[RT]

Tom Doak wrote a small while back, "I think Tom Simpson and Dr. MacKenzie were the best at imitating nature in their work."


Here is an example of Tom Simpson at New Zealand Club, no. 2.  I just could stare at this bunker and its unique shape.

[BCrosby]

I don't see how that bunker bears out your quotation.

It is, however, an amazing bunker that I too would enjoy staring at for long periods (preferrably with a cool drink in hand ).

Bob

[wsmorrison]

I think Crump and his collection of architects did an excellent job of imitating nature in their work at Pine Valley.  Flynn was quite good as well on seaside courses.  Flynn's style on inland courses did not attempt to mimic nature so closely, though at Merion his bunkers and the maintenance of Joe Valentine were of a different style.

Ironically, the greater resources required to maintain a natural look on windy courses seemed to doom their presentation to a more formal bunker style.

Here are some bunkers at Shinnecock Hills and Indian Creek that are also quite good and better representations of nature than the Simpson bunker RT posted:

Indian Creek #12



Shinnecock Hills #6



Shinnecock Hills #16

[JESII]

Not wanting to dismiss the appearance of that bunker...it really is beautiful...but RT and Bob are making me a bit nervous...

[Jeff_Brauer]

I agree with Bob! I see little in most of those pix to suggest that a bunker was "natural" and not built.  Why do so many cling to the overly romantic, yet mostly false notions of a course being "natural" after golf left the seaside and moved around the world, requiring construction to meet local needs?

The closest, is Shinny 6.  The Indian Creek photo might appear natural except for the retaining wall below the bunker and the trees in them.  How often do we see trees on a natural beach?  PV is great because they left so much of the site character alone, changing only what they needed for greens, tees and fw.

Its man made, but I too love the Simpson bunker. It is so random in shape and quirky, that you could make the case that it emulates nature that way, but in reality, its closer to great abstract art that has great proportions and eye appeal.

[TEPaul]

Frankly, I think some of the bunkers I've seen done in new construction in the last ten years by some of the architects who are the favorites on here are some of the most natural looking bunkers ever done in the history of golf architecture which of course includes the Golden Age.

And the additionally interesting thing is they can also make those remarkably natural looking bunkers look eons old right out of the box.

Or let me put that another way, I don't just think they can and have done that---I know they have.  

[redanman]

I think that some considered "natural" in the
modern era have had had far too much work put into
them and they stick out like sore thumbs when
they don't fit the properties.

[TEPaul]

I'll go a step farther and maintain that some of the best bunkers of the Golden Age, such as Colt's, MacKenzie's etc were beautiful in that they were highly artistic in the sense of artistically "interpreting" the look and the way of Nature.

Some of the bunkers done in the last ten years may not be quite so artistically interpretative and because they aren't they look more like Nature itself. Nature doesn't "interpret" nature, it just is what it is. Some of the guys in the last ten years have frankly imitated the way the forces of Nature treat grass and sand better than anyone before them, in my book.

And what specifically are we talking about here. Mostly not even what is technically defined as a bunker in golf. What we're really talking about is the grassing and the grassing lines as they juxtapose to the bunker sand.

[TEPaul]

Good point BillV.

If architects are going to create highly natural looking and naturalized bunkers they should carry that natural look through the course. If they don't it creates a pretty stark and odd juxtaposition. But maybe some people like that.

It's a philosophical question and maybe a tough one but it's also pretty rare for an architect to refrain from doing things that clearly show what he designed and did.

If he doesn't do that he may worry that some might question if he did much of anything at all.

In that may lie one of the greatest golf architectural conundrums of all.  

Is the golf architect the only type of artist who's ultimate goal might be to totally hide his own mind and hand?


Mackenzie said:

"There is a marked similarity between the professional golfer and the regular soldier."

He went on to say:

"There are many other attributes in common between the successful golf architect and the camofleur."

[Mark Bourgeois]

And what specifically are we talking about here. Mostly not even what is technically defined as a bunker in golf. What we're really talking about is the grassing and the grassing lines as they juxtapose to the bunker sand.

[RSLivingston_III]

Tom Doak wrote a small while back, "I think Tom Simpson and Dr. MacKenzie were the best at imitating nature in their work."


Here is an example of Tom Simpson at New Zealand Club, no. 2.  I just could stare at this bunker and its unique shape.

I am curious as to how close this bunker is to it's original form. Any chance there is a photo floating around from when it was built?
The grounds crew should be applauded for there effort to have it look correct / in era.

[Gordon Oneil]

I think Crump and his collection of architects did an excellent job of imitating nature in their work at Pine Valley.  Flynn was quite good as well on seaside courses.  Flynn's style on inland courses did not attempt to mimic nature so closely, though at Merion his bunkers and the maintenance of Joe Valentine were of a different style.

Ironically, the greater resources required to maintain a natural look on windy courses seemed to doom their presentation to a more formal bunker style.

Here are some bunkers at Shinnecock Hills and Indian Creek that are also quite good and better representations of nature than the Simpson bunker RT posted:

Indian Creek #12

I've got a remarkably similar photo to this one of number 12 at ICCC taken a few weeks ago that I'd like to post right here.

As we say out at the ballpark...LITTLE HELP.

[Peter Pallotta]

I think there might be a parallel here with gardening*. The formal garden take the elements of nature (e.g. flowers, bushes etc) but arranges them in a way that's designed to appeal to the human mind's appreciation for symmetry and balance and order, and so the gardener’s skill lies in achieving those qualities. The wild garden takes those same elements, but tries to arrange them so as to appeal to our appreciation for nature itself, and its randomness, and to do so the gardener's skill lies in erasing or disguising any trace of that skill.

Depending on my mood, I sometimes prefer the one approach and sometimes the other. But -- off Bill V and TE Paul's points -- what never seems to work is when those two approaches are blended together, either by accident or design. Then it just seems messy.

"Is the golf architect the only type of artist who's ultimate goal might be to totally hide his own mind and hand?"

A fine question. I'm not sure, TE, if the gca is the only type of artist who strives for this, but it seems to me that if that is the goal, the architect first (and most importantly) of all must be WILLING to disguise his hand, and then he must have the knowledge and experience and talent to recognize what sites warrant, and would allow him to succeed in, that approach. I guessing that all sites don’t.  

*My wife's the avid gardener, not me; I have only grown to appreciate it. So I may have the terms wrong.

Peter

[paul cowley]

Great thread!

[Paul_Turner]

RT

It's a beauty!

Have you played Liphook?  Or if NAF is out there...which is better NZ or Liphook?

[Noel Freeman]

RT

It's a beauty!

Have you played Liphook?  Or if NAF is out there...which is better NZ or Liphook?

Paulina-- I have walked parts of Enzed (New Zealand GC) with RT but never played it.  Having played Liphook I must honestly admit, I liked the look of NZ better and it fit my eye but I can hesitate in saying I can't judge between the two unless I play both.  Liphook has a paucity of bunkering (less than 50) and is a Croome routing/design although Simpson heavily was involved living nearby.  JSF Morrison is also the designer of 2 holes (1 and 18).  I can say this Broadstone is far superior to Liphook IMHO as is Parkstone..  I may write a ditty on Liphook for Ran, unfortunately according to Tom Macwood there were some changes (I cannot find them in the club history I have) to Liphook that must have altered it from what Simpson said was one of the 5 best inland golf courses in the UK.  I'd put it on par with West Hill.

[Rich Goodale]

I agree that RT's picture is of a very eye pleasing bunker, but it is no more "natural" than the green or the flagstick which it defends.  Bunkers are, in fact, rare in even pure links environments, and the naturall ones which do exist (you can still see some in out of play areas at Brora) have little in common with the stylized ones being built by the great designers of today, nor to the shaped and reshaped ones which might have one day been natural, but today are definitely not.  Nor do "natural bunkers" happily sit in "strategic" areas relative to natural greensites, nor are they necessarily "random."  Many, if not most, of the "random" bunkers on the Old Course (particularly on the outward 9) were added in the early 20th century by JL Low.

I had the chance to view the archives of one of the most venerable courses a few days ago, and when it was in primitive form (mid 1850s), there were hardly any bunkers around. Even in later, more modern incarnations, the bunkering was limited, and the Committee minutes show active ameliorative and additive bunkering programs throughout the years near the turn of the last century.

What little historical research I have done tells me that the primary consideration of early clubs and their "architects" was finding the natural green sites.  After that, the tees--finding the best way to connect 18 greensites into one seamless flow.  Many didn't even think of hazards until a few years after the course had been in play, and they had been identified, by experience and inductive reasoning.

To me bunkers have always been the last refuge of the architect who can't find (or create) interesting greensites and/or routings. Of course, they also look "pretty," at least to a public that has been conditioned to think that they are "natural" and essential to proper golf.

that's my Rant of the Day, but the day is very young....

PS--who was Bunker Love II, Davis' great grandpappy?

Rich

[TEPaul]

Richard the Magnificent:

You may call that a rant but I call it an excellent post---one of the most brutally honest about the fact and use of sand bunkering on most golf courses. Most on here probably assume that great sand bunkering is sacrosanct and a staple in great golf architecture. I feel, as apparently you do, that sometimes they become a strategic and artistic crutch for many golf architects.

Behr mentioned that sand bunkering is that odd vestige of the original linksland courses (pre-architecture) that just hung on to golf totally. So much so in fact that almost everyone seems to think they are essential to golf and architecture even in areas that have no natural sand.

I'm with you---eg I like a good bunker here and there but I feel golf and architecture in the future should figure out a better way to develop and use an alternative hazard feature for them. Maybe just make shapes and forego the sand. If that were done most of the shapes would probably be concave at first.  

After a time architects would probably come to realize that a balance of concave and convex is more natural, as in most natural settings everything that goes down must come up again somehow.  

This is not to say that "verticality" is not at least more than half the "hazard" or "penal" element of golf because it surely is that.

[BCrosby]

Among other interesting things that MacK tried to do at ANGC, he tried to figure out how to build a championship course with a minimum of bunkers. I'd say he pulled that off pretty well.

MacK's SofSA is all about the same issue. There he argues that the real glory of TOC is its natural contours. Whether TOC's contours are really natural or not, I don't know. But they are certainly the best possible way to create the illusion of a "natural" golf course.

Bob  

[Paul_Turner]

Noel

Did you notice much tree clearing at Liphook.  From the website the club appears to be serious about getting the heath back.

"It is essential, if we want to maintain a heathland identity, that more trees are removed, especially deciduous trees. I love oak trees as much as anyone but their numbers must be limited on site like this, otherwise the heather will, ultimately, disappear completely; the West Course at Wentworth (once predominantly heathland) is a classic example. Some say that the West at Wentworth is great as it is; however, wooded, parkland Courses are ten-a-penny – prestigious heathland Courses are a far rarer commodity"

At the other end of the spectrum, there's that moron Ernie Els planting trees at Wentworth.

[Jeff Doerr]

It was intriguing to me at Chambers Bay that they used an immediately unnatural look to eventually produce a lasting natural look in their bunkers and dunes. Jay Blasi of RTJ2 said they found out that leaving the cat tracks allowed them to produce a sharper edge and more closely mimic the sharper edges of a natural feature.

[Jeff Doerr]

Peter has a great point here...

I think there might be a parallel here with gardening*. The formal garden take the elements of nature (e.g. flowers, bushes etc) but arranges them in a way that's designed to appeal to the human mind's appreciation for symmetry and balance and order, and so the gardener’s skill lies in achieving those qualities. The wild garden takes those same elements, but tries to arrange them so as to appeal to our appreciation for nature itself, and its randomness, and to do so the gardener's skill lies in erasing or disguising any trace of that skill.

Depending on my mood, I sometimes prefer the one approach and sometimes the other. But -- off Bill V and TE Paul's points -- what never seems to work is when those two approaches are blended together, either by accident or design. Then it just seems messy.

I like the symmetry of the formal garden look in the picture below. It is framed nicely by the trees, but not crowded. The bunkers do not look "natural" to the landscape, but they are pleasing land forms.


Robert's thread on the Century Course has a very strong image of a beautiful formal garden bunker that has a flow that is pleasing and "natural" looking.

The wild garden look below (one that is championed on this site) give you the sense of "real" naturalism, not a mimic of land forms.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()