News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mark Bourgeois

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #25 on: November 18, 2008, 03:53:23 PM »
Jeff

Have you read this lecture transcript?

Interested to hear your thoughts on the passage from last graf of page 600 to top of page 606.

Mark

TEPaul

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #26 on: November 18, 2008, 04:08:58 PM »
"My good Mr. Paul,
Are you "a-pauled" at my analysis, good sir?"

Yes, My Good Mr. Jeffrey, I am.

I'm afraid, at least figuratively, you have done been shot dead by a Boer or two and Mr Alister Mackenzie was there watching and was left to mutter to himself: "My Goodness, that poor chap, Mr. Jeffrey Brauer, he did not understand what I was truly trying to say and those Boers have now done figuratively shot him dead as he was looking for them in one of those artificial looking obvious dummy trenches they built to deceive me and Winston and the rest of the Boys from Albion!

You've just got to admit, Mr. Jeffrey, with the Boers it was really just all about deception and Alister noticed that and found a way (eventually) to apply certainly that (but perhaps a bit more) to golf course architecture!
« Last Edit: November 18, 2008, 04:13:54 PM by TEPaul »

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #27 on: November 18, 2008, 04:45:39 PM »

What’s my beef with unnatural shapes – simple, they are unnatural.

Golf for me is about Nature & natural, I want to play on courses that have a close tie to Nature, I want to see the contours of the land starting before the course and continuing well passed the course, a balance and harmony with the surroundings. One of the reasons why I am not interested in the Castle Course.

That is what golf is to me, it’s to play the land more or less as it is, with by all means a few obstacles and hazards. The early course and designers did not generally build walls but they used what was on the land. Natural & Nature are important to me and to my game – it reminds me what golf was all about, how it started and why it was exported worldwide. I enjoy it.

So what’s my beef with the unnatural, well it's just not Natural


JSPayne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #28 on: November 18, 2008, 05:04:54 PM »
Where's pictures of Lawsonia when you need em?  ;D

Seems like there are many here and outside of the treehouse that appreciate courses like that.

Personally, I enjoy the occasional "quirky" golf course. I think you've said it right.....if the land is flat and boring, make it un-boring.  ;) Golfers in the flood plains deserve to have good golf courses too!
"To be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing it's best, night and day, to make you everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight; and never stop fighting." -E.E. Cummings

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #29 on: November 18, 2008, 07:20:23 PM »
Golfers in the flood plains deserve to have good golf courses too!

Here's one;



And it really does work on many levels.

"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #30 on: November 18, 2008, 09:53:36 PM »
Melvyn, I admit to being utterly mystified that you find the Road Hole bunker (and others there)  to be of a natural appearance.  If that same bunker was on an American course, would you truly still think so?
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #31 on: November 19, 2008, 05:58:39 AM »

Andy

I am amused at times by comments directed at me on this site.  Whilst I am keen on Nature and Natural and in particular playing a course that is part and parcel with the overall landscape, I am also practical and understand that certain practices have to be accommodated.

Bunkers, sod layers or riveted being the modern term I believe, is nothing new, they have been in use certainly since the late 19th Century. There inclusion was the best and most cost effective way of maintaining the bunkers integrity. Also I believe in the use of worms and sand, but modern practices have minimised their use. There are reasons for this it can be argued, but are we not now trying to reverse the nitrates and fertiliser we use on the land, perhaps some of the old way still have merit.

My opinions are based on the UK although I have experience of playing golf in the jungles of the Amazon, Africa and India/Burma, all near the Equator and in very hot and high humidity climates, so I understand playing in hot and uncomfortable areas, all without a cart (love to see a cart in the Brazilian Jungle of the 1970’s).

My comments are based upon my actual experiences, although I have never played in North America.

Golf is a challenge. I learnt that from a young age and fully understand that when playing a short game in a jungle clearing. It’s not about easy, it’s not about reading aids but working out for oneself the distance and the shot as you observe the course as you walk to your next shot. Others want the game made easy, it’s their choice, and I want the game played as I was taught by my family.

Nature is the underling beauty the World gives us, but natural is what is on the land prior to our design intent. We need IMHO to maintain the Nature whilst incorporating the natural, minimising the hand of man wherever possible.

I hope that gives you a better insight to my approach or at the very least explains some of my thoughts on the subject.

Melvyn


Anthony Gray

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #32 on: November 19, 2008, 07:57:29 AM »


  Bunkers were made by sheep. Sod faces are an attempt to maintain them. There is nothing unnatural about that.

   Anthony


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #33 on: November 19, 2008, 08:16:02 AM »

Andy

I am amused at times by comments directed at me on this site. ......
 
Melvyn


Melvyn,

You are a better man than I.....I usually just get teed off at comments directed to me at this site! :D

BTW, you wonder about carts in the Brazillian jungle....I wonder what the cart girls might have looked like! (just kidding)
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #34 on: November 19, 2008, 08:31:03 AM »

Jeff

A smile helps keep you cool, unlike the Jungle girls of the early 1970's who were HOT, HOT, HOT

I loved Brazil in the 70's between the Manaus & Belem on the Amazon, regrettable no longer the same. Manaus had only a few tall buildings in my day in the early stages of being a free port.

Melvyn

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #35 on: November 19, 2008, 08:42:28 AM »
Melvyn,

When I built a course in 1990 on a small Indonesian island near Singapore, there were some natives who looked across the Straits of Malacca wondering what those big buildings they saw were.  It was no more than 40K from Singapore, but it was 40 years behind.  They still used some Japanese WW quonset type huts for shelter, either all in one piece, or dismantled for metal roofs!

Your golf experience is certainly different from most!  I have a theory that most people believe that recreation ought to be easier than life, which is why golf has gotten easier over time, esp. in the cushy USA.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2008, 09:26:33 AM »
Jeff

Golf is a challenge, play the course AM and then again PM, the weather conditions play a part plus the light has an influence (it can highlight the undulation missed in the AM game), there are so many variations, plus that random factor of the wayward shot.

It’s not necessary hard, but that depends in the state of mind of the golfer. I want the course to throw in some interesting little features, a few traps that catch the over eager player or the too cautious, encouraging the thought process to kick in. Probably why I do not use distance markers or electronic aids, its my game, its my challenge, its ultimately my enjoyment, so I want to be in sole charge of my thought process and not have it corrupted by outside influences, perhaps for fear that it will take away something special from my game and enjoyment.

I am nothing special and my game has never been described as anything at all special, but I want to have fun, that’s why I’m on a course or just hitting a few balls. I am minded of a great American who said on the 12th Sept 1962 “that we explore space not because it is easy but because it is difficult”. Kennedy I believe was talking about the Human Spirit, that which drives us in all its faces. It may be the combination of mind and body in actual harmony or just Nature working her magic, but the result is I believe contentment by overcoming the difficulties, made even more special by achieving it without the need of outside aid. 

Melvyn

Anthony Gray

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #37 on: November 19, 2008, 09:32:34 AM »


  Melvyn,

  Thanks again. The romance of golf is still alive.

         Anthony


Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #38 on: November 19, 2008, 10:29:55 AM »
Quote
  Bunkers were made by sheep. Sod faces are an attempt to maintain them. There is nothing unnatural about that.

Anthony, sod faces are not the issue. The perfectly round shape and the finely manicured edges of the bunkers are.  I have yet to see any sand in nature that looks remotely like the Road Hole bunker pictured above. Have you?



Quote
I am amused at times by comments directed at me on this site
Well, glad I can be a source of amusement for you--we all do what we can.
You talk a bit about golf and its ties to Nature. I know you revere the Old Course. Do you think like Anthony does that the Road Hole bunker and many of the others looks natural? If not, does that effect your feeling for the course or the experience?  Many other links or links-type courses have far more natural looking bunkers. If you happen to know, why does St Andrews choose to present theirs this way rather than the way courses like Ballyneal or Sand Hills or countless others do?
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Anthony Gray

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #39 on: November 19, 2008, 11:19:37 AM »


  Andy,
 
  I misunderstood your point. Round bunkers were not created by nature.
But TOC was not created by a bulldozer which is part of Melvyn's point. I personally prefer a more natural course, but I do enjoy a funky course also. I also would like to say that natural courses do have stronger heartbeats.


    Anthony



Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #40 on: November 19, 2008, 11:24:17 AM »
Anthony,

Its too bad you weren't around when the thread was going around on Pacific Dunes.  Tom D posed a  quiz for the group asking which parts of the course were left as found and where the dirt was moved.

No one even came close to correctly identifying most of the cases much less half of them.

Always cracks me up when people moan and complain about modern earth moving and then can't tell the difference between touched and untouched parts of the course.

Anthony Gray

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #41 on: November 19, 2008, 11:50:16 AM »
Anthony,

Its too bad you weren't around when the thread was going around on Pacific Dunes.  Tom D posed a  quiz for the group asking which parts of the course were left as found and where the dirt was moved.

No one even came close to correctly identifying most of the cases much less half of them.

Always cracks me up when people moan and complain about modern earth moving and then can't tell the difference between touched and untouched parts of the course.

  Kalen,

  Pacific Dunes does appear very natural and it is one of my favorites. To my eye I can't see where eny ground was moved. I still have pleasure playing a Dye course that has obviuos unnatural eliments. But they do not have the same feeling.

         Anthony

 

Andy Hughes

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #42 on: November 19, 2008, 01:38:30 PM »
Quote
I also would like to say that natural courses do have stronger heartbeats.
Quote
But they do not have the same feeling.

Anthony, I suspect I understand exactly what you (and I believe Melvyn) are saying, and I am surely not trying to argue how you feel about the game or courses.  Having said that, does a course like TOC, which has hazards which are now sadly not at all natural, have for you a weaker heartbeat or a different feeling?  It is curious to me that you say PD appears natural to you, and I am pretty confident you would not be able to point to much that was the hand of man (not just you, almost all of us), and yet you then have a different feeling about the course.  Perhaps others have a much keener sense of what was built vs what was natural than I do.
"Perhaps I'm incorrect..."--P. Mucci 6/7/2007

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #43 on: November 19, 2008, 01:52:26 PM »
Kalen

A quiz, what is original about this course? See if this cracks you up - enjoy the contrast

The course last summer


The location of the future course 2004

Gary Slatter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #44 on: November 19, 2008, 02:50:47 PM »

Jeff

A smile helps keep you cool, unlike the Jungle girls of the early 1970's who were HOT, HOT, HOT

I loved Brazil in the 70's between the Manaus & Belem on the Amazon, regrettable no longer the same. Manaus had only a few tall buildings in my day in the early stages of being a free port.

Melvyn
Melvyn, have you noticed the recent bunker works on the Old?  I also couldn't remember a depression just off the right of the 13th green and wondered if it was "new".
Gary Slatter
gary.slatter@raffles.com

Melvyn Morrow

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2008, 04:38:56 PM »

Gary

I am confused – you quote my comment on Brazil then ask me about the Old.

Are you referring to TOC or my taste in women? Perhaps that depression was due to some of my off course practice in preparation for my return to Brazil. Knee marks are not mine – please note, as at my age I need as much rest as possible between strokes. ; :-[ :'( ;)

Kirk Gill

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #46 on: November 19, 2008, 04:59:49 PM »
I just want to be clear on what is meant by unnatural when it comes to bunker shapes, like a circular bunker. Is it that sand blowouts in nature are never perfectly round, or that you believe that the round shape is itself an unnatural shape?

"After all, we're not communists."
                             -Don Barzini

Anthony Gray

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #47 on: November 19, 2008, 05:04:42 PM »
Quote
I also would like to say that natural courses do have stronger heartbeats.
Quote
But they do not have the same feeling.

Anthony, I suspect I understand exactly what you (and I believe Melvyn) are saying, and I am surely not trying to argue how you feel about the game or courses.  Having said that, does a course like TOC, which has hazards which are now sadly not at all natural, have for you a weaker heartbeat or a different feeling?  It is curious to me that you say PD appears natural to you, and I am pretty confident you would not be able to point to much that was the hand of man (not just you, almost all of us), and yet you then have a different feeling about the course.  Perhaps others have a much keener sense of what was built vs what was natural than I do.


   Andy,

  I like all styles of courses but I favor the "natural ones". I prefer golf only courses like Pac, TOC, The Honors, etc. These courses provide a better experience for me than say Pinehurst. Pinehurst is a great course but the houses lessen the experience.

  Anthony


TEPaul

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #48 on: November 19, 2008, 05:19:11 PM »
Kirk Gill asked:

"I just want to be clear on what is meant by unnatural when it comes to bunker shapes, like a circular bunker. Is it that sand blowouts in nature are never perfectly round, or that you believe that the round shape is itself an unnatural shape?"

Kirk:

I think that basic subject has been touched on a whole lot on threads on here over the years but I don't recall anyone asking a question about it as directly as you just did.

I've been on here a long, long time, and I've seen people opine on that basic subject in all kinds of ways so it's probably pretty safe to say that different people look at it in very different ways. I think some think of "natural" in golf architecture as what is sometimes referred to as "site natural" and some think of "natural" as something (including a basic shape) that simply might occur somewhere in the realm of Nature even if it's not necessarily within a hundred miles of a particular golf course and its site.

« Last Edit: November 19, 2008, 05:21:33 PM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

Re: Whats your beef with unatural shapes?
« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2008, 05:29:16 PM »
Kirk:

I should also tell you that for my part I've always been very much into the idea of what I just described there as "site natural". In other words, I've preferred man-made architecture that really attempts to conform to the shapes and forms of a general site and even before a course was made on it. There are a million big and little ways that can be done even if in an interpretive or representative way.

But recently I feel like I've become quite a bit more open-minded about that and I'm not even quite sure why yet. Maybe my own "Big World" theory is beginning to influence my own mind and opinions and preferences. ;)

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back