[Peter Pallotta]

We're misunderstanding each other on this one, Sean.

I believe we all know where that line is re naturalism; it's just where Behr said it is/was.

The issue/problem is that naturalism just doesn't seem to matter to golfers nearly as much as Behr thought it did.

And (to get back to Mac's question), I believe that's where he was "wrong". 

[Mac Plumart]

Hallelujah!!!  Some one besides me said it, "Raynor's work is proof that golfers don't automatically reject that which does not look natural.  I would also point to another much loved feature, pot bunkers.  They are odd looking in their shape, but like Raynor's work, pot bunkers fulfill a function that serves golf architecture better than it does nature."  

Freakin' pot bunkers for goodness sakes!  Natural looking...NO WAY!!!



I've said things like this in the past, regarding how un-natural pot bunkers look...but all I get are weird looks.  But if they fill a function, give the golfer reason to think before he strikes a golf ball, then they have a place on a golf course, correct?


And I also agree with what Sean said in regards to a sliding scale regarding naturalism.  Some people look at that picture of the Short at Sleepy Hollow and see how the lines flow along the hill and over the green and down the hill and it looks fine and natural.  Others see the bunker and can't get over its artificial look.  Frankly, I "get" both points of view.  

But perhaps the first step to getting on the right path regarding naturalism is to get the routing to be in harmony with the natural landscape. And then not to put up something so hideously man-made that it instantly puts off golfers.  Other than that, maybe it is personal taste along that sliding scale.  

And, as a matter of fact, Tim Bert said something to me on this site that really hit home with me regarding this naturalism thing.  I asked, the question I ask all the time regarding this subject, why is natural so important?  His response was something to the effect of this...It may or may not be important to how a golf course plays, but some people really appreciate the natural aspects of the hole/course and its beauty.  Sounds a lot like the sliding scale thing that Sean is talking about to me.

Oh yeah..I've just got to show one more picture, I was scanning through Ran's profiles to find some images of big time golf courses.  Look at this photo of Royal County Down.  I'm no expert on the natural landscapes of Northern Ireland, but holy cow...that looks absolutely incredible.



EDIT...Peter posted as I was typing and I think he's totally nailed it.

[Adam Clayman]

Ok Boys, Was Behr talking about golfers or sportsmen? Surely the modern golfer has not evolved into the same sportsman Behr was using in his thesis.

[Peter Pallotta]

Ok Boys, Was Behr talking about golfers or sportsmen? Surely the modern golfer has not evolved into the same sportsman Behr was using in his thesis.

Adam- I don't think the sportsmen Behr had in mind EVER DID exist.  I think he was a prophet crying out in the wilderness, urging the evolution of the golfing-man to higher planes of experience. He HIMSELF was there -- but alas very few listened to him then, and even fewer followed him along later.  Stubborn and hard of hearts and mind we were, and remain....

Peter

[JNC Lyon]

Mac,

I addressed this on Carl Rogers' thread, but I don't think Raynor and naturalism are mutually exclusive.  Raynor found the best land for his template holes, just as Harry Colt would find the par three holes before the rest of the course.  Raynor was a master router who got the most out of the property.  He seems to fit the template holes into the land, not the other way around.

Yeamans Hall is a great example of where Raynor and naturalism converge.

[Mac Plumart]

JNC...

I have to respectfully disagree with your comment that Yeamans Hall represents the convergence of Raynor's style and Naturalism.  Is the course a lot of fun?  Yes, I think so.  Are the greens mind-bottling?  Yes, without question.  Is the course well routed?  Absolutely.  But the features on the course do not appear to be naturally occuring.  It is pretty much a dead flat site with a lot of push up greens and a lot of geometric and unnatural looking bunkers.







Comparing these photos (which aren't the best I freely admit) to the photo of Royal County Down and Old MacDonald clearly illustrates to me that Yeamans isn't nearly as natural looking as they are.

But perhaps that clearly captures the entire point, Raynor was simply not a naturalist.  He was an engineer by trade who teamed up with CBM to build template holes.  Plain and simple.  He was a great router of a golf course.  The templates lent themselves to great golf shots and, therefore, great golf.  But he simply wasn't a naturalist.

Furthermore, I think Peter P. is red hot on this thread.  When we boil it all down, a golf course being natural is simply not as important to golfers as Behr thought it was or should be.

And a question that I personally love is  Adam's.  Was Behr talking about sportsmen or golfers?  I'll say sportsmen.  Perhaps nature and natural golf course mean more to sportsmen than they do to golfers.

[JNC Lyon]

Mac,

I don't think most bunkers, at Yeamans or elsewhere, appear natural.  My point about Yeamans is that Raynor displayed a full knowledge of the land when he routed the course.  Yeamans is far from a dead flat site, especially in the Low Country.  Take the 18th, which tumbles downhill into a beautiful stand of live oaks.  Or try the 14th, where the manufactured green (which I love, by the way) is cut from a natural ridge at the end of a hole that hums beautifully across gently rolling land.  Even the artificial bunkers appear rugged and uncompromising in the spirit of nature.

There is a lot more to naturalism than whether or not a specific feature appears manmade.

[Sean_A]

We're misunderstanding each other on this one, Sean.

I believe we all know where that line is re naturalism; it's just where Behr said it is/was.

The issue/problem is that naturalism just doesn't seem to matter to golfers nearly as much as Behr thought it did.

And (to get back to Mac's question), I believe that's where he was "wrong".  

Pietro

I think we agree that golfers can suspend disbelief on the golf course just as they can in the movie theatre if the course or movie is good enough to warrant that suspension.  If not, we all can be scathing.  In other words, naturalism is not the ideal Behr and most of the best archies UK thought it was (Fowler not being among the group I would for purposes of this conversation call naturalists).  I think where we disagree is where the line of naturalism is.  That line is purely a subjective matter, even for Behr though he doesn't see it that way.  So sure, we all do know where that naturalist line is - for ourselves.  

Ciao

[Mac Plumart]

JNC...

I agree that the routing at Yeamans is spectacular in almost every sense, including the naturalist sense.  And you bring up a good point, there is more to naturalism than the blending of "golf" features in with the course, even according the Behr.  He states the routing comes first, which should be in harmony with the natural landscape.  Bingo!  You are totally right on that.

And Sean nails it again, the rest is a sliding scale.  As Adam said early, don't put up something hideous and totally man-made.  That should be step 2 (after the routing)...and I think Behr would agree.  And the rest is personal preference/sliding scale. 

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, I can't agree that sportsmen never existed because I still see them today.

I'd be curious if anybody thinks Behr was writing for the average Joe? His positions clearly are for the more sophisticated, student, and player.

What strikes me is how an average guy can dismiss mal-practice when it comes to gca, but, in the area of maintenance, they see stuff, and opine, on stuff that isn't relevant.

[JNC Lyon]

JNC...

I agree that the routing at Yeamans is spectacular in almost every sense, including the naturalist sense.  And you bring up a good point, there is more to naturalism than the blending of "golf" features in with the course, even according the Behr.  He states the routing comes first, which should be in harmony with the natural landscape.  Bingo!  You are totally right on that.

And Sean nails it again, the rest is a sliding scale.  As Adam said early, don't put up something hideous and totally man-made.  That should be step 2 (after the routing)...and I think Behr would agree.  And the rest is personal preference/sliding scale. 

Mac,

That makes sense, and it explains why I like courses like Brora and Addington as much as like courses like Yeamans Hall and Fox Chapel.  Personally, I think Raynor's engineered style is much more in harmony with its surroundings than the weird shapes you see on many modern layouts.

[Chris Shaida]

There's a whole bunch of really interesting stuff here:

Ian's notion of not being able to tell where the construction stops and where the 'natural' landforms begin;

JNC's 'there is a lot more to naturalism than whether or not a specific feature appears manmade;'

Sean's reference to the 'willing suspension of disbelief' (which I take to be in reference to the whole issue of sorting out the 'natural' from the man-made);

Peter's analogizing from jazz where creativity is built on a top of an existing (simpler) song/chord-progression (template) and where the fact of it being built on top of this 'template' doesn't invalidate the creativity or inventiveness.

Add those together and I wonder whether one of the primary components of the appeal of the CBM/Raynor/Banks work is the restraint (and/or austerity and/or purity) of the palette of man-made/artificial/template elements.

That is, if one STARTS with the notion that since the man-made components are going to be there and one needn't hide them or pretend that they're not man-made and that the art is in making those elements make sense in a larger landscape, then having a limited number of those elements becomes the engine for elegance, balance and clear design.  Greens, bunkers (in  most courses) and tees HAVE to have the hand of man touch them so why not be candid and clear about that and focus the effort on how those elements are fitted in with the walk, the actions need on that walk and the views unveiled along the way.  Why not focus--as Ian says--on the transitions, on how the necessarily man-made is combined with the larger landforms and elements.

So it's not whether something is man-made or not that is the measure but rather whether the man-madeness is necessary or not and whether the degree of man-madeness is appropriate and balanced.  A waterfall is offensive (and the cause for us NOT to suspend disbelief and a cause for us to be 'scathing) not because it's man-made per se but because there is no need at all  for something man-made there (ie, behind the green).

So the 'template' is appealing because it is both candid (yes, there are always man-made things on a golf course) and learnable (as a golfer I can learn this spare language and see how it plays out in a different landscape); and the restraint is appealing because it acknowledges and gives credit to the underlying utility (it's not just a walk in the park, but a ground for hitting interesting golf shots).  The restraint also aids in the 'learnable' factor (think Mondrian--just straight lines a few colors or Rilke--just a limited number of verse forms or Peter's jazz charts--there are a limited number of jazz 'standards' afterall, the one's with the most fruitful chord progressions).

but maybe I've just had too many 'daze cookies' (what are those btw?)

[Mike McGuire]

Ron Forse had an interesting comment on why the clearly manmade features on William Langfords courses are appealing.

WL used cuts and fills to build greens and bunkers. Because no additional fill was brought in the amount of dirt was the same. Somehow your minds eye senses this balance and it looks right.

[Mac Plumart]

Great stuff guys!  Great stuff!  I don't know what made me think of this, maybe Chris' post or maybe the entire thread.  But since Behr is talking about Art in Golf Architecture, maybe we need to get our arms around art and why people like what they like in that regards before we can apply it to golf courses.  Here are a few pieces of well-known, critically acclaimed, and/or expensive as hell works of art.


Pretty much the standard bearer for art, right?  Maybe akin to The Old Course?

Then there is this one...

Why people like it, I have no idea.  But it is famous.  Pretty plain and straight forward, akin to Ross?


Kind of weird...out there...but some people love it.  Strantz?


Muirhead?


Not an orginal image, rather a copy, that was then copied and copied, and copied...in fact there are 8 Elivses in this work of art...I'm going with Raynor for this one!!

And this is definately Bill Coore!!



Anyway, just having some fun...but maybe illustrating a point.  There may not be the perfect ideal in the world of golf course architecture.  Perhaps some basic principles that need to be adhered to and, maybe the rest is a sliding scale.

[JC Urbina]

Mac,

A topic that is always on my mind when looking at and creating golf courses for the last quarter century.

I have mentioned a few times why golf courses like TOC and Cypress were some of my favorites, the beauty that these golf courses add to the surrounding environment is unmatched.  The Old Course blends dunes land with street hardscapes, Cypress makes an 18 hole walk seem like a stroll in a country park.  The National Golf Links reveals the 17th hole, one of the most geometrical holes and land forms into one of the most picturesque on the property.    How did they do that?

They did it by the blending of lines.  Sometimes masking the line and other times melting the line.  After all isn't Art like a painting, a series of lines made with a stroke of a pencil or brush.  I have walked these courses countless times wandering what makes them so pleasing to the eye.  The Redan at The National is one of the holes that in itself very contrived in it's creation yet when you stand on the tee the lines of creation are blurred in both the foreground and background of this hole.

You bring up the Short hole at Old Mac as one of the examples of a creation of many ideas.   Behr/Mackenzie/MacDonald/Raynor?  

First let me say that this hole had a few things going for it when we started clearing the hole.  The right side had a very natural blowout that we were able to tie into.  Second the ridge line that served as the background for this green was natural and started in the left edge of your view and continued to the right way out of the line of sight (that is a good thing) Second it had opposing lines of sight in the background starting with the dunes behind # 15 at Pacific Dunes and then once again the somewhat artificial line of the coast and horizon of the Pacific Ocean.  One of the best things that every happened to this hole was the clearing of the gorse off of the 16th hole at Pacific Dunes (they were clearing gorse during the construction of Old Mac) This helped with the changing of the horizon lines.

 Next came the level of the tee on which most players would be teeing off from.  That elevation where you stood wasn’t just happenstance, it was in direct correlation where your sight lines would be.  Just a glimpse of the horizon and the right amount of visual stimulation so that the green in itself was not the focal point.  It was important to see the levels of the green but it couldn't be the only thing.  Color distortion on the left (Gorse) large blowout bunker on the right, long turf line on the ridge in the middle and most important of all is the absence of intermediate lines " Mowing Lines, which makes the focal point to busy at times " which Ken Nice / Eric Johnson and crew are very good at.  

A very artificial surface in line with what Macdonald said was important to a Short Hole - Three distinct greens or pinning areas within one large green surface.  Is the short at Old Mac Natural?   Depends on the eye of the beholder.  This green is very artificial in its creation but to some very natural in its presentation.

I really enjoyed talking to Ian about the lines of creation at Pac and Mac.  Those are the days I really enjoy and make the long days away from home, bearable. Someday I would like to go to the 6th hole at Old Mac and talk more about Art and Architecture.

  I have learned a lot about the Art of golf design from "The Old Dead Guys.”  I am forever grateful for the chance I got to see Cypress, The National, and others while working for Pete and his son Perry Dye. And then traveling with Tom and seeing other important golf treasures like TOC, Garden City, and North Berwick.    Those courses have forever influenced me.  In my mind first and foremost is the idea of blending the lines of creation.  Reading old books about golf course design was a big help but seeing it first hand it truly the best form of learning.  I have learned how important the depth of view really is.

 Some golfers don't think about golf course architecture they just experience it.

[Mac Plumart]

Is it just me or is this kind of stuff (Jim's post) simply incredible?

Thanks Jim.  And thanks Ian for the idea to do a In My Opinion Discussion series.

[Terry Lavin]

In my mind first and foremost is the idea of blending the lines of creation.  Reading old books about golf course design was a big help but seeing it first hand it truly the best form of learning.  I have learned how important the depth of view really is.

Some golfers don't think about golf course architecture they just experience it.

Jim,

You're right, of course.  I'd go so far as to say that 99% of golfers don't think about golf course architecture.  And even the 1% that do think about it don't have the sort of vision or experience to imagine the creation of a relatively "simple" hole like you described with the Short at Old Macdonald.  We look past the hole and we may see the horizon, but we don't look at how the horizon can be altered by something as simple but profound as removal of vegetation and we very seldom see anything as subtle as the lines of creation that you speak of, whether natural or created.

That's why you're a great architect and why the rest of us amateurs should never quit our day jobs.

[Peter Pallotta]

Mac - you're right.

Terry - that's what is so interesting to me about this thread/Behr's ideas, i.e. that for those ideas to have any real meaning in the world/on the ground they have to be true independent of whether or not golfers consciously recognize and appreciate them as such. IMO, professionals like Jim are doing what top-flight professionals in any art-craft have always done -- he is hiding his craft and his skill from all but the most interested/discerning eyes, so that the experience itself is all that remains.  To be willing and able to so hide his craft and skill is what I think of when I say an artist has humility. 

Peter

[Adam Clayman]

Peter, Why can't the affect be sub-conscience?

Mind's eye being that fleeting moment during the swing when the player is either at peace, or, discombobulated.

[Ian Andrew]

Adam,

I read Blink by Malcolm Gladwell recently which among other ideas proposes the idea of tapping into the sub-conscience to make better evaluation or decisions in certain circumstance than we would with far more information. I was enthralled by this piece.

I’ve spent a lot of time navel gazing recently and came to a revelation that while I love to learn by breaking things apart as much as I can and always considered myself analytica, that once I hit the "hole" design stage I actually relied on my sub-conscience to lead the process. It took me a while to go backwards through the last project to truly understand where and when I used my sub-conscience. I was a little suprised. I wrote a very long involved essay about which areas of the design process were (for me) intuitive and where it was analytical.

Through all of this recent experience with Gladwell, I'm quite certain that we can do quite a bit to play with the sub-conscience of a player to have any impact that we want. Both positive and detrimental. (cue the wicked laugh).  :  )

[Chris Shaida]

Ian,

Thank you for your comments above re the 'transitions' or where construction ends and the pre-existing landform(s) begin.  I believe that will be a very useful lense for me to use in the future in experiencing a golf course.

If you haven't already seen or read it you might be interested in Jonah Lehrer's 'How we decide' as it is in the same vein as 'Blink.

Is your 'long involved essay' available for reading?

Chris

[Mac Plumart]

Is your 'long involved essay' available for reading?

Yes, Ian.  I'd love to read that as well.

[Sean_A]

Adam

I have a problem with talking about art/engineering/design in terms of the sub-conscious.  How is it do we then become conscious of the work?  To me its more a matter of where we choose to focus our attention and why holes can seem so different at different times even in similar weather conditions.  I bet its these holes which eat at golfers in a way of making them indecisive and hence produce a wide variety of scores.  These in effect are the holes in which the archie has won.  It begs the question of why this type of hole is fairly rare, but I am not sure golfers can handle a load of this type of golf on any single course.  While immensely pleasurable, the experience of playing these holes can also be frustrating.  It must be a fine line archies walk with getting that balance on a course about right when they know the course is special and they are trying to bleed every last drop of what is on offer. 

Ciao       

[Mac Plumart]

It must be a fine line archies walk with getting that balance on a course about right when they know the course is special and they are trying to bleed every last drop of what is on offer. 

Sean, while I'd love to agree wholeheartedly with you on this one, the thing that keeps nagging me is how many architects think and/or care deeply enough to even strive for what you are talking about?  I have a gut-feel the percentage is pretty low.  Or maybe I am being too pessimistic?

[Sean_A]

It must be a fine line archies walk with getting that balance on a course about right when they know the course is special and they are trying to bleed every last drop of what is on offer. 

Sean, while I'd love to agree wholeheartedly with you on this one, the thing that keeps nagging me is how many architects think and/or care deeply enough to even strive for what you are talking about?  I have a gut-feel the percentage is pretty low.  Or maybe I am being too pessimistic?

I don't know Mac.  I think a lot of archies want to be more bold, daring and creative, but reign themselves in because they think their idea of a good balance is not in agreement with Joe Bloggs.

Ciao

Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()