Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: JNC Lyon on October 11, 2008, 08:02:05 PM
-
..build any mediocre golf courses? It seems like I have heard about very few courses by this duo that were considered upon opening. If so, why would this be? Certainly Ross or Tillinghast built less-than inspiring courses in their day, but they always seem to be ranked ahead of these CBM and SR.
What was the MacDonald version of Shinnecock Hills like? It couldn't have been too great if they ripped it up and built another course over it.
My guess is that, because all of these courses possessed the same types of holes again and again, and because these holes were always so dependably good, it would have been hard for these guys to construct a truly mediocre course. It just seems there have to be instances where some holes may have been forced onto the land so that they detracted from the character of the course. Feel free to include Banks in this discussion, although he didn't have the imagination of MacDonald or the engineering skill of Raynor, so it would have been easier for him to mess up.
-
Of course they built some not so great courses. It seems that there is a love is blind love affair with their courses on this site at the moment. I have played most of their courses. A few of their mediocre ones were redone in the golden age. Both North Shore and Sunningdale came to life through Tillinghast. Both courses have great Raynor holes that were left intact, but needed improvements.
-
What was the MacDonald version of Shinnecock Hills like? It couldn't have been too great if they ripped it up and built another course over it.
Town of Southampton moved or built the Montauk Highway and built it through the CB Mac course. Thus it was torn up not because of the course.
Not sure how you can really answer this question for reasons like Shinnecock. Southampton GC is probably a Doak 5.5 today but it has been softened and changed a bunch of times so how do you judge what Raynor built.
I normally use Newton Commonwealth in MA as my Donald Ross punching bag, but most of the course has been changed so many times due to housing that it is barely a Ross.
-
First of all, Macdonald's career inventory was a whole lot smaller than Raynor's.
-
JNC,
I think if you ever get a chance to see the back nine at Essex County CC you would come away with a better appreciation of Banks' imagination and engineering skill, but that's just my opinion. The most evident critique of CBM and Raynor that offers some way of gauging their level of mediocrity is to peruse the rankings of classic courses and see how many spots they occupy in a list of 100. A 'blind love affair with their courses' might be true if there was no mention of them, but that is not the case.
I think it was C&W who proposed looking at architects of that era on a tiered scale with a very few (like CBM) occupying the uppermost strata, others (like Raynor) a notch below, and still others (maybe Banks) on the next level. I like to look at it like that, and resist further classification.
-
I can't recall a Raynor CBM course I didn't like. I am wondering if I give it my full attention, or if I just let things go because I love the unique style?
-
I don't believe Raynor had anything to do with North Shore. Devereux Emmet designed the original course.
-
All Devereaux Emmet ever did for North Shore was sell them a pack of hunting dogs. A Brooklyn Tattler newspaper explained that CH Anderson designed North Shore in six hours before taking a slow boat to Venezuela. You should be able to find that article; it's somewhere in the New York vicinity.
-
Ross has his name on quite a few of the "less than inspiring" category. I think this is primarily due to the fact that he spread his name too thin and slapped his label on courses that he barely (it at all) visited. We can set aside whether or not this was a respectable thing to do, but if you look at just the courses that Ross devoted his time to, it's a pretty impressive portfolio.
CBM said himself that he only worked (at all) on a very small number of courses: NGLA, Shinnecock, Lido, Chicago, Yale, St. Louis (tell me if I'm missing any). This is an impressive list as well, but it's a lot easier to get it right when you work on so few courses. Additionally, 2 of these courses don't exist any more, Chicago has been dramatically changed as I understand it (by Raynor and others?), and at Yale he served in primarily an advisory role. That leaves only NGLA and SLCC as surviving CBM designs (once again, please correct any mistakes here).
If you held up Ross' courses (only the ones he devoted his time to) to CBM or Raynor, I think DR takes the cake.
-
I can't recall a Raynor CBM course I didn't like. I am wondering if I give it my full attention, or if I just let things go because I love the unique style?
Jeff,
I can't recall a CBM/SR/CB course I didn't like either.
The presentation, the challenge and the fun derived from playing them made them appealing, to the degree that I looked forward to playing them again ...... and again.
JNC Lyon,
Which holes at what courses did you feel were forced unto the land ?
-
I'm sure you are a bit surprised and that's obviously because there's little quesiton you're a useless idiot on an non-stop campaign to convince someone or anyone on here you really aren't a useless idiot. :)
Tom,
Pebble Beach Rocks!!!!!!
-
JNC Lyon,
Which holes at what courses did you feel were forced unto the land ?
I don't have examples, since I've only played a couple Raynor/Banks courses. I am merely spectulating that there must have been examples where the land didn't dictate the construction of the typical MacDonald holes, but they were built anyway. I was certainly impressed how Banks laid the Redan 12th at Hackensack across a right-to-left hillside. However, I am wondering if there are courses where a Redan or other holes were forced into the property.
-
JNC,
While I don't know how much was changed from original, there is little doubt that the template holes today at Fox Chapel and CC Charleston are not at all in harmony with their surrounds and were forced onto the land.
-
Fox Chapel is not a mediocre golf course, far from it.
-
"However, I am wondering if there are courses where a Redan or other holes were forced into the property."
JNC Lyon:
The redan at Piping Rock is a good example of a hole that it's easy to tell was about 3/4 manufactured and rather massively in a vertical sense off what once originally was natural grade.
I'm not exactly going to say it was "forced onto the land" if that's going to be taken to mean some kind of complete negative but the fact is it was massively manufactured (huge amounts of fill vertically up off original natural grade) and for someone looking for that fact it surely isn't hard to tell.
On the other hand, I think Piping's redan probably plays as well as any other redan I have ever seen with the possible exception of NGLA's.
It's interesting to me since I grew up at Piping Rock and frankly never really considered how completely and massively it was manufactured up vertically, particularly as one goes left. About a year ago I spent about half an hour around it looking at all that fill and it had never even occured to me before where Macdonald/Raynor got that fill but if you study the entire surrounding area that too is easy to tell.
Perhaps the most interesting question would be how many golfers actually consider such a thing. I've come to believe that there may be an increasing number today who are actually beginning to notice naturalism in architecture more and appreciate it but I also think there's another contingent, and perhaps a rather large one, that also notices this fairly obvious manufactured and engineered look and actually admires that too as an example of a certain creativity (perhaps even dominance) of Man OVER Nature (or her occassional limitations for good golf)! ;)
Mr. MacWood:
Who on this thread said Fox Chapel was a mediocre golf course? ???
-
I have never played Fox Chapel. One of my good friends is a member there and he loves the course. However, if the template holes are forced into the land, I feel like this is a feature that would get maligned if designed by other architects, even those of the Golden Age.
If the architecture goes against the grain of the land at Fox Chapel, then how, Tom MacWood, do you justify that it is 'far from mediocre?'
-
"However, I am wondering if there are courses where a Redan or other holes were forced into the property."
JNC Lyon:
The redan at Piping Rock is a good example of a hole that it's easy to tell was about 3/4 manufactured and rather massively in a vertical sense off what once originally was natural grade.
I'm not exactly going to say it was "forced onto the land" if that's going to be taken to mean some kind of complete negative but the fact is it was massively manufactured (huge amounts of fill vertically up off original natural grade) and for someone looking for that fact it surely isn't hard to tell.
On the other hand, I think Piping's redan probably plays as well as any other redan I have ever seen with the possible exception of NGLA's.
It's interesting to me since I grew up at Piping Rock and frankly never really considered how completely and massively it was manufactured up vertically, particularly as one goes left. About a year ago I spent about half an hour around it looking at all that fill and it had never even occured to me before where Macdonald/Raynor got that fill but if you study the entire surrounding area that too is easy to tell.
Perhaps the most interesting question would be how many golfers actually consider such a thing. I've come to believe that there may be an increasing number today who are actually beginning to notice naturalism in architecture more and appreciate it but I also think there's another contingent, and perhaps a rather large one, that also notices this fairly obvious manufactured and engineered look and actually admires that too as an example of a certain creativity (perhaps even dominance) of Man OVER Nature (or her occassional limitations for good golf)! ;)
I think there is a difference between being 'manufactured' and being forced into the land. Clearly the 11th at CC of Charleston or the 3rd at Yeamans Hall would be examples of holes manufactured out of flat land. However, they are holes that showcase boldness and originality. They are not forced into the land because there isn't any land to be forced into.
The line between creative and forced is a fine one, but I think it is crossed when the architect builds a feature that is unnecessary to the play of the hole, such as a unnatural framing bunker or containment mounding or filler trees.
-
"They are not forced into the land because there isn't any land to be forced into."
JNC Lyon:
Most all golf holes are on land! ;)
"topography" is simply one description of the formation of land but land is land and it is basically the general "medium" of golf course architecture! I think what most are talking about here (in the context of manfactured or engineered looking) is the altering of natural grades in such a way the result looks distinctly unnatural or unlike natural grades.
-
I have never played Fox Chapel. One of my good friends is a member there and he loves the course. However, if the template holes are forced into the land, I feel like this is a feature that would get maligned if designed by other architects, even those of the Golden Age.
If the architecture goes against the grain of the land at Fox Chapel, then how, Tom MacWood, do you justify that it is 'far from mediocre?'
JNC
I would argue Macdonald and Raynor's built up greens have the opposite affect. It allows M & R to maximize the outstanding natural features of the site. You'll often find their greens placed near ravines, brooks, wetlands, ocean and lakes. It also creates a very interesting and often dramatic aesthetic dynamic, the man-made features juxtaposed with marvelous natural features. I believe it was one the secrets of M-R-B's appeal.
Fox Chapel is a combination of a beautiful rolling site featuring a meandering stream and a great collection of outstanding golf holes.
-
I always find it fascinating that some can not appreciate (or accept) a variety of architecture styles. Not every course is "natural" or should I say "found". Some are "built" for a variety of reasons. And regarding "forced into the land" - Is Shadow Creek forced into the land? Is Indian Creek forced into the land? Is Whistling Straits forced into the land? It is all a matter of opinion. Furthermore, we've all played some really bad holes that were not forced into the land. These kind of holes might have been a whole lot better if the architect had done some forcing ;)
-
I always find it fascinating that some can not appreciate (or accept) a variety of architecture styles.
I agree.
-
Tom MacWood,
I don't agree with your opposite argument at all. It makes no sense. However, it seems as if you stumbled upon another concept that everyone else misses, the secret appeal of overtly man-made features juxtaposed to natural features. What is the use of a secret appeal if nobody but you gets it? Oh, perhaps you think it is just something that we feel but don't understand. Hogwash.
Mark Fine,
You are a golf course architect. Surely you recognize that the architecture of Indian Creek, while completely man-made, has a totally different look and feel than CC Charleston or Fox Chapel. Likewise there is the example of the Cascades. Need I remind you, you thought it was laid on the ground in a natural way when in fact it was one of the most engineered courses ever built.
-
I always find it fascinating that some can not appreciate (or accept) a variety of architecture styles.
One can appreciate and/or accept something and still be critical or have varying degrees of appreciation or acceptance. It isn't a case of all or nothing. You guys don't seem to get that.
-
Tom MacWood,
I don't agree with your opposite argument at all. It makes no sense. However, it seems as if you stumbled upon another concept that everyone else misses, the secret appeal of overtly man-made features juxtaposed to natural features. What is the use of a secret appeal if nobody but you gets it? Oh, perhaps you think it is just something that we feel but don't understand. Hogwash.
Are you speaking for everyone now? I'm not the only one who has brought up the interesting aesthetic created by Raynor and Macdonald. Its a well known and accepted phenomenon in the visual arts - juxtaposition and contrast. Good examples in architecture are the interesting contrasts created at FL Wright's Fallingwater and IM Pei's Pyramide at the Louvre.
Although any individual's aesthetic response to a work of visual art will be unique to that individual, many aesthetic principles can be identified and used by the creator of the work to achieve specific aesthetic effects. These include, tonal variation, juxtaposition, repetition, field effects, symmetry/asymmetry, perceived mass, subliminal structure, linear dynamics, tension and repose, pattern, contrast, perspective, 3 dimensionality, movement, rhythm, unity/Gestalt, matrixiality and proportion.
The response to art and aesthetics is unique to the individual, obviously you are not moved. Is it possible you are aesthetically tone deaf?
-
I do not speak for everyone. I speak for myself. What is so secret about the appeal you brought up? You act privileged to information and understanding. I don't understand why.
I cannot stand the IM Pei pyramid at the Louvre. I find it is horrible. Just so you understand, I speak for myself and not everyone. As for Falling Water, I love the architecture and the setting. Wright was able to harmonize the two and utilize integrations of shape, color and other interactions that work for me. I don't see things as all or none as you do. I don't see Raynor and Banks golf courses, particularly at the greens, harmonizing with their surrounds in the same way as I see Falling Water and the surrounding woodlands. Golf courses are organic and the way they were manipulated by Raynor and Banks doesn't work for me. Again, I speak for myself. There are no secrets.
Am I aesthetically tone deaf? I don't think so. I am clearly not moved by the same aesthetics as you. Yet although you would criticize me, I don't criticize your tastes. You are constantly trying to put other people down and build yourself up. You act insecure and come across as a misanthrope. Frankly, I don't care what you think of my aesthetic tastes. I think you are insignificant.
-
(http://www.wright-house.com/frank-lloyd-wright/fallingwater-pictures/fallingwater-1.jpg)
(http://data.greatbuildings.com/gbc/images/cid_1036095394_mryan_fw_deck.jpg)
The smooth white concrete and glass contrasting with the rocks, the river and the waterfall - a very interesting juxtaposition. The organic and the clearly man-made create an interesing aesthetic.
Fontana di Trevi is another example of a famous juxtaposition, the formal structure appears to be growing out of the rocks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trevi_Fountain,_Rome,_Italy_2_-_May_2007.jpg
Did you urinate on Pei's pyramid?
-
Wayne Morrison, Wayne Morrison, where are you?
And which template holes were forced onto the land at Fox Chapel? The Redan? The Biarritz? The Short? Please elaborate.
-
I have had it with you and your constant repetitions. Everyone on this site that bothers to read your crap has a perfectly good idea what an asshole you are. Do you have to keep demonstrating it? If you bring up the same stupid nonsense again, I will ask for your removal. If it doesn't happen, I will gladly take leave and allow you to print all sorts of inaccurate essays and historical revisions. I could care less if this group is swayed by your terrible analysis and armchair historical research methods. Neither you or your supporters are worth correcting. This site is poorer for your participation. I'm glad your protege has gone. Why don't you do the same?
-
Ronald,
Ask Tom MacWood. I have nothing more to add to any discussion now or in the future in which he is a participant.
-
Mr. MacWood:
Much of what you said in post #25, even though discussed many times on this website over the years, is interesting and worthy of discussion (and agreement and disagreement).
What you posted on reply #27 is also of some interest even if another art form from the art form of golf course architecture with some really fundamental differences---eg such as the importance of the vastly different medium and function of building architecture compared to golf course architecture.
Unfortunately, the two questions you punctuated both posts with are every bit as unintelligent and petty as you are!
-
Wayno,
I think Tom MacWood has a valid point with respect to the juxtaposition of the natural next to the constructed.
With the environmental and permitting problems most architects face today, it's probably fairly common in many new courses.
# 6 and # 8 at NGLA jumped out as good examples.
Both are marvelous holes which have that combination.
Both are highly manufactured greens on or next to natural terrain/settings.
Many holes at NGLA and other courses have that combination, which seems to work quite well in creating an interesting challenge that's fun to respond to.
One could say the same about many of Ross's courses that had the pattern of high tee, low fairway, high green.
TEPaul,
If I recall correctly, the topography at the third hole at Piping Rock ascends from the low tee on # 3 to the high green. The tee on # 4 and the green on # 5 which comes back toward the 3rd green, are elevated above # 3 tee.
While the 3rd green is constructed, I don't find it out of sync with the terrain that rises from the 3rd tee toward the 4th and 5th holes and the 6th tee.
JNC Lyon,
I don't know why you would make that speculation unless you've been listening to the voices of those miscreants from the greater Philly area. ;D
-
In my opinion, Wayne Morrison's particular aesthetic preference in architecture coupled with his self-admitted lack of preference for the particular aesthetic look and style of Macdonald/Raynor/Banks is completely intelligent and I feel should be considered very discriminating aesthetically even if I may not personally share the degree of his lack of appreciation for the aesthetic, look or style of their architecture.
At least he makes a very good case in a golf course architecture context as to why he does not favor their aesthetic, look and style.
This fellow Tom MacWood, after stating that an individual's response to various aesthetics is unique, essentially contradicts what he just said and that very point when he asks a few words later if Wayne Morrison is possibly aesthetically tone deaf for not liking the aesthetic, look and style of Macdonald/Raynor architecture.
It seems to me Wayne Morrison understands both aesthetic tone and the differences in aesthetics and artist tonality a lot more comprehensively than Mr. MacWood who heretfore seems only capable of spewing out some quotations from others that he thinks applies, rather than apparently thinking individually for himself.
Frankly, his offering of building architecture as an example in the context of this discussion on golf course architecture shows only an ability to understand generalilites and the "compare" side of the "compare/contrast" format or equation of analysis.
It would seem in Wayne Morrison's particularly lack of preference for the aesthetic or look or style of Macdonald/Raynor architecture he does have one most important and impressive ally---eg A.W. Tillinghast, a man who probably had a far fuller understanding of all of this than Mr. MacWood! ;)
-
"I think Tom MacWood has a valid point with respect to the juxtaposition of the natural next to the constructed."
Patrick:
Of course he has a valid point but so does Wayne Morrison. MacWood does not make a very good point or impression, however, when he asks Wayne Morrison if it's possible that he is aesthetically tone deaf for not liking the aesthetics or the juxtapositions of them in Macdonald/Raynor's architecture.
As far as the redan at Piping Rock it is of no real relevance to talk about the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th tees as that is far too broad and general topographically. All one needs to do is look at the entire left 3/4 of the redan green, particularly the front and entire left side of that green that's probably a dozen to fifteen feet above what was once the natural grade of that ground in that spot and how it just drops immediatly down from both front and left. Obviously, there's a reason for that as natural grade was probably too steep for a putting surface but the point is Macdonald/Raynor's engineered style was not one to even attempt to use additional fill to tie way out to the front and left to eventual natural grade.
It seems to me they did that engineered style, particularly of bunker faces intentionally, and I think there is probably a very good historic reason Macdonald did that----eg it was what was found on some of the man-made features on even some of the very famous holes from abroad in the 19th century. Everyone knows that's where he went to find his principles and apparently some of the style he used in his own unique architectural look.
-
TEPaul,
The engineered look is usually only discernable from behind the green.
You may recall my advice to others to walk NGLA backwards, starting behind the 18th green to get an idea of just how manufactured some of those greens are.
However, from the golfer's perspective, as he plays the golf course, the manufacturing is mostly invisible.
# 9 green might be a perfect example from the 2nd shot DZ.
There are other examples but that one seemed the best.
# 18 is another good example.
So, it's the presentation to the golfer that's the critical factor.
It's what the golfer sees as he plays the hole, not what he sees after he's played the hole.
-
JNC Lyons:
I hope you don't think your thread or the subject of it has been hijacked again. Personally, I don't believe it has been. I realize your essential question is whether Macdonald/Raynor built any mediocre golf courses but in the discussion of that subject things like aesthetics is an inevitable and important topic, don't you think?
-
TEPaul,
I don't think anyone's identified a mediocre CBM-SR golf course as of yet, so, it's quite natural that the thread would redirect itself to collateral issues.
-
Patrick:
I think most of us who study golf architecture seriously understand that when one walks behind greens and such the look of things from back there is generally not quite so natural looking in the vein of lines and grades for pretty obvious reasons.
It's really not much different from the fact that play sets don't look the same if one looks at them from behind rather than from the vantage point of where the audience sits in a theater! ;)
But plenty of Macdonald/Raynor/Banks architecture looks unusually manufactured and engineered from the vantage point of the oncoming golfer compared to the look of numerous other golf architects.
Clearly there are some very important stylistic and historical reasons for that. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just quite clearly different looking. If someone tries to tell me the look of some of Macdonald/Raynor architecture is no different from the look of Flynn, or Tillinghast, or Colt or Mackenzie architecture, I'm sorry pal, but I'm going to just have to tell them they are either pretty blind or really aesthetially challenged! ;)
-
Patrick:
Personally, I'm not aware of a single golf course by Macdonald that is mediocre. I very much doubt there is one. Raynor did far more courses than Macdonald, however, and so with him it is certainly harder for me to comment on that point or question.
-
All right, since MacWood has angered Morrison, I'll supercede both and state that Fox Chapel is in no way, shape or form a mediocre Raynor design. The piece of land is in no way mediocre, either. It occupies two sides of a road, kitty corner to Pittsburgh Field Club. It rolls and rises, tumbles and slides in gentle fashion. The holes are open yet challenging, the greens are raised at times, fairway-height at times and absolutely beguiling to putt. The speed usually runs above 11 on the stimp. The par threes are incredibly varied, from the pitch at the Short Hole to the long bomb at the Biarritz. The third hole is a great mid-iron across a chasm while the reverse Redan carries a yawning bunker to a sloped putting surface. If you need info on the 4s and 5s, I'm glad to provide.
-
"All right, since MacWood has angered Morrison, I'll supercede both and state that Fox Chapel is in no way, shape or form a mediocre Raynor design. "
RonaldM:
Wait a minute. Where did Wayne Morrison ever say that Fox Chapel is a mediocre golf course? And please don't point to Tom MacWood's response to Wayne Morrison that Fox Chapel is NOT a mediocre golf course. This is just another example of someone saying one thing and someone else twisting it to mean something that was never said or even implied! ::)
-
Patrick:
I think most of us who study golf architecture seriously understand that when one walks behind greens and such the look of things from back there is generally not quite so natural looking in the vein of lines and grades for pretty obvious reasons.
It's really not much different from the fact that play sets don't look the same if one looks at them from behind rather than from the vantage point of where the audience sits in a theater! ;)
But plenty of Macdonald/Raynor/Banks architecture looks unusually manufactured and engineered from the vantage point of the oncoming golfer compared to the look of numerous other golf architects.
I disagree with that.
Tell me what looks unusually manufactured and engineered, from the golfer's perspective, when playing Westhampton ?
The Knoll ? Essex County ? Montclair ? Hackensack ?
The Creek ? Piping Rock ?
Clearly there are some very important stylistic and historical reasons for that. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just quite clearly different looking. If someone tries to tell me the look of some of Macdonald/Raynor architecture is no different from the look of Flynn, or Tillinghast, or Colt or Mackenzie architecture, I'm sorry pal, but I'm going to just have to tell them they are either pretty blind or really aesthetially challenged! ;)
It depends upon the course.
Let's take Westhampton. What's so different looking about it ?
MacKenzie had a unique style with his bunkers so I don't think many are going to confuse his work with any of the others, although, if you were to examine ANGC today, you might find the look similar to the look of Ross courses in the Southeast.
-
I was thinking of starting a thread (cancelled for lack of time) called "The case for templates." Since no one can think of a bad course from the Kings of Templates (if you guys start a rock band, theres a name for ya) I think I will include that as argument no. 1 for the defense!
In short, the argument goes, if its a good hole, its a good hole, providing you do fit it on the land. For that matter, Fazio has shown you don't have to worry about that, if the budget provides enough for ample earthmoving.
Is a good template hole a bad hole just because its a template and/or just because it modifies the topography and template together, each a bit, to make it work in its newest reincarnation? In some respects - like green contouring - there is only a limited range of contours that can work. And, if a 1.75% upslope works here, I can only imagine it wouldn't work there, unless prvailing wind conditons were different, or green speed, etc.
I think the fact is that most of us have templates and the ones shouting loudest that they don't, probably have them even more!
-
Jeff,
I agree.
The values inherent in some of the template holes stand for the ages.
So what if they're repeated.
How many holes require a carry over a stream/pond/waterway ?
Does that fact/feature make them an inferior hole ?
Are # 11, # 12, # 13, # 15 and # 16 at ANGC inferior holes because a similar, or the same carry over water is an architectural component and a playing requirement.
The template holes present unique values cleverly packaged.
The "Road" hole is a perfect example.
Template holes have inate values that challenge the golfer to the degree that they enjoy meeting the challenge, each with his own unique game.
These holes are sporty and fun to play, over and over and over again.
These holes have lasted and been replicated over and over again for a simple reason.
They are great golf holes. End of story.
-
Mark Fine:
I stated there is a difference between being 'manufactured' and being 'forced into the land.' Shadow Creek, Whistling Straits?? From my understanding there was no land to be forced into; the architect had to work hard in both cases to create something great on a blank template.
TEPaul:
This discussion is exactly what I hoped would happen in this thread. Since I haven't played that many great courses in my young life, I much prefer discussing theory of architecture versus listing great courses and holes. I am still trying to understand what makes great holes great. I think the issue of how the land is used is critical in this discussion.
Pat Mucci: I remember Hackensack impressed me because it was very much land-of-the-land architecture. Of course, Banks had a great piece of land with which to work.
Ultimately, I wonder why so many Golden Age Architects/Great Architects of the Modern Era (ESPECIALLY Pete Dye) don't get criticized for heavily manufactured features while RTJ, Dick Wilson, Fazio, etc. do. Garden City is a classic example of how a relatively flat site doesn't need to be heavily engineered to create interest, variety, and greatness. I'm not saying manufactured courses are intrinsically mediocre. Simply, I'm wondering why some features are praised and some are maligned.
-
TE Paul, you presumptuous user of initials...where in my post do I declare or quote Morrison as calling Fox Chapel mediocre? Reread my post and stop splitting hairs. I also used the term "supercede" instead of the misleading "refute." My goal was to establish Fox Chapel's superior design, not forge a voyage into my idiolect or the lexicon in general.
How could one interpret "forced onto the land" as being an affirmation of excellence? It is a case of recognizing what Morrison meant. I doubt that he would give his seal of excellence to a course of such a nature. Immediately after, MacWood indicated that it is "far from it," it being a mediocre golf course.
So, after much waste of digital ink, I say it ain't so. Fox Chapel is superior.
-
I was thinking of starting a thread (cancelled for lack of time) called "The case for templates." Since no one can think of a bad course from the Kings of Templates (if you guys start a rock band, theres a name for ya) I think I will include that as argument no. 1 for the defense!
In short, the argument goes, if its a good hole, its a good hole, providing you do fit it on the land. For that matter, Fazio has shown you don't have to worry about that, if the budget provides enough for ample earthmoving.
Is a good template hole a bad hole just because its a template and/or just because it modifies the topography and template together, each a bit, to make it work in its newest reincarnation? In some respects - like green contouring - there is only a limited range of contours that can work. And, if a 1.75% upslope works here, I can only imagine it wouldn't work there, unless prvailing wind conditons were different, or green speed, etc.
I think the fact is that most of us have templates and the ones shouting loudest that they don't, probably have them even more!
Jeff
I agree entirely with you - except for the part about a rock band name. But to be fair, is anybody saying that the template holes aren't good? My take of the situation is that some prefer a more natural look (even if engineered) and some don't mind about the aesthetics so long as the hole is good. It is plainly obvious that the concepts behind these template are solid and enduring, but what isn't so obvious is why the lack of concern over the "finish work" (if you will)?
I will generally always favour the courses which look as they they belong on the site. Having said that, two of my favourite courses, Kington and Beau Desert, are about as manufactured as can be around the greens, but both are unique (so far as I am aware) and for this reason I give them a very welcome pass.
Ciao
-
JNC
Pete Dye has reinvented himself a few times over his career. I actually prefer his early style - Crooked Stick and The Golf Club. I believe he has admitted Raynor was an influence upon that style. I like it because although there are some clearly manufactured features the design comes across as being quite natural - the emphasis is clearly on the natural features of the site. Whistling Straits is in a whole different world. The manufactured dunes are clearly the dominate feature, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Shadow Creek is in a different league. Here you have a completely man-made idealized vision of nature - like a landscape architect given an unlimited budget. I'm not a big fan of this hyper natural style. Real nature has some elements of ugliness and roughness, which is missing from this style. There is nothing more beautiful in golf than broken ground, you won't find that at Shadow Creek.
Here is a good example of M-R-B being able to place their manufactured greens near an outstanding natural feature, at the bottom of a ravine adjacent to a stream. This drop shot is followed by a dramatic teeshot out of the ravine.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Shoreacres.jpg)
M-R-B were blessed with some very dramatic natural sites, which their style worked very well with for a couple of reasons. One, they could place their greens and tees near the interesting natural features, in that way maximizing the natural features of the site. Really the only thing unnatural on their courses are the tees and greens, everything else is more or less left untouched. (Macdonald & Raynor were two of the best routers in history, I think their style gave them a built in advantage) Two, they used very bold features, big greens and big deep hazards, which IMO work very well with the boldness of the land.
Another architect worthy of study, who used a very similar style without templates, was William Langford. CH Alison's work has similar elements as well.
-
"I'm not saying manufactured courses are intrinsically mediocre. Simply, I'm wondering why some features are praised and some are maligned."
JNC Lyon:
I'm not saying manufactured looking courses are intrinsicaly mediocre either; all I'm saying is they look manufactured to me. But that certainly does not mean they can't play really well for a whole host of reasons that get into the basic principles of golf course architecture and not necessarily the aesthetics of art in some naturalized looking way.
The problem I see on this website is there are too many who think if someone calls the look or style of a Macdonald/Raynor/Banks "manufactured" that they are criticizing the course and the way it plays.
To me that just doesn't exactly follow. But what definitely doesn't follow to me is when those who think others are being critical of those golf courses for their manufactured look start to somehow rationalize the lines and look and style of Macdonald/Raynor/Banks features (particularly greens and surrounding features) as actually looking natural or site natural.
This kind of rationalization gets to the point where they start using terms like "The Raynor Paradox" or "aesthetic JUXTAPOSITION" etc. Then they start using other art forms such as building architecture (which has remarkably and fundamentally DIFFERENT artistic aspects to it very much including the vastly different "MEDIUMS" between the art forms) as analogies or examples to make some un-makeable point. It even gets to the point of ridiculousness where they post photographs on here of Frank Lloyd Wright BUILDING architecture to prove their point.
Frank Lloyd Wright was a remarkable building architect but his materials, his artistic lines in the shapes and forms he created in natural settings (like Fallingwater) are most certainly not natural looking or site natural looking in the sense that someone might think nothing had actually been man-made.
Matter of fact it is practically the opposite extreme---it creates an EXTREMELY OBVIOUS JUXTAPOSITION of the Natural and the Man-made, and clearly there is artistic interest in that too. It's almost like placing some mammoth ultra straight lined statue, such as a pyramidial monolyth out in the middle of the woods. Does that make the statue or monolyth look as if Nature made it and Man didn't?
Of course NOT! This is not to say that juxtaposition can't be interesting or artistically interesting. It just means to me that the clearly man-made ultra linear lines of the monolyth don't look natural (as if nature itself formed it).
-
Tom MacWood: I was thinking about the 12th at Shoreacres as well as an example of a template hole being well-fitted into a natural setting, with another being the 16th at Sleepy Hollow.
TEPaul: One of the most impressive things about Yeamans Hall was that it used the ideal terrain so well. The rolling aspects of the course are used perfectly on holes like 7, 8, 11, 14, and 18. At the same time, the course possesses easily identifiable as manufactured, particularly 3 and 14 greens. Both of these holes are two of my favorites.
Why are these features so good? I'm guessing it's because, even though they are clearly man-made, they are not at odds with the land. You see this juxtaposition of man-made and natural features (14 falls over ideal rolling terrain, and the raised green fits right in with these features) working well because the features don't clash. The Ocean Course (same city but completely different land) executes this well too. Dye had only a flat beach to work with, but he molded dunes to fit a natural vision for the course. If he had laid out wall-to-wall turf (an extreme example), this would not have appeared to fit with the surroundings, and would therefore have been a flaw in the design, no matter how great the individual holes were. Mr. Paul, you mention basic design principles. I maintain (from my limited expertise) that either being or appearing natural is one of the key principles of design, if not THE key principle. While the Country Club is a highly natural design and the Ocean Course is highly manufactured, both (with the exception of Kiawah's 17th) appear natural in construction
The Falling Waters example fits with this as well. Certainly it does not appear natural instead of man-made. At the same time, it is in harmony with its surroundings. It is juxtaposition of man and nature, but the two forces are not at odds, quite the opposite in fact.
My question still remains: where do you draw the line for manufactured features between creative and forced, between being in harmony and being at odds with the surrounds??? Clearly Raynor didn't cross this line at Shoreacres and Yeamans Hall. Did he, MacDonald, or Banks ever cross it??? If so, what are examples??? Why might these examples gain favorability over designs of the 'big builders' of the 1960s???
-
JNC Lyon,
Modern day architects have to deal with environmental and permitting problems not imagined and not faced by the Golden Age architects.
Thus, their task can be far more difficult.
I don't believe that you'll see many greens, fairways and tees in close proximity to natural waterways.
Could # 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 at ANGC be duplicated today ?
-
No, clearly these greens can't be built today. So why are modern architects criticized MORE than Golden Age architects?
-
"Mr. Paul, you mention basic design principles. I maintain (from my limited expertise) that either being or appearing natural is one of the key principles of design, if not THE key principle. While the Country Club is a highly natural design and the Ocean Course is highly manufactured, both (with the exception of Kiawah's 17th) appear natural in construction
The Falling Waters example fits with this as well. Certainly it does not appear natural instead of man-made. At the same time, it is in harmony with its surroundings. It is juxtaposition of man and nature, but the two forces are not at odds, quite the opposite in fact."
JNC:
While I am one who very much appreciates the look of naturalism in golf architect----and I believe I can identify it well--I do not necessarily believe it is a key principle in golf architecture. It probably was and is for some but not all. The fact is there can be and are very good courses that do not look like Nature made their features even remotely---many of their features look distinctly man-made and sometimes apparently on purpose.
If that is true, and I, for one, believe it is, what then are some of the key principles in golf architecture? I would say as to playability or shot values and such the best or key principles are things like interesting angles of play that depend on architectural features such as the diagonal line of features and such, the interesting slopes and contours of the ground in length, width and height.
It is very possible for a golf course to play really well with a distinctly man-made look to those features. On the other hand some like a distinctly natural aesthetic or look to those architectural features and others may not. But I believe both can play well if they include key golf architectural principles.
Some today may say that key golf architectural principles must include key landscape architecture principles as well. While some perhaps most may prefer that I do not know that it is necessarily true. If one considered a golf course like TOC over 160 years ago (before much of anything was ever done to it by a golf architect) would one say it conformed to our man-made landscape architecture principles as we apply them to golf architecture principles or would one simply say TOC was basically wholly made just by Nature herself and essentially unaltered by Man?
As to Fallingwater, it most certainly is a fascinating juxtaposition with it's setting in nature. I'm a real fan of Frank Lloyd Wright and Fallingwater and I might say there is some kind of harmony in the distinctly man-made linear dimensions of the building in contrast to the broken highly random lines of the natural setting of the stream and woods but on the other hand one might also consider the juxtapostion of the distinctly man-made lines in CONTRAST with the natural setting and to be at odds with one another for the simple reason there is a ton of history between both Man and Nature where they have been intrinsically at odds with one another in something of a natural competition.
If that is true, and for the purposes of this discussion it may be important, however, to consider that the juxtapostion of contrast or the being at odds or looking to be at odds with one another is not necessarily a negative or a bad thing and may even be considered a good thing in the vein of some sort of ultimate reality (perhaps between Man and Nature or Nature and Man).
-
No, clearly these greens can't be built today. So why are modern architects criticized MORE than Golden Age architects?
My guess is because there may be a disconnect between the architecture and the site.
In addition, it may be because many on this site favor the older styles and values versus the modern style where visuals play a major role.
-
"So why are modern architects criticized MORE than Golden Age architects?"
JNC:
Criticized for what more than Golden Age architects?
-
"So why are modern architects criticized MORE than Golden Age architects?"
JNC:
Criticized for what more than Golden Age architects?
Criticized for building clearly man-made features that don't (can't) fit in with the surrounds.
-
TEPaul:
I appreciate the Man vs. Nature battle scenario, but I generally see it playing out as the golfer vs. the natural setting rather than the architect vs. natural setting. This 'ultimate reality' is the kind of stuff that transcends the game of golf, moving it from 'just a sport' to something more. However, what is the context for the golf course architect? I seem to think if the architect goes against the natural setting in an initial battle of Man vs. Nature, then the final battle, the ultimate struggle between the golfer and the course, is ultimately man vs. man. Clearly, the battle can't complete eliminate the 'middle man' of the architect. Rather, it is the architect's job to facilitate this man vs. nature struggle by presenting nature for golf purposes.
I also find it difficult to argue that naturalism isn't one of the key principles of golf course design. Pine Valley? Cypress Point? Sand Hills? TOC? Don't these all have a presence of naturalism that experts agree is one of their defining characteristics? Certainly there are principles aside from and equal to naturalism, but it must be considered on equal terms.
My question STILL remains: what is the line between creative and forced architecture? Did Raynor ever cross it?
-
Did you urinate on Pei's pyramid?
I haven't, but I know most Parisians wish they could. Most hate Pei's pyramid. I can't say I disagree. There is a difference to man adding to/enhancing nature/surroundings and building something in complete disharmony with it's surroundings just to be contrarian. It would make sense to some degree if the museum housed modern art, then some sort of cryptic connection could be made. But everything in the Louvre is prior to Impressionism and just doesn't make sense, unlike the Centre Pompidou which prepares the visitor to what's inside.
-
David
Here is a link:
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Pyramide_du_Louvre.html
No doubt it was controversial, but how do you know all Parisians hate it?
In a case like this, when a modern architect is asked to expand or add on to an older structure, I prefer they do it in a modern style, because
1. Trying to build something in the older style comes across as sham and often results in compromising the architecture of the older building
2. Building in glass and steel preserves the architecture of the older building. I've seen cases were a modern exterior shell is created of glass and steel without touching the older building within or in other cases the modern extension is completely separate. IMO both are preferrable to tacking onto a new structure in some psueo older style. There is no doubt what is original and what is not. In this case the pyramid is free standing, the connection is below the surface
3. It creates an interesting contrast of old and new; clean/simple and ornate. What also adds interest in this case is the modern structure is done in an ancient form.
-
David,
Don't worry. The rest of us know you wrote most Parisians hate Pei's pyramid. Tom MacWood spun that into all so he can make his point. He often resorts to misrepresentations and spin. We're used to it by now and just ignore him most of the time.
His theories of contrast and stark juxtapositions are theoretical and subjective. For many these notions don't apply as easily to golf design as they do other art forms. He casually dismisses those that disagree by challenging our understanding of art and aesthetics deeming us ignorant or aesthetically tone deaf. In fact, we can think what we like without regard to Tom MacWood's admonishments. He should allow us the same courtesy we allow him, his beliefs without ridicule or pontification. What a small man he is as a result.
-
Sorry
David
How do you know most Parisians hate the pyramid?
-
I find myself thinking it's like poetry and prose. The latter facilitates the sharing of objective experience, the facts; the former better opens the door to subjective experience, the feelings. It's the game of golf on the one hand, the experience of golf on the other; shot-testing on the one hand, freedom and nature on the other. There are many examples of happy mediums, probably most of the great golf courses; but while even in the early 1900s many were deriding the card and pencil mentality, it is served when shot-testing is at the fore and made a premium. I do think there are poetic spirits and prosaic ones; maybe the best architects access both, and the best courses manifest those spirits in balance. On the question of whether or not the Macdonald-Raynor courses always struck that balance, I naturally defer to the opinions of those who have played and studied them. Perhaps Mackenzie is so highly regarded because he manifested that balance so consistently. Of course, then there's also T.S. Eliot -- and for some reason the names Fowler, Colt and Maxwell come to mind.
Peter
-
"TEPaul:
I appreciate the Man vs. Nature battle scenario, but I generally see it playing out as the golfer vs. the natural setting rather than the architect vs. natural setting. This 'ultimate reality' is the kind of stuff that transcends the game of golf, moving it from 'just a sport' to something more. However, what is the context for the golf course architect? I seem to think if the architect goes against the natural setting in an initial battle of Man vs. Nature, then the final battle, the ultimate struggle between the golfer and the course, is ultimately man vs. man. Clearly, the battle can't complete eliminate the 'middle man' of the architect. Rather, it is the architect's job to facilitate this man vs. nature struggle by presenting nature for golf purposes."
JNC:
Good thoughts. My feeling is any golfer should try to explore these things for himself rather than try to seek some consensus opinion amongst others (perhaps this website inherently tries to do too much of that).
As to what any architect goes through or thinks as he is conceiving and creating is surely interesting to know too. If I look back on the last decade or so I feel fortunate to have had this kind of discussion with numerous architects. Obviously some are more forthcoming and articulate about it than others.
One of the most interesting in this way and perhaps unique could be Kelly Blake Moran. He has even stated that he very much keeps searching and that he essentially designs for himself. I like that---it seems to be the true mode of the liberated artist.
-
I have gone out of my way to play/see as many Macdonald/Raynor courses as possible. The only ones that I have been disappointed by were those courses on which the features had either been altered/allowed to erode (Everglades, Dedham) or might never have existed in the first place (Blowing Rock). I'm unsure if any of Raynor's design remains at Everglades-It looks as if Silva's work is more of a complete redesign/re-imagining than a faithful restoration.
Additionally, I was slightly disappointed by Wanumetonomy (even though it sits on a great piece of land and I enjoyed it tremendously) and CC of Charleston because I could not recognize many template holes-the former had no chance to impress me after having played Yeamans Hall across town.
So, I suppose what I am trying to say is that the only Macdonald/Raynor courses I have personally seen which I might consider inferior are those which have either been neglected throught the years or whose designs were obviously constrained from the beginning. Others I have seen only in photos but which might fall into this category include Thousand Islands, one of the Minn. courses (can't remember which), and some of the less well-known Long Island courses such as Gardiners Bay/Bellport...I have always been very curious about these, as well as Rumson in NJ and Blind Brook.
-
I find myself thinking it's like poetry and prose. The latter facilitates the sharing of objective experience, the facts; the former better opens the door to subjective experience, the feelings. It's the game of golf on the one hand, the experience of golf on the other; shot-testing on the one hand, freedom and nature on the other. There are many examples of happy mediums, probably most of the great golf courses; but while even in the early 1900s many were deriding the card and pencil mentality, it is served when shot-testing is at the fore and made a premium. I do think there are poetic spirits and prosaic ones; maybe the best architects access both, and the best courses manifest those spirits in balance. On the question of whether or not the Macdonald-Raynor courses always struck that balance, I naturally defer to the opinions of those who have played and studied them. Perhaps Mackenzie is so highly regarded because he manifested that balance so consistently. Of course, then there's also T.S. Eliot -- and for some reason the names Fowler, Colt and Maxwell come to mind.
Peter
I like this analogy a great deal. I always got the impression that, at least at the time of construction, MacDonald and Raynor may have been more focused on Prosaic elements in golf course architecture. Their features are meant to test various types of shots and strengths in a player's game. However, this is in comparison with the other architecture of the day.
However, as we move through time and see more and more emphasis on stroke play and difficulty in architecture, Raynor's design features, both templated and not, stand out as quirky, fun, and poetically oriented. Although most of Yeamans Hall was fairly straightforward from a layout point of view (i. e. no wild blind shots or tiny steep greens), there is a certain boldness about the architecture that moves it beyond the prosaic format of Trent Jones course (Crag Burn in Buffalo, a course I enjoy IMMENSELY, would be my example). I believe it is possible to be great entirely in one format or the other if it is done correctly. I agree that Raynor might fall into a prosaic category more often than not, but as his work is restored, poetic elements will become more prevalent.
Are there architects today who build courses that work well within the prosaic format??? I know C & C and Doak would seem to lean more towards poetic elements. It would seem that the favored format of the day simply reflects the fashion of architecture. What is considered great today is mediocre tomorrow, and vice versa.
How does this metaphor fit in with questions of naturalism in architecture? Are natural features by definition more poetic? Can the land dictate a prosaic, strokeplay-minded feel in architecture?
-
Sorry
David
How do you know most Parisians hate the pyramid?
Most that I have talked to (while visitng there or when the subject came up w/ French that I know here in the US) don't care for it. I get the impression that it seemed chic at the time, but has not aged well (read Members Only jackets). I understand what you are saying about not trying to replicate the look of the Louvre palace itself, however, I think there were/are more harmonious options then what Pei went with. I'm sure there are some that do like it, but in my experience, most do not.
-
JNC - thanks. Good post and good questions. I really can't offer any answers, but some random thoughts:
I think you're right that the favoured style/ethos does change with the times, and in the early days of golf in American those times seemed to have changed fairly quickly. I think the rennaissance in golf course architecture of, say, the past 25 years or so has to do with a more consistent and conscious pursuit of that balance, i.e. the prosaic and the poetic. And while probably no working architect today would actually use those terms, I think maybe all of them would argue that this is what they are striving to achieve. When it comes to naturalism and using natural features poetically, however, I think it's probably a rarer thing -- natural features, even if left untouched, can still be used fairly prosaically, and just as prosaically as any man-made feature. An architect really has to have a determined intention to use them poetically in order to pull it off. Just to name one, and judging from his posts here, someone like Kelly Blake Moran has that intention...
Peter
-
TEPaul,
You asked:
My question STILL remains: what is the line between creative and forced architecture? Did Raynor ever cross it?
Off the top of my head I can't think where that might have happened, but, my exposure to all of SR's work is limited.
If he did, I'd like to know which holes are over the threshold.
One also has to remember that it's the golfer's eyes view that should be the qualifier, not the bird's eye view from 4,000 feet.
One of my favorite holes is # 8 at Yale.
I also tend to favor "short" holes, few of which could be called natural.
But, in all of the above cases, I find the holes appealing to the eye and a wonderful challenge to the game.
-
Pat:
I think the question in your blue box is JNC Lyon's----and a couple of time, not mine. I wonder if he feels if it has been remotely answered?
-
Pat:
I think the question in your blue box is JNC Lyon's----and a couple of time, and not mine. I wonder if he feels if it has been remotely answered?
Perhaps, I have tried to answer his question but only in my own way. Frankly, I either don't like or don't feel very comfortable with his question or the wording of it----eg "What is the line between creative and forced architecture---did Raynor ever cross it?"
The question for me would be more like---"Did Raynor create architecture that looks distinctly unnatural in a natural landform sense?"
To that I would have to say yes even if it may've played great. But that is not the same question JNC Lyon asked a couple of times! ;)
-
TEPaul,
The question for me would be more like---"Did Raynor create architecture that looks distinctly unnatural in a natural landform sense?"
Where do you find that to be the case ?
Which hole/s do you think look distinctly unatural in a natural landform sense ?
Is not "Quirky" architecture, architecture that looks distinctly unnatural in a natural landform sense ?
-
"Where do you find that to be the case ?
Which hole/s do you think look distinctly unatural in a natural landform sense?"
Pat:
What course would you like me to pick?
"Is not "Quirky" architecture, architecture that looks distinctly unnatural in a natural landform sense?"
That may be your definition of "Quirky" but it would not be mine!
-
I think quirky architecture goes well beyond unnatural landforms in architecture. In fact, I think some of the quirkiest architecture uses natural elements. My example would 5 at the Country Club, where the tee shot over a huge rock pile is entirely natural and very quirky--it goes well beyond the normal 'over the rise' type of tee shot. Holes like the Quarry Holes at Garden City or CC of Buffalo were very quirky for me because of their use of natural features.
On the opposite end, Shadow Creek is entirely unnatural, and its reputation is a course that is beautiful but without mystery or quirk.
Overall, I think quirk can be either natural or manmade, and it is more often nature that brings the quirkiest and most unique elements to a course. It was these sorts of features (i. e. a severely slope fairway, a blatant blind shot or a wild green) that saw a loss with manmade architecture in the 1960s.
Did Raynor and MacDonald ever lose natural quirk in their design? Or did their construction serve to enhance it?
On the topic of short holes, the Short 3rd and Short 6th at Yeamans Hall and Hackensack respectively were two of my favorite holes on the respective courses. They both appeared entirely manmade, especially at Yeamans. However, it would seem the built-up greens were often placed on flat, mundane pieces of land (i. e. the bottom of a ravine at Shoreacres). Thus, although they are engineered, they serve to enhance rather than clash with the land around it because there wasn't much in the way of land to begin with.
-
"Where do you find that to be the case ?
Which hole/s do you think look distinctly unatural in a natural landform sense?"
Pat:
What course would you like me to pick?
Start where ever you please
"Is not "Quirky" architecture, architecture that looks distinctly unnatural in a natural landform sense?"
That may be your definition of "Quirky" but it would not be mine!
What is your definition of "Quirky" ?
-
One also has to remember that it's the golfer's eyes view that should be the qualifier, not the bird's eye view from 4,000 feet.
One of my favorite holes is # 8 at Yale.
I also tend to favor "short" holes, few of which could be called natural.
But, in all of the above cases, I find the holes appealing to the eye and a wonderful challenge to the game.
A great point about the view from the golfer's eyes. I think CBM/Raynor's work definitely looks better in person than from an overhead photo. And it certainly plays great.
-
I think quirky architecture goes well beyond unnatural landforms in architecture. In fact, I think some of the quirkiest architecture uses natural elements.
Overall, I think quirk can be either natural or manmade, and it is more often nature that brings the quirkiest and most unique elements to a course. It was these sorts of features (i. e. a severely slope fairway, a blatant blind shot or a wild green) that saw a loss with manmade architecture in the 1960s.
Did Raynor and MacDonald ever lose natural quirk in their design? Or did their construction serve to enhance it?
Pretty obvious now that you've mentioned it, but I guess I hadn't really thought about it that way before. Something quirky may be the most natural feature on a course. Thanks for sharing this observation.
-
I find it very interesting that the main aspect of this thread under most scrutiny is aesthetics. Given that, I would have thought that in addition to figuring out how an inland course can at least be interesting and challenging, if not somewhat living up to the standards of a links, what the great heathland archies (and Colt was certainly the the greatest) gave us was a sense of aesthetics which in addition to the above, essentially confirmed that golf can be successfully played inland. From this perspective, I would disagree with TomP and say that aesthetics are important even if their impact on playability is limited. Having said that, I also believe that folks under-estimate the impact aesthetics have in making courses more challenging than courses which fail to rest in the land comfortably. And for this reason, I am against the use of yardage aids because it goes a long way toward negating the playing benefits of a well executed natural looking course. That isn't to say that a more manufactured look can't be just as good, only that I believe it is that much tougher for the archie to pull it off.
Ciao
-
I agree with using yardage aids as detracting from the integrity of the game. However, there is only so much a number can do to aid a golfer's perception of such 'natural quirk.'
I think every golfer has a different definition of aesthetics, but it seems that the most 'aesthetically pleasing golf courses are the ones created with regard to natural surroundings. Raynor achieves this well at Yeamans Hall, that is for sure. Ultimately, aesthetics are important, but I think they go beyond the typical definition of a course being 'pretty' or having great views. Those are things over which a designer has limited control. Aesthetics as they apply to golf course architecture can only be defined as how well an architect works with the land. This is one of the most important aspects to designing a golf course IMO, and it is seen with great success at my three favorite courses (Garden City, Yeamans Hall, and The Country Club).
-
I agree with using yardage aids as detracting from the integrity of the game. However, there is only so much a number can do to aid a golfer's perception of such 'natural quirk.'
I think every golfer has a different definition of aesthetics, but it seems that the most 'aesthetically pleasing golf courses are the ones created with regard to natural surroundings. Raynor achieves this well at Yeamans Hall, that is for sure. Ultimately, aesthetics are important, but I think they go beyond the typical definition of a course being 'pretty' or having great views. Those are things over which a designer has limited control. Aesthetics as they apply to golf course architecture can only be defined as how well an architect works with the land. This is one of the most important aspects to designing a golf course IMO, and it is seen with great success at my three favorite courses (Garden City, Yeamans Hall, and The Country Club).
JNC
I think we are saying the same thing - essentially. I do agree that yardage aids have a limited impact on negating design concepts - especially those which aesthetically fit well with
the land. However, I think the entire element of yardage (of which yardage aids are most likely a by-product), length of holes, par, turning doglegs, measuring yardage etc has been very detrimental to design.
When top designers mention courses that are great, but then qualify their greatness with remarks about the shortness of the course, we have problem. Even though I am not a fan of tech roll-back, I would certainly support the idea if it meant yardage and all its permeations were relegated to just one of several design elements rather than one of the most important (if not the most important) design elements. However, I don't believe any tech roll back can acheive this. Sorry if it sounds like I am all over the place with issues, but I think they are all related and wrapped into the big picture.
BTW What is your first name? I feel like I am having a discussion with a French football team: JNC Lyon.
Ciao
-
Sean Arble,
What U.S. courses DON'T rest in the land comfortably ?
Of those courses, how do their aesthetics fail ?
-
I agree with using yardage aids as detracting from the integrity of the game. However, there is only so much a number can do to aid a golfer's perception of such 'natural quirk.'
I think every golfer has a different definition of aesthetics, but it seems that the most 'aesthetically pleasing golf courses are the ones created with regard to natural surroundings. Raynor achieves this well at Yeamans Hall, that is for sure. Ultimately, aesthetics are important, but I think they go beyond the typical definition of a course being 'pretty' or having great views. Those are things over which a designer has limited control. Aesthetics as they apply to golf course architecture can only be defined as how well an architect works with the land. This is one of the most important aspects to designing a golf course IMO, and it is seen with great success at my three favorite courses (Garden City, Yeamans Hall, and The Country Club).
JNC
I think we are saying the same thing - essentially. I do agree that yardage aids have a limited impact on negating design concepts - especially those which aesthetically fit well with
the land. However, I think the entire element of yardage (of which yardage aids are most likely a by-product), length of holes, par, turning doglegs, measuring yardage etc has been very detrimental to design.
When top designers mention courses that are great, but then qualify their greatness with remarks about the shortness of the course, we have problem. Even though I am not a fan of tech roll-back, I would certainly support the idea if it meant yardage and all its permeations were relegated to just one of several design elements rather than one of the most important (if not the most important) design elements. However, I don't believe any tech roll back can acheive this. Sorry if it sounds like I am all over the place with issues, but I think they are all related and wrapped into the big picture.
BTW What is your first name? I feel like I am having a discussion with a French football team: JNC Lyon.
Ciao
I agree that yardage takes a lot away from the game. It's like many things in the game where people could fathom going without it (people couldn't imagine playing with persimmon woods or 13 stimp greens), but it really wouldn't take much to bring it back. the argument that "taking away yardages would be unfair to many golfers" is ridiculous.
John Lyon
-
" From this perspective, I would disagree with TomP and say that aesthetics are important even if their impact on playability is limited."
Sean:
I'm not saying and have never said aesthetics, at least the aesthetics of real naturalism, aren't important; all I've ever maintained is they are not all that is important to good golf architecture.