Variety vs Style Consistency in golf course design

[Mac Plumart]

Bryan...

I feel that is a very valid point.  I've heard the term "natural" for quite some time, but you know what keeps sticking in my brain are pot bunkers.  Specifically, the ones on the great courses of GB&I.   They don't look natural at all, but yet they seem to "fit".

But yet I get the sense Tom D. wasn't talking about "fit" it seems he meant "natural".  Also, Behr's writings are certainly focused on "natural".  Wind as well.  Hence, my struggle with this.

But again, I think you make a great point.   

[Bryan Icenhower]

don't get me wrong, there are multiple areas in the world where natural is a very valid word.  However, that is a very small percentage of the world's surface area. 

The strength of a architecture is when people think its natural in those other parts.

[Mike Bowline]

A couple of Dye holes were cited above. I do not believe Dye has made his mark by making his holes look “natural”.  In fact, a large part of the uneasiness his holes introduce in the mind of the golfer playing them is due to the unnatural look the player sees and knowing he/she needs to fit a shot into the landing area that makes him/her feel uneasy, whether it be a fairway or onto a green.

Making a hole look natural might make a player feel more at ease playing it. However, the genius of design is making a hole or a shot look easy when in fact it is difficult – sort of lulling the player into a false sense of security. Conversely, I have read numerous architects say it is also interesting design to make a shot look harder than it really is.

[Mac Plumart]

Mike,

your last posts touches on my point and why I posted all of those different photos; some natural looking and some not.

And why I asked this question, "In all seriousness, why do we care so much about natural appearance if the golf shots are fun?"

[Colin Macqueen]

Mac,
"In all seriousness, why do we care so much about natural appearance if the golf shots are fun?"

From my perspective the answer to your musing is that it is the feeling that one is challenging elements, ofttimes man-made sometimes natural, that are set in the greater landscape. Managing to overcome them in so far as moving a wee white ball in the appropriate direction is concerned gives me a real thrill - call it atavistic if you like. It is the same thrill I get (far too rarely) when my golf ball's trajectory against the blue sky is just right.

Cheers Col

[Philippe Binette]

There could be a reason that make you change your bunkering style during a single course... like going from woodland to dunes for example... as you as you can make it coherent (which is different from natural) it could work

throwing a flatting green here and there on a course with steep greens is beliveable to if the setting leans to that... Rod Whitman did that well on the 12th at Wolf Creek... out of the dunes, simple greens.

a golf course is a storyboard... if the story is good, it can have major variations along the way

[Sean_A]

So in which area's do you like a course to show variety or consistency?

Terrain? (e.g 1 and 18 vs 2-17 on Bandon Trails)
Green Undulations?
Green size?
Green surrounds?
Bunker style?
Bunkering?
Width?
other area's....?

I like to see variety in all these areas on a golf course.  I am usually not in the least concerned with a consistency of style within a course.  For instance, folks complain about Birkdale's new green because it isn't in keeping with the other greens - so what?  Evaluate each feature on its own and in its immediate environment to determine its value/quality.  I can't possibly see why it matters if bunker A on the 3rd is a trench like bunker tucked into a hillside while a frilly bunker is on #17 so long as the two can't be seen together and cause incongruity with that particular "visual scene".  I am sure folks want to see a variety of features on the other holes so why not a variety of bunkering so long as its done tastefully?  And too harp too much on the subject, but a major aspect of tastefully is to use bunkering sparingly. 

Ciao 

[Brian Chapin]

Mike,

 "In all seriousness, why do we care so much about natural appearance if the golf shots are fun?"

I care less about purely "natural" than I do features that just "fit". Fenway is one of my favorites.  The bunkers seem to have a very "natural" and simple feel to them, but the earthworks and features around them are far from anything you would see nature create.  The 14th hole has an incredibly awkward and abrupt mound to the right of the green.  If you built a feature like that today it would be "contrived and unnatural" but in those days the earth moving abilities were far less and it made for a bold and interesting feature.  The consistency of the golf course comes from the way all of the features tie together.  A creative architect, and probably more importantly a skilled shaper can create a vast variety of features that for some reason all seem to fit together, whether natural or not.  To me, that makes for the most interesting courses.   

[Cristian]

Bryan,

This remark I find interesting on above explanation:

"The consistency of the golf course comes from the way all of the features tie together."

How do you feel that is done? (especially when talking about features on different holes). Do you feel there is a certain degree of 'theming' involved?

[Brian Chapin]

Theming is a strong word, not sure I like it.  I look at it like this....  If i asked you to draw a pencil sketch of a cat, a dog, a bird, a fish, and a mouse they would all be different completely different shapes and animals, but I bet I would be able to tell that the same person drew each animal, using the same tools and methods.  I think the same is true with golf course architecture.  A talented architect working with a skilled shaper can provide many different shapes and features, and still carry a certain "look" from hole to hole that makes it all fit.