Melvyn,
I have watched the video, a few times. Is it possible that you are misunderstanding Gil's intention? He did say that he felt the bunkers were unlike any other in the world, but he also said that the bunkers were modeled after photos of bunkers from Hutchinson's 1897 book. I am not sure how you go from this to "he has produced a totally fake bunker arrangement for the course."
I must be misunderstanding. How does modeling bunkers after those from pre-1900 links courses make them fake?
As for the riveting, could you explain what makes it "fake riveting?" I don't think it is a facade-- now that would be fake. I think it is real riveting, and as I understand it they used it for stylistic reasons but also in places where they foresaw cave-ins and erosion. In your mind should they have waited until the bunkers collapsed to include it in the design? (My understanding is that Gil Hanse and Jim Wagner often stack sod on the upper portions of their steep bunkers to help with future potential erosion problems.)
As for the RR ties, have you ever worked with them? They are generally purchased used, from torn up old track, and are pretty rustic. Maybe they once were, but after decades in the conditions they are by no means uniform. People that use them had better be comfortable with a rough, old look because the that is how the RR ties are. So I find it a bit odd that you would require anyone to stack them exactly and evenly.
That being said, I think that perhaps two of the photos showing the same bunker best represent what you are saying:
I really don't mind the look of the RR ties on the right. They seem to be serving a purpose. I am not so sure about the ties on the left, as they just sort of seem to be sitting there. Do they serve a purpose other than aesthetic? I don't know.
As for these next two photos, I have no problem with how the ties are used in either. They certainly serve a purpose-- supporting the embankment in the first and keeping carts on the paths and out of the native. (We might agree that a better solution would be to keep the carts off the course all together.) And having worked a bit with RR ties, I think it would have been a mistake to try and square the RR ties. As I said, they don't match well anyway and forcing formality where it doesn't flow naturally from the conditions is not my idea of good design.
Is it a Scottish thing, I don’t know about you but I’m not keen nor like the idea of the wool being pulled over my eyes. You guys may have to accept it in the States but its piss poor show to do it in Scotland. Its fake, counterfeit, I feel a party to a sting, it just does not seem right, however the course may well be most enjoyable, but that does not stop it being wrong. That’s my opinion, not Niall or Mark or Marty.
Melvyn
Please don't take this the wrong way, but is it possible that you are maybe taking this a bit far? I agree with your general sentiment, but not sure the photographic evidence justifies the position in this case.
Maybe it is just that I am willing to give these particular designers (at least one half of the team) the benefit of the doubt, at least until I see the course. Hanse and Wagner (and Shackelford) designed and built my home course. I've been told they moved less than 17,000 cubic yards of dirt in building it. In other words, they essentially took what the land gave them and there is very little that is artificial or forced. So maybe I am biased going into looking at these photos, and more likely to try and understand what they are trying to do.
But isn't it possible that you to are coming at this with a certain point of view that might negatively influence your view of designs that come to close to emulating the old courses you so love?
I guess this is my bottom line question for me. If the pre-1900 links courses were so great, then what is wrong with trying to emulate them, right down to the look of the bunkers?