"TEPaul,
What difference does it make if the quirk is visualized and constructed on a natural land form or artificially on an amended land form?"
Pat:
This is the fundamental question. And to take that question BACK one step, the question is not just what is the differenece but IS there a difference?
These fundamental questions are at the heart of Max Behr's philosophy of what natural golf should be, and, on the other hand, what golf had become, or was in danger of becoming. Behr felt that golf had become or was in danger of becoming a "game" shot through with a series of rationale ideas that had led to man-made standardizations involving architecture. He also felt that this was simply not the way of nature.
He went further to conclude that if the golfer looked at the same exact situation on a golf hole before him and he perceived that what was before him to challenge him and perhaps trip him up was clearly the work of some other man (an artifiicility create by an architect) RATHER than the work of Nature, he would then criticize it, fight with it in his mind, and probably want to change it.
One, of course, then needs to ask, if Behr was right about that then why was he right? He contended that the golfer (Man) was simply more inherently capable of accepting something before him to challenge him and perhaps trip him up that he perceived to be the work of nature RATHER than the work of man.
Obviously he felt that man felt Nature itself both was and could be, and perhaps should be, more dominant in relation to him than some other man should be.
TEPaul,
My tendency, on a given issue, is NOT to take the word of one individual as The Gospel, including Behr's.
How many times did Behr play NGLA or other courses that were the work of CBM, SR & CB ?
Certainly, to the keen observer, one cannot ignore the hand of man in crafting the challenge confronting the golfer at NGLA.
I don't think that a golfer with keen powers of observation finds that the challenge is diminished or any less appealilng due to man's hand, heavy or light.
Tom Doak declared that Shadow Creek was a golf course of merit, architecturally and from the aspect of playability.
Has anyone approached the first tee at SC thinking that nature had crafted the golf course ? Has anyone walked off the 18th green thinking the same ? Yet, the golf course is meritorious.
Perhaps Behr was really expressing his preference for continuity and harmony in the context of the golf course and the site.
Don't forget, Behr was involved with architecture long before the DEP. He was involved at a time when man could employ whatever techniques he desired in order to craft a golf course.
Today, that luxury doesn't exist.
When you play the 8th hole at Hidden Creek, do you feel it's a hole left there by nature, just waiting for C&C to clear brush and seed, or, is the hand of man heavy in its application of construction techniques, resulting in a golf hole that's challenging, sporty, and fun, but, clearly....... unnatural.
Does that make it any less acceptable or challenging ?
I don't think so.
Again, perhaps Behr was refering to continuity of design, the harmony between the holes, and/or style.
The next time I speak with him, I'll ask the question for you.