[William_G]

I like those pics posted by Tucholski


costly to maintain, but I love the look and would love the play

[Kirk Gill]

Patrick, I'm still trying to figure out how a deep bunker that has a "geometric" shape is more resistant to par than a deep bunker that has a more "natural" shap. Is there by necessity a greater difficulty to geometrically shaped features than with other shapes? I don't see it. For instance, in the photos Joe included, all of the bunkering looks to be flat-bottomed. It seems like in many cases this would make the bunker easier to negotiate than if the bottom was curved or banked. If the bunker was "hairy-lipped" than that might also create a greater resistance to par.

The idea of a  truly geometrically shaped golf course has always interested me. I'm talking about a course where all playable areas are made up of intersecting planes, with other geometric shapes making appearances. I've seen a few pictures of such courses, mainly the Bob Cupp course at Palmetto Hall Plantation and Dunkerque in France. Particularly on the latter course, I can see some elements that would highly resistant to par.

[DMoriarty]

Sean,  I agree that the early golden age guys like CBM, Travis, and Emmet used deep, difficult green side bunkers as part of their design approach, but I think green configuration (and how it related to the various possible lines of play) was another critical difference between their approach and the supposed Victorian approach.  I don't agree that their approach to bunkering greens was Victorian in nature because I don't think that Victorian design was necessarily characterized by greens closely guarded by deep bunkers. But it may be that we have a different understanding of what Victorian gca was, and perhaps a different view on early strategic design as well.

As I see it there are two major obstacles in discussing Victorian design (and by that I generally include pre-Golden Age, but non-traditional links design.)
     First, as Tom MacWood often pointed out, there was a lot more diversity in this early design period that is sometimes recognized. So it is difficult to accurately or productively generalize. This I think may explain our differences above.
     Second, the early Victorian courses were largely wiped off the map by the supposed golden age. Very few (if any) Victorian courses survived without having been substantially or completely redone.  At least in the US even the best early courses (ex. Garden City, Chicago, Shinnecock) were substantially altered during the early golden age.  (Myopia is often held up as an early course that survived, but Myopia was undergoing significant changes throughout the first few decades of its existence.)

[Norbert P]

Dunkerque, France



  When I play the golf courses in Normandy I will definitely make the trek up to Dunkerque to play this course.

 

   "That's not a golf course."  Mr. Young

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick, I'm still trying to figure out how a deep bunker that has a "geometric" shape is more resistant to par than a deep bunker that has a more "natural" shape.

Then you don't understand the nature of the question

Is there by necessity a greater difficulty to geometrically shaped features than with other shapes?

There's an inherent difference in the bunkers, and not just their perimeters

I don't see it. For instance, in the photos Joe included, all of the bunkering looks to be flat-bottomed.

Joe's photos are limited to a redan and a short and certainly don't represent the breadth of geometric architecture.

It seems like in many cases this would make the bunker easier to negotiate than if the bottom was curved or banked.

It's just the opposite.
Bunkers that rise toward the green are the easiest for golfers to extract themselves from

If the bunker was "hairy-lipped" than that might also create a greater resistance to par.

That's window dressing for novices

The idea of a  truly geometrically shaped golf course has always interested me. I'm talking about a course where all playable areas are made up of intersecting planes, with other geometric shapes making appearances.

Read Geoff Shackelford's book, it's pretty interesting and touches on geometric architecture.

I've seen a few pictures of such courses, mainly the Bob Cupp course at Palmetto Hall Plantation and Dunkerque in France. Particularly on the latter course, I can see some elements that would highly resistant to par.

Never having played them,  I"m not qualified to comment on their ability to affect par

[Patrick_Mucci]

Norbert,

Pretty neat stuff.

Has anyone played this course ?

Dunkerque, France



  When I play the golf courses in Normandy I will definitely make the trek up to Dunkerque to play this course.

 

   "That's not a golf course."  Mr. Young

[Joe_Tucholski]

Joe Tucholski,

So your perspective is based on photos of three holes on courses you've never played ? ?  ?

Four photos...two were from the same course because you asked specifically for examples from Chicago Golf Club.

Just as you were able to determine the course at Dunkerque is pretty neat from two photos I was able to determine I don't like the appearance.

The following is the quote at the top of GeoffShackelford.com today.

"Golf is a game which is comprehensive enough to satisfy the different tastes of those who are by nature imaginative; of those, on the other hand, who are intensely rational; or, in the third instance, of those who regard it as a thing to be dealt with politically, controlled and regulated as a matter of statecraft." TOM SIMPSON

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Tucholski,

So your perspective is based on photos of three holes on courses you've never played ? ?  ?

Four photos...two were from the same course because you asked specifically for examples from Chicago Golf Club.

I think you'll find that I didn't ask for photos of the Chicago Golf Club.
I merely directed John Kirk to Google Earth to view Chicago Golf Club

Don't you think your opinion of "Geometric" Architecture would carry more credibility if you actually played/walked a course with "Geometric" architectural features, versus posting a few pictures ?

Do you think that actually interacting with it might alter your opinion ?
An opinion based on photos from three holes ?

Just as you were able to determine the course at Dunkerque is pretty neat from two photos I was able to determine I don't like the appearance.

There's a difference.
I didn't condemn "geometric" architecture based on photos of three holes, some of which could be argued, don't represent geometric architecture.

I didn't take a specific and expand it to a universal, as you did.

I merely said that Dunkerque looked like a course I'd like to experience.
My curiosity with Dunkerque extends not just to the look and play, but to the construction and maintenance techniques employed,

The following is the quote at the top of GeoffShackelford.com today.

"Golf is a game which is comprehensive enough to satisfy the different tastes of those who are by nature imaginative; of those, on the other hand, who are intensely rational; or, in the third instance, of those who regard it as a thing to be dealt with politically, controlled and regulated as a matter of statecraft." TOM SIMPSON

Just a guess, but I don't think Simpson and Geoff were commenting on photo analysis limited to three holes

[Mark Fedeli]

Perhaps it's because I have so little first-hand experience with it, but I find myself quite fascinated by geometrical architecture. I think I love how "all-or-nothing" it is as a design philosophy. The architect's strategic decisions are laid completely bare for all to easily judge.

In fact, I'm surprised that some lesser courses haven't tried to incorporate more of it, if only for the novelty and as a way to gin up interest. If a course is built on completely featureless property and doesn't have the means to go for a pleasingly natural and minimalist look, why not be bold and go in the other direction? I've played a number of run down and uninspired designs that would do well to spice things up a bit and straighten out all those woeful ovals.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

I believe that the course below was built on a garbage dump and that construction entailed some interesting features to ameliorate the effects of decaying garbage, drainage, etc, etc..

Bayonne is the antithesis of the course below.

But, as someone once said, it's a great big world out there with room for every thing.

[Mark Fedeli]

Mark,

I believe that the course below was built on a garbage dump and that construction entailed some interesting features to ameliorate the effects of decaying garbage, drainage, etc, etc..

Bayonne is the antithesis of the course below.

But, as someone once said, it's a great big world out there with room for every thing.

Ah yes, Bayonne. If a book is ever written about its engineering, I'd love it to be as dramatic as David McCullough's books on the Brooklyn Bridge and Panama Canal. Or will it be more like The Johnstown Flood? While I had a fantastic time there, my profile pic is more representative of the NYC public hacker who looks longingly across the river to the golf version of Springsteen's Mansion on the Hill.

Dunkerque is a fascinating example, but what about the muni that, instead of just having two lazy ovals on the sides of each green, makes everything a bit more angular (and visually striking) in the styles of MacRayBanks? Surely the cost of maintaining such sharp lines would be more than just doing nothing, but would it be prohibitive?

I suppose this is all fantastical anyway, since geometric shapes, no matter what they're replacing, will be seen as pure shite by the average golfer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

Maintaining bunkers costs money.

I'm not sure of exactly what the incremental increase in costs are for bunkers with steep banks.

With lighter weight modern equipment I would think them more manageable than in the past.

If they could be maintained in 1920, 1930, 1940 and 1950 I can't see why they can't be maintained in 2014.

[Michael Felton]

Mark,

Maintaining bunkers costs money.

I'm not sure of exactly what the incremental increase in costs are for bunkers with steep banks.

With lighter weight modern equipment I would think them more manageable than in the past.

If they could be maintained in 1920, 1930, 1940 and 1950 I can't see why they can't be maintained in 2014.

Technology doesn't really make life easier. It just increases expectations. That it's easier to maintain those bunkers now means that people expect them to be perfectly manicured. I never played any courses in the first half of the 20th century (obviously), but I'm guessing that such bunkers would have been scruffier then than they are now. Perhaps only being tended to once or twice a week, rather than daily (I'm guessing about that too - I have no idea how often they are looked after).

I imagine labour is more expensive now than it was then too. Having a couple of bunkers that are more severe is not really going to impact on things too much, but if they're all like that you will need more staff, which costs money. More than it did in the early 1900s.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,

Maintaining bunkers costs money.

I'm not sure of exactly what the incremental increase in costs are for bunkers with steep banks.

With lighter weight modern equipment I would think them more manageable than in the past.

If they could be maintained in 1920, 1930, 1940 and 1950 I can't see why they can't be maintained in 2014.

Technology doesn't really make life easier.

You must live in a very, very remote area.

It just increases expectations.

No, it makes things easier.

That it's easier to maintain those bunkers now means that people expect them to be perfectly manicured.

People expected that 20, 40, 60 and 80 years ago.

I never played any courses in the first half of the 20th century (obviously), but I'm guessing that such bunkers would have been scruffier then than they are now.

Then you would guess wrong.
Labor was cheap and plentiful and rakes were put to good use

Perhaps only being tended to once or twice a week, rather than daily (I'm guessing about that too - I have no idea how often they are looked after).

Stop guessing, you're 0-2

I imagine labour is more expensive now than it was then too.
Having a couple of bunkers that are more severe is not really going to impact on things too much, but if they're all like that you will need more staff, which costs money. More than it did in the early 1900s.

0-3

NGLA's bunkers are plentiful and steep and large and maintenance wasn't an issue when there wasn't a World War or Depression.

[Josh Tarble]

How much of geometric architecture was simply due to their rudimentary construction methods and equipment? 

Would CBM and Raynor still have gone with their sharp edges and geometric shapes if they knew better ways to construct their ideas?

[Michael Felton]

Mark,

Maintaining bunkers costs money.

I'm not sure of exactly what the incremental increase in costs are for bunkers with steep banks.

With lighter weight modern equipment I would think them more manageable than in the past.

If they could be maintained in 1920, 1930, 1940 and 1950 I can't see why they can't be maintained in 2014.

Technology doesn't really make life easier.

You must live in a very, very remote area.

It just increases expectations.

No, it makes things easier.

That it's easier to maintain those bunkers now means that people expect them to be perfectly manicured.

People expected that 20, 40, 60 and 80 years ago.

I never played any courses in the first half of the 20th century (obviously), but I'm guessing that such bunkers would have been scruffier then than they are now.

Then you would guess wrong.
Labor was cheap and plentiful and rakes were put to good use

Perhaps only being tended to once or twice a week, rather than daily (I'm guessing about that too - I have no idea how often they are looked after).

Stop guessing, you're 0-2

I imagine labour is more expensive now than it was then too.
Having a couple of bunkers that are more severe is not really going to impact on things too much, but if they're all like that you will need more staff, which costs money. More than it did in the early 1900s.

0-3

NGLA's bunkers are plentiful and steep and large and maintenance wasn't an issue when there wasn't a World War or Depression.

My third point is the same as yours regarding my second point. How can I be 0-3?

Incidentally, here is a picture of Augusta National from the 1930s. The 12th hole. How does that bank compare with the one that we saw a few weeks ago at the Masters?

[Sven Nilsen]

How much of geometric architecture was simply due to their rudimentary construction methods and equipment? 

Would CBM and Raynor still have gone with their sharp edges and geometric shapes if they knew better ways to construct their ideas?

Did they not know something that the other architects of their day did?  I doubt it.

[Josh Tarble]

How much of geometric architecture was simply due to their rudimentary construction methods and equipment? 

Would CBM and Raynor still have gone with their sharp edges and geometric shapes if they knew better ways to construct their ideas?

Did they not know something that the other architects of their day did?  I doubt it.

Sven,
Maybe CMB, but it's well known that Raynor didn't know much about golf and perhaps hadn't seen many courses at all.  Maybe an early example of shaper - architect relationship.

[Nigel Islam]

I am with Pat on this one (minus the Dunquerque course). Isn't it just possible that Raynor liked the look of the rectangular bunkers and greens. I know I do. I look at some of the satellite images of Raynors and I just wish I lived closer to the East Coast.

[DMoriarty]

How much of geometric architecture was simply due to their rudimentary construction methods and equipment?  

Would CBM and Raynor still have gone with their sharp edges and geometric shapes if they knew better ways to construct their ideas?

Did they not know something that the other architects of their day did?  I doubt it.

Sven,
Maybe CMB, but it's well known that Raynor didn't know much about golf and perhaps hadn't seen many courses at all.  Maybe an early example of shaper - architect relationship.

Josh,   Raynor built NGLA and it originally wasn't nearly as geometric as people seem to believe.  As with all things golf, CBM's templates were from the great links courses abroad, and nature.  But standards of what looked natural on a golf course have evolved, as has the aesthetic at NGLA.  They didn't necessarily evolve in the same direction.

That said, I also think that when looking back people expect to see a modern-minimalist, over finished aesthetic where the hand of man is completely masked, and the tend to lump everything that doesnt fit this notion as geometric.  In reality, it may be that CBM/Raynor were practicing a different kind of minimalism, where they efficiently created the features, but without wasting time and money trying trying to completely hide the hand of man.    This is where Tom MacWood's ideas on Arts and Crafts architecture might be helpful.   Many A&C designers worked with nature and setting but they didn't hide their handiwork.  To the contrary, their work often incorporated structural aspects into the aesthetic.  Think open beams and exposed joints.

[Nigel Islam]

How much of geometric architecture was simply due to their rudimentary construction methods and equipment? 

Would CBM and Raynor still have gone with their sharp edges and geometric shapes if they knew better ways to construct their ideas?

Did they not know something that the other architects of their day did?  I doubt it.

Sven,
Maybe CMB, but it's well known that Raynor didn't know much about golf and perhaps hadn't seen many courses at all.  Maybe an early example of shaper - architect relationship.

Josh,   Raynor built NGLA and it originally wasn't nearly as geometric as people seem to believe.  As with all things golf, CBM's templates were from the treat links courses abroad, and nature.  But standards of what looked natural on a golf course have evolved, as has the aesthetic at NGLA.  They riding necessarily evolve in the same direction.

That said, I also think that when looking back people expect to see a modern-minimalist, over finished aesthetic where the hand of man is completely masked, and the tend to lump everything that doesnt fit this notion as geometric.  In reality, it may be that CBM/Raynor were practicing a different kind of minimalism, where they efficiently created the features, but without wasting time and money trying trying to completely hide the hand of man.    This is where Tom MacWood's ideas on Arts and Crafts architecture might be helpful.   Many A&C designers worked with nature and setting but they didn't hide their handiwork.  To the contrary, their work often incorporated structural aspects into the aesthetic.  Think open beams and exposed joints.

That's is interesting David. Raynor a minimalist because he didn't bother to hide his work. It's sort of like the Peyton Manning Gaelic bit on Sportcenter. "If they don't know, that we don't know what it means.....Now that's next level!"

[DMoriarty]

Nigel,  it all depends on how one understand minimalism.  Is it  building a course where it looks like you didn't move much dirt?  Or is it a building a course only moving what you need, without regard to whether you hide your handiwork?

[Sven Nilsen]

How much of geometric architecture was simply due to their rudimentary construction methods and equipment?  

Would CBM and Raynor still have gone with their sharp edges and geometric shapes if they knew better ways to construct their ideas?

Did they not know something that the other architects of their day did?  I doubt it.

Sven,
Maybe CMB, but it's well known that Raynor didn't know much about golf and perhaps hadn't seen many courses at all.  Maybe an early example of shaper - architect relationship.

Josh:

Have you played Shoreacres?  Its a pretty good place to start to see Raynor's solo work, and how he adapted golf concepts to a particular piece of land.  That course is not the handiwork of a guy who didn't know much about golf.  The 15th hole by itself should settle the question.

I find it slightly ironic that you are suggesting the guys that had the most "engineered" look to their courses developed that look due to "rudimentary construction methods and equipment."  

There is a difference between Geometric Architecture and what CBM and Raynor were doing in the years to come.  It starts with a change in the way hazards were placed, and extends to finding pieces of land best suited for certain concepts, as opposed to imposing those concepts with no regard for the natural benefits of the terrain.

Just because they built holes with hard edges (in certain places), it does not mean they were ascribing to what Travis described as the "Willie Dunn System."

Sven

[Nigel Islam]

Seth Raynor should be in the Hall of Fame. He knew more about golf than people give him credit for. You cannot perfectly place hazards and design 4-8 non template holes a course without being his own man. Very underrated even on GCA.

[Josh Tarble]

David and Sven,

Thanks for those interesting responses. I haven't had the chance to play any CBM/Raynor courses yet, so I was merely speculating based on pictures. 

I also probably shouldn't have said rudimentary, but rather thinking of Raynor's techniques based in civil construction vs. specialized golf course construction techniques.

I find both CBM and Raynor quite fascinating, but more so Raynor in that he was able to execute these concepts without ever being a player.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()