2nd rate natural golf or 1st rate manmade golf

[Brian Phillips]

Having read 'The Links' by Robert Hunter again, there is a page that jumped up at me that I thought I would share it.  It is the last page in the book and he is talking about Deal and the changes that have occurred after the war in 1923.

" On my last visit to Deal, in 1923, I was much struck by the recent changes there.  During the war a portion of the links was used by the military forces, and after the war some new holes were constructed.  For the most part the terrain there had, until that time, never been touched by plough or scraper.  The old holes were laid out among countless little hillocks and hollows, and except for three of four the course was remarkably free from anything artificial.  But in 1923 it was obvious that some architect had been meddling with nature; and, while the new holes good ones, requiring first-rate golf, I felt a certain resentment when playing them.  There seemed to be something wrong, inappropriate, and distasteful in their make-up.  Nature was not here facing men with certain problems to be solved, obstacles to be overcome, and difficulties to be mastered.  The holes had been manufactured – these were, I am ashamed to confess, my uncharitable thoughts – by some malicious nature who had laboriously arranged things to perplex and annoy me.  As I have said, the holes were, perhaps, even a better test of golf than some of the ones designed by nature, but they were unsatisfying; and whenever I reached that point in the round where these holes began, I could hardly resist the temptation to turn aside and play through those exquisite little hills and hollows which led one to the Guilford Hotel.

The essential difference between the best seaside golf and that of the inland variety is that, in the first case, one is battling with nature – as one does in climbing a mountain or in sailing a boat – while in the other one is faced with the problems of human origin.  No matter with what heights he is faced or with what winds assailed, the sportsman in battling with nature makes no complaint.  But immediately he is faced with problems of a human origin, he feels justified, if he finds them too difficult, in turning upon their creator with murder in his heart."

I keep reading this over and over again and to me this just sums up what most of us feel.  I have heard a lot of good reports about Kingsbarns, that it is an awesome course, that it is a first rate test of golf.  However I have also heard many reports that people enjoyed the course but it didn't feel like a true links course or something was just missing.  The golfers knew that it was artificial and a lot of earth was used to create it so maybe it felt like sacrilege to admit that, yes it is a good links course...

Is this why we all love courses like TOC and Cruden Bay?  Both have some awful holes and some awful design to the routing but it is still a joy to play these courses.  I played Cruden Bay a month ago and loved it but if I had designed a hole like 15th or the 14th I would be laughed at!  TOC has bunkers facing the wrong way, but still we accept it because of what the course as a whole achieves.

Architects these days are under pressure to create perfection in their designs.  How can an architect create perfection of non-perfection like Cruden Bay or TOC, it's just not possible.  

Tom Doak even mentioned once on this very site that we could gather in all the resources that were available to survey TOC and then use as many dozers and excavators as we wanted but we still would not be able to recreate it.  This is absolutely true, there is no way in this world you can re-create it.  Even if you got the details down to the last centimetre it would still be false.

That is why in my opinion courses like Kingsbarns or Pacific Dunes will possibly not get the recognition they maybe deserve before most of us are dead.  The day my grandchildren play either of those courses will the courses then be accepted as natural courses.

No matter how good these courses are I still would prefer to play on a classic links course if given the choice.  Even though most of the links courses we play on today are no longer natural, they are natural to us as we have not seen much change done to them by machinery in our own lifetime.  

There is just something about playing natural links golf...isn't there? Or am I wrong?

[GeoffreyC]

First I'll disagree STRONGLY that Cruden Bay or TOC are second rate in any way.  THe 14th at CB is quirky to say the least but its a superb driving hole and the blind second is no bargain unless you are situated in a good spot on the fairway which is also sloped from left to right creating odd lies that point you to the beach.  15 is a klunker but who cares.

Now, I'll take first rate golf anytime.  I think we forget too often that golf is not JUST a walk in the park.  That's really important but it's also a game where the object is to put the ball in the hole in the fewest strokes.  First rate golf courses provide a strategic test of this objective that tries to fairly outwit and tempt the player.  Any second rate course (natural or not) does not do this and consequently will become uninteresting to play in the long run.

I love and prefer natural golf courses over the overshaped modern ones as much as anyone alive but I think we go overboard here too often.  If its repetitive and lacks strategy thats second rate but if its overshaped with mounds (concave to use Mike Cirba's great way to put it) yet contains risk/reward and strategic features with variety and interesting greensites it can be first rate too!

[Ran Morrissett]

Brian,

If something appears as artificial, then, yes, I can certainly appreciate Hunter's point as it offends the eye and diminishes the sense of being amongst nature. Even if a man-made feature lends strategic merit to a hole, the price may still be considered too high.

However, don't you agree that the skilled architect should have (or develop) the ability to move around dirt when required and have it seamlessly tie in with the natural features? That to me is the definition of minimalism.

Just because an architect moves X cu. yds shouldn't mean that we have the "right" to jump up and down and cry that it appears unnatural. The question is: does it appear natural? For instance, I sincerely doubt that 1 out of 1000 golfers would have any idea that a dune was cut back/down where the 4th green at PacDunes presently resides.

I haven't played Kingsbarn and even worse, I haven't played Deal, so I'm at a disadvantage but I would suggest that there can't be too many similarities between the wall to wall shaping that took place at Kingsbarn vs. the construction process at PacDunes where many natural land forms (especially like at the 7th green complex or the rolly-polly 1st fairway contours) were incorporated into the design.

I would sincerely doubt that Hunter's eye would be offended at PacDunes as it was at Deal.

So, to answer your very interesting question, just because a course is built in recent times doesn't make it more or less natural than a course from the 1920s. The key in both instances is how sympathetic to the land was the architect and courses like PacDunes and Sand Hills stand up as well as any course in this regard.

Cheers,

[RJ_Daley]

Brian,

I doubt that you are wrong.  I think the vast majority of those who regularly express themselves in this discussion group would agree with all that you and Mr Hunter say.  

But, we don't have enough links sites to fill the demand for golf.  We must accept courses that are routed on divverse property.  We must accept that MOST golf courses are going to be man made.  Therefore, we come to greatly respect the architects that can most closely assimilate natural texture and feel of our ideal golf course features.  Or, we can at least appreciate a well manufactured golf course that makes good golf sense and incorporates diversity of shots, and both subtle and overt challenges that makes you want to come back over and over to try new strategies or duplicate some shots you worked hard for and executed well.  

I haven't seen them, but it sounds like Bandon Dunes next to Pacific Dunes are good examples of the contrast in the feel of a course with the heavier hand of manufacturing and one of least disturbance of natural featues.  

"No matter with what heights he is faced or with what winds assailed, the sportsman in battling with nature makes no complaint.  But immediately he is faced with problems of a human origin, he feels justified, if he finds them too difficult, in turning upon their creator with murder in his heart."

That last quote seems to describe the attitude towards the Dyabolical One, Pete Dye, very well.  I have found in my limited exposure to Dye's work that he can do it both ways.  Kiawah Ocean course is not really that natural of links in that there are many manufactured features.   But, they closely assimilate to a natural links feel and that is a good result by him, with exciting playability.  Yet, Whistling Straits is a totally manufactured course that 'suggests' some links texture to an extreem, yet is a great test of golf and accomplishes that in the golf skills challenge quite well.  But, in such a difficult manufactured setting, we can conjure up the murderous notions for the guy who designed it...

The architects that I would roundly critiscize are those that get a great site with plenty of natural terrain desirablility, and think they have to use a heavy hand to somehow manufacture more and leave their mark, and give a natural site an un-natural feel.  That is the most egregious fault in my view.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I think Hunter was trying to make a point that is still true today. That golf designs need to maximize the use of interesting natural features; that a heavy hand can destroy those natural features -- features which utltimately provide the most interest and excitement. I don't think Hunter felt that it was impossible for his contemporaries to design wonderful natural courses, after all his book was devoted to the art of modern golf design. Just as today it is not impossbile for modern golf architects to design wonderful natural courses and thankfully there are a number of modern examples.

[Rich_Goodale]

We all know that there is no such thing as a 100% natural golf course out there.  All courses are manufactured, in one way or another, to varying degrees--even TOC (perhaps even PARTICULARLY TOC), as has been observed and documented here many times.

Having played all three, I don't think there is a signfiicant difference in the "naturalness" of Kingsbarns, Pacifci Dunes and Bandon Dunes.  The mark of man is obvious on each of them, as are the marks of "nature.".

As BarnyF so astutely implies on another similar thread, any golf course that did NOT bear the imprint of man would be of little strategic interest to the golfer, and fit more for esthetic observation than athletic endeavor.

I personally think that it is far more important for an archtect to be able to control his or her desires to utilize every "natural" feature that captures their fancy than it is to worry every time he or she gets to desire to bring out the D-9's.  Taking a routing far out of its natural way just to be able to hit a "natural" greensite is just as much architectural "vandalism" as is ignoring those features which exists within the natural flow of the land.  A completely "minimalist" approach only leads to something which is, well--minmal.

I think we will all be amazed at the restraint used by Coore and Crenshaw at Friar's Head in NOT trying to maximize the use of the not inconsiderable "natural" features of that property.  We may well find that the "manufactured" holes on that course are the best ones, and the "natural" ones are just a bit of icing on the cake.

We shall see.

[TEPaul]

Wow, is this a really great topic--congratulations Brian! Really a deep one too when you bring Robert Hunter into it and start quoting him. It could not get much deeper than trying to discuss his meaning unless you started to quote Max Behr (and discuss his meaning) in which case we'd all go half nuts trying to understand him, although I believe even that is possible even though the process of trying is very much a nuu-nuu-nuu one!

From what I've read here, personally, I think Tom MacWood may have come as close to explaining what Hunter was trying to say as anyone. I don't believe that Hunter was trying to make a black and white point that anything natural would be accepted and anything constructed by man's hand to mimic nature, no matter how cleverly done and naturally appearing,  would be criticized. Although he actually did say that, he said it on a very interesting level--a very psychological and subliminal level which I do believe to be true.

That level is the one that might be most perfectly evidenced by what was earlier discussed as the American idea of "Manifest Destiny". It is simply man's own instinct to lay his hand on nature either to just survive and prosper in it or to even exhibit his belief that he's unique and capable of things that other creatures are not! Probably sort of his justification of his own unique being!

But "Manifest Destiny" is a two edged sword and became known as one in America's early original effort to push west, to conquer whatever stood in its way. Because those who truly understood the term understood that it was a rationalization, to a large extent, for a basic conflict in man's own nature. The conflict was that man really did feel the pain of conquering (and maybe destroying) that very thing he saw as beautiful and majestic (God's natural creations) in his effort to survive, settle and prosper!

The concept of "Manifest Destiny" (or anything is possible-but at what price?) survives today much more in our psyches, I think, than most realize! It really has become a basic myth (truly subliminal but central) and probably very much part of our ethos!

I think these are some of the things that Hunter talks about when he mentions man's reaction to something that's artifical, even if well disguised to look much like nature! It's not that it doesn't look as good as nature, it's just that it isn't nature, it's his own hand and the old conflict of the likes of "Manifest Destiny" arises in him again and it disturbs him as most real conflicts are likely to do!

But Hunter never said there was anything wrong with an architect touching natural golfing ground and doing what he had to do to create a playing field suitable for golf. It was just as Tom MacWood said that in doing that he should make every effort to use as much of what is natural as possible and what was not usable or what needed to be added to or altered by man should be done in such a way as to best disguise man's hand.

Hunter was one of the first to say that a few essential elements of golf--the tee, fairway, green and bunker (to some natural golf ground) were basically unnatural elements but were necessary for the game--maybe even unfortunately necessary but completely necessary nonetheless. Of these the subject of the bunker was the most fascinating of all.

And this gets into the hope and dream of many of the best and most thoughtful of the "Golden Age" architects that  future technology would somehow allow them to construct golf courses that were far more indistinguishable from nature then anything they had previously been able to do!

In this way their hearts and mind were in the right place but as it turns out they were not very good futurists! And it's probably safe to say that if they could see some of the golf courses today that do not use or even consider the effects and uses of nature or naturalness they would probably be extremely disappointed in them.

[Rich_Goodale]

Somehow I suspect that Hunter's sensibilities were jarred in 1923 more by the fact of change than the nature of the change itself.  I very much doubt that the land on which the "new" holes at Deal were built were any different in their intrinsic geology than the ones they replaced, but rather, just different..........

Go ahead, call me an insensitive, anti-Romantic.......

PS--I have played Deal..........

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

I wouldn't call you inscensitive or anti-romantic, but you might get a different impression of Hunter's intuitive abilities after reading the entire book. He was obviously a great student of the differing links environments of the UK. And the changes to Deal were well documented and debated at the time.

[Brian Phillips]

GeoffryC,

I agree with you that neither TOC or Cruden Bay are second rate.  However there are some holes on each course that are as good as they could be but is any course.  I am not trying to pick holes in any course.  I played both Cruden Bay and Royal Aberdeen within two days of each other and I preferred Royal Aberdeen to Cruden Bay.  

I preferred Aberdeen because it was more of a test (1st rate golf) and made me think around the course.  However I remember more of Cruden Bay because it is such a unique course.  I love the 4th, 5th, 10th, 11th, 12th and believe it or I love the 15th (Blin' Dunt) but that is more because I hit a 2 iron around the corner!!  If I was going to play golf on the bounce with a couple of pals then I would definately wnat to play Cruden Bay but if I wanted to play some tough matchplay I would play Aberdeen.

Rich,

I definately agree with you about all courses are manufactured by man, especially TOC.  I would love to know how many changes have been done to the coures since Big Jack has been involved and how many times it had been changed up to then

TEPaul,
The wife thinks the book is stuck to my hand at the moment.   You know when you pick up an old book and just keep flicking through to find titbits of info, well, I'm doing it all the time at the moment and I can't put it down.  The quotation wasn't really trying to delve into what Hunter was thinking or thought at the time but more of what I feel myself and his quote was a perfect way of explaining it.

I really do feel that architects get a hard time these days and it is so difficult to please everybody especially when you have a group like discussing every little thing there is about a new course.

The best thing about the book is that hsi opinions do not seem to be biased (ok slightly by MacKenzie
but that is not a bad influence) and I enjoy it more than George Thomas' book.

Have you read What makes a Good golf course good by Shunsuke Kato?  Some of the pictures in that book are awesome but I think the bunkering is poor by European standards.  It is worth price in my opinion just for the photography.  The other one I could recommend (hope your not offended by the advice) is the new book by James Beard.  Turf Management ($125).  Again it is pricey but it gives you a really good insight into what you seem to have an interest in 'construction'.

Any way I have said enough.  Going back to watch the football (soccer).

Cheers  

Brian
 PS.  The picture on The Confidential Guide to Golf is 100% the 8th.  You can even see the players teeing off on the 9th at the top of the picture!!

[Ran Morrissett]

Brain, what (in the world) do you like about the 12th at Cruden Bay?

Rich, You see no difference between the naturalness of PD and BD? The revetted bunkers are the the most evident example of man's hand at TOC; I'm surprised that you don't feel the same about BD? Would you agree that Brora must surely be amongst the 4-5  most natural courses in the world?

[Rich Goodale (Guest)]

Ran

The bunkers at Brora were revetted, too,  last time I saw them a year and 1/2 ago.  It's pretty much de rigeur on links courses if you want the bunkers to keep their shapeover time.  I'd be very surprised if there were no revetted bunkers at PD 10 years from now (even that one on the 3rd fairway that had some sort of asphaltic material showing through the blown sand in September.....).

Vis a vis "naturalness" I hold the completely compatible opinions that:

1.  No golf course is "natural"
2.  Nothing in the universe is "unnatural"

In regard to the former, nobody would ever mistake PD or BD or TOC or Brora for anything but a golf course and a creation of man.  Even the cows roaming the fairways at Brora understand this when they brush their ugly butts up against the electric fences which surround the greens.  Even Sam Snead recognized that there "used to be a golf course" on the land occupied by TOC, even before the bunker revetments and other renovations of the last 55 years .  Closely mown green surfaces and groups of poorly dressed men carrying various metal implements just aren't seen on purely "natural" linksland.  Even if you believe that TOC and PD and Brora are significantly more "natural" than BD (which I do not) they are so only in the sense of lesser degrees of "unnaturalness."

Whiich brings me to my second point.  Men and their creations are just as much a part of "nature" as are the wind and the sea and generations of rutting rabbits and somnolent sheep.  In a cosmic sense, Shadow Creek has every much the right to be deemed perfectly "natural" as do those glorious stretches of land that lurk, as yet untouched by beryllium, balata or brogues, in sand hills and linksland throughout the world.

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Now that you have completed your cemantics excercize -- could you take your 'lesser degrees of unnaturalness' and fit it into Ran's question?

Or perhaps you don't appreciate or are unable to recognize natural features/undualtions and could care less about natural features/undulations found or not found on a golf course -- if that is the case you are not alone and are part of modern majority.

Has you wife had plastic surgery to enhance her 'beauty'? Have you seen Helen Gurly Braun or Cher lately -- talk about 'degrees of unnaturalness' -- I'll take natural beauty every time.

[Rich_Goodale]

Tom

I did answer Ran's question to my satisfaction.  If he's unsatisfied or wants clarification, I'm sure he'll let me know.

Even though your analogy is lame and basically irrelevant, my wife has substantial natural beauty, thank you, but on the rare days that she chooses to augment it with makeup, I'm not distressed.

Like most people (including all golfers I know) I am very much aware of the natural beauty which surrounds me.  I do not, however, feel that I have to analyze or disssect that beauty.  I'd rather just enjoy it, viscerally.  But, to each his or her own.....

[Tom MacWood (Guest)]

Rich
Would make-up vs. plastic surgery be an example of your 'degrees of unnaturalness'?  Would Shadow Creek be the Micheal Jackson of golf?  I understand he sometimes walks his monkey on the course.

I'm with, you I'd rather enjoy the affect of naturalness viscerally, its just that I've found that when I'm presented with a golf course that is particularly artificial, instinctively I get a feeling that there is something not quite right -- perhaps Hunter and I are overly sensative to naturalness. And maybe you have a point, that we -- you and I and the others --have devoted far too much time to dissecting and analyzing this particular subject. Although it is difficult to seperate natural advantages from the greatest golf courses.

I hope I didn't offend you and your wife with my analogy, or Cher, HGB, MJ - or his monkey for that matter.

John aKa BarneyF
I didn't mean to insult your brother - I don't recall ever bringing up your brothers name. Hell, I don't even know who your brother is!

I find beauty in your words.  

[TEPaul]

I heard that too that Michael walks around Shadow Creek with his monkey--but I heard that recently Michael's monkey has been walking Michael..

Did any of you guys see that program recently where Michael was being honored and he got up there and preformed again with his brothers? I feel lucky to be alive to see that guy! What a preformer--nothing like him and of course with dance Michael is definitely in some other universe all by himself!

Did you'all know that when Michael was a young guy he intricately studied film clips of Fred Astaire--and that when he was on top and Fred was much older that he was half blown away watching Michael preform?

I love to watch a really great artist in action whether it's Michael, Fred, Bill Coore or Fireball Roberts!

[Brian Phillips]

Just thought I would bring this post back up as I feel it was one of my best....not that is anything to blow my trumpet about...

Can any of you tell me why the 6th at Cruden Bay is called.......Bluidy Burn

I will tell you the answer if this thread gets over 40 replies