Analyzing what's natural and what's not!

[JakaB]

I think Corn Flakes are the most natural cerial made...however I always find myself buying Frosted Flakes...because they're Great if for any reason at all.   I also have trouble buying Corn Flakes since they put that gay rooster 'Corny' on the box...even nature takes on unnatural forms.

[Rich_Goodale]

Jakab

If you really think that Corn Flakes are "natural" you haven't read the various exposes of what Kellog was up to in Battle Creek.  It makes Area 51 look like the Queen's Garden Party........

[TEPaul]

I should probably go find either Hunter or Max Behr's quotes and remarks on this subject and put them down here instead of paraphrasing them in the opening post.

The reason I did that in the original post is it seems to me they were speaking of a very fundamental aspect of golf architecture. That would be the attempt of so many architects in the evolution of the craft to do their best to make a golf course and its particular features look as natural as they could. They talked about emulating nature in golf's architeture all the time and they still do.

At least one of them made an interesting observation that tees, fairways and greens were features absolutely necessary to the game and that sand bunkers were the odd vestige from the original linksland that has hung on in golf and architecture as apparently almost a necessary feature. And that also they all had to be created. It was added by the writer that certainly the sand bunker was inherently unnatural (let's say out of place) to many sites around the world and that to a lesser degree so were tees, fairways and greens. But still despite that they seemed very intent on making all of them look as natural as possible anyway.

So since this seems so central an issue to them in the plying of their craft I thought it an interesting subject to ask about  what they did do in this attempt and how to analyze it.

It's probably hard enough to analyze it anyway, but certainly harder when people are saying it's either impossible to do or  probably meaningless anyway, or certainly of no more meaning than one's unexplainable esthetic preference of a Jaguar over a Caddilac.

Rich:

I'm sure you agree that tees, fairways, greens and maybe bunkers are quite necessary to golf courses. Why then would you want to talk about removing them from golf architectural consideration or from this particular subject about analyzing them and how they can be made to look as natural as possible somehow or even to blend in naturalisticly with various raw sites?

If you remove them from consideration you are left with raw land I suppose. I'm sure there must be a website somewhere on the Internet dedicated to discussing the ramifications of raw land and its natural features and the appreciation of same, but this one is about golf architecture.

It seems if you want to talk about naturalness at all that you want to talk about it some context unrelated to golf architecture or even in a more metaphysical context. It seems then that you may be the one who wants to play the transcendentalist.

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom

All I'm saying is that a golf course should have form (i.e. be pleasing to the eye--and this will vary from person to person) and be functional (i.e. be a challenging and interesting arena for play--this again will vary, depending on one's abilities and propensiities for risk).  I just argue that trying to add the requisite of "naturalness" particularly when savants such as Hunter have told us the obvious that most features relating to form and fucntion (i.e. tees, fairways, bunkers and greens) are by definition "unnatural" is putting too big of a burden on architects and outselves.  That is why our heads hurt.......

Cheers

Rich

[TEPaul]

JimK:

I like that thought of yours a lot! That's very nice to think about. Now I want to see what Rich thinks about that. I have no idea what that might be though. Certainly he might agree with it or disagree with it but he may even transcend it!

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Well, all right then, if that's the way you feel. They didn't seem to feel the issue too big a burden to consider and pursue or they wouldn't have written their books and articles about it and plied their craft pursuing it.

But they are the ones who thought about these playing fields and built them for all of us. At least a few of them wanted those playing fields to offer the player a sense of freedom to express himself physically and otherwise.

I don't think they intended it to be a burden on anyone's sensibilities. And I'm sorry your head hurts---mine doesn't--yet!

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

I define good routing as unpredictable -- always keeping the player guessing -- maximizing the usage of all clubs in the bag. No easily discernable patterns. Superior routing is about forcing the player to use the mind throughout the round.

My history isn't as sharp as yours Tom so I can't list a solid listing of courses where old time architects had "run of the mill" control of their respective sites and did not have to worry about environmental conditions the way today's designers must. I will be looking through courses in the metro NJ / NY area for examples. I'm sure fellow posters may know of some to list for other locales. I credit today's designers in handling the array of details they must deal with in coping with local, state and federal regulations.

As far as courses with wonderful natural sites but little strategic vision I would list the following:

Torrey Pines / South (CA)
The Kittansett Club (MA)
Sandpiper (CA) / minus the 10th and 11th holes
Eugene CC (OR)
Maidstone (NY) / minus the 9th hole

Given the natural sites each of the above has I hoped for so much more in their strategic vision. I will be most interested in seeing what Rees Jones is able to do with Torrey / South because the original layout was a big yawn and vastly overrated simply because it hosted a tour event.

Tom, you're right, good land is still available in the midwest and other places, but what about location? Sand Hills (just one example) is wonderful, but it's a playground for the rich and those who want private exclusivity. Developers looking to public golf as a possibility need to keep sites in places the masses can access in order to max out profitability.

The visual stimuli is important -- I'm not saying it's not. But, I look to the strategic elements within the holes / course first and foremost. The natural v unnatural debate does not really understand that man's hand is part of the equation -- sometimes more and sometimes less but always to some degree. As in any debate I guess it's matter of degree to suit individual tastes. Keep in mind some people get caught up with the visual element and in a number of instances the actual holes may be lacking.

A good example of a course with great strategic interest but lacking visual quality is Pinehurst #2. How many times have people said the course does not photograph well, but the inherent strategic appeal is beyond words. Clearly, Ross took the existing land and shaped it in a very precise manner to get the superlative results he wanted.

Hope this helps ...

[Mike_Cirba]

Matt,

You state;

"As far as courses with wonderful natural sites but little strategic vision I would list the following:
2. Kittansett Club
5. Maidstone"

Those dogs you hear barking in your neighborhood are simply reacting to my high-pitched scream as you blaspheme my beloved Maidstone.  

Either that or Willie Dow's equally piercing yell at your number two selection, but I think he's in Florida this time of year, and I don't know if NJ canines can hear him from there.  :-/

Please say it ain't so, Matt.  
  

[Matt_Ward]

Mike:

Sorry to hurt your ear drums, but in my mind Maidstone lives off the close proximity to Shinnecock and National. Minus a few holes (clearly the 9th is one of this country's top par-4 holes) the rest of the course is just a yawn to me when compared to others on the Island such as The Creek, Piping Rock, etc.

I'm not saying the course is a dog, but it's overrated in my mind given what the land could have produced.

How Maidstone can be rated ahead of Plainfield and Somerset Hills is really mind boggling to me.

Let the hounds begin to howl ...

[Mike_Cirba]

:oAaaaaaaaaaeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Matt
Your definition of a natural course and mine are different. Kittansett is built on relatively flat featureless site. I believe the architects got a lot of the site without major alterations or earth works. Torrey Pines is an example of a natural site, but not a natural golf course. The architect failed terribly in utilizing the sites natural attributes - kind of like Nantucket. I suspect Maidstone and Kittansett do not challenge your game sufficiently or might rely too much on guile for your tastes. Can a golf course that is obsolete do to equipment advancements be great or well-designed?

[TEPaul]

Jesus Matt, Maidstone a yawn? The land could be used better than it is? If you could possibly tell me how that might be I'm  all ears!

You better not go back there or the wind might really blow and then we'll see about what kind of a yawn you think it is!

[TEPaul]

Jesus Matt, Maidstone a yawn? The land could be used better than it is? If you could possibly tell me how that might be I'm  all ears!

You better not go back there or the wind might really blow and then we'll see about what kind of a yawn you think it is!

[TEPaul]

Jesus Matt, Maidstone a yawn? The land could be used better than it is? If you could possibly tell me how that might be I'm  all ears!

You better not go back there or the wind might really blow and then we'll see about what kind of a yawn you think it is!

[Matt_Ward]

TEPaul:

With all due respect to you and Maidstone fans -- keep in mind the following: close proximity to Shinnecock and National has been a major plsu for Maidstone. Being in the Hamptons also does not hurt.

In the latest GD ratings Maidstone finished ahead of such a distinguished metro trio as Plainfield, Somerset Hills and Bethpage Black. In my mind -- there is no way that Maidstone is a better club than the three I just mentioned.

Yes, playing Maidstone when the wind is up makes for a more exciting round, but Tom I can say that for a number of courses on the Island as well.

I just think the early holes and the finishing ones are just tame. The par-5's are simply bland and I guess the total yardage figure of 6,300 yards in change does influence me. And, before anyone jumps in with a "Matt Ward only prefers long courses" -- I truly love the manner in which Somerset Hills is layed out by Tillie. I would take Lehigh in a heart beat over Maidstone to name amother example of courses that don't have significant length.

No doubt the 9th hole is a stunning one and there are a few others -- the par-3 14th, etc.

As far as the land is concerned I really believe the holes at the dunes area at Maidstone are the juice -- the early and concluding holes are just ordinary, in my opinion. How Maidstone made the tp 50 in GD's ratings is truly something that puzzles me.

Hope this helps ...