IMO Discussion Series...Art in Golf Architecture

[Mac Plumart]

Per Ian Andrew's In My Opinion Discussion Series thread, here is my initial post regarding the "Art in Golf Architecture" piece written by Max Behr.  Hopefully, it generates some interesting discussion.

In my study of golf course architecture, I find it fascinating when I come across conflicting ideologies.  They might be conflicts regarding the actual playing of Golf.  Is it a sport?  Is it a game?  And perhaps your answer to this question could provide some insight into how you view how a golf course should be set up; Fair and equitable or Natural and chaotic?  And to take it one step further is Golf meant to be a business enterprise, a field for competition, or the site for a wonderful pastime?  Again, perhaps your answers/feelings regarding each one of these questions provide some insight into your answers on the next and your overall views on Golf itself.

One of the most interesting discoveries thus far in my course of study is the reverence for the architecture of CB MacDonald and Seth Raynor.  As we all know, Mr. MacDonald traveled the world to take notes in order to assist him in building his ideal course.  These notes resulted in a quiver full of template holes to be used to construct golf courses, which first began with the construction of The National Golf Links of America in 1907.  It was there that Charles Blair MacDonald discovered Seth Raynor, a skilled engineer, and they became business partners.  Over time, Mr. Raynor seemed to grab the lead in the golf course construction business and he took the “template” hole idea and ran with it full speed ahead.

I find this fascinating as the mantra among our contemporary architectural gurus is that naturalism is the way to go.  And I’ve always wondered if that is the “fad de jour” or is it the way golf courses are meant to be built and constructed.  I suppose the focal point of my quandary is that the love of the Raynor courses and the natural courses seem to be at direct odds with one another.  Raynor used these template holes and made them fit the land, while naturalism seems to take the opposite tact;  look at the land and see what it will yield in terms of golf course design.  And to me one of the leaders in this naturalist line of thinking is Max Behr.

Posted on the site is an In My Opinion piece, entitled “Art in Golf Architecture” and it was written by Mr. Behr.  ( http://www.golfclubatlas.com/in-my-opinion/art-in-golf-architecture-by-max-h-behr) Frankly, I’ve read it many times…but this last time I actually read it and re-wrote it in my own words in order to try to get my arms around it fully.  It was during this process that I think I discovered a few interesting tid-bits.

For starters, Max Behr believes that the human brain will fundamentally (and potentially subconsciously) reject un-natural looking features on a golf course.  It appears that his belief centers on the idea that the human mind will notice relationships in nature and when these basic relationships are violated, each individual’s mind’s eye will be turned off by them.

In Mr. Behr’s opinion, this concept first came to the forefront for golf course architects when Golf began to move inland off the links land.  And one of the first responses of the architect was to “pretty” up the land.  However, these artificial steps to try to trick people into seeing beauty was rejected as the essence of natural beauty was not captured and in the end only “authentic landscapes” will be considered beautiful by each person.  

He goes on to say that without question golf course architects will have to change the land upon which a golf course will be built, but these changes need to be performed in such a way as to seamlessly blend the natural landscapes in with the golf course.  Otherwise, the end result will not have “authentic landscape” and it will be rejected by the golfers as artificial.  

However, potentially one item that might get overlooked in the essay focuses on a golf courses routing.  I know when I hear the name Max Behr, I think natural golf courses.  But I rarely think routing.  But that is exactly what he talks about in this essay and he talks about it in such a way that routing  golf course naturally across the landscape is a given and that no one would ever think to do otherwise.  Perhaps in 1927, when this article was published, that was the case…but not now.  Maybe if we only take away one thing from Behr, routing a golf course using natural occurring landscapes as our guide should be the one item.

He also mentions that many courses are laid out too mathematically and fail to conform to each and every courses natural setting.  Many times the architect has too many ideas set in stone and will not yield them and allow for adjustment given each courses natural surroundings.  This to me seems like a slap at Raynor and his use of the template holes.

And this brings up a point I can’t seem to shake.  How much of the writing of the time was really and truly the result of deep held beliefs and how much was marketing?  Raynor built course in the early part of the 1900’s, as did Behr and his friend Mackenzie, as did Donald Ross.  And I remember reading in Donald Ross’ “Golf has Never Failed Me” something that seemed like a swipe at Raynor as well.  In fact, here is that quote,

"...we can certainly learn much by making our courses less artificial, for the fascination of the most famous hazards in the world lies in the fact that they were not and could not have been constructed.  

I avoid using the world "created" because a real hazard is and must be a creation of nature."

After reading many of Max Behr’s writings, I have to conclude that these beliefs of naturalism were very dear to him and were not merely part of a marketing ploy.  And as a student of golf course architecture, my next question is:  Was he right?  If people like Raynor’s work and it conflicts with Behr’s ideology, they can’t both be correct…can they?

In the end, perhaps it is all about one’s perspective.  How do you view Golf?  Is a golf course a field for competition?  Is it the place to enjoy a walk in the park as you embark on your favorite pastime?  Or is it simply a business?  Or, maybe it is a work of art?

[Adam Clayman]

Mac, I.m not on board with some of your conclusions. The slapping of Raynor,s face seems a stretch. I believe both schools can work together. The fact that not every Raynor template is of the same size and scale, illustrates adaptation. From my own observations, the size and scale of these features fit the landscape from a greater distance, and, only in close proximity does it appear, or could it be construed as unnatural. Then there's the juxtaposition of nature causing a greater appreciation for the natural overall view. I'd cite Sleepy Hollows "short" as a hole that illustrates this concept perfectly. If you have seen the picture series of the hole, through 3 iterations,Climaxing in the current Hanse/ Bahto version you will see how the geometric shapes accentuates the natural setting much better than the other versions,  with circular/ oval shaped bunkers. I'll stop there for now and see what sticks. No absolutes here.

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks Adam.

I'll check out that Sleepy Hollow hole you mentioned.

And you mentioned "no absolutes here", but isn't Behr saying the exact opposite.  In his writing, including his "Art in Golf Architecture" piece he seems to state with absolute certainty the neccessity of "authentic landscapes".

[Adam Clayman]

Mac. I have not read that piece for many years. All I can do to retort is that natures infinite variety does show examples of every shape. I've seen the straight line that I suspect is at the crux of the geometric argument. The other thought I have is that authentic does not mean strictly as found but rather made to appear that way through thoughtful shaping and tying in the feature or aspect. Then there's the opportunity to break the 'rules' on occasion.

[Mac Plumart]

Adam...it sure we be great if you re-read Behr's piece.  I think he makes it pretty clear that there are rules that can not be broken.  And to me the question is, was he right or wrong?

[Adam Clayman]

Adam...it sure we be great if you re-read Behr's piece.  I think he makes it pretty clear that there are rules that can not be broken.  And to me the question is, was he right or wrong?

Mac, I guess I'll have to chock it up to my 86.7% rule. Which is that nobody is right 100% of the time.

However, if you are talking about building some hideous man made feature, and not tying it in, as a rule, I would agree. That rule shouldn't be broken.

[Ian Andrew]

Mac,

I'm with Adam, I don't see this as a direct criticism of Raynor.

The key architectural features of Raynor may contradict or contrast with the setting, but the remainder always embraces the surrounding landscape. Behr spends quite a bit of time talking about a routing embracing the natural geography of a place and I always thought Raynor’s routings were his greatest strength. I feel he always made excellent use of the natural topography. Behr goes on to talk about Repton’s principals for landscape. When you think of Raynor’s feature work, he does a wonderful job of eventually blending even the wildest feature back into the flow of the land. I wish people could pull there eyes away from the contrast and see the brilliant transitions that he was able to develop.

I once tried to explain to someone how good Raynor was by asking them to show me where the construction crew stopped working and where the land began. They could identify the creation of the main feature, but once confronted with the notion of transition were not so confident. I was dismissed by the person for “picking a poor example” because they could not tell. I told him that all examples must be poor examples.

I personally see Raynor as very high art. I see his work as some of the heights of what is possible. Others can dismiss his work for the templates or perceived but between the quality of routings and the ability to tie in aggressive ideas, he is vastly underestimated as an architect.

[Ian Andrew]

Mac,

A few quotes tickled my fancy.

“Golf architecture is not an art of representation; it is, essentially, an art of interpretation. And an interpretative art allows freedom to fancy only through obedience to the law which dominates its medium, a law that lies outside ourselves. The medium of the artist is paint, and he becomes its master; but the medium of the golf architect is the surface of the earth over which the forces of Nature alone are master.”

I just like that reminder that it is not our role to impose, but our role to find and enhance.

“There lines and gradations can be made to seem as if they had always been.”

I spent a great deal of time talking with Jonathan and Jim at Old Mac about how far you need to go to obtain a proper tie in. I spent the next day with Dan looking over the tie-ins at Pacific Dunes with Dan and was able to ask very specific and detailed questions to Jim about how far they had to go. If there is one thing that would surprise the tree house is where they needed to go to get everything appearing “untouched.”

The quote below goes on to talk at great length about how vital excellent tie-ins are. The difference between good and great often lies at the edge and not in the middle. But it’s real hard to spend the time on the edge when in essence nobody will notice.

“But had the architect continued as he began, endeavoring to perceive how it would be possible to render order out of disorder and yet make the result appear the action of natural forces, he would be, as he should be, an artist. But, as we have seen, the golf architect as artist is not master of his medium. He cannot perpetrate ideas upon the ground regardless of its topography. It is for him to discover in what way the terrain most naturally lends itself to modification.”

[Niall C]

Mac

Let me say I find you easier to read than a lot of Behr's writings which can be hard work and long winded. Thats my excuse for saying that its been a wee while since I read the article and even then I didn't analyse it too much. So if I asume that your analysis and summation of what Behr is saying is accurate I would disagree with him on one principle point and that is with regard to the early inland courses. Behr refers to these early architects trying to pretty up those courses which I very much doubt was the case, and I say that from the perspective of a lot longer after the events than when Behr was writing.

Firstly, these courses were largely laid out on farmland. I use the word laid out purposely because they weren't really built from what I can gather. Greens were cut, sometimes by hand, and rolled and the line of play was left undefined for the simple reason that there was no mowing machines for fairways in the early days. Grass cutting was left to the sheep and as we know, sheep are rubbish at eating grass in a straight line (insert smiley). So what you had was a tee and a green and the architect would pick the site of each so as to take advantage of existing hazards. I suggest that would probably be not too much different than what they did on links.

Now if you consider that farmland in the UK back then consisted of fields of various sizes, generally rectangular in size and bounded by hedges, walls and fences, the "hazards" used by those architects were very often those very hedges, walls and fences. These hazards were already in the landscape. If you looked beyond the 3 or 4 fields used for the course you would see similar fields with similar boundary fences, walls and hedges. That being the case, what would be the most "natural" hazard ? A hedge or a sand bunker ? I imagine that that is a question that the early architects very rarely bothered with, there objective would be to make the course as interesting or "sporty" to use the terminology of the day.

It was perhaps later when golf got scientific when the perceived wisdom to have hazards in set positions and set lengths that it became impossible to make do with existing hazards, that they had to be built and again I suspect the emphasis was on functionality rather than appearance.

Niall  

[Mac Plumart]

KABOOM!!!!!  I think I've had a break through thanks to Adam and Ian's posts.

Adam says,

"Mac, I guess I'll have to chock it up to my 86.7% rule. Which is that nobody is right 100% of the time.

However, if you are talking about building some hideous man made feature, and not tying it in, as a rule, I would agree. That rule shouldn't be broken. "

And in that era of struggling to introduce golf to America and to show what good golf course architecture was all about, these Golden Age guys were confronted with all sorts of hideous man made features.  So maybe Raynor wasn't perfectly natural in his architecture, but nevertheless he had something good going on.

And I think that ties into Ian's post and Behr article on the concepts of routing.  Behr says, "In routing the holes the object sought has been to take as much advantage of the topography of the ground as possible."  And as Ian states, Raynor's routing have always been his strength.  

So, first get the routing right.  Then don't put up something so ungodly hideous and manmade that it will fundamentally be rejected by the golfers mind and you're off to a good start.  The more and more you can seemlessly blend the golf course into the natural landscape the better, but (even as Behr states) a perfect blend will never be possible.  Am I getting it?

Also, as an interesting side note...the writings of this era are focused on golf coming to the United States and it details all the struggles the US has assimilating the core concepts of golf architecture into the actual designing of quality golf courses.  Might we be seeing the exact same thing occuring in Asia right now?  These past writings might be able to be re-written (change a few names) to detail golf course architectures struggles in the Far East.  Just sayin'...maybe.


***FYI, I see a few new posts have popped up and I haven't read them yet.***

[Peter Pallotta]

Good work, Mac, thanks.  

Insightful excerpts there, Ian, and good post (e.g. how very important the tie ins are to Renaissance).

The idea of the architect as 'interpretative artist' has always stuck with me; it seems true and accurate, especially in Behr's era, i.e. the artist who uncovers and re-interprets what the land is telling him and what it provides, for the purpose/through the lens of the game of golf.  That's the reason I use my improvising jazz musician analogy so often: the song's chord changes, if honoured and internalized, serve in the end not to constrain the great improviser but to free him up to soar creatively and in his own personal way -- not in spite of the constraints of the chord progression but because of them.

Mac - I love Max a lot; but I'd have to say that while he was wonderful poet, he was a lousy prophet and even worse pop psychologist. He was a generous soul I think -- he projected onto ALL golfers the rich and nuanced aesthetic and emotional experiences that HE saw and felt and understood.....only to have most golfers and architects ever since turn around and say "Huh...What?"  

I'm never going to say he was "wrong" -- because poetry can have a Truth much deeper and more meaningful than any 'fact'.  But in the ways and rough-and-tumbles of the world, he hasn't been proven "right" either.

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

Mac, Notice the long line of the ridge carried through all the way across the Short's green. It's only temporarily broken up by the feature.This pic is older and from a different angle. Plus, those trees are gone (90% sure on that) the long view (the ridgeline) is a great example



I think you got it.

Ian's concise post is all I could hope for. But, i'm going to look for the article with the different looks of the short at SH. Two I believe are Mr. R. Jones'

Found'em at Out and Back. Gotta Love that  It's the middle two which shows the thoughtless fad.

[Mac Plumart]

Thanks Adam.  I'll contend that the green and bunker do not look natural at all.  However, the slopes and angle of the entire complex seems to flow very well with the natural contour of the surrounding land and, therefore, looks very nice...especially with the water in the background.  I'll buy that and, perhaps, Behr would as well.

The progression of the hole with the photo that looks like a smiley face...not good!  Close to being hideous and fundamentally rejectable.

I've continued to think about the term "fundamentally rejected".  I think I get it.  That smiley face picture...I reject it...seems weird/goofy.

Here is a shot of 15 at Shadow Creek.



We know it is not natural, but you know what...it looks like fairly natural.  I accept it.

Here is a side view of the 5th green at Crystal Lake just outside Atlanta.



We can squabble over the mounding...it looks a little bit man-made...but I would not fundamentally reject it.

HOWEVER, here is the view from the tee.



I fundamentally reject it.  YUCK!!!  And it has nothing to do with the golf hole.  It has everything to do with the housing.  

I'd add in that a cart path is something to be fundamentally rejected as well...particularly if it cuts into the field of play.  Think about if you put your shot in play (in the fairway even) and it hits the cart path and bounds high into the air and OB.  That is bullshit, right?  That is a man-made feature...not natural...that OB should have never happened...in fact would not have happened had that man-made feature never been put into play.  It should be fundamentally rejected as it has no place in the world of golf.

And finally, and this one is extreme.  



Absolutely rejected 100%!!!

[Sean_A]

Mac, Notice the long line of the ridge carried through all the way across the Short's green. It's only temporarily broken up by the feature.This pic is older and from a different angle. Plus, those trees are gone (90% sure on that) the long view (the ridgeline) is a great example



I think you got it.

Ian's concise post is all I could hope for. But, i'm going to look for the article with the different looks of the short at SH. Two I believe are Mr. R. Jones'

Found'em at Out and Back. Gotta Love that  It's the middle two which shows the thoughtless fad.

I can buy that the Short is a good hole.  I can buy that the Short is a scenic hole.  I cannot buy that the Short ties in short, medium or long term to its surroundings.  You guys must have been eating daze cookies if you think any of the iterations of the Short are blended well with the environment or is this a lesser of evils deal?

Behr makes a crucial error in logic when he states it is human nature/logic to reject unnatural looking features.  First, Behr would have a devil of a time trying to define/explain natural in course architecture or any other sort of art/engineering project.  Second, golf is first and foremost about the shots on offer.  A not picking critique of nature in architecture has no obvious line of departure.  Third, if natural looking features really was a goal to strive for, how do we square that up bunkering on the vast majority of golf sites?  For instance, to me, the thing that stands out about the Short is the symmetrical sand bunker with the backdrop of water and forest.  It looks odd to my eye and probably not the setting I would have used for a CBM Short because of that.

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

Sean...I see your point 100% and this is my whole issue with these template holes and Behr vs. Raynor.

You'll note what I said about the hole, " I'll contend that the green and bunker do not look natural at all.  However, the slopes and angle of the entire complex seems to flow very well with the natural contour of the surrounding land and, therefore, looks very nice...especially with the water in the background."

Would Behr fundamentally reject this hole?  Its bunkering?  I would suppose he wouldn't reject the routing, but I haven't played the course...so I don't know for sure.  But all the MacDonald/Raynor courses I've played are well routed, so I am making that assumption based on my past experiences.

Like I mentioned in my first post, is Behr or Raynor right?  You seem to agree more with Behr than Raynor or so it would seem.  But you do say the hole is good.  I guess we could start there.  Why?

Furthermore, is Old Mac the ideal mix of Behr/Mackenzie/MacDonald/Raynor?  Here is the short there.



Sean...you added that last paragraph after my post.  Those are many of the same thoughts I've had over time and why I have asked on more than one occassion, why is natural so important?  I hear Adam's comments on avoiding hideous features and when I try to think of what the golf course landscape looked like in the US at the time of his writings Behr's writings makes sense in that context.  Are we good enough now (2011) regarding natural courses or do we need to continue to strive for perfect blends of nature and course?

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I was a tad surprised that you'd write:  "Behr would have a devil of a time trying to define/explain natural in course architecture or any other sort of art/engineering project."

Isn't that what Fowler was particularly good at achieving, and what you yourself are particularly good at explaining?

Isn't what Ian describes at OM and Pacific a manifestation of exactly the principles Max is articulating?

Pietro

[Evan Fleisher]

Great post Mac.

My initial thoughts are of Trump National in L.A. and that opening hole.  The unnatural look of the waterfall behind the green turned me off right away...it just didn't look "right".  The more I think about it, those courses that really seem to "fit" the land where they lay are the ones that truly get my juices flowing...not that the others can't be a fun and enjoyable round...they just don't have the same feelings to me.

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, Ian said it best when he wrote;

When you think of Raynor’s feature work, he does a wonderful job of eventually blending even the wildest feature back into the flow of the land. I wish people could pull there eyes away from the contrast and see the brilliant transitions that he was able to develop.

I disagree that there's no naturalness to the landscape on the Short at Sleepy Hollow. It's the sky line that extends, not in the middle where the green is, but, far up the right perimeter, extending gently, almost perfectly to the left, continuing left of the left bunker, where the slope begins to increase it's steep slide towards the lower property.

[Chris Shaida]

Adam, i agree with your disagreement (re Sean's comment)!  The flattish, left to right expansiveness of both the green and the bunker below resonate visually with the flat left to right expansiveness of the river even furthr below. I even think the way the eye moves down to the flat bunker back up a bit to the green surface then further down to the river then back up to the far shore is 'fitting'.

Sean, i would love to hear more about your view of Behr's 'crucial error in logic'.  When I read it my immediate reaction was Yes, but you then elaborated in an unexpected direction. I thought you were saying that his error was in holding up as the chief measure a notion of naturalness meaning untouched-by-man.  Whereas a golf course by definition shows touches of man (tees, greens, holes, pins).   Therefore the chief measure has to account for rather than hide those 'touches'--make the fit, blend them, something more than hide in any case. Behr himself starts in this direction by using the word 'inwrought' in the middle of his essay, but then he doesnt really pursue that interesting notion?

Mac, its possibe Behr played this hole.  He hung out in Westchester a fair amount before moving to CA.  (and re getting to actually play the hole, that can be fixed if you just get yourself uphere this spring)

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Fowler allowed the land to dictate his designs from a functional PoV.  That isn't the same thing as saying his work was naturalistic.  Just look at Beau Desert.  Fowler mercilessly chops off visual line flows - I expect as a way to save money with shaping.   Walton Heath to has some stark shaping which is at odds with nature. The most natural courses I know Fowler did were The Berkshire and probably Westward Ho!  I don't know what there is about either Berkshire course which sets it apart as a Fowler.  It looks like it could be a Colt and I bet most folks would guess it is if they didn't know better.  

Adam

Are you honestly telling me that the bunker against the background looks like it could be there naturally?  That bunker is the overwhelming eye draw and it doesn't work against the background.  

Mac

I don't know if Behr would reject the Short, but I suspect he might have.  To put it another way, when you see Old Mac's Short in comparison, there is no comparison.  But then it looks like Doak's version is set below the land immediately behind it so it doesn't clash with wider view.  Even if this isn't the case the lines on Old Mac's Short are far better integrated.  

Chris

Where Behr errs is in making an assumption then building an argument on that assumption.  Raynor's work is proof that golfers don't automatically reject that which does not look natural.  I would also point to another much loved feature, pot bunkers.  They are odd looking in their shape, but like Raynor's work, pot bunkers fulfill a function that serves golf architecture better than it does nature.

Ciao  

[Keith OHalloran]

I may be missing the general idea here, but I am not sure why Art has to be a "natural" look or feel. I feel that Mr. Rushmore can be considered art, although I would not consider it a Natural Rockform. To that end, I think that what Raynor did on courses can just as easily be seen as natural, and therefore, artistic as any other architect. Out on the East End  Long Island in a relatively small geographuc are, Raynor had a part in NGLA, Southampton, Fisher's and Westhampton. It is somewhat easy to tell that the same architect was involved with each course, but it is also easy to differentiate each course and their templates.  I have always felt that the artistic flair that Raynor had was in using the land that was given to him and routing the course accordingly. For example, Southampton has a par 34 on the front with no par 5's and a par 36 on the back with 2 par 5's. Until a few years ago, NGLA was a par 73 and so on. My point is, that while Raynor has some templates that he wanted to utilize when he designed a course, he was not set on a particular par or sequence. I think his artistic flair was evident in how he allowed the property and land to dictate what hole would go where and how it would be laid out. I think the 4th at Fisher's is a perfect example of an Alps/Punchbowl, along the Ocean that is probably one of the best holes I have ever played. Apparently Raynor saw this "hybrid" hole on the land, and used his artistic flair to make it happen.
Or, maybe I am a Raynor fan and convinced myself of this?

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, The geometric bunker shapes accentuates the naturalness of the entire setting because of their juxtaposition from natural looking.. All one has to do to see that is compare the look of the Rees's pieces, versus how the Hanse/Bahto version makes one focus. my focus is nowhere near the center or side running bunkers.

Ian said it and Chris too when they acknowledge the need for the golfing features which aren't there naturally and could never form naturally. It's a given. Behr understood that, especially since the context of entire subject was in reference to taking the Auld game inland, where these sand features don't often occur naturally. But, a critical eye can tell the difference between something that's thoughtlessly forced onto the landscape, with no regard to natural flow, and those who respected, not only nature but the sub conscience mind of the golfer.

[Sean_A]

Adam

I don't feel any need to justify natural or unnatural features.  Either they make the hole better or they don't.  The look is secondary to me and its very subjective.  However, I have to take your word for it if you think the string bunker enhances the natural setting.  I think it seriously detracts from the setting, but thats okay. I guess I don't have a critical eye, but I am not suggesting the bunker was thoughtlessly forced onto the landscape.  I am suggesting the bunker was forced onto the landscape.  To eye, that hole looks like an art deco building in a charming Cotswold village.  That doesn't mean it can't have a certain beauty.  In fact the function does lend itself to a beauty of sorts, only I would suggest it was an innappropriate village for the building. 

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - not to beat a dead horse, but I think you made my point for me, i.e. at the Berkshire and Westward Ho, Fowler went with the land/nature, and did so in way that few would eveb be able tio tell that Fowler had been there. 

My point is simply this -- we can have a lot of disagreements with Behr, but not with his notion that golf courses can endeavour to -- and succeed in -- looking very natural...as naturalistic as possible given that the land still has to be used as a golf course.

Of this there seems little doubt to me -- there are too many examples of courses that appear that way to me.  (Whether golfers neccessarily react for or against such naturalism or lack of it is another question). 

P

 

[Sean_A]

Pietro

Of course Beht is correct in that courses can look natural and stiill be effective.  That wasn't my point.  I was suggesting at which point does a course not look natural?  As we can see concerning the Raynor posts, its a sliding and personal scale.  I wouldn't go so far as to say to talk about natural design is meaningless because it does have meaning on an individual level.  However, when folks point to Raynor as an example of natural design there is obviously a disconnect either as to what natural means or what natural looks like. 

Regards Fowler, I probably didn't expain it well.  My position is that Fowler used the land very well, but much of his work doesn't look natural.  The Berkshire courses are an exception and conspicuously so.   To the point where I wonder how much Simpson had to do with those courses.

Ciao