Macdonald & Raynor

[Mark Brown]

Obviously they designed a lot of highly-ranked classics that included a number of well-known copies from great UK courses. But many of their sharp edges and geometric features don't fit in with nature which seems to be thee major litmus test for golden oldies that was followed by others like Ross, Mackenzie etc.

Why exactly are they pardoned from the highly-honored
natural / minimalist school of design that most GCA members pledge allegiance to? Some of the holes they created are actually quite ugly.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Obviously they designed a lot of highly-ranked classics that included a number of well-known copies from great UK courses.

But many of their sharp edges and geometric features don't fit in with nature which seems to be thee major litmus test for golden oldies that was followed by others like Ross, Mackenzie etc.

Could you describe how some of their holes don't fit in with nature, and cite the holes for us ?[/color]

Why exactly are they pardoned from the highly-honored
natural / minimalist school of design that most GCA members pledge allegiance to?

Perhaps, because their architecture works so well when integrated with the play of the game.

I only have limited experience at playing their golf courses, but, if you'll permit me to include Banks's work, my data base expands.

All of their courses were FUN to play, and challenging as well.  That's a powerful combination

I think it's that combination that appeals to many and why their work is well regarded, no matter how it's categorized.[/color]

Some of the holes they created are actually quite ugly.
Could you cite five examples ?[/color]

[john_stiles]

Mark,

I think they are pardoned because as Pat said, their courses are fun and challenging to play.

While they are not from the minimalist school of design, I find the courses seem natural, in the direction of play.  When you look back across their courses, from different angles than the play,   I think then you notice some unnatural features.  

From my experience in playing 9 or so courses,  I do not recall a hole that would be ugly.  

What hole(s) did you think were ugly ?  Do you think some of  their 'short holes' are ugly ?

In the end,  they are fun to play and I look forward to the next.

[Mark Brown]

John,

I agree. Their courses are fun to play - you have to be creative in your approach to playing them. The one ugly hole I specifically remember was one of the short 4s at Yale that was rectangular with sharp angles, and it was just sitting out in the middle of a field.

[Top100Guru]

Mr Brown is now not only the quentisential Hilton Head Area expert, but it appears he is also not a Raynor or Macdonald fan, but based on past responses here at GCA, I suspect its because he doesn't have an financial interests in any of the "Old Classics"........this is really getting old Mark, can you come up with any valid thoughts or comments that merit a discussion?

[TEPaul]

MarkB:

You got that right pal---some call it "the engima". But have you ever played any of them? I'll tell you honestly---they play just great---and in a certain way that makes it all a bigger enigma!  

[Top100Guru]

On another note, based on your comments Mark, how many "Raynor & Macdonald" courses have you actually stepped foot on let alone played? Obviously not Chicago GC, St Louis CC, NGLA, Piping Rock, Camargo, Yeaman's, Mountain Lake, Mid-Ocean, Blue Mound, Shoreacres, The Creek Club, Blind Brook Club, CC of Fairfield, Elkridge, Everglades Club, Fisher's Island, CC of Charleston, Wailae, Sleepy Hollow, Westhampton, Morris County.........I guess all the ratings are dead wrong about these courses and all the books written about their respective architecture and histories were senseless publishings about "Ugly Courses"!!!!!!!!!

[George_Bahto]

whoa, McConkey III  !

[TEPaul]

"Why exactly are they pardoned from the highly-honored
natural / minimalist school of design that most GCA members pledge allegiance to? Some of the holes they created are actually quite ugl?"

We've had this discussion on here before but this is actually a great question, and it's probably worth having the discussion again---it's a fundamental question about architectural aesthetics. I don't think anyone should jump all over Mark Brown for asking the question about the "engineered" style and look of the architecture of Macdonald/Raynor and then Raynor during a time where other of their heavyweight competitors were obviously trying hard to create architecture with an aesthetic that was intended to use basic lines that were far more the look of the undulations and lines of Nature itself.

So the question becomes why didn't Raynor go along with that apparently noble and natural atttempt? It's a damn fine question and a very interesting one if someone is particularly interested in the nuances and intricacies of the evolution of "Golden Age Architecture" (Whoops sorry, perhaps I should call it "Arts and Crafts golf architecture" ). It's not a question that should be considered some attack on Raynor---it's just a good question about an interesting architectural aesthetic that seemed to hang on past it's time.

Of course the real curiosity is Macdonald, a man who apparently said he was inspired to create NGLA because there was so much shocklingly bad architecture cropping up on the early American golf scene. He was referring to the so-called era of "geometric" design, of course ("The very soul of golf shrieks').

But then it would appear that a certain amount of Macdonald's NGLA had engineered and straight lines like that geometric architecture he hated so much. So why was that?

I think the answer is because Macdonald actually copied some early European holes that had plenty of vestiges of early architectural man-made rudimentariness to them. Maybe Macdonald just thought that was OK because they were European holes and had basically been voted on as the most popular and respected holes in Europe. (If someone thinks all the famous holes of linksland golf had hit some peak of a "natural" architectural aesthetic at this early stage that vote that inspired Macdonald's holes was taken, I think they'd be very wrong!).

How about the holes at NGLA that weren't template holes, that were Macdonald's originals? Were they less engineered looking? That's a very good subject for discussion too, and perhaps could lead to an interesting and intelligent answer to this question of an unusual evolution in golf architecture.

I think we might find that some on here will even say they don't really feel the lines of Macdonald/Raynor were actually "engineered" or straight-lined. Of course that's the point were discussions like these come to a halt or break down---eg when two or more people are looking at exactly the same thing and describing it entirely different!  

[Top100Guru]

Most of the Macdonald and Raynor layouts were "minimalist in design, scope, and nature".......the unusual, often irregular &  difficult bunkering, squarred off greens, and tee box shapes and allignments were more a funtion of their respective style and interest in creating something vastly different and not trying to be "like everybody else" at the time....true pioneers if you ask me.......You don't have to "love" their work, but these men should be revered and respected at a bare minimum!

[TEPaul]

"....true pioneers if you ask me.......You don't have to "love" their work, but these men should be revered and respected at a bare minimum!"

McConkey;

They are revered--certainly Macdonald is and was for the architectural contribution he made to American architecture. They called him the "Father" of American golf architecture way back and they still do. That wouldn't be the case if he wasn't revered and respected for what he did architecturally.

But the subject of the straighter lines and more engineered look of their whole body of work is another matter when so many others were trying to find a more natural look in  architectural application. So it is a legitimate question to ask why they stuck with that style for so long that was at least somewhat representative of an early look in architecture.

The answer obviously is it was working for them. It's probably no different than a Rolls Royce or even a Mercedes sticking with a model for so long when other competitors are innovating. Basically if it sells, why risk changing the look?

Nobody's criticizing Macdonald/Raynor's style but why they stuck with it so long as golf architecture was evolving in so many interesting ways and particularly in a more natural look is an interesting question, to say the least!

Again, I'm fairly sure Macd/Raynor recognized the evolution to a more natural look during their careers but they simply didn't feel like going with that particular evolution. The reasons are pretty clear to me.  

Another thing that has to be considered is Raynor's individual career didn't really last any more than 10-12 years and the thing I think hasn't been very well explained is that although Macdonald lived until 1939 he got pretty fed up with doing golf architecture a lot earlier than most of us realize. For a lot of years before he died he basically just retreated back into NGLA and fiddled with it having pretty much tired of all those who had to do with American golf and architectural. For more years than we realize at the end Macdonald had effectively become unapproachable and I have some interesting documentation to prove that!

[Top100Guru]

I agree with everything you said TE, but to characterize Raynor and Macdonalds work on "particular holes as Ugly" is downright proposterous.....while I have not played every hole of every CBM and Raynor course, I have played enough to know that "I" haven't ru across any "Ugly" holes.......I guess its like the old saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"....some like The Mona Lisa, other's don't.....but no body can question that the artist that created it wasn't one of the greatest of all time, could they?

[Mark Brown]

TE,

Thank you for your great post and giving me an understanding of why they were looked at differently. I think most of their courses were so much fun to play that the rest was overlooked.

I've played 7 of their courses and one of the holes that I thought was ugle was a short par 3 at Yale (No. 6?) that was basically a sharp-edged rectangle sitting in an open area.

[tonyt]

I've played 7 of their courses and one of the holes that I thought was ugle was a short par 3 at Yale (No. 6?) that was basically a sharp-edged rectangle sitting in an open area.

Is this the fortress hole?

I can't post photos, but the old photo of this hole during the Yale tragedy series of threads is a great photo of a superb golf hole.

[Dan_Callahan]

The 5th hole at Yale is a short par 3, but it isn't ugly. I wouldn't say it looks natural, but it's still cool the way it feels almost like an island green with the bunkers wrapping around it on both sides. It's a nice place to catch you breath after getting your butt kicked on the 4th.

[TEPaul]

"....but to characterize Raynor and Macdonalds work on "particular holes as Ugly" is downright proposterous.....while I have not played every hole of every CBM and Raynor course, I have played enough to know that "I" haven't ru across any "Ugly" holes.......I guess its like the old saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"....some like The Mona Lisa, other's don't.....but no body can question that the artist that created it wasn't one of the greatest of all time, could they?"

McConkey:

I hear you---calling MacDonald/Raynor architecture even with its angularity and engineered look downright ugly probably is a stretch but things like architectural aesthetic, particularly architecture basically that different sure is in the eye of the beholder.

I just think people need to look far more carefully at not just when NGLA was (very early in American architecture) but what it was. It really wasn't a personally inspired original American design in that about 1/3 of it was designs somewhat copied from famous holes in Europe that Macdonald didn't exactly even pick them himself---they came to him through a competition on popularity of golf holes over there just around the turn of the century and the holes picked were really old. He explains that in his book in the section on NGLA. Other holes were probably some copied basic concepts from holes he may’ve been individually inspired by over there and the rest are supposedly Macdonald originals probably just inspired by his excellent understanding of architectural principles from his experiences and contact over there.

But I can tell you when I went back there about six years ago after not having seen it in about forty years and I came over the hill on #7 that green sitting out there really did shock me. It looked like the base of a big steam iron just sitting in a flat area. I was shocked. It does not fit or tie in naturally at all, as I’m sure the green that inspired it doesn’t either. We have to realize that the original Road hole green (and the Road Hole green bunker) just might be the first real production ever done by an architect---Alan Robertson. Would anyone actually expect a green or a bunker feature that was the first ever done by man to be really natural looking or tied out into its surrounds? Of course not! But to me that’s the fascination of it all---that’s just understanding the evolution of it all and appreciating the look of it for that---which in a sense really is rudimentariness of look compared to something like the greens of CPC decades later.

But the thing is that carries holes and greens and such like that through is despite the fact they may look incredibly rudimentary, man-made, engineered, straight lined, artificial, they really do play great---really great---there’s just no denying that at all!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Brown,

I don't think it's fair to judge the 5th hole at Yale, the short, as Raynor's work when it has been so altered by intervening forces/people.

"Short" holes are inherently lacking meaningful architectural merit with the exception of the green complex.

And, when today's green complex bears little resemblence to Raynor's green complex you can't fault Raynor.

There were some before and after pictures of the hole from another thread.

I agree with another poster about beauty being in the eye of the beholder.  I love the sharp rectangular or even square nature of the putting surface with deep sides and greenside bunkering.   I believe this green might have had some internal contouring as well.

This is one of many holes and reasons that some feel so strongly about the qualtiy of the work done or not done at Yale.

Perhaps if you could view the original photos, you might change your mind.   Then again, perhaps "short" holes aren't your cup of tea.

[SPDB]

I'll preface this that Raynor/MacD are among my favorite 2-3 archs (treating them as a single architect). Their reputation as architects, though, is unquestionably burnished by the prestige of the clubs which feature their designs - which is not necessarily a function of the golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB,

Would they have been prestigeous without the benefit of the CMB/SR design ?

[SPDB]

Pat -
Yes.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

No question about that in my mind either. Most of those McD/Raynor "clubs" were not "made" by the fact that they're MacD/Raynor designs. You take a look at the original principles of a club like Piping Rock or Links or Creek there was no way they weren't going to be a special club even if they got a former day bozo like you are now to design them their golf course!  

Lido was different, in that some of those awesome principles departed from their usual SOP private structure for the first and probably last time!

[Patrick_Mucci]

SPDB & TEPaul,

I disagree with both of you.

Had run of the mill golf courses been created those club's popularity would have been short lived.

Lacking a centerpiece, a wonderful golf course, those people would have migrated to other great golf courses, or built their own grand golf courses with the TOP designers of the day.

Those wealthy individuals were smart enough to retain GREAT or renowned architects to build great golf courses that would last for the ages.

I view them in the same light that I view Mike Pascucci, Ken Bakst, Mike Keiser, Jack Lupton, EF Hutton and the fellow behind Sand Hills.

TEPaul,

You should know better.
Look at Gulfstream and Everglades, then look at Seminole.  

[Mark Brown]

Patrick,
I  was at Yale about 10 years ago so I'm not sure which version I saw. Anyhow the point of my post was as TE said it's a bit odd that their courses had a totally different look than the other architects in the golden age who were trying to blend their holes with nature.

I like and enjoy playing their courses, including Yale, but if they were built today, without any knowledge of Macdonald or Raynor's courses, a lot of architecture buffs would probably question their style.

So be it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Brown,

I disagree with TEPaul, but you knew that.

Your statement reminds me of a teacher I had in high school.

She clearly had her favorites and graded them accordingly.
Her pets got high grades for questionable results while superior papers/tests were downgraded due to their authors

When I had the class hand in a test without names, she refused to grade them.

Her answer was, "how will I know who wrote them"

My answer was, "what difference does that make in your evaluative process ?  You grade them based on their merit and we'll tell you, after you've graded them, which papers/tests belong to which students."

The same syndrome may apply to this group, where who the architect is may dictate the outcome of the evaluation, sometimes before the process begins.  You know what they call that don't you ?   It starts with a B.

I like blind taste tests  

[TEPaul]

"You take a look at the original principles of a club like Piping Rock or Links or Creek there was no way they weren't going to be a special club even if they got a former day bozo like you are now to design them their golf course!"

Pat:

I take that back and I agree with you. Guys like those people who started the likes of Creek, Piping etc did have the sense to hire the best there were and their clubs probably wouldn't have done well at all if they'd actually hired some predecessor who was a bozo like you are now!   Back then or today guys like that just didn't hire bozos. At the very least they knew they could afford or get the best and they did.

Most of Flynn's client list has to read as the most impressive "Who's Who" of bigtimers in the history of American golf architecture!