Wake up UK&I!

[James Reader]

This reminds me that I was going to comment on the recent post about the new “sand scrapes” at Hollinwell, which are again the work of M&E.  If memory serves, there are also some proposed in the work at Hankley.

They are again being presented as having environmental benefits and, at least in the case of Hollinwell, as “recreating features that were once common across the course”.  My question is whether these are genuinely features that are naturally found on English heathland. I take Ally’s point on whether they are appropriate to all links courses (and agree they aren’t), but I can at least see that you do get bare sand areas on (some) links sites.  Speaking as someone who grew up around the Nottinghamshire heathlands (or at least what’s left of them), I can’t recall seeing large areas of bare sand - sandstone cliffs occasionally yes, but not bare sand scrapes - and, unlike on links, I’m not sure I understand what natural processes would create them.

I’d be really interested in James Boon’s views on this.  Am I missing something?  Are there areas of undisturbed heathland where there are large sand scrapes?  What created the ones that were once found at Hollinwell?

[Jon Wiggett]

Agree with Frank and Ally.


By contrast, here is a photo from a recently restored bunker at New Zealand GC. It ties in so well with the rest of the course - it doesn't try to be something else, and incorporates the characteristics of the site (in this instance the heather) into the bunker.


And those bunker edge lines look so natural. Many think it's just squiggly lines that makes a bunker seem natural, but there is real art here in the way it feels eroded instead of man-made. (Photos via @cdpgolf1








Bravo!

Tim,


I have to disagree. There is nothing natural about sand bunkers on a non-sandy site. Nor are the bunkers in the photos an example of natural looking erosion as with natural erosion there is clumps and clods of grass that breaks away from the edge where as in the photo the sand is devoid of such clumps being instead pristine. It might be aesthetically pleasing on the eye but it is not natural looking.


I personally really liked the style of jagged edges when it was first brought back 20 odd years ago but now so many are doing it I find it a little lazy from a GCA point. I look forward to someone bringing something new to the table.


And just for the record I think the work at NZGC looks really good.

[Thomas Dai]

These opened-up sandy areas and crinkle-cut/wave edged bunkers do look wonderful and I admire the workmanship and skill of those involved in designed and constructing them.
I do wonder however, what they will look like in a few years time particularly if the manpower/budget of the maintenance crew hasn't been increased to allow for any additional regular detail work that I would imagine is likely to be necessary to keep such intricate features in the condition that the designers/constructors envisage and that players expect. Long term incremental costs following project work are important and if not carefully considered have a habit of adversely effect wallets and subscriptions.
Which begs a question - do designers/constructors offer or are they ever asked their position on the level of incremental labour/machinery needed to maintain any new/revised features they've designed/constructed? And if they do or are, and their position turns out to be wrong, what push-back do they get from the clients?
atb

[Tim Gallant]

Agree with Frank and Ally.


By contrast, here is a photo from a recently restored bunker at New Zealand GC. It ties in so well with the rest of the course - it doesn't try to be something else, and incorporates the characteristics of the site (in this instance the heather) into the bunker.


And those bunker edge lines look so natural. Many think it's just squiggly lines that makes a bunker seem natural, but there is real art here in the way it feels eroded instead of man-made. (Photos via @cdpgolf1








Bravo!

Tim,


I have to disagree. There is nothing natural about sand bunkers on a non-sandy site. Nor are the bunkers in the photos an example of natural looking erosion as with natural erosion there is clumps and clods of grass that breaks away from the edge where as in the photo the sand is devoid of such clumps being instead pristine. It might be aesthetically pleasing on the eye but it is not natural looking.


I personally really liked the style of jagged edges when it was first brought back 20 odd years ago but now so many are doing it I find it a little lazy from a GCA point. I look forward to someone bringing something new to the table.


And just for the record I think the work at NZGC looks really good.

Jon,


Point taken - I was under the impression that the course had some sandy base to it, but happy for others to chime in. In terms of the eroded line, I'm afraid I stand by my original point. I think these lines look similar to examples I have seen and studied where sand meets vegetation in naturally occurring situations. To be sure, this is new work, and some settling in needs to occur. But there is an asymmetry to the lines that appears to have been crafted by the hand of nature. Especially how the edges almost look like they are overhanging, as opposed to cut by hand, looks splendid.


Even if it's not a sandy site, in my mind the object is to make the golfer believe they are on a sandy site, and that those bunkers could be natural. In this case, I do believe this bunker, and the general work happening at NZ is a success


All that said, I agree with your comment on jagged edged bunkers.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


I also think the work at NZ is a success but do not have the same view of GCA as you seem to have. To me good GCA is when the course sits in harmony with the landscape it is embedded into which NZ does. It is however misleading to try and describe the edges of the bunkers as looking naturally eroded as they don't or at least I have never seen natural erosion where the edge was so clean and I doubt it exists. I also do not think good GCA is trying to give the impression that the site is sandy when it is clay based. If the site is clay based then reflect that in the design.


I think you are possibly correct that the site at NZ is sandy in nature but the sand in the bunker is not local sand and looks out of place IMO even if the bunker looks good.

[Sean_A]

I know this discussion has jumped the shark when people get down on New Zealand's bunkering. For the most part, they are a marvel of style and placement. Very few courses can match New Zealand for its bunkering. This is what happens when people get hung up on labels and ideals.

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

This reminds me that I was going to comment on the recent post about the new “sand scrapes” at Hollinwell, which are again the work of M&E.  If memory serves, there are also some proposed in the work at Hankley.

They are again being presented as having environmental benefits and, at least in the case of Hollinwell, as “recreating features that were once common across the course”.  My question is whether these are genuinely features that are naturally found on English heathland. I take Ally’s point on whether they are appropriate to all links courses (and agree they aren’t), but I can at least see that you do get bare sand areas on (some) links sites.  Speaking as someone who grew up around the Nottinghamshire heathlands (or at least what’s left of them), I can’t recall seeing large areas of bare sand - sandstone cliffs occasionally yes, but not bare sand scrapes - and, unlike on links, I’m not sure I understand what natural processes would create them.

I’d be really interested in James Boon’s views on this.  Am I missing something?  Are there areas of undisturbed heathland where there are large sand scrapes?  What created the ones that were once found at Hollinwell?

James can you point me to those comments?


I saw 12 holes at Holinwell last week and I've always loved it, but was even more impressed with it this time round.   (Worth mentioning it was the only inland course I've played this winter that was in great nick with the ball roiling and my shoes and trousers clean after!)


What is the 'natural' look for heathland?   The well presented heather lined fairways we are used to and demand, are totally artificial constructs. Heathland was 'farmed' for heather and gorse. peat and gravel was extracted and livestock grazing kept the young trees from establishing. Paths and carts would further degrade the landscape. If bunkers on Links are naturally created by Sheep etc, then I can easily accept 'waste' areas on the Heath have always been created by the hand of man. I concede that in the past these areas might have been a rutted grey silty dirt and not yellow sand, but the sand is now on site in bunkers and the waste areas will likely tone down over time.
The work at Holinwell is beautifully done. I wish I had photos to show the work to the left of 2 and the approach to 5.  Even on a dreary February day they looked outstanding. With the course playing so well, I can't honestly say I've ever played a better inland course. Holinwell demands to be seen anew.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


I also think the work at NZ is a success but do not have the same view of GCA as you seem to have. To me good GCA is when the course sits in harmony with the landscape it is embedded into which NZ does. It is however misleading to try and describe the edges of the bunkers as looking naturally eroded as they don't or at least I have never seen natural erosion where the edge was so clean and I doubt it exists. I also do not think good GCA is trying to give the impression that the site is sandy when it is clay based. If the site is clay based then reflect that in the design.


I think you are possibly correct that the site at NZ is sandy in nature but the sand in the bunker is not local sand and looks out of place IMO even if the bunker looks good.

Jon,


Some really interesting points, and agree that sites should dictate the overall characteristics of the site, and it should tie in with the natural environments. I believe I started a thread on individuality, and think you've hit on a good point.


Two points: on the 'natural' edging, I'll have a dig through photos, or keep an eye out, but I honestly have seen similar lines on links courses, both in natural eroding places (although they may have been helped by livestock), and in bunkers themselves that were originally manmade, but had been shaped by wind over time.


On the notion that clay sites should represent the characteristics of the site, I agree. But! on a clay-based course, there should never 'in theory' be sand bunkers as they wouldn't be natural with the environment. Therefore, if you are going to put bunkers, it should be as close in natural appearance as possible to what it might look like if it were naturally occurring (ie - you don't see man's hand). In this sense, I believe the NZ bunkers are a success either way.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


I am obviously not getting my point across clearly and I apologise for that. My objection to the word/label natural is probably a bit pedantic (I have been told it is a failing of mine  ) but as you noted there is nothing natural about sand on a non-sandy site. I am however not saying you should not use sand in such a situation, far from it in fact. What I am saying is that the course should sit in harmony with its surroundings. Two great examples of this in my region are Boat of Garten which is full of obviously man made structures fits into the landscape perfectly. The other would be Golspie which does the same whilst at the same time changing the character of the design from links, to heathland to grassland then back to links in a seamless way.


For me there is too much lazy GCA about where by putting frilly edges on the bunkers they seem to think this will make it sit. Like with a building a course does not have to replicate the surroundings to sit well in them.


Jon

[Adam Lawrence]

NZ, for what it is worth, is sandy, but it is grey Bagshot sand, so the yellow stuff in the bunkers is not natural

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


I am obviously not getting my point across clearly and I apologise for that. My objection to the word/label natural is probably a bit pedantic (I have been told it is a failing of mine  ) but as you noted there is nothing natural about sand on a non-sandy site. I am however not saying you should not use sand in such a situation, far from it in fact. What I am saying is that the course should sit in harmony with its surroundings. Two great examples of this in my region are Boat of Garten which is full of obviously man made structures fits into the landscape perfectly. The other would be Golspie which does the same whilst at the same time changing the character of the design from links, to heathland to grassland then back to links in a seamless way.


For me there is too much lazy GCA about where by putting frilly edges on the bunkers they seem to think this will make it sit. Like with a building a course does not have to replicate the surroundings to sit well in them.


Jon

Jon,


I think you and I are quite aligned on design sitting in harmony with its surrounds, and BoG is a good example.


The only area we seem to differ is in our definition of what constitutes natural, or natural looking. When I compare what's being done at NZ to another inland course, and see these bunkers below, then the first thought that comes to my mind is that at NZ, the bunkers do appear natural, or natural in aesthetic (although appreciate for some, that may not be the case, depending on the definition). To note: the bunkers shown below have been done in the last year/1.5 years.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


sorry but I seem to still not have gotten my point across. The difference between us is a small but important one. We both believe the course should sit in harmony in the landscape but I do not think it needs to look 'natural' where as you do.


There has been a big misunderstanding held by many even quite a lot on this board. Many think that the dark age stuff kicked out in the 50s to 90s was bad because it looked so artificial but that is not the case. It was so bad because it did not sit in harmony with the landscape.




Jon

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


sorry but I seem to still not have gotten my point across. The difference between us is a small but important one. We both believe the course should sit in harmony in the landscape but I do not think it needs to look 'natural' where as you do.


There has been a big misunderstanding held by many even quite a lot on this board. Many think that the dark age stuff kicked out in the 50s to 90s was bad because it looked so artificial but that is not the case. It was so bad because it did not sit in harmony with the landscape.




Jon

Jon,

I see what you're saying. In that case, we do differ in that I believe it should sit in harmony with the site AND try to have a natural appearance. What's more important? To be sure, it's the former. But where possible, I believe some importance should be placed on making the features appear as though they were put there by mother nature. A course that has a character and identity of its own is for sure the first priority. But if you can make that course also have a 'natural' look (whether true or not), then I'm all for this.

In the case of NZ, I see your point that the bunker isn't natural, and that it doesn't really matter as long as the course still in some ways ties in with its surround. But in my mind, if you have the resources like NZ, I do think you should try to imitate nature as close as possible...or what you want people to think is natural for that place

[Sean_A]

Tim

It seems to me that adhering to a naturalist look is very prohibitive.

To be clear, then you don't care for reverted, sleepered or much of the MacRaynor style bunkers?

Ciao

[Tim Gallant]

Tim

It seems to me that adhering to a naturalist look is very prohibitive.

To be clear, then you don't care for reverted, sleepered or much of the MacRaynor style bunkers?

Ciao

I don't mind revetted, or sleepered bunkers at all. I would evaluate any feature based on the interest it adds to the hole first. But do I think a revetted bunker looks natural, or is better looking than a bunker one might find at Sand Hills? No. If I were to build my own course tomorrow, I would look at the characteristics of the site, and try to build a bunker that emphasised the identity of the course I was trying to build (ie - strategic), that fit in with the surrounds, and that looked as natural as possible within that environment, or as natural to what one might think could realistically be nature.


Again going back to NZ, with no prior knowledge to the site or the course, I believe some golfers wouldn't be able to tell if that donut bunker I showed was naturally forming, or if it was built by hand. However, with a revetted bunker, 100% of golfers will know it was put there by human intervention. Does it matter? I suppose it depends on why you play the game.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


I used to think that natural looking was important until I actually looked at many of the courses I really liked and the features that made them so good. Just about every Braid course with the exception of Brora is full of glaringly obvious manmade features and yet they fit the landscape. The much vaunted Dornoch has several very obvious examples. Hoylake has many as does my favourite Kilspindie. What about North Berwick? and so the list of examples goes on. In fact I struggle to find a course that I like that does not have important manmade features that help define the character and charm. The exception is Brora which only has the ditch running through it.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


I used to think that natural looking was important until I actually looked at many of the courses I really liked and the features that made them so good. Just about every Braid course with the exception of Brora is full of glaringly obvious manmade features and yet they fit the landscape. The much vaunted Dornoch has several very obvious examples. Hoylake has many as does my favourite Kilspindie. What about North Berwick? and so the list of examples goes on. In fact I struggle to find a course that I like that does not have important manmade features that help define the character and charm. The exception is Brora which only has the ditch running through it.

I think I feel the same, but principally because what I value has more to do with the interest of the hole in terms of getting the ball in the hole, and less to do with its visual interest.


But! to play devil's advocate - would Dornoch, North Berwick and Hoylake be improved if the revetted bunkers across the entire course were replaced by more irregular shaped bunkers that fit the land in just the same way, but carried an appearance that was more in keeping with it's surrounding? I'd say they would.


How do I think it would be improved? It likely wouldn't have much of an impact on playability (although it might depending on how close one was to replicating the size and depth of the revetted bunker). However, it may allow players to really feel as though they are doing battle with nature, and having a walk through nature, which from a recreational standpoint, can be quite important. I believe it is why so many escape to the links courses in the first place: to get fresh air and have a nice walk, which stimulates the mind and body, while escaping the noise of civilisation.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim,


I used to think that natural looking was important until I actually looked at many of the courses I really liked and the features that made them so good. Just about every Braid course with the exception of Brora is full of glaringly obvious manmade features and yet they fit the landscape. The much vaunted Dornoch has several very obvious examples. Hoylake has many as does my favourite Kilspindie. What about North Berwick? and so the list of examples goes on. In fact I struggle to find a course that I like that does not have important manmade features that help define the character and charm. The exception is Brora which only has the ditch running through it.

I think I feel the same, but principally because what I value has more to do with the interest of the hole in terms of getting the ball in the hole, and less to do with its visual interest.


But! to play devil's advocate - would Dornoch, North Berwick and Hoylake be improved if the revetted bunkers across the entire course were replaced by more irregular shaped bunkers that fit the land in just the same way, but carried an appearance that was more in keeping with it's surrounding? I'd say they would.


How do I think it would be improved? It likely wouldn't have much of an impact on playability (although it might depending on how close one was to replicating the size and depth of the revetted bunker). However, it may allow players to really feel as though they are doing battle with nature, and having a walk through nature, which from a recreational standpoint, can be quite important. I believe it is why so many escape to the links courses in the first place: to get fresh air and have a nice walk while stimulating the mind and body.

Hmmm,


I was with you until this last post, Tim.


The most important thing is that a man-made feature fits a site and paradoxically, I find that “natural” looking bunkers placed on very flat links sites with no other exposed sand of note can sometimes look more “unnatural” than other styles of bunker. That is part of my issue with the same design solution being taken to all links sites. Each site calls for something individual so that it is of itself.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


I used to think that natural looking was important until I actually looked at many of the courses I really liked and the features that made them so good. Just about every Braid course with the exception of Brora is full of glaringly obvious manmade features and yet they fit the landscape. The much vaunted Dornoch has several very obvious examples. Hoylake has many as does my favourite Kilspindie. What about North Berwick? and so the list of examples goes on. In fact I struggle to find a course that I like that does not have important manmade features that help define the character and charm. The exception is Brora which only has the ditch running through it.

I think I feel the same, but principally because what I value has more to do with the interest of the hole in terms of getting the ball in the hole, and less to do with its visual interest.


But! to play devil's advocate - would Dornoch, North Berwick and Hoylake be improved if the revetted bunkers across the entire course were replaced by more irregular shaped bunkers that fit the land in just the same way, but carried an appearance that was more in keeping with it's surrounding? I'd say they would.


How do I think it would be improved? It likely wouldn't have much of an impact on playability (although it might depending on how close one was to replicating the size and depth of the revetted bunker). However, it may allow players to really feel as though they are doing battle with nature, and having a walk through nature, which from a recreational standpoint, can be quite important. I believe it is why so many escape to the links courses in the first place: to get fresh air and have a nice walk while stimulating the mind and body.

Hmmm,


I was with you until this last post, Tim.


The most important thing is that a man-made feature fits a site and paradoxically, I find that “natural” looking bunkers placed on very flat links sites with no other exposed sand of note can sometimes look more “unnatural” than other styles of bunker. That is part of my issue with the same design solution being taken to all links sites. Each site calls for something individual so that it is of itself.

Ally,


I absolutely agree - But I believe each of the three aforementioned links courses would have a different appearance if one were to set out what 'natural' meant for that particular site, because sand colour, prevailing wind direction and other factors may all contribute to create very different looking 'natural' bunkers.

I agree that the issue at the moment is the one size fits all approach, and I'm not advocating that 'natural' is only one style - it should be predicated on the site and surround. To take a crude example, if you put that NZ bunker on a links course, it would cease to look natural in my eyes. Therefore, each site must be treated differently, which is where some of the issues in this thread come from IMHO.


On your point that 'natural' looking bunkers on flat sites where no other exposed sand can look even more unnatural, I suppose that's because we (and M&E) seem to have a prescribed notion for what 'natural' looks like, and apply that formula to all sites. What I'm advocating is the exact opposite: to strive to find it difficult to know where the hand of nature stops, and where the hand of man begins. 


I believe that is an admirable pursuit.

[Sean_A]

Tim

It seems to me that adhering to a naturalist look is very prohibitive.

To be clear, then you don't care for reverted, sleepered or much of the MacRaynor style bunkers?

Ciao

I don't mind revetted, or sleepered bunkers at all. I would evaluate any feature based on the interest it adds to the hole first. But do I think a revetted bunker looks natural, or is better looking than a bunker one might find at Sand Hills? No. If I were to build my own course tomorrow, I would look at the characteristics of the site, and try to build a bunker that emphasised the identity of the course I was trying to build (ie - strategic), that fit in with the surrounds, and that looked as natural as possible within that environment, or as natural to what one might think could realistically be nature.

Again going back to NZ, with no prior knowledge to the site or the course, I believe some golfers wouldn't be able to tell if that donut bunker I showed was naturally forming, or if it was built by hand. However, with a revetted bunker, 100% of golfers will know it was put there by human intervention. Does it matter? I suppose it depends on why you play the game.

Tim

I spose I am far less concerned with concealing the hand of man as I am with with forcefully placed features and that those features look good. Naturalism has its place on an extremely small number of sites, so I don't much see the point in trying to adhere to an aesthetic across the board. What I usually find with the natural approach is the features look garden like, which to me is perhaps the worst of outcomes and reminds me of 50s to 80s architecture. I tend to prefer a rough and ready look or earthwork style for features. On most sites I don't feel it necessary to get overly precious about features. That said, when it's done well, regardless of the style, I do think courses are improved because golf is as much a visual game as anything. I just want archies to push the boat out like they did 110 years ago. Looking at a North Berwick, a course near and dear to many, the bunkers add almost nothing aesthetically to the design.

Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Tim,


I used to think that natural looking was important until I actually looked at many of the courses I really liked and the features that made them so good. Just about every Braid course with the exception of Brora is full of glaringly obvious manmade features and yet they fit the landscape. The much vaunted Dornoch has several very obvious examples. Hoylake has many as does my favourite Kilspindie. What about North Berwick? and so the list of examples goes on. In fact I struggle to find a course that I like that does not have important manmade features that help define the character and charm. The exception is Brora which only has the ditch running through it.

I think I feel the same, but principally because what I value has more to do with the interest of the hole in terms of getting the ball in the hole, and less to do with its visual interest.


But! to play devil's advocate - would Dornoch, North Berwick and Hoylake be improved if the revetted bunkers across the entire course were replaced by more irregular shaped bunkers that fit the land in just the same way, but carried an appearance that was more in keeping with it's surrounding? I'd say they would.


How do I think it would be improved? It likely wouldn't have much of an impact on playability (although it might depending on how close one was to replicating the size and depth of the revetted bunker). However, it may allow players to really feel as though they are doing battle with nature, and having a walk through nature, which from a recreational standpoint, can be quite important. I believe it is why so many escape to the links courses in the first place: to get fresh air and have a nice walk while stimulating the mind and body.

Hmmm,


I was with you until this last post, Tim.


The most important thing is that a man-made feature fits a site and paradoxically, I find that “natural” looking bunkers placed on very flat links sites with no other exposed sand of note can sometimes look more “unnatural” than other styles of bunker. That is part of my issue with the same design solution being taken to all links sites. Each site calls for something individual so that it is of itself.

Ally,


I absolutely agree - But I believe each of the three aforementioned links courses would have a different appearance if one were to set out what 'natural' meant for that particular site, because sand colour, prevailing wind direction and other factors may all contribute to create very different looking 'natural' bunkers.

I agree that the issue at the moment is the one size fits all approach, and I'm not advocating that 'natural' is only one style - it should be predicated on the site and surround. To take a crude example, if you put that NZ bunker on a links course, it would cease to look natural in my eyes. Therefore, each site must be treated differently, which is where some of the issues in this thread come from IMHO.


On your point that 'natural' looking bunkers on flat sites where no other exposed sand can look even more unnatural, I suppose that's because we (and M&E) seem to have a prescribed notion for what 'natural' looks like, and apply that formula to all sites. What I'm advocating is the exact opposite: to strive to find it difficult to know where the hand of nature stops, and where the hand of man begins. 


I believe that is an admirable pursuit.

Yes, when you put it like above, I agree. Part of the reason that “natural” bunkers can look anything but, is because they are over-designed or poorly executed. Every site has a form of “natural” that works best for it.


But I also like obviously man-made features when they “fit” so it is not always the only solution.

[Tim Gallant]

Tim

It seems to me that adhering to a naturalist look is very prohibitive.

To be clear, then you don't care for reverted, sleepered or much of the MacRaynor style bunkers?

Ciao

I don't mind revetted, or sleepered bunkers at all. I would evaluate any feature based on the interest it adds to the hole first. But do I think a revetted bunker looks natural, or is better looking than a bunker one might find at Sand Hills? No. If I were to build my own course tomorrow, I would look at the characteristics of the site, and try to build a bunker that emphasised the identity of the course I was trying to build (ie - strategic), that fit in with the surrounds, and that looked as natural as possible within that environment, or as natural to what one might think could realistically be nature.

Again going back to NZ, with no prior knowledge to the site or the course, I believe some golfers wouldn't be able to tell if that donut bunker I showed was naturally forming, or if it was built by hand. However, with a revetted bunker, 100% of golfers will know it was put there by human intervention. Does it matter? I suppose it depends on why you play the game.

Tim

I spose I am far less concerned with concealing the hand of man as I am with with forcefully placed features and that those features look good. Naturalism has its place on an extremely small number of sites, so I don't much see the point in trying to adhere to an aesthetic across the board.

Ciao

Ah ha! Now we get to the crux - can features look good if they are not 'naturally' looking? I'm not sure I've given it much thought, but it's an interesting idea. Do you have examples of forcefully placed features that look good, but are obviously not natural?


So let's take a clay site for example - one where sand is unlikely to be found naturally. In all cases the sand is unnatural, but to me, there's a distinction from an aesthetic perspective between putting an oval bunker in the slope of the hill (clearly un-natural as there is no other symmetric shape to be found in any other form, natural or otherwise within a 1000 miles), and one where you try to work the bunkers to reflect the asymmetry that is found throughout the rest of the site, even if the bunker itself is not natural.


In both cases, if they are a good feature that adds interest to the hole, that is the primary objective, but why not strive to create some believability that what is there could be natural?

[Jon Wiggett]

Tim,


to answer you question. I do not think that anything other than a 'natural looking' finish will do it for you because you seem to be fixed into a mindset that 'natural looking' is the only way something fits into the landscape. For me this outlook is really blinkered, narrow and limits the imagination of the GCA too much.


Your example of NB and the bunkers is missing the point. What makes the 13th such a great hole is the setting of the green of which the wall at the front plays a major roll. The wall is very obviously a manmade object yet it fits the landscape perfectly. If I were to follow the 'natural look' philosophy then I would rip out the wall and replace it with a diagonal cross bunker. This in my opinion would be detrimental to the hole and course in my opinion. The same could be said for most of the walls on the course.


As I said in my last post, most of the courses I really like have a certain amount of manmade-ness about them.


Jon

[Tim Gallant]

Tim,


to answer you question. I do not think that anything other than a 'natural looking' finish will do it for you because you seem to be fixed into a mindset that 'natural looking' is the only way something fits into the landscape. For me this outlook is really blinkered, narrow and limits the imagination of the GCA too much.


Your example of NB and the bunkers is missing the point. What makes the 13th such a great hole is the setting of the green of which the wall at the front plays a major roll. The wall is very obviously a manmade object yet it fits the landscape perfectly. If I were to follow the 'natural look' philosophy then I would rip out the wall and replace it with a diagonal cross bunker. This in my opinion would be detrimental to the hole and course in my opinion. The same could be said for most of the walls on the course.


As I said in my last post, most of the courses I really like have a certain amount of manmade-ness about them.


Jon

Jon,


I think your point enhances my argument. To repeat - I am not against manmade elements being on course, and your example of the wall at the 13th is a perfect example! BUT! No one objects to it, because it has a natural appearance of having been there for 100s of years, and fits in with the entire area, where similar walls can be found throughout East Lothian! A perfect example of a manmade feature having a natural appearance relative to the site. The stone and the purpose are indeed natural to the site. Exactly what I am a proponent for.


What would be odd is if the wall was made of red brick. It serves the same purpose, and yet, it has no natural tie-in with the surrounding area, and has no natural appearance to it whatsoever.


That's what I'm advocating. I have no problem with manmade features, and as articulated above, I agree that the feature that makes the hole interesting is the first priority. But where possible, it should have a natural appearance that is in keeping with the surrounding.


It only seems that many on here are too narrowly defining what natural means by what M&E and others are doing at the moment - i.e. squiggly line bunkers.


Going back to the New Zealand bunker - I don't think it's natural because the edges aren't symmetrical. I think it's natural because it does a wonderful job of incorporating the feature of the site (the heather) into the design, and follows the lines that one might find anywhere else on the site.

[Sean_A]

Tim

It seems to me that adhering to a naturalist look is very prohibitive.

To be clear, then you don't care for reverted, sleepered or much of the MacRaynor style bunkers?

Ciao

I don't mind revetted, or sleepered bunkers at all. I would evaluate any feature based on the interest it adds to the hole first. But do I think a revetted bunker looks natural, or is better looking than a bunker one might find at Sand Hills? No. If I were to build my own course tomorrow, I would look at the characteristics of the site, and try to build a bunker that emphasised the identity of the course I was trying to build (ie - strategic), that fit in with the surrounds, and that looked as natural as possible within that environment, or as natural to what one might think could realistically be nature.

Again going back to NZ, with no prior knowledge to the site or the course, I believe some golfers wouldn't be able to tell if that donut bunker I showed was naturally forming, or if it was built by hand. However, with a revetted bunker, 100% of golfers will know it was put there by human intervention. Does it matter? I suppose it depends on why you play the game.

Tim

I spose I am far less concerned with concealing the hand of man as I am with with forcefully placed features and that those features look good. Naturalism has its place on an extremely small number of sites, so I don't much see the point in trying to adhere to an aesthetic across the board.

Ciao

Ah ha! Now we get to the crux - can features look good if they are not 'naturally' looking? I'm not sure I've given it much thought, but it's an interesting idea. Do you have examples of forcefully placed features that look good, but are obviously not natural?

So let's take a clay site for example - one where sand is unlikely to be found naturally. In all cases the sand is unnatural, but to me, there's a distinction from an aesthetic perspective between putting an oval bunker in the slope of the hill (clearly un-natural as there is no other symmetric shape to be found in any other form, natural or otherwise within a 1000 miles), and one where you try to work the bunkers to reflect the asymmetry that is found throughout the rest of the site, even if the bunker itself is not natural.

In both cases, if they are a good feature that adds interest to the hole, that is the primary objective, but why not strive to create some believability that what is there could be natural?

Tim

Sure, one can strive for the "best" natural look possible given the circumstances. However, for me it's more important to create something attractive regardless if it could be mistaken for natural. For instance, I really like what was done at Kington and Walton Heath. I know the features are man made, but their over riding appeal is far more important so far as I am concerned. And these are sites where I think more site sensitive Simpson ala New Zealand like features would work very well. All are equally valid, vital and as it happens, fairly rare approaches. We happen to be in a period of naturalism at all costs, when unfortunately there aren't enough skilled shapers who can pull off this look very well in non sandy environments. Part of the problem is the insistence on a clean, sterile look. Much of the time ultimate naturalism only comes into its own when nature is allowed to take hold, which is exactly when bunkers are then spruced up...its a great shame. To me it's easier to get a great look from a feature which interacts with fairway (ie short grass) by a Walton Heath or Kington approach than it is to try a natural approach.

Ciao