Eric:
What you say and what you apparently feel about the "look" and "feel" of #17 particularly how it seems to be unnatural looking to you is really interesting and if developed as a separate thread I'm certain would create numerous divergent and differing opinions about what IS natural looking architecture vs manmade looking architecture and what that could or does mean and also what it means to any golfer playing the hole!
I know exactly what you mean to say with your feeling about that hole when you describe it as not natural looking and creating discomfort or even confusion with a golfer, but see I feel completely different about what those feelings and that look means in golf and architecture.
I'm sure the hole would make me feel uncomfortable too insofar as understanding what needs to be done strategically or hitting successful shots on it but that's not really an issue with me about natural holes vs manmade ones!
My point is there were obviously all kinds of natural golf formations from the beginnings of golf that could make any golfer, even those totally accepting of completely natural aspects of the land uncomfortable as hell in being successful at playing them or even understanding how!
And I suppose it's time to consider that, when we talk about things like nature and natural aspects in golf architecture and what all we mean or can mean by that.
It may be time now to include in what's described sometimes as "natural aspects" of sites to not only include those formations and things that nature actually made but also some of those interesting things that may have been made by man but made and done long before the thought of golf was considered for them.
Because there are so many features that came well before particular courses that man may have made with no thought to a golf use.
The list is long--quarries, stonewalls, buildings, railroad tracks, roads, even things like cemeteries and mining operations!
All these things have been successfully incorporated into interesting golf architecture and can make a golfer feel that it was not something that was specifically created by the architect for some effect because in almost all cases it wasn't orginally created for that!
Those things which came before the course just happened to be incorporated into design as Mackenzie may have incorporated the difficult natural land formation of Cypress's #16 into that hole!
In this way the barn at French Creek that's been incorporated into hole #10 may be of no real difference than Bill Kittleman's "abruptment".
The thing that makes them different to me for golf and architecture is they appear to me to be things that were done with nothing specifically to do with the hole's architecture or play.
The "abruptment" at least seems to make no actually golf sense to anyone (except maybe Bill Kittleman). It also appears to me to be completely random with nooks and crannies that have no meaning to golf or the hole. Maybe even no meaning at any time.
This kind of thing works better for me in a natural context than things like water hazards with fountains in them or waterfalls that were clearly CREATED by the architect for some soothing effect or fairways lined with clearly manmade hazards that create a one dimensional "road mapping" or even "freeway" effect (as C&W described). In other words, the latter seem to tell the golfer "don't think, just hit it here, and then hit the next one here, and on and on, all clear as the noon day!
Bill Kittleman, as we menitoned the other day, is clearly into coming up with things that may make any golfer uncomfortable and in need then to trust himself and his ability to execute because of those discomforting things and even lack of meaning.
More power to him--he's certainly pushing the envelop that way but the fact he created something even his own partners can't figure out is all the better to me.
And the "abruptment" doesn't look man-made to me exactly, at least not for golf! God knows what it looks like it may have once been or been for but who cares--it sure doesn't look to me like it had much to do with a golf course and its architecture--and that's part of the reason I like it.
I know a lot of people will say I'm rationalizing these things to act the apologist for Bill Kittleman but I promise I'm not!
Matter of fact, I will predict right now that the thing he'll be questioned about and criticized for most on that hole, if anything, will be for completely misaligning those tees particularly the back one (it must be aligned 45 degrees to the right of the hole)!
But I even like that--again he's pushing the envelop on what's expected architectural practices today.
If anyone appears to care least about conforming to modern formulaics in architecture today it has to be Bill Kittleman.
And again, I love the differences in architecture--the deal is in the difference, particularly if something random and odd is done and no one knows what the hell it means!