Jim, I'm glad you are willing to take that bold risk with the critics and experiment with your ideas on uni-tees.  I'm not sure if RTJjr's  design firm took a page out of your playbook, or just migrated to the concept due to the terrain they were working with at Chambers.  No doubt, the kind of terrain you get to work with at Bandon, or BallyNeal, or the terrain and design concept totally created artificially at CB, all lend themselves to this design style.  

Looking back towards tees from mid FW or G at both CB and Bally, one can not tell where the launch pads are, so to speak.  It is just one more aspect of the natural look, and what the eye "sees".

I've had a running debate on the more minor issue of free form tees VS square launch pads for years with an esteemed super that doesn't post on here, ENOUGH! (you know who you are!)     He likes the defined completely lazer leveled starting block.  I like the free form if it is blended into the surrounds nicely.  

But, the uni-tees I've seen at Bally, and Chambers takes it to another whole new and exciting dimension, IMHO.  I have always thought it was bunk to have totally lazer level teeing grounds.  While not wanting to see huge slopes, I think that reading the ground on the tee box adds to the fun of the game, if not done to an extreem.  

I also thought about placing one peg with a 10-15 ft string on teeing grounds, and you can tee off anywhere within that circumference rather than two tee markers and teeing off within the line of those.  Then, you get to better pick your stance and lie within that area, which adds to the fun, in my view.  But, that works better on the free flowing uni-tee than the square pads or runways.

I feel like Mike C does, but I wanted to try to contribute a response (more like a personal/subjective reflection) to the excellent and informed posts.  

It seems to me that most discussions about gca (here and in books ) focus on the ‘observable elements’ of the golf course/field of play itself, i.e. the routing, the green complexes, the hazards, the natural vs the man-made features etc. That’s the way it should be, and there’s much of value that comes with those discussions (and evaluations, judgments, rankings, opinions etc.) for all involved, golfers and architects/superintendents and owners alike.  I think an underlying premise of golfclubatlas.com is that golf course architecture has experienced a re-birth in the last two decades exactly because of those kinds of books and discussions; and I agree. (Important and valuable posts like Jim Urbina’s on blurring the parallel lines and using uni-tees or Paul C’s on the challenges of working on lesser sites are both examples of that kind of discussion.)      

But I think there may also be some value in attempting to discuss the more unconscious (subliminal) observations and experiences related to golf course architecture. It’s a harder kind of discussion to have (and an even more subjective one) but my guess is that the subliminal experiences of golfers, taken collectively, has had an impact on the kind of courses that were built.  I focused on what I thought was one aspect of this unconscious/subliminal “seeing”, namely the connection or disconnection between the course/field of play and all that surrounds it, because I’m guessing that this aspect has had the most impact of all.

I think that the less thought given to how a course fits into its broader surroundings, the more that course is likely to stray from a natural and/or simple aesthetic. In fact, it may be that the less that golfers over the years “saw” a connection between the surrounding area and the course itself, the more they came to expect a manufactured and over-wrought aesthetic, and eventually to actually demand that aesthetic (by the choices they made and the money they were prepared to pay).

Perhaps collectively, golfers who sensed that golf courses weren’t often natural extensions of their natural surrounds decided to make a virtue out of necessity, i.e. decided, unconsciously, that if the playing experience was going to feel somewhat artificial they were going to demand that the architect use every means at his disposal to make it the most pleasingly artificial experience possible. In other words, they decided that once that first connection with nature/the natural surrounds was sacrificed, it was best to sacrifice everything else so as to at least to make the experience whole, and all of one piece. And with that came/comes the preference for unusually green grass and unusually white sands and unusually elevated tees etc.

That’s all guess work, of course; but what I take as a fact is the information that Tom P provided in his post about Bill Coore at Hidden Creek, where he spent so much time initially trying to sense what the site as a whole most reminded him, Pinehurst or the Heathlands.  The term Tom P used for what Bill Coore was aiming at through this approach was  "site natural".  That term really struck me.  It struck me because it suggested that the minimalism/naturalism C&C are known for seeking on the golf course/field of play itself  is very much tied to (and affected by) the relationship they hope to maintain with all that naturally surrounds the course. Paul C is probably absolutely right that good site selection is an important part of the C&C process. But what I think may be an even more important part of that process is their  willingness to pursue a ‘site natural’ aesthetic with such integrity. What I mean (and this is based entirely on what I’ve seen and read on gca.com) is that C&C seem prepared to accept fully all that the surrounding site does and does not give them, even if that means risking having some feel that the resulting  golf course itself is too modest or too simple or not dramatic or imaginative enough (all poor words, but I hope you know what I mean).  

In other words, C&C seem to have made a choice to honour the unconscious “seeing” that I mentioned to a very high degree; they seem to think this a very important aspect of the golfing experience, even as important as what they do or don’t do on the course itself.  (It goes without saying that  C&C may have a completely different idea of what they’re trying to do, and that I’m flat out wrong about all this.)  And, if the overwhelmingly positive reactions I read here to playing Sand Hills is any indication, they have made a very good choice.  (A course like Ballyneal seems to get the same kind of reaction here, and from the pictures I’ve seen it looks very ‘site natural’ as well.)

Maybe Max Behr is being proved right in all this, i.e. that golfers do indeed want architecture to be as natural looking as possible.  It may be that golfers, collectively, are indeed unconsciously/subliminally aware of it, and seek it, but so much so that this awareness extends far beyond the course/field of play itself and encompasses all that naturally surrounds the course as well. Maybe Behr sems to have guessed wrong only because the true 'site natural' approach has been relatively rare in the last few decades, and so golfers, collectively, have never been given a fighting chance to prove Behr right.    

Peter

I should add this: I don’t mean to sound like some elitist.  As a golfer who likes to play golf, I am truly appreciative and grateful for each and every golf course that’s out there; it means I get to play affordable golf where otherwise I wouldn’t, and I’m very happy when an architect uses his skills to turn an old landfill site or mediocre piece of ground into a golf course.  I’m just speaking here about that part of me that, as I’m playing less and less, craves the golfing ‘experience’ more and more, and that experience is tied to having a course fit into its natural surrounds.    

"Maybe Max Behr is being proved right in all this, i.e. that golfers do indeed want architecture to be as natural looking as possible.  It may be that golfers, collectively, are indeed unconsciously/subliminally aware of it, and seek it, but so much so that this awareness extends far beyond the course/field of play itself and encompasses all that naturally surrounds the course as well. Maybe Behr sems to have guessed wrong only because the true 'site natural' approach has been relatively rare in the last few decades, and so golfers, collectively, have never been given a fighting chance to prove Behr right."

Peter:

By considering ways to rejuvenate the debate Behr and his like-minded architects had with the philosophy of a Joshua Crane in the 1920s that's exactly what we're hoping to explore now.  

Richard:

I guess I saw examples of Jim U's uni-tees at Sebonack. It's a great look in my opinion. The teeing areas just sort of "flow"  contour and cut-wise with the surrounding grades and the only real way you know some of them are tee areas is because of the tee markers. This is a true move in the direction of real naturalism of look in architecture with one of the most unnatural features of golf.

"Vis a is the Old Head/Pine Valley, approach to the course vs. the course itself observation, I fully agree (in theory, of course, as I've never been to either place).  But, it works just as well for the Old Course, Pebble Beach, Swinley Forest, or Merion--you drive through "normal" country--urban, suburban or rural--and suddenly you are presented with a magnificent golf course.  Is it "natural?"  Of course not!  What makes the view magnificent is it's complete incongruity.  From the mundane to the sublime (or perhaps vice versa in the case of Old Head....).  Not, however, from "civilisation" to "nature" or anything of that ilk."

Richard:

Good points. However, the "Civilization to Nature" aspect of going to and into Pine Valley is a universe apart from the same juxtaposition at Old Head.

When we came over the crest of the last hill and suddenly---BOOM---Old Head was before us, I doubt any of us even saw or noticed the golf course. In Old Head's case the dramatic impact isn't about the golf course it's all about Old Head itself. Not to mention that you sort of get the feeling and aura of the Aieriens (sp?) there which is about the most impactful long "time span" feeling I've ever had anywhere. It's almost audible.  

"And, also, think about Behr's tilting against the windmill as he tries, increasingly convolutedly, to argue that golf is a "sport" and not a "game."  If religion were a sport, Bernini would have routed his entrance to St. Peter's into a cul de sac, and not a cathedral.  If  baseball were a sport, you would come through the turnstiles and the gates to be greeted by your backyard in the 1950's with you and your friends making up the playing fields and the rules as you went along.  If golf were a sport, you would tee off at Cypress from whatever ground you could find, head towards whatever land form you felt like, play for whatever time you felt like, and finish possibly 6 miles from where you started, to be met my your beaters (caddies), and Range Rover and a Pimm's.  But all of these are games, and rely on both expectations and rules.  Non-level tees are an interesting bagatelle, but they are and will probably never be a part of the game of golf."

Richard the Quintuple Obtuse:

It's just a damn shame you continue on with your knee-jerk and seemingly defensive reaction to Behr and his philosophy on naturalism and golf as woven through his many articles.

This pretty much does it. I'm now going to copy everything, pack it up, and send it to you. Email me your mailing address, please.

In his articles you will clearly see he never meant to take golf back to such an extreme form of naturalism that there would no longer be those 4-5 "necessities" of golf he essentially listed as "exceptions" to total naturalism.

His only point with those facets and features of golf that were clearly not made by nature is that the architect should try to make them look like a good "interpretation" of the forms and forces of Nature. But first and foremost he did admit that they had to work for GOLF.

His distinction between golf the sport vs golf the game was merely made to explain that a golf course is and should remain a playing field of considerable natural variety in formation quite unlike a baseball field, a football field or a tennis court.

And he did explain that there is a very good fundamental reason for that.

The idea of "sport" was merely made to underscore that in this particular recreation (golf) with a ball unvied for (unlike tennis or baseball or football) the necessity of a large component of Nature needs to be maintained to ensure the "dual" contest inherent in Golf.

The sport aspect of golf as it relates to Nature could be compared to the sport of hunting or fishing only with a stick and a ball and no real quarry to stalk and conquer other than a simple hole in the ground!  

 

"Tom
Try saying "Richard the Quintuple Obtuse" five times in a row and at speed after having downed a few bottles of Merlot.  I'll do the same."

Richard:

No way. I have tried to lead my life never attempting to do anything at speed with the exception of driving. I have always been told by my male friends that I have an unusually slow tongue and by my female friends that I have an unusually slow hand. Obviously, as you know, I have been told by all my golfing buddies that I have an unusually slow golf swing too.

It is just the way of the world for me, my friend.  

Bob
and in turn, a fine post there. I took 8 times longer to say about 8 times less...and couldnt pull it off in any event.

Referencing the minimalism vs manufactured thread as well, I think the kind of golf being played (game vs sport; external competition vs internal experience) is tied to the kind of course being played on. I'm happy for all types of golf/golf courses; they're all legitimate (and necessary, apparently).

I think the problem is with 'mixed metaphors', especially when they don't succeed.

Peter

I had a thread quite a while ago where I realized that I was confusing minimalism with naturalism. I toss this in now on the off-chance that it has some bearing on this discussion (or to the manufactured vs minimalism thread).    

Sean

As Dylan would say, Tom is tangled up in glue today, so I'll answer for him.

Neither Behr nor any of his disciples--past, present or future--have the faintest clue as to the difference between a "sport" and a "game."

Rich

PS--I think I know what Behr was trying to say, but I'm not telling.

R

Sean -

You raise an excellent question. I am trying to write something that gets to that issue. The piece is nominally about Joshua Crane, but it is really about your question. Look for it at your newstand soon.

Sorry to fink out. I would certainly love to hear what others think.

Peter -

I don't think the relevant distinction is so much between minimalism and manufactured. I think you start with the notion (an inescapable one, I think) that all golf courses are manufactured.

The relevant distinction is how golf architects line up on the "naturalism conceit" issue. That is, to what extent is a given designer concerned about making his courses LOOK natural. MacDonald and Raynor didn't seem to care very much. Pete Dye doesn't seem to care very much.

On the other hand Ross, C&C and others work like crazy on natural looks.  

(I've never been sure where MacKenzie fits on that spectrum.)

Both approaches work. Different strokes, etc. I do worry that designers these days are spending more time on the "naturalism conceit" and less on plain old solid strategic hazard placement.

I worry because all too often these days trying to make a course look natural slides down a slippery slope into trying to make it look beautiful. Two very different things. I wonder sometimes if the two most popular architects of our time understand that the distinction exists.  

Bob  

Te Paul
Many years ago I mentioned to Tom about a bunkerless golf course and his response was no response.

I actually think a routing needs hazards be it pits,bumps,hollows or burns. One of my thoughts was to create a golf course I affectionately called A Bunker For All Players.

This quote sums up what I FEEL when I stand on a startng point for any one of the holes I am working on with Tom.

'On more than half of the holes, a player has a choice of using his head or his clubs. In some cases he must use each as the hole opens up according to what you think you are capable of, visualize or actually do. By this there is more than one way to make par and still be doing so with a method of some degree of orthodox execution. Any hole that requires study and thought remains interesting indefinitely as they will on this course'

What does the Eye See?

Jim,

Whilst I'd agree that a course needs hazards (whether formal hazards or less formal obstacles) my experience is that it's possible to produce good and interesting golf courses without sand.  Three I've played in England are Chorleywood (Where I was a member for several years), Berkhampstead (which I liked a lot) and Kington (very recently and which I thought was wonderful).  Each of these have their own approach to grass bunkers/hazards and none would,in my opinion, be improved by the addition of sand.

On the other hand Ross, C&C and others work like crazy on natural looks.  

(I've never been sure where MacKenzie fits on that spectrum.)

 

 Bob, interesting that you mentioned Mackenzie in that respect. As some who know me on this site know Mackenzie is my favorite. When one looks at the 13th at CPC and how he tied in the bunkers with the natural dunes, the seemlessness of it is breathtaking. However, I'll be the first to admit, that sometimes his bunkers would look so artful, so stunning that they almost are overpowering and the look does not blend into the surrounds and therefore too much attention is drawn. But then again, that may have been the point of it all along. I count his and Thomas/Bell's the most beautiful overall in this country. I realize your statements weren't focusing on bunker's specifically, I just decided to use them as an example. I believe overall Mackenzie was one of the best at accomplishing a "natural" look and I believe he strived just as hard as anyone in that regard.

This might be a little OT...but, by a combination of poor planning I find myself literally inside the eye wall of hurricane Henriette in Cabo....very calm.

My internet just came back on so I called my mom because its her birthday, Miss Dawn just because, my kids and then checked in on GCA ....priorities you know.

Power has been out about four hrs...its amazing what wireless can do.

I'm hoping to "see" what is left of our Golf course manana.