[Sean_A]

Adam

I think one of the inherent issues with clay is the bunker can only be dug so deep.  The usual choice is to either leave it two feet deep (crap no?) or create a berm to play over.  

I think that depends on the terrain. If you have enough contour that you can find somewhere to run a drain out of it, you can go deeper. How does Oakmont keep its bunkers dry? (I haven't been to the course). Presumably they are all drained.

For sure, but aren't all these measures with draining, keeping bunkers in place and rocks/debris from coming to the surface really about fighting the nature of the site? They have the furrow deal and mega numbers going on to set its scheme apart from most parkland sites, but do Oakmont's bunkers look naturally occurring to you?

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

Bravo, Joe Hancock: Natural or not, why does it matter? It's great golf.

Plenty of ground moved on MacRaynor courses, but almost all of it moved on the path from tee to green, not on the sidelines where it doesn't affect the golf.

I'm all for "unnatural" if it means great golf holes and fun shots. And with Macdonald and Raynor, that's exactly what it means.

[Rich Goodale]

A relevant old thread that deals with this point in some depth.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4760.75.html

....in which there is this tasty quote:

"TEPaul,

I agree with you in that I think NGLA is highly manufactured.

I think one of the best ways to observe this, on almost every hole, is to start 50 yards behind every green and head back to the tee.  What is revealed differs from what you see when you start at a tee and end up at the green.

Hole # 2 is a perfect example.  Go fifty yards in front of the tee on # 3 and look back at # 2 green.  Then circle # 2 green from 50 yards out.  Climb up onto # 2 green from the rear and observe the surroundings.  Walk back toward the tee and make 360 degree sweeps every 50 yards.  I think you could reasonably conclude that the entire hole was manufactured, especially the green and its immediate surrounds.

That same process is an eye opener at almost every hole.

But, that's just my opinion."

Now I wonder who said that?

[Michael Whitaker]

I thought there were some really 'clunky' landscape features which may have been acceptable in 1911, . . .

I think it may be a mistake to assume the look today is exactly as it was in the beginning.  Here are some photos of NGLA circa 1911 . . . .

Wow! These photos show an amazing difference in presentation.

Is the last photo #6? Is that a sleeper wall fronting the green?

[Thomas Dai]

See my post above. Great minds obviously think alike!

Can anyone throw any light on whether they are indeed sleepers in front of this green?

All the best.

[Jason Thurman]

Plus obvious man-made objects dotted around a very natural landscape can sometimes look very appealing - like a sculpture exhibition in the botanic gardens...

I agree completely.  Sometimes, it makes sense to push the boat out with shaping features.  I think many of the courses and features we love today that are a bit on the wild side may still look extraordinary today, originally they must have been extraordinary x2.  In other words, archies have to look to the future for their courses to be complete.  I am not sure that is the case these days. My favourite course on the planet is a shaping nightmare and the contrast of green sites with surrounds is jarring.  But the simple concept works and has a visual appeal that is unique.

I agree with you both. I know a lot of us complain about artificiality and overshaping. I wonder, though, if the real problem is simply unattractive or poorly placed shaping.

I love the clean lines of Raynor and Langford, and the way they juxtapose against the natural terrain. I recently played a more modern course and was looking back down one of the fairways. The way it was pushed-up on one side and almost "terraced" was fairly Raynor-esque in concept, almost like a redan kickplate, but the shaping of the edge was all squiggly and very busy. I didn't object because it looked artificial. I objected because it was just plain ugly.

National doesn't look very natural to me, but it has more visual appeal than most courses that do. Research says that we find things visually appealing when they make our eyes move across something in vertical and horizontal patterns, and I know I feel my eyes start to zip from one edge to another whenever I look at hole corridors on a Raynor-shaped course with all the edges staggered down the fairway and then flattening into the surrounding landscape.

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

A relevant old thread that deals with this point in some depth.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4760.75.html

....in which there is this tasty quote:

"TEPaul,

I agree with you in that I think NGLA is highly manufactured.

I think one of the best ways to observe this, on almost every hole, is to start 50 yards behind every green and head back to the tee.  What is revealed differs from what you see when you start at a tee and end up at the green.

Hole # 2 is a perfect example.  Go fifty yards in front of the tee on # 3 and look back at # 2 green.  Then circle # 2 green from 50 yards out.  Climb up onto # 2 green from the rear and observe the surroundings.  Walk back toward the tee and make 360 degree sweeps every 50 yards.  I think you could reasonably conclude that the entire hole was manufactured, especially the green and its immediate surrounds.

That same process is an eye opener at almost every hole.

But, that's just my opinion."

Now I wonder who said that?

Could it be the same person that wrote this?        

I have a very limited knowledge of construction, but my impaired vision tells me that a lot more than 10 % of NGLA was manufactured.  Virtually every one of the MASSIVE green complexes appears to be manufactured or built rather than found just lying there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have a very limited knowledge of construction, but my impaired vision tells me that a lot more than 10 % of NGLA was manufactured.  Virtually every one of the MASSIVE green complexes appears to be manufactured or built rather than found just lying there.


Donal,

Would you say that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 16th, 17th and 18th greens were't found lying there just needing a little help from the hand of man ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

A relevant old thread that deals with this point in some depth.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,4760.75.html

....in which there is this tasty quote:

"TEPaul,

I agree with you in that I think NGLA is highly manufactured.

I think one of the best ways to observe this, on almost every hole, is to start 50 yards behind every green and head back to the tee.  What is revealed differs from what you see when you start at a tee and end up at the green.

Hole # 2 is a perfect example.  Go fifty yards in front of the tee on # 3 and look back at # 2 green.  Then circle # 2 green from 50 yards out.  Climb up onto # 2 green from the rear and observe the surroundings.  Walk back toward the tee and make 360 degree sweeps every 50 yards.  I think you could reasonably conclude that the entire hole was manufactured, especially the green and its immediate surrounds.

That same process is an eye opener at almost every hole.

But, that's just my opinion."

Now I wonder who said that?

I said it and it's in complete harmony with my posts on this thread.
Just because something is manufactured doesn't mean it can't look natural.
And you'll note that my statement, that you cited, centers around viewing the greens from behind them, and not from the perspective of the golfer's eye, where all appears quite natural.

A gorgeous super model can look natural even if she's had her teeth capped, her hair dyed and her breasts augmented.
On the surface she looks natural.
Do you care how she came to look that way ?

Wayne Morrison's book about Flynn is titled, "The Nature Faker" for the very reason that Flynn was able to present a natural looking golf course despite the hand of man.

Hence the quote you cited is not in conflict with anything I've stated in this thread.

I'd be remiss if i didn't say that I find your reply to be disingenuous to intellectually dishonest.
You knew the context of my earlier post in terms of "manufacturing" a golf course and that it has nothing to do with how the finished product looks, as viewed from the golfers eye.  Plain and simple, it's a wise guy dirt bag move on your part

[Scott Warren]

Mucci reminds me of the black knight from The Life of Brian in this one!

[Bill_McBride]

Mucci reminds me of the black knight from The Life of Brian in this one!

It's just a flesh wound!

[Michael Whitaker]

Here is a photo I took from directly behind the 17th green looking back up the hill to the tee. Natural green site? I don't think so!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael,

Is that how the golfer views the green as he plays the hole ?

Photo if from in front of the green and tell me that it doesn't look natural, especially since the green is at grade with the approach and fronting fairway for 80 yards.

Here is a photo I took from directly behind the 17th green looking back up the hill to the tee. Natural green site? I don't think so!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott & Bill,

You'd have to be a "flaming" (new category) moron if you can't discern the difference between construction and appearance.

But, maybe that shouldn't surprise me.

[Sean_A]

Mucci reminds me of the black knight from The Life of Brian in this one!

Except for "calling it a draw" Mucci is the Black Knight in this one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiKvgvXt86g

Ciao

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

I have a very limited knowledge of construction, but my impaired vision tells me that a lot more than 10 % of NGLA was manufactured.  Virtually every one of the MASSIVE green complexes appears to be manufactured or built rather than found just lying there.


Donal,

Would you say that the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 10th, 12th, 16th, 17th and 18th greens were't found lying there just needing a little help from the hand of man ?

Pat,

Read the line I quoted very slowly. If you need help, pop outside your house and ask one of the 5 year old kids playing on the street for help.  

You wrote;

Every one of the MASSIVE green complexes appears to be manufactured or built rather than found just lying there.

Pay particular attention to the word appears.

So which is it; NGLA looks natural or appears manufactured?

Maybe in a Multi-Mucciverse, it's both.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Donal,

Why did you avoid answering the specific questions.

Start with # 4
Was # 4 just found there or was it manufactured ?

We know that some were manufactured, that's not the issue, the issue is how they appear to the golfer as the golfer plays each hole.

Maybe those 5 year olds you hang out with can help you with that.

You and others are confused, it's TOC, that's played in reverse, not NGLA.

So tell us, as the golfer plays the holes, do those greens appear to have been found there or just created out of the blue ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

I thought there were some really 'clunky' landscape features which may have been acceptable in 1911, but looked really artificial and even jarring today.

Martin,

We're still waiting, WHICH features were "REALLY CLUNKY" ?

WHICH features looked "REALLY ARTIFICIAL AND EVEN JARRING" ?


I still loved the look though, and thought it was a marvellous history lesson.

Just please don't anybody design or build anything similar today.

And no, Patrick, I've never been, so bite me,


Evidently you're too busy biting yourself, to identify the features you described as "clunky", "artificial and even jarring"
If they were "clunky, artificial and even jarring" you should be able to identify them in a New York second.
Why have you failed to identify those features ?
Did you open your mouth for the sole purpose of changing feet ?

[Mark Pearce]

My attention was drawn to this thread by a participant.  Good to see that Pat can fight on two fronts, waging war here and on the Biarritz thread.  I knew Pat was a serious golfer, an understanding that is confirmed by the astonishing revelation in this thread that, when playing a course, he only ever looks where he is going.  He never looks back, or to the rear but simply focusses on the shot ahead.  Admirable and remarkable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

One thing I was wondering in regards to the manufactured lines and angles, along with placement of the hazards, particularly in the flatter areas, is the context of the ongoing building and tweaking the course design at its inception in its time period of 1907-1915.
What holes and features are you referring to in the "flatter" areas

Obviously the idea of templating or recreating the playing strategies of the iconic golf holes and corridors that CB studied and as he intended to recreate them on this land parcel required the need for shaping material.  

Not true, you're suffering under a misconception borne of your lack of familiarity with the holes as they lay upon the land.
It's the build up of the greens that employed shaping, not the playing corridors.

Then, when one considers the tools of earth moving that were at their disposal, along with engineer-surveyor Raynor's unfamiliarity with golf course's of the British Isle's origin in general, and one might see how the manufactured hard line, unnatural look came into being.  

WHAT "manufactured hard line, unnatural look" ?
Could you identify where that occurs when the golfer is playing the golf course ?

Their was a great deal of need for manual labor.  I'm not sure what dredge and earth carts on tracks were, although George Bahto has at least one or more photo's in his book, "The Evangelist of Golf", showing the rudimentary and clunky earthmoving apparatus of the day from the work at Lido.

So, with a keen understanding of the strategy and placement of hazards and angles that CB brought back, along with the need for feature shaping, green's platform embankments and teeing grounds and such, was born the sharp and manufactured angles.

Are you basing your opinion on your personal observations when you walked/played NGLA, or based upon what you gleaned from the limited telecast of the Walker Cup.  

One only need look at the many courses of GB built away from the links land dunes that were constructed in-land with the era of geometric shapes of bunkers and such to see that the manufactured and angular geometry of the game hadn't met the more advanced technology of earthmoving and shaping with more artistry.  

What "advanced technology" ?

While it would seem Dr. MacKenzie had it more on his repitoire of shaping in those days to mimic nature, most other archies did not incorporate that aspect of shaping to mimic or compliment nature so much, and it was more about digging pits for hazards and placing them for playing strategical effect rather than the aesthetics involved.  

Is that your opinion of NGLA ?

Is it based upon your play of the course or from watching the Walker Cup ?

So, with NGLA being such a new entry on the U.S. golf scene on such a large scale, and lack of a tradition or historical evolution of blending artistic complimenting of artificial earth works with natural surroundings, we got this more manufactured look with great playing strategic angles and geometric shapes.

What "manufactured LOOK" ?
Would you identify exactly where this "LOOK" reveals itself to the golfer as he plays the course ?

As noted, CB and perhaps Raynor paid attention to the look from eye level and that may have mitigated the angular and manufactured look a little, but the views from above make the geometry and manufactured look more dramatic. At least that is my take...

"Views from above" ? ?  ?
You've got to be a moron to now put forth the idea that golf course architecture should be evaluated by how it  presents itself from a blimp

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

Donal,

Why did you avoid answering the specific questions.

Start with # 4
Was # 4 just found there or was it manufactured ?

We know that some were manufactured, that's not the issue, the issue is how they appear to the golfer as the golfer plays each hole.

Maybe those 5 year olds you hang out with can help you with that.

You and others are confused, it's TOC, that's played in reverse, not NGLA.

So tell us, as the golfer plays the holes, do those greens appear to have been found there or just created out of the blue ?

Pat,

That's correct; I didn't answer your question as I had already stated that I have not played nor seen the course in person. Besides, it doesn't matter what I think of all those greens. It was you that wrote that NGLA looked natural in this thread, but also wrote that it appears manufactured in the thread that Rich linked. You're the confused one.  

Those five year olds won't play with me; they're too busy scribbling "moron" on the road with green chalk.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

My attention was drawn to this thread by a participant.  Good to see that Pat can fight on two fronts, waging war here and on the Biarritz thread.  I knew Pat was a serious golfer, an understanding that is confirmed by the astonishing revelation in this thread that, when playing a course, he only ever looks where he is going.  He never looks back, or to the rear but simply focusses on the shot ahead.  Admirable and remarkable.

Mark,

Only a colossal moron could miss the quote provided by Rich Goodale.
The one where I went into great detail about viewing each green site from behind the green and at the flanks.

Either your reading comprehension skills are lacking or you're dishonest and lacking integrity.
Irrespective of which it is,  you're a colossal moron,

[Bill_McBride]

Scott & Bill,

You'd have to be a "flaming" (new category) moron if you can't discern the difference between construction and appearance.

But, maybe that shouldn't surprise me.

 

[JMEvensky]

 

He is on a pretty good roll isn't he?

[Jason Thurman]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()