Is this "Quirk" ?

[Sean_A]

Neil

I think the land being controlled by The National Trust prevents the building of bunkers, but I could be wrong as I never properly investigated the matter.

Ciao

[David Davis]

Sean,

Nice picture, looks to be a really fun hole. Definitely a bit of a different green. Is 18 unique at Kington or is that kind of the norm there? I did a search on GCA to see if I could find other photos just to compare and get a feeling for the course (well as much as possible from photos). Does that mounding do a lot to deter shots that would normally roll over the green? It looks like the green slopes right to left as well in the photo, how many shots end up below on the practice putting green? Is that OB or what's the ruling there, drop zone maybe?

[jeffwarne]

Yes, I think most people would consider Kington to be quirky and the 18th green to be an example of that quirk.  Since I haven't met anyone who as played Kington and not loved it, though, I'm confidant this is good quirk.  Kington's architecture is, in many ways, minimalistic but also highly artificial.  The excellence of the course is as much evidence as could be needed that naturalistic architecture is not the only way to achieve a wonderful golf course.

I'm in a mood to quash all idealism today so I apologise in advance.... I believe this is indeed an example of minimalism.... But only because the architect / constructors didn't have the foresight or budget to make it look more natural... I believe that contrary to what you say above, this is in fact an attempt to look as naturalistic as possible and building something artificial looking was not the objective by any means... Architects today (with any budget) don't build this kind of feature because they know how to tie in to the land better.... All of that is not to say that this is not a cool feature or that it doesn't play well or even look good...

Ally

Hutchison was a seasoned and well known figure in golf and architecture.  Kington came well after the initial heathland push - being founded in 1925.  I am confident he knew about shaping and naturalism afterall it was al the rage among the crowd Hutchison ran in.  Kington is something quite original for Hutchison's resume which I suspect was a budget driven solution to tackle the hilly site.  I wonder if there were any cues taken from Fowler's work at Yelverton - another quite distinctive course flying in the face of naturalism.  

Ciao

 I'm sure it was a budget driven solution Sean... But one aimed to look as natural as possible, not deliberately artificial...
I can see similarities with early Fowler work as well... Basically dig out a bunker and use the cut to create the fronting mound in quite a sharp fashion... Looks like loads of fun anyway... Not quirky though...

Ally

Can't agree.  There is no way Hutchison thought the mounding looked as natural possible.  Once a choice was made not to shape out the surrounds I think he was shooting more for as interesting looking as possible given the budget and playability considerations - nature had couldn't have had much bearing in the final decision-making.  The shaping of Kington is so starkly unnatural that its impossible for me to be believe anybody could think it plausible for it to exist on that site.  

Here is another pic of #18 to drive home the point of how in your face Kington's shaping is.


Pay attention to the mounding and hollows in the above pic.  Its very clever how the recovery penalty for going past the hole is heightened by sharp mounding and a hollow.  Further up the green where balls need to kick in from has no hollows.  I am certain Hutchison took great care in making Kington a very strategic course that is harder to make out because of the lack of bunkers.  There is in question in my mind that Kington is a very high quality design on a tough site - a design archies could learn from.   

Ciao

Yes I'd say architects (and all golfers) could learn a lot from Kington.
Unfortunately, many were in a landscape class on "tieing in" features the day the field trip went to Kington.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

Yes, Hutchison must have missed that class as well. 

David

The 18th is a bit unique at Kington because its an obvious green light par 4 which an unusually high percentage of golfers can hope to hit the green (unlike the vast majority of "drivable par 4s").  While there are plenty of short par 4s on the course, only the 18th can be described this way. The mounding really isn't different on the 18th - plenty of the holes showcase this feature.  

Usually if a shot makes it onto the green the mounds will contain it.  The green is quite flat and in two tiers front to back, but does have some movement which I can never read.  I suspect some subsidence has occurred to make reading the green very difficult.  Its almost as if the two greens are not related.  The front breaks differently from the back.  I rarely see guys two-putt from the front of the green.  

I don't think I have ever seen a shot visit the putting green, but it must happen.  I suspect there is a free drop on offer, but I don't know.  More often guys hit the house.  Sometimes the ball bounces back hard enough to go back onto the green.  I witnessed a guy call that shot before he hit - very cool.  

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Firstly, I suspect that Hutchison cared far more for how it played than how it looked. 

For the sake of his reputation, one certainly hopes that and not the obverse.

[Ally Mcintosh]

The steep slopes around the green are man-made quirk (because it steep and varied) and the accidental surface of the fairway is quirky (because it’s accidental).

But if the apron and green surface are flat - then it’s dinky. 

John, you can't but deny that most modern architects would disturb a lot more land round the area of the green to soften all the features. This as ooposed to just benching a green in to the sideslope and having smaller edges.... Sean, Jeff - I'd love to know what you think is to be learned from this greensite... Hutchinson clearly gave it a lot more character than it could have had and part of that reasoning was clearly to make it a more difficult approach... He added some artistic flair in the mounding but I don't believe for one second that he set out to build them artificial looking.... I have seen quite a number of green sites on steep slopes with artificial mounds like this (though few as good looking), all on low budget courses, mostly built without architect supervision I am guessing.... Maybe architects should use this device more nowadays and that is what you are saying... But 99.9% of them would work to a bigger area to achieve the end result.... I do like this kind of feature so maybe it's worth a comeback (I played The Curragh on Friday with some similar looking mounds)... Do you think it was a deliberate trend at the time?

[jeffwarne]

The steep slopes around the green are man-made quirk (because it steep and varied) and the accidental surface of the fairway is quirky (because it’s accidental).

But if the apron and green surface are flat - then it’s dinky. 

John, you can't but deny that most modern architects would disturb a lot more land round the area of the green to soften all the features. This as ooposed to just benching a green in to the sideslope and having smaller edges.... Sean, Jeff - I'd love to know what you think is to be learned from this greensite... Hutchinson clearly gave it a lot more character than it could have had and part of that reasoning was clearly to make it a more difficult approach... He added some artistic flair in the mounding but I don't believe for one second that he set out to build them artificial looking.... I have seen quite a number of green sites on steep slopes with artificial mounds like this (though few as good looking), all on low budget courses, mostly built without architect supervision I am guessing.... Maybe architects should use this device more nowadays and that is what you are saying... But 99.9% of them would work to a bigger area to achieve the end result.... I do like this kind of feature so maybe it's worth a comeback (I played The Curragh on Friday with some similar looking mounds)... Do you think it was a deliberate trend at the time?

Ally,
I agree with you that probably 99% of modern architects would work in a bigger area, and that the end result would be better tieins and subtler features.
I would like to hold out hope there's a 1% out there who might not.
We can only speculate whether the work at Kington was cost driven, ignorance of landscape architecture driven, or ingenuity driven.
I love the bold look and enjoy such non "tied in" boldness when I run into it on mostly older courses.

I had a prominent architect tell me that NGLA would never be built today because they have such better earthmoving equipment now.
While i agree it probably wouldn't be built today (at least by the 99% you reference) I'd like to think there's a 1% out there working today who would build NGLA, or the occasional striking, original features, prominent at Kington born out of the nessessity of a sand bunker alternative (which are completely unnatural as well, yet accepted as "normal" add nauseum, by the masses)

I guess what I'm saying is of course there is room for different theories and styles or architecture, but I often disagree when bold work is said to be a product of inferior technology, cost, or knowledge.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Pay attention to the mounding and hollows in the above pic.  Its very clever how the recovery penalty for going past the hole is heightened by sharp mounding and a hollow.  Further up the green where balls need to kick in from has no hollows.  I am certain Hutchison took great care in making Kington a very strategic course that is harder to make out because of the lack of bunkers.  There is in question in my mind that Kington is a very high quality design on a tough site - a design archies could learn from.   

Ciao

So playing Devil's advocate, to put a flat green in to a side slope you have to cut up the slope and fill down the slope... There is always going to be a hollow on the back of the green and it is just as likely that the mound was built to try and retain balls on the green... Additionally there are never going to be any hollows further up the green where the ball needs to kick in because that is where cut has already been taken... i.e. to create hollows there you need to move the work area much wider and further up the hill... All that said, I like the mounds and I can see how they add strategy... Tell me, do you know if Hutchinson was present during construction?... Another example I'm thinking of is Howth in Dublin... 9th green, big slope, mounds around.... Designed by Braid,  built by locals.... Doesn't look as good as this though...

[Ally Mcintosh]

The steep slopes around the green are man-made quirk (because it steep and varied) and the accidental surface of the fairway is quirky (because it’s accidental).

But if the apron and green surface are flat - then it’s dinky. 

John, you can't but deny that most modern architects would disturb a lot more land round the area of the green to soften all the features. This as ooposed to just benching a green in to the sideslope and having smaller edges.... Sean, Jeff - I'd love to know what you think is to be learned from this greensite... Hutchinson clearly gave it a lot more character than it could have had and part of that reasoning was clearly to make it a more difficult approach... He added some artistic flair in the mounding but I don't believe for one second that he set out to build them artificial looking.... I have seen quite a number of green sites on steep slopes with artificial mounds like this (though few as good looking), all on low budget courses, mostly built without architect supervision I am guessing.... Maybe architects should use this device more nowadays and that is what you are saying... But 99.9% of them would work to a bigger area to achieve the end result.... I do like this kind of feature so maybe it's worth a comeback (I played The Curragh on Friday with some similar looking mounds)... Do you think it was a deliberate trend at the time?

Ally,
I agree with you that probably 99% of modern architects would work in a bigger area, and that the end result would be better tieins and subtler features.
I would like to hold out hope there's a 1% out there who might not.
We can only speculate whether the work at Kington was cost driven, ignorance of landscape architecture driven, or ingenuity driven.
I love the bold look and enjoy such non "tied in" boldness when I run into it on mostly older courses.

I had a prominent architect tell me that NGLA would never be built today because they have such better earthmoving equipment now.
While i agree it probably wouldn't be built today (at least by the 99% you reference) I'd like to think there's a 1% out there working today who would build NGLA, or the occasional striking, original features, prominent at Kington born out of the nessessity of a sand bunker alternative (which are completely unnatural as well, yet accepted as "normal" add nauseum, by the masses)

I guess what I'm saying is of course there is room for different theories and styles or architecture, but I often disagree when bold work is said to be a product of inferior technology, cost, or knowledge.

Fair point and I don't necessarily disagree Jeff.... I'm just not 100% sold on the idea that the 18th green at Kingston was an ingenious and bold choice on the side of the architect... Was alpinisation deliberately bold and meant to appear artificial? Were those early MacKenzie bunker complexes at Huddersfield the same?... No - they were early attempts at appearing more natural...

[David Davis]

Ok so I don't mean to state some obvious point here if that be the case but I seem to notice many courses in the UK and Ireland being able to create these extremely tight lies everywhere. Are they hand cutting around the greens or does this grass also just stay quite low and manageable? If the mounding didn't exist you'd never be able to stop the balls at all. In other countries I think they would of planted different grass and let it grow long enough to slow the balls down and catch them, that and bunkering which goes without saying. Maybe indeed it was his only option and a creative one at that. It kind of makes me think of a castle that's being protected by a wall most of the way around and has the draw bridge open for safe passage if you can reach it. To those that have played if you ended up on the outside of the humps what was the best play to get back in, putter, lob wedge or chipping against the back side to take the pace off? The angles seem really steep to putt or chip against and still judge it properly.

 

[jeffwarne]

Ally,
THe most important point you bring up is construction.
My guess is whether you love it, like it, or hate it, that green and surrounds had everything to do with the crew, and little(or at least less) to do with the architect, who may not have seen it for months if at all.

[John Chilver-Stainer]

Ally,

I agree with you that a benched green into a side slope in the modern era would use a larger area and soften it, often adding catchment areas above the green and diverting surface water away from the green,

The main reasoning being that the greenkeeper can maintain the grass surrounds with their sit-on machines without scalping or sliding off the slopes.

Furthermore it is very unusual to see crinkly or accidental fairways in modern courses, as these will be ironed out and softened by bulldozers or ultimately by tractor pulled tilling operations prior to seeding.

It is unusual to see such steep faces and pointed mounds and it is great to still see some around, such as at Kington. Apparently grass maintenance within budget is still possible.

A lot of the benched greens from the pre war era were cut into side slopes with a similar disregard for steep embankments – probably as it was the quickest and cheapest option. Over the years many such greens have been softened, mainly by greenkeeping staff during the winter months.

This is quirk which one doesn’t often see nowadays – which leads to some creative golf shots if you are on the wrong side of one of those mounds.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it the genius of Hutcheson but repsect it as a distinctive style of the time, that in spite of it's idiosyncracies still has a place in the history of golf course architecture.

Golf courses that have such quirk should revere it, and not alter it because it doesn't suit modern practises..
Current golf course designers should try it out now and again.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally,

I agree with you that a benched green into a side slope in the modern era would use a larger area and soften it, often adding catchment areas above the green and diverting surface water away from the green,

The main reasoning being that the greenkeeper can maintain the grass surrounds with their sit-on machines without scalping or sliding off the slopes.

Furthermore it is very unusual to see crinkly or accidental fairways in modern courses, as these will be ironed out and softened by bulldozers or ultimately by tractor pulled tilling operations prior to seeding.

It is unusual to see such steep faces and pointed mounds and it is great to still see some around, such as at Kington. Apparently grass maintenance within budget is still possible.

A lot of the benched greens from the pre war era were cut into side slopes with a similar disregard for steep embankments – probably as it was the quickest and cheapest option. Over the years many such greens have been softened, mainly by greenkeeping staff during the winter months.

This is quirk which one doesn’t often see nowadays – which leads to some creative golf shots if you are on the wrong side of one of those mounds.
I wouldn't go so far as to call it the genius of Hutcheson but repsect it as a distinctive style of the time, that in spite of it's idiosyncracies still has a place in the history of golf course architecture.

Golf courses that have such quirk should revere it, and not alter it because it doesn't suit modern practises..
Current golf course designers should try it out now and again.

Agree with everything you say here...

[Sean_A]

Ally

For sure I think you are right in that modern archies would cut up far bigger sections of land to create the green complexes.  Why not - it makes sense given most budgets and current technology? 

I don't know if Hutchison was present during construction.  He could well have routed the course and not come back.  As I said, I would like to find out more about the decision-making at Kington.  That said, the gates that are created are not willy nilly in their placement so somebody on the construction crew knew what they were doing or Hutchison guided the work.  So far as the mounds go, it doesn't take that much extra work to shift the dirt from one side of the green to the other.  As I said, when studying the mounding it is clear there was a plan.

As Mark stated, we shall have to agree to disagree.  The mounding looks completely and utterly artificial on the Kington landscape.  There is no way a guy like Hutchison ever thought they could pass for natural features found on the site.  A 1 minute glance at the property makes this quite clear.  I think a more accurate description is pleasing to the eye rather than natural.  Whether or not the choice of shaping was as a stroke of brilliance is a matter of opinion, but there is no question it it was bold.  So bold in fact that I only know of one other course (Yelverton) with shaping like it, but in the case of Yelverton it wasn't at all necessary to cope with aggressive slopes.  Presumably Fowler did it because he thought it looked good. I think some odd stuff existed and Fowler just went with the flow here and there. 


David

Sheep take care of the grass at Kington.  The greenkeepers (I think 3) cut the greens.  They only cut the fairway once or twice a year.  The effect is fantastic because there is no clear delineation between rough and fairway.

Playing over the mounds is totally personal.  Good players will use the wedge, others will putt and others will bump n' run.  It makes a big difference if one misses high or low side.  The course isn't at all tough unless its windy.  Kington is more of a teaser course where shots just leak away for seemingly little reasons.

Ciao

[John Mayhugh]

Yes, I think most people would consider Kington to be quirky and the 18th green to be an example of that quirk.  Since I haven't met anyone who as played Kington and not loved it, though, I'm confidant this is good quirk.  Kington's architecture is, in many ways, minimalistic but also highly artificial.  The excellence of the course is as much evidence as could be needed that naturalistic architecture is not the only way to achieve a wonderful golf course.

Kington works at least as well visually as courses where loads of earth moving were needed to make the course look "natural." 

Really love Sean's photo from behind the 18th green. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Not denying that. A benched green in to a sideslope is difficult to do much with without doing a lot or without having a fairly bland result. I like the individual look of the photos above and it appeared to be a good solution.

Just not convinced it was a stroke of architectural genius. Neither am I convinced that it was an attempt to be deliberately artificial… Even MacKenzie - the king of "natural" golf course building / masking - had very sharp mounding in his early attempts, not a million miles from the above…. Although I do agree this hole was likely more about how it played rather than how it looked…

Sean, thanks for the Yelverton photo. Looks good. Here I also suspect the foreground shaping was original pre-course / native and Fowler's other shaping was also an attempt at mimicking and / or building native looking mounds… After all, sharp can be nature… more so certainly than some of the terrible uniform circular mounding we see on some courses nowadays...

Finally, if the architect wasn't present at the build (we don't know of course) and it was built without much supervision, then who is to know who is responsible for the actual look of the final result...

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

Just so you'll know, I don't believe the urgency to have good "tie-ins" has anything to do with landscape architecture ... at least, I took three years of landscape architecture, and don't remember hearing much about it.  I learned about it from working on construction with Mr. Dye, who stressed it even though he wasn't always trying to make things look natural.

One of the main reasons we have to think about it is the maintainability of golf courses.  If we had a project where sheep were going to maintain the fairways and roughs, we might be able to work differently ... but I've never had such a job, and most architects have never even dreamed of one!

I am all for other styles if they are executed well, but some styles are not easily imitated in the modern age.

[Gary Slatter]

depends on the lense used in the photo.  never played there but it looks great, nice having the 19th close, as long as it's open.