[RJ_Daley]

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.

[RJ_Daley]

Tom, while I haven't been there, it appears there are quite a few (particularly Irish) courses o'er the auld sod, where there are virtually no bunkers, just grasslands and dunes.  

The whole idea as you describe is quite within what I think of as the happy hunting grounds or the grassy plains or links.  Natural corridors beckoning you or drawing you down vague FWs, not so starkly defined, but with roughs that blend in not so severe of a penal manner in terms of lushness-thickness of the transitioning grasses as you get wider afield from the lines of charm through the FWs ontowards the greens.  Over a crest is fine, if not done to a monotonous extreem.  A few times a round seems fine to me.

BallyNeal has a few such shots.  But, I do think they took care there not to let that much rolly-polly ground create too many blind shots, and I think they had to "melt down" (as I think I've heard them use the term) some crests of humps and rolls, to minimize the situation of having too many such blind shots.  

But, let's face it, your mind "expects" to see such natural views and vagueness VS starkly defined corridors on that sort of land, whereas your mind expects corridors through the forest.  These aesthetics just don't seem to be interchangeable, and we get unnerved if we see one concept in a wrong setting where the other is more natural.

[Peter Pallotta]

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.    

[RJ_Daley]

Peter, while I've only seen photos, and paid attention to discussions about it, C&Cs Austin CC appears to fit your thoughts.  They didn't artificially jazz it up at all.  The course seems naturally sited and fit to what is there, not trying to overwhelm it with pizzaz.  

Cheechesee seems like it is also in that genre, along with Hidden Creek.

But, what about a place like Cuscowilla?  Is the same study of the overall natural environment a strong consideration there?  One obvious factor is the use of the native colored sand.  But, are the highly artistically crafted bunkers a blend with nature or a bit of pizzaz beyond natural native land processes?

I'll take the position that they fit.  They fit based on the environment throughout the area that is resort CCFAD clubs, highly elegant, and there aren't any landforms that would necessarily be a model for bunkering style.  So, C&C turned their craftyman Bradley loose and that is what they got.

I think Riviera falls in this category.  Bunkering, not specifically tied to a native land form, but elegant to the max, like we might think of the old Hollywood club that it is.  

And of course, both Cusco and Riv are totally functional beyond their mere aesthetic, to provide a great round of exciting and enjoyable golf.

[TEPaul]

"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.  

[Rich Goodale]

Jim U

Thanks for the reply.  I now get it, I think....  "Uni Tee" = unity?  If so and it means building a course (with seamlessness, flow, unity, etc.) vs. a collection of holes, I'm 100% behind you.  Conceptually back to the old days of "tee it up within a club length of the hole" etc..  No?

Joe H

Looking at that picture, I see what I have called "Runrigs" on previous threads (i.e. man-made undulations rather than mowing patterns), but maybe Jim and Tom (or the photographer) fooled me on that one!

Paul P, et. al.

Really good questions and insights.  Here are some of my thoughts for the day.

On the "natural" vs. "manufactured" issue, we had a really good discussion on this 3-4 years ago on the "Raynor Paradox" thread.  Anybody who can unearth what may be left of that conversation from the archives please do so, if you so wish.

The "real world" center of that thread was the seemingly undisputable fact that many of our GCA poster boy golf courses (particularly from the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks school) are about as "natural" as the Chrysler Building.   NGLA is the most well known and obvious example.  If you look further into GCA history, you will see that the litany of great courses and holes that may look "natural" after 50-150 years of aging, are actually not part of the pre-golf landform.  Some good examples of this are the outward nine of the Old Course and the 3 best short holes at Dornoch.  All these cited examples "look" to be natural (even to some of our most revered writers and observers), but they are not.  If this is true, how can there be any primoridal linkage to our hunter-gatherer influenced DNA?  Unless, of course, as I and others have said for some time, man is in fact a part of nature.

If this is true, when we see a great golf course, particularly one which has the patina/validation of age, maybe we are not revering "nature" but ourselves, and our role in the natural world.  Santayana once wrote:

"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their own interests."

Now, one believing that golf courses are found rather than designed, could read that to mean that designers/architects are a priesthood who are identifying and revealing to we mortals the truth about golf.  Those (such as I) who believe that golf courses are made, and not dsicovered, will read that to confirm that golf courses are made by men and not gods.  Take your choice, or even better, find a third way!

Tom P, et. al.

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.

There is a very good analogy to the power that such indirect entries to great courses can inspire--St. Peter's in Rome.  As originally conceived by Bernini, the entrance would be through an existing narrow street in a slum, out of which any pilgrim would suddenly be thrust into the Baroque magnificence of the Cathedral and it's square.  Due to politics, this concept was never fully achieved, and in the 1930's Mussolini razed the slum and its road and replaced them with a triumphal concrete entrance.  What a great thing would Bernini's concept have been.  Think Augusta National without Magnolia Drive, but by an extension of Washington Road.......

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.

Finally, it's fun trying to psychobabblize golf, but in the end it's only a bloody game.....

Rich

[TEPaul]

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.

[Rich Goodale]

Good to hear that, Tom.  It is, of course, very retro, even though few (if any) great GBI courses still hold to the old fashioned principle.  Nor should they, IMO.

I still vividly and fondly remember the green to tee transition at 3-4(?) at Applebrook (I remember the transiation, not necessarily the hole #!).  Are any of the Sebonack transitions so seamless?

RFG

[TEPaul]

"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.  

[TEPaul]

"I still vividly and fondly remember the green to tee transition at 3-4(?) at Applebrook (I remember the transiation, not necessarily the hole #!).  Are any of the Sebonack transitions so seamless?

I don't know about the transitions from green to next tee like that one at Applebrook (#2-3) but some of the teeing areas of Sebonack are much more amorphous and perhaps because some aren't so close to the previous green. If they took the tee markers out I guess most golfers would probably have a hard time figuring it out.

Of course the Short Course at Pine Valley is mostly this way and even more so on most holes but it was never supposed to have formal tees because it was essentially considered to be a practice area replication of various shots on the regular course. In the beginning they didn't even use tee markers but now they do.

[TEPaul]

"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!  

 

[Rich Goodale]

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.






WOW, that was fun!




I'll mail you the address as long as you promise not to give it to Barney.

Rich

[TEPaul]

"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.  

[BCrosby]

Peter
In regards to what the eye "sees" I have spent considerable time in the last 7-8 years trying to eliminate lines on a golf course.  I refer to this as corridor golf.  Standing on a teeing ground, modern architecture has developed a need to have things in parallel.  When creating a golf course  we try to blur that line so that the golf course appears more natural.

I believe that the golf course should be viewed as infinite and it should not appear to have a starting and stopping point visually.  Even though we have created 18 individual holes.  My goal would be to create a golf course that is viewed as one playing ground with 18 individual parts.

Jim U -

Great post. Robert Browning, Darwin, Max Behr and lots of other writers in the GA had this notion of "cross country golf". It is pretty much what you describe above.

Interestingly, their motive for articulating the idea was also close to yours. They were all concerned that golf design was getting too "scientific". By that they seemed to mean that courses were being designed with too much focus on testing golfing skills. At the expense of being site neutral. (Or whatever the term of the day seems to be.)

Their bigger fear was that golf as a simple, pleasurable experience was being overtaken by golf as a competitive sport. That historical shift was reflected in the kinds of new courses they saw being built. And they weren't very happy about it.

Let me be the first to concede that a lot of the old talk about "cross country" golf was pure atavism. But there is something to it. It is a way many people play the game. Then and now. I understand its attractions. As I get older, I think my approach to the game will evolve in that direction.

Your post also ought to remind us that the kind of golf we play is in many respects a function of the kind of golf course we play on. The very nature of the game changes on different kinds of courses.

Which is another way of saying that golf architecture matters.

Thanks for joining in.

Bob  

     

[Peter Pallotta]

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).    

[Joe Hancock]

Why is there an attempt (by Behr and his disciples it would seem?) to separate golf into either a sport or a game and what is the significance of doing so?  I have always thought they were essentially one and the same because both have rules and competitiveness.  

Ciao  

I don't have an answer, other than to say that the vast majority of folks who are on the golf course are participating in an event they deem appropriate for the occasion. Whether or not they are playing by the rules or immersed in any form of competition is irrelevant to them. They believe they are indeed playing the game of golf, yet there are many others who say they are playing something besides golf. It all depends on who you ask.

It has become a small minority, at least here in North America and according to my observations, that play the game for competitive reasons and according to the rules.

Of course, it could just be what my eye sees.....

Joe

[Rich Goodale]

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

[JC Urbina]

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?

[BCrosby]

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  

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

Please let us know when and where and in which publication your article will be available.  I'll be in the US in a few weeks and would love to be able to pick up a copy at a news stand.

I also think you are onto something vis a vis naturalness and beauty.  The demands these days from the paymasters (developers) seem to be both, and I'm not sure that is possible without compromising something--maybe the sense of humility and fun?

Rich

[Mark Pearce]

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.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I was being a bit facetious. There are no major media outlets clammering for a piece on Joshua Crane. (Let me know if you know something I don't.) I do plan to post it here. I keep finding new stuff. And I can't resist rewriting sections, so I'm behind schedule.

Bob

[David Stamm]

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.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean, you wrote: Why is there an attempt (by Behr and his disciples it would seem?) to separate golf into either a sport or a game and what is the significance of doing so?  I have always thought they were essentially one and the same because both have rules and competitiveness.

Richard, you wrote: 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."

I'm feeling chipper today, and so I thought I'd venture a nearly completely uninformed guess, via a poor and simplistic example.

Guess: I don't think Behr was a Manichaeist, and the attempts now to characterize his thoughts dualistically are, I think, misguided; for Behr, a game and a sport are not polar opposites, but instead points on a continuum.

Example: Take two equally skilled golfers, both scratch men, playing at top form, and honest and true. Have them play two golf holes, both very long and challenging par 4s. Have them play for pride and money, with both hoping to post the best score possible.

The first golf hole is tree-lined, with a 20 yard-wide fairway. Its small, well-bunkered green opens only in front, directly in line with the fairway, and tilts from back to front.

The second is a wide open, links-style golf hole. It has an 60 yard-wide fairway. Its large, undulating green is oriented at a 45 degree angle to the fairway, opens up on the left side, and generally tilts from front to back. There is one fairway bunker, a large one, and one greenside bunker, a deep one.

On the first golf hole, these two excellent golfers must use all their skills to place the ball, as in the GAME of tennis, within very clearly prescribed parameters.  Neither what the wind is doing that day nor the condition of the ground changes those parameters one iota; the golfers' choices and freedoms are curtailed, as is their full participation in and with nature (including their own human natures).

On the second hole, these two excellent golfers must use all their skills to select and then place the ball, as in the SPORT of fly-fishing, to the specific -- but not prescribed -- spot on that wide fairway they have judged/determined to be the optimal position from which to play to the green, with both what the wind is doing that day and the condition of the ground affecting greatly those judgements and determinations; the golfers retain a full measure of choice and freedom, and are participating more fully in and with nature (including their own human natures).

It seems clear to me how the experience of playing these two golf holes would differ, with the first reminding one more of the GAME of golf as we see it today being played by highly skilled professionals on the PGA tour, and the second suggesting the SPORT of golf as played by amateurs (and professionals too) of varying skill levels on the windy and wide links courses of long ago.  And it seems clear to me how those kinds of differences -- and they way in which we judge and value and prize them -- are reflected in and engendered by differing philosophies about golf course architecture and design.
 
Peter

PS - my pen seems to have run away with me again, and it came out more 'definitive' than I'd imagined. Which is to say, I don't know a lot about Behr, and so I am hoping to get the experts to weigh in before Sean and Richard tear this to pieces

[paul cowley]

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.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()