[Patrick_Mucci]

If the strategic merits of each hole and the golf course are present and in abundance, isn't everything else just a question of one's preference in style ?

In looking at the picture of the 4th, 5th and 6th holes at Newport, does it matter if the bunkers have frilly grass on their borders, or are crisp, or somewhere in between ?

Isn't their location and configuration of paramount importance ?
 
Does it matter that there may soon be homes lining the left side of the 5th fairway, a solid fence, mounds, underbrush, deep rough, or woods ?

Isn't the real architectual value of a hole limited to the strategy confined within the strategic field of play ?

Isn't everything else just a matter of preference for a style ?

[APBernstein]

I made this point a long while back when the Merion bunker debate first arose.

Obviously, one can be disheartened to see the loss of the famous "quality" and charm that the Merion bunkers provided.  But, in most cases, the bunkers are still in the same spot.  They haven't moved.  Merion is still as strategic a golf course as ever.  Correct?

It ain't the end of the world.

[Mike_Young]

Yes.
Mike

[Jim_Kennedy]

Patrick,
...."does it matter if the bunkers have frilly grass on their borders, or are crisp, or somewhere in between" ?

I think this relates to their strategic merit in the course of play and, by extension, their value.  If you have two bunkers similarly configured and placed, but one is extremely hairy and the other is nice and clean, it could very well make a difference in a player's choice of strategy to challenge or not.

Other than this minor point, I agree with your premise.

[ChrisB (Guest)]

One exception--Royal County Down.  Take away the "eyelashes" from those bunkers and you have a completely different challenge.  The eyelashes essentially deepen the hazard and are not just there for looks.  I'd love to see more like them.

[Ran Morrissett]

An engaging walk through nature is the key for me and it isn't  engaging if there isn't plenty of strategy and it isn't nature if things reek of man's handiwork (be it homes, cart paths, manicured playing conditions, etc.). Thus if the bunkers are cut razor sharp ala Augusta National, I find that off-putting, though as you say that is only my personal bias/preference.

[Jeremy Glenn. (Guest)]

Isn't the real architectual value of a hole limited to the strategy confined within the strategic field of play?

No, not at all.

A golf course is much more than a simple "field of play", and is influenced by features far beyond its physical limit.

[Patrick_Mucci]

JEREMY,

Could you give me five examples.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
If it were that simple there would be no need for this site and every architect who understood basic strategy would be hailed as great. The reason golf architecture is so interesting is because it isn't simple, its complicated - it is the ability to merge strategy, natural environment and artistic talent. The greatest architects and the greatest courses all exhibit/reflect these skills.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

In reviewing my original post tell me what difference it makes if the bunkers at Newport are shaggy, crisp or somewhere in between.  Isn't their location and configuration the critical part of the architecture ?

Does it matter if their tees are rectangular of free-form ?
Isn't the location and angle the critical part of the architecture ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If all hazards (bunkers) are in the same places, look entirely different in those same places (extremely man-made vs extremely natural) but play just as challenging regardless, of course it becomes a matter of preference for a particular "style" or "look".

I completely agree with Ran's post above, my preference would be to just make them look as natural as possible if all other things have to be equal. I can certainly understand that others would feel differently than I do, or Ran does, but I can't really understand why.

Let's just look at this subject this way, because it's a subject you constantly bring up. If you asked Jeff Bradley to make you some MacDonald looking fairly man-made bunkers, he could do it just as quickly and just as well as any of MacDonald's shapers and bunker guys do.

But if you asked any of MacDonald's guys to make you the kind of highly natural looking bunkers that Bradley makes for C&C, they likely just could not do it! They don't know how, Pat--or else they've just never done them for some reason noone seems to be aware of. In reality it's because Macdonald's boys do their work with machinery much more than Bradley does and they probably just don't know how to do what Bradley does with natural detail.

Because Bradley can and does make them look so natural a lot of us think of him as an artist. MacDonald's guys are craftsmen, they're machinery operators, not artists, as Mike Cirba has been stressing lately.

We're aware that some people probably don't care or don't even notice the difference and that doesn't make them bad people or anything, just less aware, in my opinion.

So it really isn't much more than that. Some of us admire Bradley, Coore and Crenshaw, Hanse/Kittleman, Wagner, Hine, Doak and his guys and some of the others that do highly natural looking features, because they can do what the other architects and contractors do but they go farther and make their features look natural, and not just the much easier to do man-made look.  

We admire those guys that do that natural look because they seem to be the only ones who do it and are probably the only ones who can! For that reason we see those guys as the talented architects (and crews) and the other ones as not so talented--simple as that.

And for restorations, even Merion's, this is why you just are not going to get the same thing if you hire any architect (and contractors and crews). In a nutshell, this is exactly what Ken Bakst is telling you! There is absolutely no doubt about what he's saying--none!

You can give use all the dictates of supervision, oversight, cost analysis, whatever you want but you're never going to get around this simple fact that you just gotta hire the guys that do natural bunkers if that's what you want. In this way all architects, contractors and crews are not interchangeable no matter how much you seem to want to believe they are or can be!

That's just an absolute fact but if you want to know exactly why and how a Jeff Bradley can do what he does and others can't, or don't, I guess with a little thought and effort some of us could explain that to you too.

So the bottom line on things like bunkers is that a guy like Bradley can do what MacDonald's guy's can do anyday, but they can't do what he does! And the fact that what he does is so beautifully natural looking, we just admire the architectural talent a lot more!

But sure, in the context of your post here, all this is just a matter of preference for a style and look!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Pat
Did I say something about shaggy or Scooby for that matter? I'm unclear are you saying that Newport's only attribute is sound strategy?

Does the course have an interesting natural environment and have the architects skillfully created features that compliment that environment?

The placement (including angle, elevation, backdrop, variety, etc) and appearance of every feature is important and the ability to merge it all into the environment.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

You obviously have a problem with me, and continue to attempt to cause trouble, rather than engage in genuine, sincere discussions and/or debate.

Or could it be that this is just some menopausal woman posting under your name ?

[Justin_Zook]

Pebble is a good example.  Most feel that if the golf course was anywhere else in the world, it would not be nearly as popular.  

Can we imagine a course like Augusta surrounded by houses instead of Georgia Pines?  

Location is soooo apart of the golf course.  Because of the TPC at Heron Bay's location, the wind is a huge factor, at least normally - exception: earlier today.  

At St. Andrews the wind is always a factor in playing the course, and therefore, changes the way you play each hole.  The location near the North Sea, effects the strategy of each hole.

Personally, I enjoy the wispy, rugged look.  I think it provides a greater sense of originality, and it looks much more natural.

These little details add to the enjoyment of the round.  The responcibility should lie with the members of the course, or the architect.  If the architect specifically designed the course with cookie-cutter bunkers, and they can't be made to look more natural, then keep them that way.  If there is a oppertunity where either or would do just fine, maybe it should be the members decision.  

In either case, when dealing with details like the wispy/cookie-cutter style bunker, it is a matter of preference.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Justin Zook,

What constitutes a cookie-cutter bunker ?  And what constitutes a non-cookie-cutter bunker ?

Just because a bunker has a rough look, does that disqualify it from cookie-cutter like creation ?

Would you consider the bunkers at Winged Foot, ANGC, GCGC to be of the cookie-cutter mold ?

[TEPaul]

Come on Pat, Tom MacW doesn't have a problem with you, but he does have a problem with your ideas on the overall subject of "naturalness"! Naturalness of environment and how golf architecture melds into it, architectural lines vs natural lines, features, the detail of them etc.

It's a subject you've been questioning for years now, the importance of it, the relevance of it, the aesthetics of it, basically the whole concept of the subject of "naturalness" in all its applications to golf course architecture.

That's what you two argue about and disagree on all the time--don't take it personally!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How would the bunkers we both like at Innescrone and Applebrook look if they were transported, magically to
Augusta National Golf Club tomorrow ?

[Justin_Zook]

Patrick- That is probably subjective.  I would consider the bunkers at ANGC to be cookie-cutter bunkers because of their sharp defined edges.  Do I have this wrong?  Is that not a cookie-cutter bunker?  

You've forced me to re-evaluate how I stand on this issue, which is good.  I would consider a cookie-cutter bunker to be very much like the ones we see on the PGA Tour.  When the US Open was at Pebble, while on a normal day they could be considered "cookie-cutters", the bunkers certainly were very cool to look at.  

AGNC bunker's, to me, are cookie cutters.  The bunkers at Pine Valley are not.  

If a bunker does have this rough look, it certainly does not disqualify it from being of "cookie-cutter" creation.  My example above with Pebble supports my point.  Creation though, is different from what it is.  The changes made to a course for a tournament like the Open are examples of how architecture, or maybe it would be wiser to say physiology of a course can change.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I've never been to ANGC but from what I've seen they would probably look better there than what they have there now particularly if the club would start to tone down the hyper immaculate look of the place. You know, maybe take out a few of the overwhelming flowers, maybe some of the fake flowers if something forgot to bloom and the blue/green water, that sort of pristine stuff!

But no, seriously, the Applebrook/Inniscrone bunkers aren't ANGC's style and never were. But how would some really good MacKenzie bunkers like the type and style that used to be there look compared to what's their now? That's the question, Pat, not Applebrook/Inniscrone bunkering. So what do you say about that? Seriously?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Why don't you offer a few additional comments on my 03/09/11:16pm post to you about bunkering?

[Mike Cirba]

I have to run, but I think Tom Paul's post says it all.

However, I have a strong sense that Patrick is in total agreement, and is simply playing Devil's Advocate here.

And Andrew...

I think if you were to come back and see Merion's bunkering at present, you might have a slightly different reaction than your present "much ado about nothing" stance.  

I think it's somewhat simplistic to just believe that because a bunker's location hasn't changed, but it's form, style, substance, depth, surrounds, look, and psychological value has, that everything is still hunky-dory.  

[Menopausal woman]

Pat
I'm not sure what I did to spark your response (had you been drinking?) other than ask a series of pertinent questions that you may have preferred to avoid.  

The reason that I find great golf courses and superior golf architecture fascinating is because it melds thought provoking strategies, wonderful environments and art -- or style if you wish. The greatest courses seem to exhibit all three and in my opinion all three are important. And the way I see it there is no one style, but a number of interesting styles. (Just as there are a number of unique environments and differing strategies) Since I know you are fan photos here are a number of examples:


Colt & Abercromby


Raynor


Thompson


Langford

If you are, as Mike C. points out, just being the Devil's advocate - never mind. We're on the same page.  Now that I think about it, I do recall you saying a few months ago something along the lines, "you have no idea what I'm thinking only what I'm writing."

[ian]

Patrick,
You questioned:
"Everything else is just a question of one's preference in style?".
Yes, but style is why we choose to play one course over another.
One other question was:
"Isn't the real architectual value of a hole limited to the strategy confined within the strategic field of play ?"
No, architecture creates the character along with the strategy. Only when both are present is a course great.

[a w t]

Some streams are unsightly when they might be made picturesque with little expense and thought.  And so with many other features.  On one course there stood a ruin, and the committee intended to raze it.  They were persuaded to make a feature of it and with practically no cost it was made notable.  But let it be understood that I do not advocate the beautifying of the course at the expense of its playing qualities.  Often efforts to introduce or retain shrubbery only add to the exasperations of play.  Any growth which makes the loss of balls likely should be avoided, and where the fairway finds its way through woods, the underbrush must be cleared absolutely for a considerable distance on each side.  The banks of streams and lake shores should never be permitted to grow rank.  Certainly the landscaping may be overdone.  The effects must not be forced; which reminds me of an amusing illustration.  Some years since, when constructing a certain course, which I visited only occasionally because of its location, the Italian foreman had been rather impressed by the orders to disturb no flowering shrubs until directed.  He managed to get the impression that flowers were a weakness of the architect and to make a great impression he went ahead on his own initiative, transformed a slope of one of the greens, introducing a wonderfully accurate five-pointed star upon which he was preparing to plant geraniums.

Even the arrangement of sand in the hazards may be used to good advantage to beautify the course.  If the pits are designed well the sand has the appearance of having been blown in rather than dumped.  On seaside courses the pits usually take such an appearance naturally, but the same effect may be had inland although it stands to reason that often the difficulties of providing sand in large quantities drives the constructor to a combination with turf.

Summing it up briefly, the course beautiful adds much to the pleasure of golf without detracting in the least from its qualities as a test.  Even those players who are not analytical will have strong inclinations to certain courses over others.  Aside from the fact that they probably fancy the places where they have scored best, the chances are that subconsciously they have admired scenery a bit.

The saying that ?A thing of beauty is a joy forever? undoubtedly is just a much applicable to the golf course as to the most extravagantly laid out lawn or garden.

[TEPaul]

Albert, you were the best--your writing style is just as interesting and unique as your architecture! I guess you had a writing desk flask too, huh? I always felt there was plenty of knowledge and creativity in those flasks and obviously you did too! You're a beaut!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()