Analyzing what's natural and what's not!

[Mike_Cirba]

Rich,

With all due respect, I think you'd agree that what is "natural" on this planet includes soil, water, rock, degrees of elevation change, grasses, trees, other foliage and atmospheric conditions.  

Golf evolved outside in natural conditions, on land that was modified to varying degrees for the accommodation of the game.  The fact that each of our "playing fields" occupies a uniquely singlular setting within the natural world is a large reason that we are blessed with such variety and speciality within the game we love.  Still, are you denying that the very fact the game is played outdoors in nature is not part of the inherent appeal?

It's a far cry to compare the artificiality of man-made features used to advance golfing functions to the Sears Tower, whose functional purpose is entirely different.  If you deny the very tie-in between the game and nature, then I can see you point, but I really don't see how you can divorce the two.

At best, a man made feature should integrate with, and possibly even enhance that inseparable tie to its origins in nature.  It should do so from both a visual, or aesthetic standpoint, as well as from a functional one.  Those man-made golfing features that both you and I find objectionable most often don't do either.  

  

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Very interesting explanations there my boy!

Can we assume then that you do like Kittleamn/Hanse's bunkers at Applebrook better than Merion's new ones, although the only reason you seem to like them better is because they seem better to you esthetically, although you're not real sure why that is?

Can we also assume that we like them better too because they are more esthetically pleasing to us too, although we might term that esthetic pleasure "because they're more natural looking", (and for you Pat "rougher" or "greater degrees of rougher").

Can we also assume that there is some reason why you like Grand Central Station better than the Pan Am building as well as the things you mentioned you liked better than others although you're not sure why that is either? Can we also assume that you might like Jaguars better than Cadillacs and that all those things mentioned just might not have anything at all to do with their capacity to look natural or like nature.

Matter of fact, I don't think any of us here have had anything to say about whether the designers of automobiles, buildings etc intended to even attempt to emulate nature! But we have certainly said that about a golf architect's desire and attempt with golf courses and their architecture. And yes, we have supported our belief to a large extent by the writings and thoughts of some of those "dilletantes" who created a great slice of the world's most respected golf courses and their architecture.

Therefore, would you mind, since you admit you don't know the whys of this, but we think we do, that we sort of fill in the blanks as to why you like particular bunkering mentioned at Applebrook vs Merion?

And if you do mind then can we assume that there is something more that you haven't mentioned or that you might not know?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom MacWood,
If you could have looked at the Manua Kea sight and told me you saw "natual" golf holes you missed your calling.  The third hole was basically a pile of lava rock dumping into the ocean.  Trent Jones "built" that hole and the entire course.  It is an oasis in the middle of black rock!
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Mark
I'm confused did Trent Jones actually pile up the lava flows himself or did create the inlet by carving it from the lava? Were most of the severe elevation changes of the site created by RTJ and did you detect any interesting natural contours?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Great picture!!  All I am saying is everything shown in that picture of #3 was at one time just a pile of black lava rock?  Every bit of vegatation was planted and the rolls and swales were all built with bulldozers and/or earth (rock) moving equipment!  Of course Trent tried to "blend" everything in, but I sure don't call that "natural".  This course was built from scratch in much the same way Shadow Creek was and Whistling Straits were.  At Mauna Kea, Trent had the ocean, at Shadow Creek, Fazio had the mountains and at WS, Pete had the lake!  
Mark

[Rich_Goodale]

This thread is getting a bit bizzare when Tom "Acq" MacW tries to argue that the 3rd at Mauna Kea is "natural" because RTJ dumped his tons of lava near the ocean to create his green........

Mike

I really can't argue with the points in your last post except to state, again, that Man is very much a part of nature.  Soem golf-related features he creates are better than others--just like Nature, who is probably very, very pissed that Man (particularly those artsy crafty guys in England at the turn of the last century) decided to build golf courses on anything other than pure linksland.......

Tom P

If you can honestly and reliably tell me why you or I or Tommy Nacccarato or Damien Pascuzzo think something in our experience is or is not pleasing, please get yourself down to Penn and apply for that open Chair in Philosophical and Psychological Esthetics.  You might have to compete with Tom "Acq" MacW for the position, but as long as you continue to type faster than he does, you should be a shoo-in...........

Rich

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Mark, I believe he has you in Checkmate.

Del, my dear old friend who should be properly refused entry from any Fazio course ever again simply for not checking in more often!

You had me with you for a spell, but just like Mike Cirba, you didn't set the hook. Every good fisherman knows that after you throw bait out there, and they start nibbling, you have to set the hook!

With my incohernet wiriting, somehwere along the line, some of you must think I'm talking soley of bunkers. I wish I could word it as good as T&T and Mike have, and it comes out like I have a one track mind on bunkers alone. Far from it.

Rich, If you could read The Links or The Architectural Side Of Golf with the same fervor as you quote Yeats, I'm sure that you would have an epiphany of all sorts that would make you climb to the highest mountain and scream "Halleluah!"

The walls of the local church would fall down and a sudden bright light would shine upon you. Us "Romantacists" are more then just people of faith. We have heart too! We look at the purity of design and thank the heavens. Our ultimate rewards are GREAT golf and the understanding of what makes the course so pure and whole and NATURAL, because the features have been so well EMULATED.

Oh person of ye little faith, now I understand completely why you do not understand the little bit of heaven also known as The Old Course, and while I try to save you from a life of Burning Hell on a golf course where fire and brimstone are the hazards......I will pray for you.

Gotta go now. I have another thread I have to hijack.

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
Checkmate??  Are you kidding me?  I can just picture myself talking to a few of my buddies on the way over to play Manua Kea, "Wait to you see this golf course guys, it's so natural and sits perfectly into its environment.  It's like it was always there"!  
Mark

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

MattW
Do you think utilizing natural features is a romantic point of view?

I would argue that the use of natual features is more than 'looks', the use of interesting natural features within a strategic scheme are what seperates the great courses from the very good, good and the mediocre. I do admire many of the past architects - genuflect is a little strong. When you think of these 'grand master' do you think minimalism? Do you consider the work of Raynor, Macdonald, Travis, Langford, Alison and MacKenzie minimalists? I don't.

I'd be interested in examples of 'grand masters' filling in wetlands and re-routing streams.  Are these golf courses evidence that these architects were less than successful in incorporating the outstanding natural features of the given site?

How can architect collaborate with nature and create an interesting design if the site is devoid of interesting natural features?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I've never seen super clean, super straight bunker lines, so you'll have to clue me in as to where they exist.  To some the attractiveness of the bunkers at Applebrook has nothing to do with their geometry, moreso the window dressing/surrounds.

But, to better help me understand the three Tom's, could any of you cite for me some unnatural fairway and green features on a few golf courses so that I can better understand your position, thanks.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Personally I hope you are never convinced. The reason I didn't push you to answer my pervious questions was because I prefer you as a dissenter. If it weren't for the heretics and professional non-confomists, I don't think a lot of these theories would have seen the light of day or would have become as well formed as they have. I credit you for some of my best material. The only way to formulate solid theories is to have them tested/questioned and with out you as a foil many of these theories would have withered on the vine. Keep it up.

You see yourself as realist, I see you as more as golf architectural agnostic. You have a casual interest and enjoy the intellectual joisting more then anything. You see those of us who attempt to analyze, study and explore why certain golf courses and golf architects are appealing (past and present) as romantics. I don't agree with that assessment, I'd say we are more students of an art. But I also understand that you do not share the same passion, which is certainly no crime, afterall we are talking about a game - a pretty extraordinary game if you ask me. Your little jabs about poring over the 'Golden Age dilletantes' are humorous, I do enjoy studying the theories of the past greats in attempting to uncover what these men felt was important in design and to uncover any common threads. I really don't think it is possible to convince someone who isn't interested in the art -- I'm sure you have interests that you have thoroughly studied and understand this. As you know if you have a passionate interest in a subject, you will gladly seek out the answers wherever you might find them - no one has to convince you - you convince yourself.

[Rich_Goodale]

Tommy N

Given that MacWood has chosen to not pray for me, I very much appreciate your offer and hope that you will consider doubling up your efforts.

If Hunter, or Behr or McKenzie or any other of the Golden Oldies ever got down to a "plus" writing "handicap" I'd think about starting to compare them to WB Yeats who wrote off +5 or +6 most of his life.  They're "scratch" writers, at their best.  As I've said before, I have in fact read much of what they had to say, but I am not, as yet, overly impressed.  Not unimpressed, mind you, but not particularly inspired.

Cheers

PS--since the "King Cup" and/or any of its successors seem to be very unlikely to occur prior to my return to Scotland in July, let's plan on having our mano a mano debate in the bar at Pitreavie next time you get over to the auld sod.

R

Rich

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom MacW

Glad that my thoughts sometimes interest you.  As you must know, I am as passionate about golf and GCA as anybody on this site.  That my passion comes from different sources and different perspectives and comes to different conclusions does not make it any better or worse than yours, or anyone elses's on this site.

[Mark_Fine]

Question for those of you following this thread - There seemed to be fairly wide spread approval for Pete Dye's work in the thread about "Are we bored with Pete Dye".  In general, Pete "builds" everything.  You can't say (on at least 90% of the courses of his that I've played) that his work blends in with the surroundings.  If there was ever an architect who loved to use a bulldozer, he's it!  For those of you so concerned about natural features, how do you explain this positive approval rating for Mr. Dye and his golf courses?
Mark

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich, I have to get this down quick because I'm in a hurry to get out of there, but if you eer get a chance, check out some of the diversity of Robert Hunter's books.

Poverty is considered one of the great books on the subject of poverty because of its accuracy in predicting the class structures and wealth before the Great Depression, and even eventually touches on the suggestion of a Great Depression. Some of his other books like, How We Fail As Christians was also just as exploratory into life and religion in Ameirca, yesterday as well as even today. He did about two or three others that were pretty much celebrated over the years, and while I couldn't gauge an index on him, which would compare him to Yeats, a simple search on your internet connection might lead you to what seems like some pretty intelligent people that do respect his views outside of Golf.

What was really ironic was that he would eventually go on to write about this subject of golf architecture and design with an intent to inspire less then amarous designs that were taking place before the Golden Age.

Hallelujah for that!

[Slag_Bandoon]

As succinctly as possible...

  Nature composes a more complex symphony of stories than any golf architect ever could.  Centuries, millenia, eons of effort and random creation, destruction and morphing creates a between-the-lines scenerio unmatched by mans concocting.  But, we do have to keep on trying as our best minds have forever been battling with! (emphatically roared) nature to understand it with a limited vocabulary and a goal or rote expectation of man's narrow requirements of the game of golf.  The best minds in the world are not those of golf architects but their abstract creations have mused for millions.  
  
  

[Matt_Ward]

Tom MacWood:

I'll answer what I said previously ...

Golf, in my mind, is about shots & holes and how they are tied together in a clever routing plan that makes you play the full set of clubs. Yes, I would like a course to have a natural look but it's more of a secondary concern than a primary one for me.

Architects in the past had complete control of the site(s) in question and did not have to worry about state / fed authorities jumping on their case if the earthworm / butterfly species was harmed.

In answering your last question -- I'd say check out Twisted Dune (NJ), the new public course designed by Archie Struthers. Here you have a course that was layed out on land completely lacking of any real character BEFORE Archie did a marvelous job.

I believe it's more of a romantic element (I love to see it when it happens!) for those who wax on that "the land was just there for a golf course." In the good old days that was true, but quality land is becoming less and less prevalent except in remote corners (i.e. Pac Dunes, Arcadia Bluffs, to mention two recent additions).

It's never easy working with flat land because you have to imbue the terrain with strategic elements and not become so blatant that "man's hands" intruded unnecessarily.

I put major emphasis on the function of the course / how it plays -- after that I'll look to the actual form it takes / how it looks.  

There are plenty of "natural" courses I've seen and played where more often than not the strategic vision is either absent or barely registers a pulse.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich, Hopefully some of this will make you want to pick up a book by Hunter in hopes of allowing you to see the level of intelligence his wiritngs possesed.

Robert Hunter (1874-1942) was prominent in the fields of charity and social work. Hunter is most famous for his 1904 book, Poverty, from which these materials were scanned. Here Hunter, among other matters, described poverty as a result of conditions beyond the individual's control. This part of the book reveals Hunter's views on immigration, which did so much to change the face of American society during his lifetime. In his "Conclusion" Hunter draws together his analysis for all of the aspects of poverty that he studied.


For further research into this writing:
http://www.cohums.ohio-state.edu/history/courses/hist563/hunter.htm

[TEPaul]

Mark:

Are you asking me what's natural about Mauna Lea for golf? I guess you missed my post to you about that--it must be on the end of page two.

But anyway, again, not much to me--like maybe nothing! I guess one of the starting points of building a good golf course is to find some land that might offer some natural features that an architect might construe as conducive to golf to use for golf. I'm told that people who want to build a good golf course generally look around for a good site that can offer some interesting things to do just that. I don't see much of that on a pile of black lava rock!

But why ask me about Mauna Lea? I'm not the one who mentioned it, you did? Do you see something on that golf course that blends naturally with the site? If you do why don't you tell me, because again I sure don't. And if you don't then why did you mention it?

BTW, I sort of feel the same way about Shadow Creek and that's why, as I said previously, at the very least, if I were Wynn I might have thought about using a site a few miles away up against those desert mountains that looks more interesting to me for golf and could have some features that might be more naturally interesting for golf. And whatever else is needed might be more easily created by Fazio in that setting instead of the one he used. As it was the site they used isn't very interesting, if you've ever seen an aerial of it.

But I admire Faz and Trent for having the balls to try to blend some golf features "site naturally" to those two sites, if in fact they tried to do that. I don't know what Trent tried to do but Faz did some "site natural" blending and the fact that he missed by about 3000 miles doesn't really seem to bother some people. I guess I wish I were one of them!

Pat Mucci assures me that there might be something up in or near them thar desert hills, like permitting or environmental issues that may have prevented Wynn from building his course there. From the look of that land in the aerial I doubt that! It would be more likely that Nevada or whomever else  owned or owns all that land in that aerial was probably willing to pay Wynn to take it off their hands!

Rich:

You're telling me to go down to get some grant at Penn if I can tell you why you, me, TommyN and Damon find a particular bunker esthetically pleasing? I can tell you why I do and I've got a damn good idea why TommyN does but I'm helpless with you and I don't think I want to know what Damon finds esthetically pleasing. So I guess I would fail to get that grant--Oh woe is me!!

Pat:

You're asking me to cite you a course with a fairway that's unnatural? How about the course mentioned earlier on this thread above? There's even a photo of it!

[Rich_Goodale]

Tommy N

Thanks, honestly, for the link to Hunter.  I'll read the poverty stuff more closely some day, but until then can you tell me how he made the transition from a social reformer standing shoulder to shoulder with Jacob Riis in Chicago to an architectural esthete that died in Santa Barbara?  The ingernet record is not clear.

It does note, however, that he competed in golf at the 1904 Olympics in St. Louis, losing in the round of 16.  Chandler Egan was the runner-up and George Thomas lost in the 1st round.  Did Thomas and Hunter look at Egan's tan and decide tro give up their other pursuits and follow him out to California?

Just wondering.........

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Rich, This is the part of the thread which you are supposed to be pulling out your copy of The Golden Age Of Golf Architecture and seeing exactly WHO Robert Hunter was.

Since you probably don't have that book, I'll go off of memory.

Hunter was born in Indiana, and was schooled in Chicago, where I believe he also was a teacher. It was here that he wrote Poverty and became of note between many notable people of that time. He had married into wealth, and eventually moved to one of the New England states where he got heavily involved in politics.

One of the more spectacular things Geoff wrote in his book was that he was a Socialist, albeit a very rich one, which is like saying "Rich Goodale hangs around a golf architecture website and discussion group."

I don't know the paticulars of how he moved to the West Coast, but I think it was sometime shortly after he wrote The Links.

He started American Golf Course Construction Company somewherer in there, which he son also was a part of. retired from that and moved to Montecito where he was responsible for the building of some track called The Valley Club.

He was a very diverse man,and you could say that just like all of the Golden Age Architects of their time, more then likely one of the Renaissance variety.

Rich, maybe this is the place for you to start your education into Golf Architecture and learn about some of these men of a similar intelligence as yours. (And I truely mean that.) I mean, how many great books can you read on Yeats that can stimulate your soul? (I would imagine many) Jump into these waters, spend the $40.00 bucks with Sleeping Bear and see what you think. See how you interpret what he is saying. It isn't like its L. Ron Hubbard or something! (sorry for offending all of you Scientologists out there!)

I trust that you will find after reading at least The Links, if you don't throughly understand much better what some of us are saying, you will at least be moved by the intent and thorough examination of what this is all about. I mean, look at Mark Fine. He doesn't get it, and he says he read the book!:)

Don't you find any of this the least bit interesting? I'm a person of little patience when it comes to sitting hours and hours with books in front of my face. (This is more then likely the reason why I'm digging dtiches for a living.)I have found what these men write about, is mesmerizing to me. I can sit  for hours looking and reading and studying far more then I ever could in reform school (OK, maybe a joke there)

I find it hard to believe that it couldn't be the same for you.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Sure; Hunter was from Indiana, became a world renowned sociologist, wrote "Poverty", "Labor in Politics", "Why we Fail as Christians", and "Revolution", ran for governor of Connecticut as a Socialist, moved to California (1917) and to U of Cal., Berkley. Studied the great courses of Great Britain on an extended stay.

Always an avid golfer he helped establish Berkley CC, recruiting Willie Watson to design the course. Wrote "The Links" in 1926, still considered one of the classic books in the literature of golf architecture.

Hunter helped lure Alister MacKenzie to California and began assisting him with most of the courses he did in the state. The two remained partners in a design firm that later included Chandler Egan. Collaborated with Egan and Roger Lapham on Pebble's redesign for the 1929 US Amateur. Never technically a golf architect, he served as a conceptualist helping MacKenzie with his deep understanding of the game.

Died in Santa Barbara in 1942 at 68.

George Thomas moved from Philly to California for one reason--roses! He was one of the world's noted rosarians and eventually gave up golf architecture to dedicate himself again to his roses. He never took a fee for a design. He also dedicated himself to a number of girlfriends and had an unfortunate habit of naming his roses after his girlfriends. Following his death his wife took all his world class roses, wrung all their necks and dumped them!

[Tim_Weiman]

Mark Fine,

Regarding Pete Dye, I can only cite my own experience.

At some point I just accepted Dye's style, forgot about the "unnatural" part and tried to have as much fun as possible.

I never wanted other architects to emulate Dye's style, but I made peace with the idea that he was going to do his own thing.

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

Hold on a minute! These guys like Hunter and Behr were damn bright guys but are you sure you want to put them on Rich Goodale's level of intelligence? Rich is so damn smart, in fact, that it's becoming more and more clear that he knows an  extraodinary amount about what he doesn't know!

And in golf architecture it's always a good thing, I find, to remember to know what you don't know!

[Rich_Goodale]

Tommy N

IMHO, Mark Fine does indeed "get it."  He just sees "it" differently than you, as do many others in the world, and even on this website!  Hunter does get it too.  As I've said on this site before, I have read "The Links" (and "The Spirit of St. Andrews" and Geoff S. and Brad K.'s books and a few others of that ilk).  I love golf so I find all of them interesting, but none of them even approaches Buy.com standards when it comes to writing ability, much less "These Guys are Good" status.  I didn't find any of them, personally, to be particularly worth reading again, but that's just my opinion.  All that being said, we troglodytes have just as much right and reason to be here as you do, and we are glad that you are here, too, because we celebrate diversity and try to keep our minds open to new (and old) ideas, no matter how relevant we might think they might or might not be.

Tom P

Thanks for the biographical info.  I'm still verry curious as to how this champagne socialist from Indiana managed to chuck all of his passion and all of his principles to go out to Montecito and design golf courses for the gliterati.  Any clues in the writings that I have not read?

Cheers

Rich