The Natural Use of Sand - Max Behr

[Jason Topp]

My general belief is that the style of bunkering is over emphasized on this board and that placement is of primary importance.  Max Behr appears to argue the opposite in this article from a 1926 Green Section publication:

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1920s/1926/260110.pdf

Behr describes methods for making bunkers look natural and then gives the following explanation for why making bunkers appear natural is important:

"Instinctively the golfer knows that his pastime is a contest with the obstacles that nature spreads in his way; and this is proved by the experience that he readily accepts without question all natural hazards no matter how illogical or damnable they may be.  But because an artificial hazard is an evident design to thwart his skill he argues with it; and should its position not be justified and come to be generally condemned - out it comes. . . . in the degree the golfer is conscious of the design in that degree is faulty according to the highest tenets of the art "

I am not sure I agree.  In my experience, all bunkers are artificial in appearance.  Some are just more attractive than others.

Thoughts?

[TEPaul]

Essentially Behr was alluding to sites where sand was not naturally occuring. At another point in his articles on architecture he mentioned that the sand bunker was essentially a vestige of original linksland golf that just hung on in golf as golf emigrated outside of Scotland to other places where sand was not naturally occuring as it is in the linksland. He also mentioned that basically tees, fairways and greens were the only artificial occurences that were completely necessary to golf.

[Mac Plumart]

Terrific topic!!

Frankly, I don't know if I have an opinion.  I still feel lost in the woods.  

I hear banter about the natural courses being important.  And, you know what, it makes sense.  

But then I hear that Raynor's courses are great from the same people, generally.  That makes no sense to me as his work is anything but natural looking.  

But yet, other architects are killed by the same people for not building natural looking courses.

It just makes no sense to me.  

[Jason Topp]

I presume this article is by Behr and contains pictures of what the unidentified author considers natural looking bunkers:

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1920s/1926/260102B.pdf

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
At least two of Raynor's courses, Yale and Fishers Island, have less than a handful of fairway bunkers between them, and in both cases the fairways look like they were there for millenia, perfectly in sync w/Behr's thinking.

[Tom_Doak]

Did Behr really say "tenants of the art"?  I thought it would be "tenets", but I also thought Behr was more educated than any of us.

[Peter Pallotta]

Jason - I think the focus is actually on the workings of a golfer's mind, i.e.  that the placement of bunkers/hazards where the golfer expects (but does not want) them to be is a sign of human hands at work, and so the unhappy golfer tends to say with justification: "If an architect has put it there then an architect can bloody well take it out".  Whereas a seemingly random bunker/hazard, especially one that looks natural, doesn't have the same effect on a golfer -- perhaps because he is more likely to blame himself rather than the architect, which in this case appears to be Nature, for geting into a hazard that's not where he expects it to be.

Peter

[Jim_Kennedy]

TomD,
He said "tenets" in the article.

[TEPaul]

Jason:

That article in the USGA's Bulletin was written by Charles V. Piper following a visit he made to California and Behr's course. He wrote a letter to Wilson mentioning that he could not tell the difference between what was natural and what wasn't Behr was so good.

[Ross Tuddenham]

I have to agree with you Jason when you say that all bunkers are artificial in appearance.  I am also not sure about Behr's assertion that the player will accept a natural hazard however illogical its location.  Surely you can still blame the architect, after all they did not have to route the hole in such a way to leave a natural hazard in a stupid place.

[Brian Chapin]

"Instinctively the golfer knows that his pastime is a contest with the obstacles that nature spreads in his way; and this is proved by the experience that he readily accepts without question all natural hazards no matter how illogical or damnable they may be.  But because an artificial hazard is an evident design to thwart his skill he argues with it; and should its position not be justified and come to be generally condemned - out it comes. . . . in the degree the golfer is conscious of the design in that degree is faulty according to the highest tenants of the art "

Perhaps this is why so many of our classic golf courses have far fewer bunkers and so many more trees than originally intended.  The golfers mind accepts the haphazardly planted tree as a "natural" obstacle, but considers a "man-made" bunker in his way unfair.

This got me thinking:

If a bunker on non-links land is "artificial" and you wanted to build a golf course without "artificial features", what features would you use?  Surely property exists with enough terrain and interest to provide a fun and challenging test of golf without the use of bunkers. 

Has anyone designed a good golf course without bunkers?

[Kyle Henderson]

  In my experience, all bunkers are artificial in appearance.

There are rare exceptions, in my eyes anyways. Perhaps not coincidentally (given the subject of your post), many of these are found on the Treehouse's  favorite courses.

Examples: Pacific Dunes, Sand Hills, Ballyneal

[Sean_A]

Jason - I think the focus is actually on the workings of a golfer's mind, i.e.  that the placement of bunkers/hazards where the golfer expects (but does not want) them to be is a sign of human hands at work, and so the unhappy golfer tends to say with justification: "If an architect has put it there then an architect can bloody well take it out".  Whereas a seemingly random bunker/hazard, especially one that looks natural, doesn't have the same effect on a golfer -- perhaps because he is more likely to blame himself rather than the architect, which in this case appears to be Nature, for geting into a hazard that's not where he expects it to be.

Peter

Pietro

Yes, I believe your reading of the most elusive (read terrible writer) Behr is essentially the gist of the article.  Now, do folks buy it?  Personally, its the business of the archie worrying about what the golfer will think that puts me off the theory.  Plus, what is the point of hazards if not to create interest?  As someone mentioned earlier, Behr does seem to be pandering to the aesthetic side of things.  But then, as is obvious, I am not a fan of Behr's style or his ideas about golf.  He essentially looks at golf as a game against nature while I believe golf is a game between competitors which the course cannot take part in.  That said, I am not in the least sure if the opposing ideas necessarily mean there are separate outcomes for design, including hazard placement, severity, quantity and aesthetics.  

Ciao  

[TEPaul]

"If a bunker on non-links land is "artificial" and you wanted to build a golf course without "artificial features", what features would you use?  Surely property exists with enough terrain and interest to provide a fun and challenging test of golf without the use of bunkers."



Brian:

Logically you would use topographical contours if the site had them naturally and if it didn't you could make them. It's a lot easier for  man-made topographical contours with grass on them to be made to look site-natural than it is for a man-made sand bunker to look natural on a site that has zero natural sand surface on it. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Sean - I think your last point is were the rubber really meets the road on this. I think I understand Behr a bit if only because his writing reminds me of my own when I'm grappling with ideas that I've barely formulated and have not yet developed a clear language to express tem.  But anyway - if we're right and this is what Behr is saying, it still leaves the question/your question: what difference does it make for how a course is actually designed (for playability).

Peter

[Sean_A]

Sean - I think your last point is were the rubber really meets the road on this. I think I understand Behr a bit if only because his writing reminds me of my own when I'm grappling with ideas that I've barely formulated and have not yet developed a clear language to express tem.  But anyway - if we're right and this is what Behr is saying, it still leaves the question/your question: what difference does it make for how a course is actually designed (for playability).

Peter

Pietro

Its even more perplexing for me because I can't even honestly see how the type of game played (ie match or medal) should influence the design of a course.  I know some folks credit the old courses as being more matchplay oriented, but many of these courses were playable for nearly everybody - which suggests to me a leaning toward medal.  Go figure.

Ciao

[Wade Schueneman]

Bunker placement is more important in my opinion as it dictates strategy (as demonstrated by TOC), but bunker styling can sure help to make a course special (as demonstrated by RCD), especially if the styling impacts how the bunkers actually play (see TOC and RCD).  

[Cristian]

Terrific topic!!

Frankly, I don't know if I have an opinion.  I still feel lost in the woods.  

I hear banter about the natural courses being important.  And, you know what, it makes sense.  

But then I hear that Raynor's courses are great from the same people, generally.  That makes no sense to me as his work is anything but natural looking.  

But yet, other architects are killed by the same people for not building natural looking courses.

It just makes no sense to me.  

Great post!

If our definitions of great are not consistent with the courses we call great there is either something wrong with our defenitions or we are qualifying courses as being great for the wrong reasons.

But perhaps that is so interesting about good golf course architecture and construction; it is not definable.

There are only few universal values I can think of, that one could call common denominators in the design of the best courses:

1 . Options of play from the tee, the fairway and the green surrounds

2. Fast and Firm

3. Style consistency; Anything goes abiding to 1 and 2, as long as one is loyal to one's own principals as a designer of a specific course.

Many people here mention principals as wide fairways, natural looking bunkering and mounding as well but really these principals would disqualify Pine Valley, anything done by Raynor or Dye as well as every links course with a revetted bunker.

What is the real sign of greatness?

[TEPaul]

Sean:

Behr wasn't a terrible writer or a bad writer, he just had a sort of old fashioned or Edwardian style of writing. To assume because Behr's writing style was odd he wasn't intelligent is a real mistake, in my opinion.

I've been reading Behr's collected articles on architecture for years, over and over and over again. More than any writer I'm aware of with his writing I've had more of what one might call "Blue Thunder Moments." It's as if after reading some thought development on his part numerous times, all of a sudden it's sort of BOOM---Reva---(fucking)---lation!!!

Far more than any writer on golf or architecture I'm aware of Behr pretty much looked really deep into the "golfer's" mind and probably right into his soul too.

Where I believe he ended up with his premise on a golfer inherently objecting to something (such as a hazard or obstacle) he felt was artificial or man-made (and wanting to remove it) and not really objecting to something like that he felt was natural was essentially an inherent anthropological comparison of Man's inherent relationship with Nature vs Man's inherent relationship with Mankind itself. I think his point was Man inherently feels it's easier to complain about and rid himself of something put in front of him to trip him up by another man than it is to complain about and rid himself of something put in front of him to trip him up by the eternal forces of Nature like water, eg. oceans, rivers, seas or mountains, hills, ridges or even a naturally occuring dune and such and such....

And then of course there is that other elusive Natural component of golf that influences architecture indirectly that he knows he could never possibly rid himself of or do anything about anyway---the WIND!

Or, alternatively, you could boil all the foregoing down to a briefer and more understandable aphorism such as----bitch all you want about any old golf architect but don't ever try to fuck with Mother Nature!

[Sean_A]

Tom

Don't misunderstand me, because I believe Behr was a poor writer in no way implies I believe he wasn't intelligent.  As is my custom with nearly all poor writers, I give them less time than I would good writers.  Perhaps its a character flaw, but if I read about golf its gotta be enjoyable - no free rides.  While I understand that Behr was trying to capture the more esoteric aspects of design than Darwin, I get so much more from Bernardo that to compare the two is pointlless.  However, it isn't my objective to pit one against the other - I am simply pointing out that blaming the era a writer inhabits doesn't wash in this instance. 

I understood the premise of the article, but I don't really buy it.  If one believes the routing of a course is one of the most critical elements of a design than surely the question of why should a golfer accept an awkwardly placed natural hazard routed into the design rather than an artificial hazard in the same sort of position must be asked.  While one can't easily remove a stream routed into a course, one can remove himself from that situation - which amounts to the same thing so far as the complaining golfer is concerned.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

To each his own, Sean; to each his own.

Darwin was of course a wonderful writer on golf and other things. He was the type of writer who was evocative and definitely more for the masses than someone like Behr. Darwin was the type of writer who could easily make readers smile and nod their heads in understanding. Behr was a writer you made most everyone constantly knit their brows quizzically. Behr was esoteric and metaphysical in his subjects and topics---you won't find Darwin writing any article on the Nature and Use of Penalty, as Max Behr did.

[Jason Topp]

TomD,
He said "tenets" in the article.

The dangers of two finger typing and an ASU education.  I will fix it.

[Jason Topp]

Jason - I think the focus is actually on the workings of a golfer's mind, i.e.  that the placement of bunkers/hazards where the golfer expects (but does not want) them to be is a sign of human hands at work, and so the unhappy golfer tends to say with justification: "If an architect has put it there then an architect can bloody well take it out".  Whereas a seemingly random bunker/hazard, especially one that looks natural, doesn't have the same effect on a golfer -- perhaps because he is more likely to blame himself rather than the architect, which in this case appears to be Nature, for geting into a hazard that's not where he expects it to be.

Peter

Peter:

I think this is one of his points.  It is an odd one.  I'm not sure I can think of a single instance where I thought a bunker was there naturally. 

[Jason Topp]

I also am interested in how Behr describes a bunker should look at the top of page 11- essentially designed tp appeas if it were an area that at one time held water but dried up and eroded.  He indicates that such a bunker should surface drain through natural channels.

This approach seems the opposite of the fingers so common on Mackenzie bunkers. 

 

[Tom_Doak]

TomD,
He said "tenets" in the article.

The dangers of two finger typing and an ASU education.  I will fix it.

Jason,

No problem.  I have been using an iPad for the past couple of months and it is so eager to correct any typo from the touch pad screen, and it guesses my intent wrong about half the time.  It's so bad, my alma mater has offered to chip in on a MacBook Air so I won't make them look bad.  [Just kidding; actually, my wife bought me one so people wouldn't think she married an illiterate.]