[Adam Lawrence]

I think Sean is saying that consciously artificial is better than failed natural (a view with which I agree).

[Sean_A]

I think Sean is saying that consciously artificial is better than failed natural (a view with which I agree).

Sounds about right Adam.  I see loads of cool architecture which screams artificial....not a problem so long as it demands my attention.  Bottom line, natural isn't better than unnatural...its just a different approach which in the end requires a good archie to pull it off well. 

Ciao   

[Ally Mcintosh]

I think Sean is saying that consciously artificial is better than failed natural (a view with which I agree).

But that is assuming the consciously artificial is a success and not a failure...

What about trying to build something consciously artificial and failing in its execution? Is that not worse again? I suppose Sean does allude to that by saying "or even worse..."

In which case I agree also: Successful execution always beats failed execution. I just tend to prefer golf courses where you can't tell what has been built...

[Adam Lawrence]

Me too. I think the highest experience is a brilliant golf course that is indistinguishable from a natural site. I don't object to consciously artificial aesthetics, but properly done naturalism is better imo.

[Sean_A]

Allie

I used to take your line, but there is so much cool architecture that is obviously not natural which confronts a golfer a head on that I changed my opinion.  That conversion was maybe 12 or so years ago, but it was only about 7-8 years ago that I was consciously aware of it.  That doesn't mean I don't want well done naturalism...its just that I don't think its an either/or deal.  

I can't speak very well to failed architecture because imo so much out there has failed (or at least leaves me disengaged) simply because a sort of fake naturalism was employed on sites which either couldn't accomodate that look or had archies not skilled enough to pull it off and still create something worth talking about.  I will give a guy a break for trying something new even if it doesn't totally work...isn't that Strantz in a nutshell?  Think of a place like Painswick...there is a lot "wrong", but jeepers, would we not want the course built?

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Allie

I used to take your line, but there is so much cool architecture that is obviously not natural which confronts a golfer a head on that I changed my opinion.  That conversion was maybe 12 or so years ago, but it was only about 7-8 years ago that I was consciously aware of it.  That doesn't mean I don't want well done naturalism...its just that I don't think its an either/or deal.  

I can't speak very well to failed architecture because imo so much out there has failed (or at least leaves me disengaged) simply because a sort of fake naturalism was employed on sites which either couldn't accomodate that look or had archies not skilled enough to pull it off and still create something worth talking about.  I will give a guy a break for trying something new even if it doesn't totally work...isn't that Strantz in a nutshell?  Think of a place like Painswick...there is a lot "wrong", but jeepers, would we not want the course built?

Ciao

I don't disagree with you, Sean. I don't mind seeing obviously artificial stuff if it's well thought out and looks good. In fact, I quite enjoy it and will always give a pass to bold before bland. Plus some of the horrible containment mounding architecture of recent years is definitely a turn-off.

Still, given the choice, I'll take a superb course that fits quietly in to the landscape with no obvious hand of man.

[Sean_A]

I hear ya Ally, but for my tastes, even a lot of highly touted naturalism doesn't quite get it done right...mainly because bunkers are over-used (too much emphsis om easily accomplished aesthetics)...even on sandy sites I would like a balance of features.  There has been quite a bit of talk by archies in recent years about not relying on bunkers so much and I suspect that has been put into practice.  Bottom line for me is the course still needs to be all it can be no matter the approach or style. 

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

I hear ya Ally, but for my tastes, even a lot of highly touted naturalism doesn't quite get it done right...mainly because bunkers are over-used (too much emphsis om easily accomplished aesthetics)...even on sandy sites I would like a balance of features.  There has been quite a bit of talk by archies in recent years about not relying on bunkers so much and I suspect that has been put into practice.  Bottom line for me is the course still needs to be all it can be no matter the approach or style. 

Ciao

Yep - when it's not quite right, I reckon that generally comes down to subtlety versus eye-candy, the temptation to over-design, even with a natural looking style.

[Sean_A]

I hear ya Ally, but for my tastes, even a lot of highly touted naturalism doesn't quite get it done right...mainly because bunkers are over-used (too much emphsis om easily accomplished aesthetics)...even on sandy sites I would like a balance of features.  There has been quite a bit of talk by archies in recent years about not relying on bunkers so much and I suspect that has been put into practice.  Bottom line for me is the course still needs to be all it can be no matter the approach or style. 

Ciao

Yep - when it's not quite right, I reckon that generally comes down to subtlety versus eye-candy, the temptation to over-design, even with a natural looking style.

and the ever present personal opinion.  I am huge fan of bunker economy and realize this is an outlier opinion.

Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Reading through this thread prompted me to go searching for examples, particularly from rural, rustic, out of the way, lower profile courses.

A couple of holes from Donal's Gweedore photo tour caught my attention - namely the fiddled with 2nd green and the at a glace as it lies 3rd green. Examples of less is more and where having the skill/knowledge (or luck/good fortune) to leave well alone comes out best?

Gweedore photo tour - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41990.0.html

atb

[jeffwarne]

Reading through this thread prompted me to go searching for examples, particularly from rural, rustic, out of the way, lower profile courses.

A couple of holes from Donal's Gweedore photo tour caught my attention - namely the fiddled with 2nd green and the at a glace as it lies 3rd green. Examples of less is more and where having the skill/knowledge (or luck/good fortune) to leave well alone comes out best?

Gweedore photo tour - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41990.0.html

atb

Many at Gweedore
Thanks for bringing that thread back up.

Gweedore IS the Goat Hill of Ireland + scenery, and has a 2-3 of the more interesting holes I've seen, and showcases the luxury of width and its death by a thousand tiny cuts.

The third green at Gweedore, along with most at Goat Hill are the reasons why I'd love to see tilt and slope over green speed EVERY time.
No substiture for the strategic effect of an approach striking a 5 degree slope on a firm green.
throw in the coastal winds of Gweedore and these effects are magnified or mitigated depending upon wind direction and shot shape

[Brent Hutto]

Ah, I see part of the difference in perspective. Jeff is actually hitting the green with approach shots! My attitudes might be totally different if I did that more than once or twice a round.

[Sean_A]

Reading through this thread prompted me to go searching for examples, particularly from rural, rustic, out of the way, lower profile courses.

A couple of holes from Donal's Gweedore photo tour caught my attention - namely the fiddled with 2nd green and the at a glace as it lies 3rd green. Examples of less is more and where having the skill/knowledge (or luck/good fortune) to leave well alone comes out best?

Gweedore photo tour - http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,41990.0.html

atb

Its difficult to find compelling mostly au naturel courses (if we include greens!).  I am not sure I know of a good example.  I think it really does come down to odd holes where the archie may have just fiddled a bit with the green site.  I recall playing Ashdown Forest and being shocked at how much land was pushed about on a so called natural masterpiece.  Because a course is lacking bunkers doesn't mean work wasn't done to create interest.

I am never confident about saying old links holes are natural because they may have been changed so long ago that erosion and changing grass lines/vegetation now makes the work look natural (a big advantage for older courses).  

In any case, I don't worry much about the distinction of design approaches.  It isn't a big deal for me.  

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Ah, I see part of the difference in perspective. Jeff is actually hitting the green with approach shots! My attitudes might be totally different if I did that more than once or twice a round.

the tilt and slope allowable on slower, firmer greens adds interest to those next shots as well.
An "approach" doesn't have to be in regulation figures-could also be nearby recovery shot

[JC Urbina]

Tim,

The Dune complex that includes the 9th hole at Cypress Point has always intrigued me.  What were the options that Mackenzie and Hunter had in mind.

The 9th green I am sure was a big debate; keep it lower in the dune setting and walk up to the next tee or shape the green on the top of the dune.

From the 6th green to the 10th tee this linear dune must have gone through several renditions before a final decision was made.  They were maximizing a natural feature and deciding how much they should do with this natural feature.

Great Holes? But the Architect Didn't Do Anything!!!

[Kirk Gill]

Me too. I think the highest experience is a brilliant golf course that is indistinguishable from a natural site.

This is a most interesting opinion, but for the life of me I can't think of a single golf course I've played that is indistinguishable from a natural site. There always seems to be strips of shortened grass, and sandy holes in the ground that appear to my eye to have been created or manicured in some way. I think maybe that I'm taking you too literally, Adam, or it's the word "indistinguishable" that is throwing me.

What I happen to like best are courses where the hand of man and the hand of god (or Mother Nature or whatever you prefer) work together in a way that delights my mind or my senses. Sometimes working in tandem, sometimes in juxtaposition. I think of a hole like the 7th at Shinnecock Hills, where the surrounding grasses and open spaces give that angular green and the bunkering a beautiful place to nestle. It's clearly something that was built, and the architect(s) clearly "did something," but with that said it's not some kind of scar on the landscape. And the shot that's required, that wasn't created by nature, it was created completely by the hand of man.......

[Chris Johnston]

Having witnessed this in practice...

The architect has to find the routing...no easy task and there is seldom enough credit given for this...the tying it all together.

There is no such thing as "The Architect Didn't Do Anything"...doing little really can be doing something BIG, and restraint is often the most something.  Seems to me letting nature have a commanding role is the best trait possible if the site allows.

Enhancing, in a seamless and subtle manner, the natural landscape is an art and a talent that most of us can't begin to properly appreciate.

Nature alone provides plenty of excitement, and plenty of different.





.

[Adam Lawrence]

Me too. I think the highest experience is a brilliant golf course that is indistinguishable from a natural site.

This is a most interesting opinion, but for the life of me I can't think of a single golf course I've played that is indistinguishable from a natural site. There always seems to be strips of shortened grass, and sandy holes in the ground that appear to my eye to have been created or manicured in some way. I think maybe that I'm taking you too literally, Adam, or it's the word "indistinguishable" that is throwing me.

What I happen to like best are courses where the hand of man and the hand of god (or Mother Nature or whatever you prefer) work together in a way that delights my mind or my senses. Sometimes working in tandem, sometimes in juxtaposition. I think of a hole like the 7th at Shinnecock Hills, where the surrounding grasses and open spaces give that angular green and the bunkering a beautiful place to nestle. It's clearly something that was built, and the architect(s) clearly "did something," but with that said it's not some kind of scar on the landscape. And the shot that's required, that wasn't created by nature, it was created completely by the hand of man.......

Askernish is pretty close, but I agree that once you start mowing fairways it is impossible to be totally indistinguishable. Let's say the closer the better...

[Peter Pallotta]

It seems clear to me that, to paraphrase the old saying, the devil is in the detail-work.

Pacific is one of the most natural looking/found golf courses I've ever seen, but judging from JC Urbina's post the architect and his team did indeed do a lot of work there, and on many of the holes.

But, thankfully for those who enjoy both the aesthetic and the ethos of naturalism, the creative team seems to have developed (from photos, nearly perfected) the skill and know-how to hide their hands and cover their footprints -- thereby making the discussion about what the architect "did" almost (and in years to come I'd bet, almost entirely) moot.

Peter

[Terry Lavin]

Having witnessed this in practice...

The architect has to find the routing...no easy task and there is seldom enough credit given for this...the tying it all together.

There is no such thing as "The Architect Didn't Do Anything"...doing little really can be doing something BIG, and restraint is often the most something.  Seems to me letting nature have a commanding role is the best trait possible if the site allows.

Enhancing, in a seamless and subtle manner, the natural landscape is an art and a talent that most of us can't begin to properly appreciate.

Nature alone provides plenty of excitement, and plenty of different.





.

CJ:  You are correct, of course, that just cobbling together the routing (no mean feat) in a manner that allows certain holes to represent something that was "already there" still represents a lot of work, imagination and skill.  But if we can't make it sound simple, how are we to try to sound like experts here when there are 100 hobbyists like me to every 1 Jim Urbina!  This has been a fun thread, even with some acceptable flaws in logic.

[Tim_Weiman]

Having witnessed this in practice...

The architect has to find the routing...no easy task and there is seldom enough credit given for this...the tying it all together.

There is no such thing as "The Architect Didn't Do Anything"...doing little really can be doing something BIG, and restraint is often the most something.  Seems to me letting nature have a commanding role is the best trait possible if the site allows.

Enhancing, in a seamless and subtle manner, the natural landscape is an art and a talent that most of us can't begin to properly appreciate.

Nature alone provides plenty of excitement, and plenty of different.


Chris,

Reading your post it seems that you got the impression I don't agree with the points you made regarding the importance of routing, how doing really little can be doing something BIG, the importance of restraint, etc.

Is that accurate? Or do you think my purpose in starting the thread was to identify examples of where the land form offered so much that restraint was called for and exercised by the architect?






.

[Tim_Weiman]

Tim,

The Dune complex that includes the 9th hole at Cypress Point has always intrigued me.  What were the options that Mackenzie and Hunter had in mind.

The 9th green I am sure was a big debate; keep it lower in the dune setting and walk up to the next tee or shape the green on the top of the dune.

From the 6th green to the 10th tee this linear dune must have gone through several renditions before a final decision was made.  They were maximizing a natural feature and deciding how much they should do with this natural feature.

Great Holes? But the Architect Didn't Do Anything!!!

Jim,

I think #9 at Cypress Point illustrates the challenge of determining whether a hole meets the standard of the "architect didn't do anything" precisely for the reason you identified. Put another way, unfortunately, due to lack of documentation, we not don't know what Mackenzie and Hunter discussed regarding the sand dune, we also don't know exactly what they actually did. Instead, we just were presented with the final product and quite a fine hole, to be sure.

So, I am inclined to nominate #17 as a hole more likely to meet the test. Would you agree?

[Chris Johnston]

Having witnessed this in practice...

The architect has to find the routing...no easy task and there is seldom enough credit given for this...the tying it all together.

There is no such thing as "The Architect Didn't Do Anything"...doing little really can be doing something BIG, and restraint is often the most something.  Seems to me letting nature have a commanding role is the best trait possible if the site allows.

Enhancing, in a seamless and subtle manner, the natural landscape is an art and a talent that most of us can't begin to properly appreciate.

Nature alone provides plenty of excitement, and plenty of different.


Chris,

Reading your post it seems that you got the impression I don't agree with the points you made regarding the importance of routing, how doing really little can be doing something BIG, the importance of restraint, etc.

Is that accurate? Or do you think my purpose in starting the thread was to identify examples of where the land form offered so much that restraint was called for and exercised by the architect?

Tim,

No desire to contradict at all - I was merely sharing what I observed and believe I learned along the way.  At Dismal, Tom really seemed to embrace the site and let the natural holes do the much of the work.  To me, the key was the routing to allow this.  If Tom went in a different direction, he would have had to "do" more.  Funny thing, at least to me...Jack did the same.

I did want to make the point that doing little (hard for me to quantify "didn't do anything") can be an example of the Masters Craft...something many, or most, may never recognize.

We have two courses here, one of which seems far more polarizing than the other.  The common element is both did as little as possible.  The differences between the two were the sites, the routings, vision and goals, and the Masters Craft itself.   

[Tim_Weiman]

Chris Johnston,

Thanks. I guess I'm still wondering if the title of my thread undermined what I was trying to identify: specific golf holes, not entire courses where the final result most closely matches what existed prior to construction.

Jim Urbina raised the example of Cypress Point, specifically the 9th hole. It might be an example, but lacking pre construction documentation it is hard to be sure. #17 seems like a better case, IMO.

Tom's work at Dismal River might be an ideal case study, both because of Tom's known skill and preference to utilize existing, natural features and the fact (I'm assuming!) that pre construction documentation probably exists.

[Chris Johnston]

Tim,

Got it, and sincere apologies if I changed the focus.  I guess out here all holes are pretty much natural (or should be IMO), hence my wandering to entire courses.  We are fortunate that a natural hole isn't an exception, it's pretty much the norm.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()