Taking away is easier than adding in.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Without wanting to get in to specifics, I've seen three or four horrendous examples of mounding / framing / shielding being added to links courses recently. The work was - I suspect / hope - carried out without the input of an architect or outside shaper.

I have mentioned when asked that adding mounding is far more difficult than taking it away. With the latter you are merely tying in to the existing land and if in a relatively small area, that is often enough to make the work look natural i.e. you don't need any creative detail & shaping.

When adding mounding, you not only have to decide what area you are tying in to but you have to creatively design and shape a feature so that it fits perfectly naturally. Almost always, this work is done in too small an area if by an in-house crew and therefore looks sharp and forced.

I am concerned - there is still an overwhelming belief in framing and containment in my part of the world from course committees and many architects. Bit by bit it is changing the character of many of our classic courses for the worse. (This in itself doesn't make me either right or wrong of course - it's just my part of my overarching belief)

Any examples people wish to highlight?

[Tom_Doak]

Ally:

Your theory is just as applicable to planting / landscaping as it is to mounding.  It's far harder to add than to subtract -- for me, anyway.

[jeffwarne]

Regarding mounding, some of the coolest I've seen didn't tie into anything and was most certainly done in house  burying debris , using excess material, or just creating hazards and interest with what they had.
Westhampton has a lot of this, as do many old courses such as Kennebunk,or the raw course Sean Arble often highlights such as Kington etc.
Many modern courses, particularly the signatures, spend so much effort "tying in" they lose the plot IMHO.
Of course maintenance is a bit easier if tied in where larger equipment can be used.
We've come to accept bunkers as normal, but they're hardly natural, and would be no more odd looking to a nongolfer than a crazy mound near a green or fairway.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Hi Jeff,

I'm not talking about building soft mounding versus sharp for ease of maintenance. I'm talking about features that fit in with their surrounds and look natural. Sharp mounding can often look more natural than those machine made perfect curves but not when it is surrounded by essentially flat landscape.

I think the Kington mounds look quite cool also. But only because they appear to be functional and offer something different. For they in no way look natural.

Taking mounds away and opening stuff up is just easier - that was the point I was trying to make.

Ally

[Steve Burrows]

Author, aviator and inventor Antoine de St. Exupery once wrote: "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."  His words speak specifically to the design and construction of airplanes, but in the spirit of this thread, surely his thoughts are applicable to golf courses as well.

[archie_struthers]

 


We built a golf course in NJ where we removed over 3,000,000 yards of dirt from the site . Although it certainly wasn't "finding the holes" and in fact they are all,manufactured, we certainly learned its easier to cut away then mound up.  Think of water scouring away the material, it's a lot easier to envision than going up .