenshaw were mentioned in the initial post as was Cuscowilla and the relevance for golf and strategy of some of their bunkers, I will mention it. I was talking to the man himself a few days ago and I asked him if there was anything he could think of he and Ben would like to do someday that they felt they’d never found the place or the client to do? He said; “Like What?”

Since I wasn’t exactly ready to be asked that question, I said, “Like maybe going bunkerless”. He said, no there really wasn’t anything he could think of they’d really been waiting to do and he said he felt that bunkering was probably one of three of the most important things in golf architecture. Then I’m pretty sure he said he’d like to experiment or experiment more with bunkering in a truly random fashion. I take that to mean like how those natural sand dunsy/things are arranged in and by Nature herself that don’t necessarily conform to some formulaic or even strategic arrangement for golf or to satisfy the “game minds” of golfers. Maybe when some architects do that sort of thing it’s more to sort of tie an entire site together with random bunkering in some natural looking random arrangement just like Nature itself does or once did on the linksland or in the Sand Hills and not for the necessary benefit of golf and golfers.

If you look around Applebrook, perhaps Pac Dunes, or Cuscowilla or French Creek or Stonewall North or many of the other recent courses of these architects who seem to be trying to launch back into forms of naturalness and perhaps real randomness you’re very likely to see bunkers and funny little things they made in places that seem to have no relevance to golf or to the apparently formulaic structure of what golf architecture is supposed to accomplish solely for a golfer's benefit. Is all that eye candy? The more interesting question is should that sort of thing be considered conforming to or departing from some of the "Art Principles" or landscape architecture principles that have been drapped around the neck of golf course architecture for so long? Well call it that if you want to but I know Nature couldn’t care less and I’m beginning to think Bill Coore couldn’t either.

And then I launched into Max Behr and his entire philosophy of naturalness and even randomness and things like his opposition to “the game mind of man” and Bill said he was starting to get late and he had to go but that we’d talk about that again sometime!  

John B.

You know I think you're finally starting to figure this stuff out. The odd thing is it apparently makes you very angry for some reasons you probably ought to get analyzed. Let me amend that slightly, we all should probably start to analyze why that sort of thing makes people like you so angry!

I'm beginning to now firmly believe that despite the things a guy like Behr proposed (such as actually better mimicing some of the NON-GOLF related randomness of Nature in man-made architecture) that he felt would be the on-going salvation of the art and the sport because Man would innately feel better about it that in fact the ensuing 80 or so years has shown for some reason Man (or some of them) may not only NOT feel better about more natural golf and the inherent randomness of it but that it might even make them angry for some odd reason.

Some of the old architects apparently dreamed that when technologies of construction equipment and such allowed them to better and more easily do it that the art may somehow become for more natural than it was in even the best of what they did in the "Golden Age".

It's certainly possible that Behr was wrong about that and not because a more natural art form is inherently wrong somehow but because golf and it's art form that might actually inspire more naturalism and randomness began to run into too many people like you probably sometime just after WW2. Behr talked about the potentially destructive and corruptive influences of what he referred to as "The Game Mind of Man" that demanded that everything about golf become explainable, understandable, defined, labeled and basically exactly formulaic. That is the way of "games", that is the way of a tennis court, all of which the world over are the same.

He worried and warned about that tendency as it would corrupt and perhaps someday totally remove Nature's necessary participation in the sport which is reflected in randomness, luck, some things that aren't that understandable and probably shouldn't be.

He should've been worried I think---people like you are the best personification of that "Game Mind of Man". But I'm hopeful that an architect like Bill Coore and some of the others sort of on the same page apparently see these things differently than people like you and might do something more about that.

TP,

Yes I am angry...I'm angry at calling something random when it is not random at all....Lets say Crenshaw would complete a bunkerless course and let his monkey choose all the bunker locations based on random events like where the monkey takes a dump, eats, sleeps and makes love to other monkeys....say the first 15 spaces of each......that would be random and wouldn't make me angry at all.   Now let say Crenshaw rigs the experiment with food, bedding and slut monkeys...that would piss me off...

John B;

Very interesting analogies. Nature and her randomness is a beautiful thing----but monkey dumps and slut monkeys sort of takes this entire subject to another level! Go for it but I think you would do well to look into some analysis and pretty quick too about all this anger of yours. Don't forget I once offered you a dozen free sessions with Dr Katz. The offer still stands.

I really think you are the best personification of the "Game Mind of Man" I know of but I'm more than a little interested that your "Game Mind" is so scatalogical and also so angry. I might say perhaps you never properly developed past that adolescent anal fixation stage but somehow that seems to be just too easy an answer!

John B;

Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves here--let's not try to do too much in a fifty minute hour! Let's take things one at a time and calmly and perhaps slowly! What is it that makes you suspect that Crenshaw might actually rig that monkey experiment you mentioned with food, bedding and slut monkeys??

I don't believe any true randomness exists in modern architecture.....what do you think....Even at Whistling Straits...do you think any of those 1100+ bunkers are truly random....

"I don't believe any true randomness exists in modern architecture.....what do you think...."

A wonderful question John B. I don't really think so either other than in some very small ways and examples. That's precisely why I'm so curious and certainly fascinated by what a man like Coore may have implied to me just the other day. Are we still dealing with your anger management on this particular subject of real randomness in golf architecture or have we gone beyond that for a time?

"TomP,
Do you think I can believe in the Virgin birth and not be angry about it.....it is the same with architecture and the truths that are faith based.."

John B:

As much as I'd like to explore any avenue with you in an attempt to further understand this general subject of golf architecture I'm afraid I'll have to beg off trying to answer that question. You see I'm probably not a religous man the way you are. I shouldn't admit it on here, but what the hell---I can't stand organized religion of any type or form and I frankly think that religious fanaticism whether it be in Islam's Middle East, or the Christian USA, or anywhere else for that matter, is the primary and future bane of our world and ourselves.

Could we stick to things that are more understandable like rigging experiments in randomness in golf architecture with monkeys using food, bedding and slut monkeys?

Again, that's just because of the way you look at it. It's no secret at all that most on here just can't get beyond the stultification of categorizing almost everything to do with golf architecture into what they think is a series of understandable, defined and definable cliches.

Tom,

What you think of me means a great deal....in the interest of my own self growth and my own desire not to dislike Cuscowilla only because of my own short comings and lack of insight....what are some of the cliches that appear to cloud my mind and alter my judgement...

Haven't read much of this post, but I found that the Cuscowilla bunkers though great to look at, were extremely difficult around the greens to hit out of with much control.  The sand is so coarse that it was nearly impossible to hit anything with finese from close to the pin.  Someone suggested a SW with more bounce.  Any thoughts along these lines?

The greens, green surrounds, and bunkering make Cuscowilla the special course that it is.  These features probably also have a lot to do with the very slow play we encountered.  And no, Barny and I were not in the first group this time!

"It'd have to be a new game.....
with all this new-aged randomness, perhaps now golf course architecture is a dangerous place to use a brain"

Not at all. Increased randomness in architecture can likely do a far better and more comprehensive job of getting golfers to actually have to use their brains instead of being led around by the nose from one sentinel to the next.

Shivas,

The only reason anyone hit any club except driver on any hole was because of trees or weeds....The over abundance of trees and weeds were not eye candy... Some people have been kind enough to claim the reason I didn't have the pleasure of hitting out of any greenside bunkers to be a combination of skill and luck...Let us not forget that Brentt Hutto (21 handicap) found what I believe was four bunkers at most over 36 holes....that might be attributed to good looks if we're not careful..

I wonder if I was a course evaluator if I would have had an obligation to place a ball in a greenside bunker so I could test their playability....It could be said that Tommy was only doing his job at Pine Valley..

Bob,

Do you think the beautiful large bunker on the first hole is an easy carry because of the Resort nature of the course....what is it....about a 220 carry from the championship tees....It only fools you the first time you play it so it's not psycho candy....Do you think the many aiming bunker serve a purpose beyond eye candy...