News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« on: November 25, 2013, 04:57:12 PM »
What about this? Has anyone played it? Thoughts please?

Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

David_Tepper

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #1 on: November 25, 2013, 05:06:16 PM »
A new course in Germany:

http://www.winstongolf.de/en/

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #2 on: November 25, 2013, 05:10:23 PM »
David, it says that right on the photo yes, you are right but what do you think? Great or not special given you've probably not played it. Just  look and give your first impression.
Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #3 on: November 25, 2013, 05:17:50 PM »
First reaction not so good.   Looks really manufactured. 

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #4 on: November 25, 2013, 05:23:21 PM »
So the only thing we like here is natural looking regardless if it's actually natural or not? It's only of architectural significance if it looks like it was designed to look natural? It can't be great fun and look like your playing on the moon?
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 05:28:53 PM by David Davis »
Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #5 on: November 25, 2013, 05:30:36 PM »
So the only thing we like here is natural looking regardless if it's actually natural or not? It's only of architectural significance if it looks like it was designed to look natural?

The rub there is that it doesn't look anything like natural.  It looks like one of those Rees Jones holes that look completely manufactured.  

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #6 on: November 25, 2013, 06:03:24 PM »
David:

You've asked a trick question, because you haven't given us any information about the course by which to judge, other than the photo.

There could be a stunningly original golf hole on it somewhere ... something better than the 10th at Riviera.  That's always possible, even if the course looks like it's from the moon.  But we can't give it credit for that, unless we see it.  In the meantime, we can only judge it on what it looks like.

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #7 on: November 25, 2013, 06:04:39 PM »
Reminds me of bad acne under a powerful microscope.

Not that there's anything wrong with that....
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Paul Gray

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #8 on: November 25, 2013, 06:17:53 PM »
Accident with copy and paste?  ;D
In the places where golf cuts through pretension and elitism, it thrives and will continue to thrive because the simple virtues of the game and its attendant culture are allowed to be most apparent. - Tim Gavrich

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #9 on: November 25, 2013, 06:26:47 PM »
The question is simple, how much is too much or do we get to a point when super artificial becomes architecturally significant? I've only give a simple example of one hole on one course with a photo that is all the hype in Germany. I've not yet played it and for the most part I share the general opinions of the treehouse I'm afraid. I love natural courses that look like they belong there. I love greens with natural shaping that look as if someone walked up and stuck a flag in the ground in the perfect location. I'm slightly prejudiced against this type of course here. During the BUDA I took the guys to one non-classic course that many people in NL are calling NL's top course. They all hated it.

If you can't judge this course please provide your own example to answer the question. What is going too far? We have a thread which I can't remember with a green that is completely ridiculous and manufactured looking in my opinion and it receives quite a lot of loving on the site. Why would a hole like this be any different?

Bill, you mentioned Rees Jones, I don't know his work but looked up a lot of it and it all looks like modern US courses to me but nothing like the photo I just posted.

Tom, the quest is simply as stated above, is this example too far? What is too far in your opinion, I'm sure you have plenty of examples? Why is this too far?
Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #10 on: November 25, 2013, 06:32:03 PM »
Natural is good, manufactured is bad seems to be the mantra of many on this site. Yet, ANGC, NGLA, Raynor courses, many Braid courses, any course built on clay with sand bunkers, any course built in a desert setting with grass and the list goes on and on.

David, there are many artificial looking courses that are great.

Jon

Cliff Walston

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #11 on: November 25, 2013, 06:35:30 PM »
David,

I think super artificial can be architecturally significant if done well.  Examples would be Whistling Straits and TPC Sawgrass.  However, what shocks the system in that picture is the mounding coming up to a sharp point.  I have always found that to be the worst looking type of shaping because on a site with any kind of wind, those points would have eroded off.  It just doesn't look right to my eye and makes that course look awfully artificial rather than artificial done awfully well.  

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #12 on: November 25, 2013, 06:48:21 PM »
Ok, so my example is too far for most people? Where do you draw the line? It's one thing to look at a photo and say it's ridiculous because the shaping looks like Madonna's breasts in the Vogue video which are completely unnatural in nature. I get it, but then give an example of where the line should be drawn in your opinion. I'm sure the people that did the shaping and design would disagree with you.

I know a course in The Netherlands where the only way they could maintain the mounding was to build them around styrofoam cones.

I think the course looks like the moon a bit but I know several people that are ranting and raving about it. Really good players and pros, I'll make it a point to pay it a rating visit next year and do a photo tour if no-one beats me to it.
Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #13 on: November 25, 2013, 07:18:25 PM »
I think the course looks like the moon a bit but I know several people that are ranting and raving about it. Really good players and pros, I'll make it a point to pay it a rating visit next year and do a photo tour if no-one beats me to it.

Just because somebody likes the course, doesn't mean it is architecturally significant. 

Just because we dislike the course, doesn't mean that it isn't.

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #14 on: November 25, 2013, 07:19:38 PM »
What's really disconcerting, at least to me, is the amount of diesel they were using, about 3,500 gals per week of earthmoving (never mind the 1.7 million cu. yds of soil).
 
 From the Buckeye Turf blog:
The design concept is to create a links course. The existing soil is sandy helping to provide many of the attributes of a links course. To date they have moved 1.3 million cubic meters of soil. During 2009 when most of the earth moving was being done, the bulldozers and such were using 12 to 14 thousand liters of diesel a week. The course will be seeded to 100 percent fine fescue from tee to green.

http://buckeyeturf.osu.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=161:germany-a-traveling-road-show&catid=1:latest-news&Itemid=170

The site, and the architect:



They must have burnt up 60,000 gals. or more of fuel to achieve their results.  That alone makes the finished product 'too far'.  ;D
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Terry Lavin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #15 on: November 25, 2013, 07:42:16 PM »
I have a name:  Lord of the Rings International.
Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.  H.L. Mencken

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #16 on: November 25, 2013, 07:46:19 PM »
I have a name:  Lord of the Rings International.

 ;D ;D ;D

Looks like they dug all the way down to Middle Earth.
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Don_Mahaffey

Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #17 on: November 25, 2013, 07:48:09 PM »
David, I don't like it, and here is why based on that one picture:
1) if we were to rate the "frequency" of shaping movement from 1 to 100, with 1 being dead flat and 100 being like the most wind whipped ocean surface you could imagine, the frequency of the shaping shown is on the high end of the scale. You've been to Wolf Point, you know I don't mind a little movement and some abrupt bumps, but not just that and only that. Give me some radical movement, but also give me some quiet places to reset my equilibrium. All I see is high frequency movement here and no matter how well they hit that note, it takes more then one or two notes to make a good song. Gotta change octaves once in a while, and all I'm seeing is screaming high notes...(no more lame analogies from me)

2) No matter the frequency, it is the same old stack up the edges and play between the ridges type of manufactured architecture. If you are going to try and build cool stuff, lets play across it once in awhile. I am so weary of everyone just piling it up along the edges and making that crazy and edgy and then lowering the hole corridor and trying to make it look like the edges, but with the knob turned down a notch or two. If you are going to go artificial, build the whole damn site and then route the golf across, up, and over, and occasionally through it. Golf with all the shit piled up along the edges is so 1980's  ;D

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #18 on: November 25, 2013, 08:21:45 PM »
I wish I knew how to explain things like Mahaffey, maybe I would be taken more seriously. 

Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #19 on: November 25, 2013, 08:27:08 PM »
I wish I knew how to explain things like Mahaffey, maybe I would be taken more seriously.  

Probably true, Bill!

Great post and writing Don.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 09:03:57 PM by Mark Saltzman »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #20 on: November 25, 2013, 08:36:02 PM »
There is a slideshow of all 18:
 
http://www.winstongolf.de/en/#/en/courses/winstonlinks/11/

It gets more weird.  ;D

« Last Edit: November 25, 2013, 08:41:24 PM by Jim_Kennedy »
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2013, 03:21:28 AM »
One of this site's favourite hidden gems is Kington.  All of Kington's green complexes look artificial, with relatively small scale mounding and ditching being their defence.  I love Kington.  I guess what matters is balance and proportionality, tied in with reasonable artistry in shaping.  Kington's mounds look artificial but aren't symmetric or pointy or overdone.

The mounding at The International, however, was, I thought, really poorly done.  The same, conical mound repeated again and again, lining fairways with little creative thought.  Green side shaping appeared to be attempting to mimic nature but did so badly.   Even that might be OK if the holes were laid out so as to provide an interesting challenge.  I didn't think they did, however.  Quite how the golfing population of a country with courses as good as de Pan, Royal Hague, Kennemer, Noordwijkse and Swinkelsche can think so highly of The International is beyond me.  My impression from the pictures of Winston is that it is simply too busy and the shaping too symmetrical and not artistic enough but the pictures are so startling I'd like to play it before coming to a final conclusion.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

David Davis

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2013, 04:30:31 AM »
Jim, thanks for posting the slide show.

Don, interesting post but the only semi extreme thing at Wolf Point in my memory was the green on the par 5 that had the triple break running through it. I'm never good at remembering hole numbers but it was also one of my favorite holes and part of my current Facebook profile photo.

I still have not learned where anyone draws the line? What's too far?

As for Winston, like Mark I'd like to play it. Kingston was indeed the course I meant above that seemed to get a lot of love. I personally don't love the looks of it but I've not played it yet. The International has a lot of holes I quite like even though there are many things I don't like at the course, the most ridiculous of all is the slippery yellow Portuguese stone path that cost a cool half million that runs around the place. Ie...yellow brick road.

I won't dismiss that Winston golf could be a lot of fun until I play it. It looks to me like they were going for a links type feel and the shapers were shown photos of alps from above as apposed to the dunes. What they ended up with seems to be sand based target golf and if that's true I would say that's a shame and a waste of what could of been a great site.

Jim's post about the diesel usage is also an alarming one to which I think that's also a shame however, then the site is finished. Any guess how much gas is used in a single Nascar race for example? About 6000 + gallons which puts it into perspective.
Sharing the greatest experiences in golf.

IG: @top100golftraveler
www.lockharttravelclub.com

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #23 on: November 26, 2013, 04:45:45 AM »
My immediate reaction on first looking at the photo was OTT, what a waste of a sandy site and Madonna. Then I looked at each hole on the weblink provided by David T and thought exactly the same.
ATB

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How artificial is too far to be of architectural significance?
« Reply #24 on: November 26, 2013, 07:54:47 AM »
Mark Rowlinson and Christoph Meister played it a couple of years ago. Here's the photo tour:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,49596.0.html

I'd love to play it; it looks great and once those sharp edges get smoothed out, it'll look even better.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back