[Sean_A]

I came across this quote today while re-reading a book I haven't opened in 10 years.  

"The educated taste admires simplicity of design and sound workmanship for their own sake rather than over-decoration and the crowding of artificial hazards.  The strategic school above all aims at escaping formality by limiting the use of the artificial bunker, the excessive employment of which can easily crowd a course to the ruin of everything that contributes to spaciousness of design."

How do folks think this quote squares with many of the strategic designs of the classic era and this most recent renaissance?  

Do folks think Dr Mac embraced this version of strategic design late in his career?

Do folks think archies have improved on strategic design or simply taken it in a different direction these past 20 years?  



Ciao

[Ally Mcintosh]

Hi Sean, in my quickly (and probably ill thought out) opinion:

The architect that most talked about spareness in bunkering in writing was Tom Simpson... That doesn't look like his writing style however so I'd be ineterested to hear who it is...

The key word though is "excessive"

I'm all for reducing the bunkering right down and using naturally occurring hazards if the site allows it... But, if the site is not a good one, you either have to create strategy by bunkering or by large amounts of earth moving...

You mentioned on a previous post reducing bunkers from about 75 down to 30... Great!... If the site allows it...

...However, I would agree that even on the least interesting of sites, you can create good strategy with no more than 50 bunkers and minimal earth movement (aside from greens and surrounds)... That is a huge generalisation of course and doesn't take in to account any drainage issues, never mind the size and shape of the bunkers...

In addition, it all comes down to what fits the site... Sometimes that is large sandy areas...

EDIT - in rereading your post, I also realise I've answered none of your questions... Ah well...

[John Moore II]

Thats a great statement to use when dealing with courses built on great sites, sandy sites. However, once you move inland, or in the case of places like Sand Hills or Ballyneal, away from the dunes, you lose some of the ability to stay with this. When given a site that is mostly loam or clay based soil, you can't have a 'natural' looking bunker, unless you are willing to have it be some color other than white. I think so much of the proliferation of manufactured courses here in the US in recent years has happened because so often courses were forced into locations that were not the most ideal but somehow expected to be world class. Tom Doak, et al, have been exceptionally blessed with great sites to work with, for the most part, and therefore, their work looks less manufactured than does the work of some others.

[Sean_A]

I have heard much about what can't be achieved on a site which isn't particularly attractive without spending bookoo dollars.  Yet, I look at pix of a course like Wolf Point and wonder why not?  IMO, there is something deeper at play in design these past several decades which either has little to do with creating strategic courses and/or is overly driven by visual interest (perhaps severe contrast of elements??).  

The part in the quote which interests me most is "escaping formality".  This seems to imply the heavy use of bunkers have inadvertently introduced a park-like effect on our courses which in essence limits the playing field.
Ally

Yes, the quote is certainly very much up Simpson's alley, but I think Wethered actually wrote it.  See page 81 of The Architectural Side of Golf.  

Ciao

[John Moore II]

Sean-I wasn't trying to imply that you needed huge sums of money to make a good course on less than stellar land. I do think, however, that it is nearly impossible to have natural looking bunkers on land that is not sandy. I have nothing against obviously manufactured bunkers, so long as they are placed correctly and strategically.

At Tom Doak's Riverfront, there are maybe 5 bunkers on the entire course that could be confused with being natural, and those are the ones bordering the marsh areas. All the others were manufactured during shaping. But they fit fine and aren't horrible. So I don't mind them.

Its just a fact that on inland courses, the bunkers must be manufactured in place and be mostly unnatural. This doesn't mean they must be intrusive of expensive.

[Tom MacWood]

Back then each architect had his individual take on strategic golf architecture, and Simpson was definitely a minimalist when it came to bunkering.

[Sean_A]

Sean-I wasn't trying to imply that you needed huge sums of money to make a good course on less than stellar land. I do think, however, that it is nearly impossible to have natural looking bunkers on land that is not sandy. I have nothing against obviously manufactured bunkers, so long as they are placed correctly and strategically.

At Tom Doak's Riverfront, there are maybe 5 bunkers on the entire course that could be confused with being natural, and those are the ones bordering the marsh areas. All the others were manufactured during shaping. But they fit fine and aren't horrible. So I don't mind them.

Its just a fact that on inland courses, the bunkers must be manufactured in place and be mostly unnatural. This doesn't mean they must be intrusive of expensive.

John

You are missing the point.  To what degree do bunkers need to be built?  You seem to have followed recent archie thinking hook, line and sinker with "bunkers are the answer". 

Tommy Mac

Yes, for sure Simpson was a naturalist which in true form questions the use of bunkers when not on a sandy site.  I know he believed that very well designed holes don't need any fairway bunkers, but I don't know when he started to believe this sort of minimalist bunker approach.  I was curious  how different Simpson was, if at all, from other designers of his period - not on sandy land.  I know Simpson used centre-line hazards much more than the others, probably not much different from Park Jr at Huntercombe.  For some reason Park Jr stopped being so prolific with centre-line hazards.  It is uncertain if Dr Mac embraced this philosophy late in his career due to economics or a true shift in thinking or a combination of both.  I was curious about the others such as Fowler & Colt.  I don't think Simpson came into his own until the late 20s, probably sometime around the creation of Berkshire, the break up of Fowler-Simpson (did this have to do with creative differences?) and the onset of the Great Depression.   

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I think the shift in Dr. MacKenzie's thinking about bunkers was a completely practical one.  In 1928-29 he was still building bunkers galore; by 1931 he was suddenly much more spare and strategic in his bunkering [Augusta, Bayside, The Jockey Club].  Those dates can't just be a coincidence.  He understood that his clients were now of a different mind-set, and he adapted.

It is highly likely you will see the same shift in architecture again now, and all for the same reason.  Whereas just a couple of years back it was easy to be excessive in bunkering, because everybody embraced excess:  clients, retail golfers, golf magazines, and architects alike.

It may be harder for some architects to make this switch, because there are some who truly believe that every added bunker increases the "strategy" of a hole by making players consider it.  I co-designed a course once with an architect who thought like that.  At the same time, I will say that it will be hard to make a course as challenging for good players with 30-40 bunkers instead of 80 ... especially if the architect listens to the good players' whinges about convex surfaces being unfair.

[John Moore II]

Sean-I wasn't trying to imply that you needed huge sums of money to make a good course on less than stellar land. I do think, however, that it is nearly impossible to have natural looking bunkers on land that is not sandy. I have nothing against obviously manufactured bunkers, so long as they are placed correctly and strategically.

At Tom Doak's Riverfront, there are maybe 5 bunkers on the entire course that could be confused with being natural, and those are the ones bordering the marsh areas. All the others were manufactured during shaping. But they fit fine and aren't horrible. So I don't mind them.

Its just a fact that on inland courses, the bunkers must be manufactured in place and be mostly unnatural. This doesn't mean they must be intrusive of expensive.

John

You are missing the point.  To what degree do bunkers need to be built?  You seem to have followed recent archie thinking hook, line and sinker with "bunkers are the answer". 

Ciao

No, I don't believe that. But how many bunkers do the top level courses in England and Scotland have? The Old Course has 100+, no? However, I have yet to play a course with 0 bunkers. I have played a course with less than 10, but it had water hazards on 13 or 14 holes. Bunkers may not be the answer, but they certainly add strategic interest to the golf course. Without sandy soils where you can leave in vast waste areas, such as seen at Tobacco Road, et al, if you desire to have bunkers, they must be maunfactured in place and therefore unnatural. That is what I am trying to say.

[Jon Wiggett]

It may be harder for some architects to make this switch, because there are some who truly believe that every added bunker increases the "strategy" of a hole by making players consider it.  I co-designed a course once with an architect who thought like that.  At the same time, I will say that it will be hard to make a course as challenging for good players with 30-40 bunkers instead of 80 ... especially if the architect listens to the good players' whinges about convex surfaces being unfair.

Tom,

do you think that bunkers are often used as an easy way to spice up a course? If a client doesn't have the budget for many bunkers could this not cause the GCA to look for different design elements to create strategy and would this not make a courses challenge therefor more diverse rather than the monotone use of sand?

[Ally Mcintosh]

The bottom line for me is:

Less bunkers is better if you can provide equal interest and thought provoking choices by using the ground.....

I'm certainly hoping we will see another trend towards less sand (on non-sandy sites anyway) and more thought and daring about interesting green complexes and surrounds...

[TEPaul]

"Do folks think archies have improved on strategic design or simply taken it in a different direction these past 20 years?"


I think some architects have improved on strategic design and taken it in a different direction these past 20 years. 

[Mark Pearce]

Sean-I wasn't trying to imply that you needed huge sums of money to make a good course on less than stellar land. I do think, however, that it is nearly impossible to have natural looking bunkers on land that is not sandy. I have nothing against obviously manufactured bunkers, so long as they are placed correctly and strategically.

At Tom Doak's Riverfront, there are maybe 5 bunkers on the entire course that could be confused with being natural, and those are the ones bordering the marsh areas. All the others were manufactured during shaping. But they fit fine and aren't horrible. So I don't mind them.

Its just a fact that on inland courses, the bunkers must be manufactured in place and be mostly unnatural. This doesn't mean they must be intrusive of expensive.

John

You are missing the point.  To what degree do bunkers need to be built?  You seem to have followed recent archie thinking hook, line and sinker with "bunkers are the answer". 

Ciao

No, I don't believe that. But how many bunkers do the top level courses in England and Scotland have? The Old Course has 100+, no? However, I have yet to play a course with 0 bunkers. I have played a course with less than 10, but it had water hazards on 13 or 14 holes. Bunkers may not be the answer, but they certainly add strategic interest to the golf course. Without sandy soils where you can leave in vast waste areas, such as seen at Tobacco Road, et al, if you desire to have bunkers, they must be maunfactured in place and therefore unnatural. That is what I am trying to say.

In the UK Berkhampsted, Royal Ashdown Forest, Kington and Chorleywood all have no bunkers.  I suspect there are more.  Of those RAF and Berkhampsted are good tracks, Kington has been well recorded here and is excellent and Chorleywood is a very pleasant 9 holer.

[Tim Nugent]

I came across this quote today while re-reading a book I haven't opened in 10 years.  

"The educated taste admires simplicity of design and sound workmanship for their own sake rather than over-decoration and the crowding of artificial hazards.  The strategic school above all aims at escaping formality by limiting the use of the artificial bunker, the excessive employment of which can easily crowd a course to the ruin of everything that contributes to spaciousness of design."

Ciao

OVER-DECORATION - in the quest for the best Marketing Picture to get your course in a Magazine.  The cost-benefit analysis pendulum seems to be swing away from this (unless your name is Trump and are defined by Over-decoration).

ARTIFICIAL BUNKER - This lies in what one defines an 'Artificial Bunker' to be.  I don't believe a man-made bunker that fits seamlessly into the topography is 'Artificial', irregardless of what the underlying soil consists of but rather 'Artifical' to me is when a landform is created that doesn't conform to adjacent landforms solely to install a bunker.

SPACIOUSNESS OF DESIGN - A see a trend, albeit a small one, of retreating from the ribbon fairway with flanking bunkers and trees, that act as visual blinders.  The more we can meander the fairways amoungst features (bunkers included but not solely), the wider our vistas of the holes will become.

Interesting that Simpon and his use of centerline bunkering is noted here.  I see this use as forcing our vision to the outside of the hole rather than down the middle.  And, by populating the in interior of the hole , rather than the perimeter, he was able to get double duty out of a singular bunker.

While I don't tender that Bunkers are the "easy answer", I do feel that they are a solution.  They should be employed on an as-needed basis to establish interst and strategy but in moderation and propostion to other features to achieve some rational balance.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

Your last point is a good one, worth expanding on.

In Simpson's day there was no pressure to make EVERY hole on the course a noteworthy one.  In fact, in the very same book from which this quote we're discussing was lifted, when laying out the composition of an ideal 18 holes, Simpson noted [paraphrasing here] that a course like that would really be far too exhausting to be considered great, and that every course needed some balance between stunning holes and breathers.

The expectation over the last 20 years is far different.  We know that before our courses are even open, Matthew Mollica is going to post multiple pictures of every single hole on the Internet.  [I'm kidding, Matthew ... partly.]  The client wants EVERY hole to be a really good hole.  And it just so happens that the same holes that years ago, we would have left alone, are the ones likely to require the greatest number of artificial bunkers in order to make them something that looks interesting.  I think that's where the proliferation of bunkers has really come from.

[Adam Clayman]

Not to mention the slope and rating system which perpetuates an attitude that more bunkers are needed to get the higher slopes and ratings. Placating another lowest common denominator, the uneducated taste.

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I usually like what I read from W&S.  This quote, though, not so much. I think it manifests what it decries. It's fussy and overdecorated, and crams willy-nilly several ideas into one (supposedly cohesive) whole.  But the reference to 'educated tastes' is interesting; I wonder what the equivalent of our 'average golfer' was in Wethered's day. I would guess that, at least one sub-set of that category would've been those who wanted their courses to be severe 'tests of golf'.  

Peter

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom / Tim,

It sounds like you're asked to put some eye candy in the way of bunkering onto holes that don't need any.

Do you think that might be less of a priority for owners in the future due to maintenance costs, and what can you offer them as alternatives to bunkering, or is that too site specific to get into here?

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - also: I think Tom D focused on the most important aspect of this question, i.e. the abomination that is the '18 great holes' kind of golf course.  That aspect/approach, I think, is the real dividing line between differing gca philosophies, and between good and not so good architecture/design. I'm usually not a blasé or sophisticated type, but I have to admit I've grown tired of the strategic vs penal debate (especially after Bob Crosby's excellent essay on it). I think the very way in which that question is usually framed pretty much ensures that most of the ensuing debate will be meaningless, especially when discussing modern-day courses and design.

Peter

[Tim Nugent]

I remember back in the early 90's a prominant Land Planner coined the term "Hot Spot". A hotspot was a feature element that was the terminal view, looking from outside the course, inward).  His theory was the way to maximize lot values, evry lot should have a Hotspot.  If one wasn't there, just plop in a bunker.  Glad we never had to work with him.
Most astute developers leave the intracracies of the golf design to the professionals they hire.  Granted, sometimes they make suggestions but usually leave the final determination up to the architect.  Although, I'm sure there are some frustrated wannabe's out there who make life miserable for their archie.  Usually, these are the Project Managers, or Management Consultants.

PP, to "the abomination that is '18 great holes kind of golf course", I submit CBM and NGLA.  I think TD was thinking more along the lines of 18 visually spectacular holes.  Whereas a Great hole doesn't have to be Visually Spectacular but a VS hole can be a poor golf hole.  As we've stated on numerous occasions, a great course has to have a good flow and pace.  Trying to make every hole spectacular can overpower the senses and thus feel incongruent to the natual surroundings.  Or put another way, if you have 18 gorgious women line up - do they all start to look similar and hence average?

[TEPaul]

"Interesting that Simpon and his use of centerline bunkering is noted here.  I see this use as forcing our vision to the outside of the hole rather than down the middle.  And, by populating the in interior of the hole , rather than the perimeter, he was able to get double duty out of a singular bunker."


Tim Nugent:


With that remark of yours it seems like you are beginning to touch on an aspect of golf course architecture that I've been fixated on for years. And that would be what GCA does to a golfer's vision or his eye in how he picks up on and perceives strategic possibilities!!

It seems like it has long been something of a staple or perhaps something of an "artistic" requirement in GCA to focus the golfer's eye via golf architectural arrangements. If that is true where did such an idea come from? I don't think there's much question that it came from the virtual cojoining of Landscape Architecture and its "Art" Principles with the field of golf architecture and golf itself as a result.

C&W offer a decent list of those "art prinicples" as applied to golf architecture, and also offer a decent explanation of what each of them are or what they mean. They are:

Harmony
Proportion
Balance
Rhythym
Emphasis

I have never had a problem with any of them as applied to GCA with the exception of the last one----Emphasis, BUT only if and when it is always used in GCA in pretty much the same way or for the same purpose. The definition offered for Emphasis by C&W is:

"Emphasis: The eye is carried first to the most important part of the arrangement and then to the other details."


The question becomes what is the most important part of any arrangement that the eye is first carried to? If it is always where a golfer is supposed to hit the ball or must hit the ball I am not for it at all other than to a limited extent on the holes of a golf course. To me the most interesting, challenging and probably the best architecture is when the golfer arrives on the tee or at other locations on the holes and looks at the entire setting and arrangement and tends to say or think to himself-----"What really is going on out there (strategically)?"

And I like that to also mean whether he thinks he can see everything or whether he feels perhaps he can't!

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

I remember that when I first visited Pine Valley in 1980, in the days before engraved bag tags and $200 logoed windshirts, the best souvenir you could buy in the pro shop was a packet of 18 postcards -- one of each hole on the course.  It was a not-entirely-subtle way of reminding the visitor that not many other courses had a course where every hole could hold its own on a postcard.

When I worked for Pete Dye the next year, I heard him on two different occasions decry a client who wanted "18 postcards".

[Tom_Doak]

Tom P:  I like your question about Emphasis.  I think that is the same point I was trying to make a couple of weeks ago, regarding the difference between Obvious and Subtle.

I do think it's important for the golfer to have something to capture his attention on the tee.  There is nothing worse than a half-blind drive over a gentle hill which offers nothing in particular to aim at on the horizon, and no definition to the sides; you've got to have SOMETHING to start from.  But it only has to be a clue ... not the solution.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim N - thanks. I should've been clearer. MY dislike for the '18 great golf holes' goes beyond the visual aspect. I don't think architects should be striving for - and I don't ever want to expect and demand - 18 great golf holes. It isn't natural. It isn't in keeping with the natural order of things. Ane, especially given a good site and a philosphy of minimal earthmoving, it isn't 'natural' or to my eyes aesthetically pleasing or desirable. As I've mentioned here before, I was really struck by reading that the old Navajos would purposely weave a mistake into their beautifully woven blankets 'in order to let the devil out'.  I think it showed a very wise and graceful awareness of the dangers of expecting perfection on this our plane of existence.
Peter

[Sean_A]

I came across this quote today while re-reading a book I haven't opened in 10 years.  

"The educated taste admires simplicity of design and sound workmanship for their own sake rather than over-decoration and the crowding of artificial hazards.  The strategic school above all aims at escaping formality by limiting the use of the artificial bunker, the excessive employment of which can easily crowd a course to the ruin of everything that contributes to spaciousness of design."

Ciao

OVER-DECORATION - in the quest for the best Marketing Picture to get your course in a Magazine.  The cost-benefit analysis pendulum seems to be swing away from this (unless your name is Trump and are defined by Over-decoration).

ARTIFICIAL BUNKER - This lies in what one defines an 'Artificial Bunker' to be.  I don't believe a man-made bunker that fits seamlessly into the topography is 'Artificial', irregardless of what the underlying soil consists of but rather 'Artifical' to me is when a landform is created that doesn't conform to adjacent landforms solely to install a bunker.

SPACIOUSNESS OF DESIGN - A see a trend, albeit a small one, of retreating from the ribbon fairway with flanking bunkers and trees, that act as visual blinders.  The more we can meander the fairways amoungst features (bunkers included but not solely), the wider our vistas of the holes will become.

Interesting that Simpon and his use of centerline bunkering is noted here.  I see this use as forcing our vision to the outside of the hole rather than down the middle.  And, by populating the in interior of the hole , rather than the perimeter, he was able to get double duty out of a singular bunker.

While I don't tender that Bunkers are the "easy answer", I do feel that they are a solution.  They should be employed on an as-needed basis to establish interst and strategy but in moderation and propostion to other features to achieve some rational balance.

Tim

OVER-DECORATION in the context of Simpson's time may have had more to do with road map architecture (framing) guiding the player rather guarding the ideal lines of play.  

ARTIFICIAL BUNKER is just that.  Simpson went to great lengths to create attractive bunkers and I think he likely largely agreed with you.  Though for me, this is less and less a critical question because I am starting to believe that if archies want to think outside the box to some degree they have to get a bit wild and accept that golf isn't really about nature even though nature is part of the puzzle.  Strantz's Bulls Bay is a perfect example with the huge 80 foot hill in the Low Country.  Does it look out of place?  YES.  Does it work?  YES.  In truth, I think it was a brilliant idea that effectively allowed Strantz to get away with all the comparatively small fry shaping stuff.  

SPACIOUSNESS OF DESIGN is what is gained by fewer and centre-line bunkers and what I believe is the core of strategic design.

I am still most interested in the "escaping formality" comment.  I don't honestly know what W-S were driving at here.  

Peter P

I don't think this quote is strictly about strategic architecture.  I think W-S are trying to tie a lot of concepts together as inter-dependent.

Tom D

I think most archies would agree that attention off the tee is a must, though I wonder if that is this is true given some of the classic blind holes around.  True, in some of these cases the thing to hit over is the centre of attention, but that is a sort of a negative of the concept.  The problem with offering emphasis is it can lead to the point were are at now - road map architecture.   

 

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()