Replica courses article in Links Magazine

[Daniel Wexler]

Patrick and Tommy:

I'm glad somebody's bothered.

Actually, I'm really disappointed that the sidebar got dumped.  I thought that people would be seriously interested in seeing Craig's Lido image....

DW

[Tommy_Naccarato]

So would have I!

In fact, Craig, if you are reading this, Please Please post that image!

[frank_D]

i always thought the "genius" in course architecture should produce a tract which best compliments the land the course layout is designed for and is built on - using originality as a benchmark - anything else is just either randomly moving dirt (potluck results) or moving the dirt to fit a template (replica) - in commercial architecture this would produce a "parking lot" and a "strip mall" respectively

while i may never play many "originals" - in my humble opinion a replica i could play, well,  just wouldn't (couldn't) be the same

with replicas - who needs architects ?

[Michael Whitaker]

I have read and re-read this entire topic several times trying to pull my thoughts together on this subject. IMHO... I have decided ALL courses are "replicas" to one degree or another.

I'm convinced you can pick ANY hole on ANY modern course and a "similar" design can be found somewhere on a "classic" course. The surrounding landscape might be different; the hole might feature sand as an obstacle instead of water; one may be by the sea, the other by a mountain. But, the bottom line is that there is nothing new under the sun. Every golden age designer copied features from his home courses and replicated their famous holes here in America. And many, particularly Donald Ross, copied them over and over again.

The genius of a great golf course designer is that he (or she) can see the possibilities that the land offers and bring them to life. I am reminded of the quote by Elbert Hubbard, "The sculptor produces the beautiful statue by chipping away such parts of the marble block as are not needed." The fact that a certain style hole might have existed before on another course is immaterial. If it fits, it fits. If it works, it works. If it pleases the golfing public, it pleases the gofling public. If a course, or a single hole for that matter, is intentionally created in the "style" of a classic because it pleases the designer, the owner, or the paying public then, so be it. Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery.

As for the true "replica" courses like Tour 18... golf is a great game, but it is also a business. These courses are simply a novelty item that provide their owners a "hook" that works in the marketplace. I say more power to them. What's the concern? That someone might not visit St Andrews because he's already played a copy of a couple of holes in Texas? Get real. And what's wrong with a theme course. Are you afraid that someone might make a few bucks by evoking the name of a long dead designer? If the public respects the work and enjoys the course they will pay to play it... if not, it will fade away. That is the way it has always been, even in the days of Old Tom.

You classical purists remind me of the conservative religious groups we have here in the south. They think they have all the answers, too. If you want to get to Heaven it's their way, or the highway. And, don't even think of changing one word in the King James version of the Bible or you will be struck blind. Sound familiar? If some of you guys had been making decisions in the days of the "classic" designers many of the courses you so revere wouldn't exist because they are nothing more than replicas of the famous holes and courses their designers treasured and respected.

Bottom line... the world is better place every time a new golf course is built. Just keep 'em coming!

[Craig Disher]

This is the picture that would have appeared in LInks had they elected to show the sidebar in Daniel's article; #18 at Lido GC in 1942:

[herrstein]

 From everything I've heard Black Creek is an excellent course, and Brian Silva should be getting the credit for it, not Seth Raynor.

This is absolutely true. The work at Black Creek is Brian Silva's, not Seth Raynor's.
Raynor's been dead for some time now.
Even I won't claim to be channeling his spirit.
(But don't ask me about the hat.)
I've always been a little uncomfortable with the "tribute" label put on Black Creek. I told a gathering of writers around opening day that the course was not a tribute to anybody unless it was going to be a tribute to ME! But somehow the idea that the course was a tribute to Raynor got circulated anyway, because the course does so obviously and consciously use Raynor/Macdonald themes and styling.
Whatever. The course's strategy and design is its own and stands on its own merits, just as NGLA is its own course, and Yeamans Hall and Camargo and Chicago and all of the other courses that echo one another are their own courses....
The pure replica courses, however, artificially constructed so that the ground contours are even replicated, lose some of their own character in doing so, in my opinion. But what do I know? I haven't ever played one.
Having played the 17th at St. Andrews and lots of the Raynor/Macdonald "Road Holes," however, I wouldn't say that any of them aren't their own idiosyncratic selves, each different and most of them good.