Macdonald & Raynor

[Top100Guru]

Excellent summation Patrick!!!!!!!!

Like I said......"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"........or perhaps in this case, "The Eye Of The Bigot"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bradley Anderson]

I would like to suggest that there is actually something quite natural about the lines of a Raynor golf course. I have never been to a true MacDonald course, but the Raynor courses that I have been on, seem very natural.

Tell me what is more natural about curvilinear lines running willy nilly all over the place, as opposed to square lines which tie in so nicely with the surroundings ? The trees are all growing vertically and horizontally. Even the cloud formations tend to lay on a horizintal plane.

I think we got it all wrong when we call the work of Raynor an "engineered look". I don't see anything in nature that looks like the curvilinear lines that run drunken amok all over much of what we call natural courses.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

You've written some really good posts---I'm impressed. Although it's definitely in the eye of the beholder or a subjective opinion I sure can't agree with you that Raynor's basic architectural lines looked natural. Interesting points you make about the straight vertical lines of trees or the basic horizontal lines of clouds, but I subscribe a lot more to Behr's premise that the basic "medium" of the golf architect is the surface of the earth. Trees are not the surface of the earth and neither are clouds!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley Anderson,

I'm with you.

I found very little in the way of contrived lines when playing Seth Raynor courses, and aren't most, if not all courses engineered ?

[ChipOat]

Mark Brown:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and perhaps I'm an easy mark, BUT:

I've played a half dozen Raynor courses and there's not a single hole among them that I would call "ugly" or even "unattractive".

The green complexes are, for the most part, too interesting in their visual (too me).

Perhaps the 3rd shot to #9 at National (apologies to those who've not played it) qualifies as mundane-looking but I'm hard pressed to think of any other shot of the 108+ holes I remember that looks like it could anywhere or, worse, shouldn't be anywhere.

That's a pretty strong track record by my reckoning (although you should consider the source with some skepticism, no doubt).

[Jason Topp]

I don't know if ugly is the right word, but I've played three Raynor courses and they featured several greens in the shape of triangles.  I liked the greens but in no way did they look natural.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chipoat,

I'd add that first glances don't always reveal the genius in the design to some.

While the 3rd shot into # 9 can appear benign, I've seen more then a number of good players misplay that shot.
Wind direction and velocity coupled with hole location can make it much harder then it looks, especially to the untrained or biased eye  

Jason Topp,

Which courses and which holes ?

[TEPaul]

This is a great thread---I think it finally begins to reveal what's really behind what some call the "enigma" of the so-called "engineered" look of MacDonald/Raynor.

Feelings about the look of that course architecturally truly are "in the eye of the beholder" as to whether or not it looks engineered or natural somehow. Let no one on here try to claim that something someone who knows NGLA, for instance, and sees and feels about it, is not true. We, who know it well enough, have eyes and we can most certainly see and we can most certainly have real feelings about what we're seeing on that course and its constructed architecture.  

I think it's very interesting what Chip says about the green-end of #9. It really is one of the least constructed green-ends on the golf course and he thinks it's the most mundane too. I guess it is if one thinks a fairly natural, on grade landform green and green-end is mundane. But it's not hard at all to see how it was built---which really was pretty minimal compared to some of the other greens and green-ends. If one stands on the 9th green and looks immediately to the right one can see a very broad depression. That's clearly where MacD/Raynor cut the fill to make that rather large green. And if one goes behind that green and looks behind it and to the left one can pick up what was the natural grade of the way things were around that green-end before they built that green---things sloped very gently from left to right. But approaching that green it sits in there so unobtrusively it looks like almost nothing was done---because you can't see that depression on the right or the drop-off behind unless you're almost right on the green. The only way to really pick it up is if you actually go to the right and behind the green and look how it falls off quite abruptly but it doesn't fall off very far, certainly nothing remotely like the right side of the previous green which is compeltely eye-catching in what was natural grade and what was constructed. Standing on the right side of #8 green you're probably 10-12 feet above once was natural grade there. That's the way it goes around the course.

I sure don't think there's a thing "ugly" about any of the architecture of NGLA even if it's completely obvious in picking up what're old natural grade lines and what's not and how obvious it is to see where one stops and the other starts out there on certain parts of the course, and how in many ways the basic "lines" just don't match or mimic each other in their transition or otherwise.

At this point nobody is going to tell me what I see out there that way isn't true----I know it is----it's obvious. But that sure doesn't mean to me that there's anything at all wrong with that. I simply look at it as architecture of a most interesting era and style that works really well for golf and always has.

Do some of those constructed parts and their lines look like the natural lines of what's around them? Not at all because they aren't. Others may think they are for some odd reason but they just aren't.

But I love the course and the way it looks---the very fact of the difference of all I just said to the way some other later courses are really is fascinating to me. Did Macd/Raynor tie out and mimic the "lines" of their constructed parts into the old natural grade lines the way an architect like MacKenzie did at CPC? Not even close but that's the fascination of it all----the difference.

[Bradley Anderson]

Another reason why, I believe, that the Raynor lines are so soothing to the eye, is because of how close to grade so many of his features are.

Many architects will build their features on top of the earth, but so many of Raynors features are built into the earth. And again, it is simply easier for the eye to behold something that is part of the earth as opposed to something which is attached to the earth. Furthermore, features which are built atop the ground on fill material, reflect light, whereas features which are built close to grade and culled out of the ground absorb light. This is why Raynor's features, from a distance, are part grass, and part shadow.

The use of shadow to warn us of a hazard is much more natural than the use of flashed sand, because we all instinctively associate foreboding and danger with dark places.

I know I'm really reaching far here to defend the natural elements of Raynor. The first time I ever steped on a Raynor course was in 1982, when no one even knew who he was, and something resonated deeply with me that I have been trying to figure out ever since. I will admit that you can't call his lines natural, but somehow they feel soothing and golfish, just like you would expect natural lines to work.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

We could not possibly be thinking of the same architect! If you want to see architecture that's close to the ground or what was original grade go look at GCGC, not NGLA. Do you really think #8 green at NGLA is close to natural grade on the right. No way and on that hole they actually took fill from the LOW SIDE and kept throwing it higher to get that green site up there. How about the Road Hole green? That thing looks like the big base of an old steam iron sitting on a flat board.

How about the earthworks at the back of Piping's #9, or  around #12 or #13 or Fisher's #4 or NGLA's #3, or Fox Chapel's #2 or around the great 6th green at Creek? You think that architecture is close to natural grade and not abrupt?

If you want to see some low-profile close to the ground old architecture go look at GCGC, not NGLA.

[Bradley Anderson]

TE Paul,

Mostly what you mention are MacDonald courses. But did Raynor on his own, always build to the same scale as MacDonald ? I am asking that question because I really don't know.

In either case, of the Raynor courses that I have visited most of the bunkering is very close to grade. No question, some of the greens are built on enormous fills, but not all. In fact I would say that there is a good balance of cut and fill, and when something does jut out at you, its for a solid reason - like a Redan green where there wasn't the natural terrain to make one. Tremendous amounts of earth went into making a Redan from scratch, but this is a one shot hole and the entire stratedgy of the hole goes all in to that one shot. There is a reason for all of that fill - a rational which you can not often enough find on modern courses. And yet there is also balance - when we come to the Short, or the Barritz holes we find that these greens are elevated no higher than was needed for drainage.

[TEPaul]

Bradley:

Probably half the courses I mentioned were C.B. Macdonald. Actually, from what I've seen from Macdonald/Raynor vs Raynor himself, the courses of the former really are more natural looking to me in some ways than the ones I know of just Raynor. They say Macd/Raynor or just Raynor had that "engineered" look and when you think of Raynor working alone without Macdonald it's seem logical to assume that Raynor's alone just might be more "engineered" looking because that's precisely what Seth Raynor was---a professional engineer.

[George_Bahto]

Would someone please define the word "engineered" in the Raynor context.

To me engineered is more unnatural, more contrived, very geometric !!!!!

To put their works in the terms of "geometric" is stupid to me.

Find some geometry at National!!

Seems to me, to those who have not seen a lot if the works of Raynor, or have not researched his (their) work in DEPTH, make the leap from him having an "engineering" background to his work having an "engineered" look.

His ORIGINAL berming is a thing of beauty - something few “get”

Much of what Bradley Anderson stated is closer to what I "see" in his work.

These were times for push-up greens (for all the usual reasons) - most everyone’s greens were mostly"up out of the ground.”

Concerning minimalism in their work: - hah!  

Macdonald would move whatever he had to to accomplish the strategies he wanted to recreate.

There are MANY quotes of his about this concerning his and Raynor's architectural philosophies.

Isn't his why he proclaimed (crowned, anointed, depicted) himself as the Father of American Golf Architecture (whoa, what an ego!!) - he was not about minimalism.

The stories in the next book have numerous stories of bringing in 10,000 truckloads of fill and topsoil on, occasionally, a single hole.

Big landfills at Ocean Links (that one hole alone!), National, CC Fairfield (3 or 4 years) and of course the 2,000,000 cu yards at Lido - there are many more.

[T_MacWood]

Raynor (and Macdonald) doesn't get enough credit for his routing abilities.  They were blessed with some wonderful sites, with interesting natural features, some being very difficult sites as well, but they had a knack for making great use of those natural features.

Despite what some say about their engineered or unnatural style, I've always thought their courses were exceedingly natural.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bradley Anderson,

TE Paul,

Mostly what you mention are MacDonald courses. But did Raynor on his own, always build to the same scale as MacDonald ? I am asking that question because I really don't know.

I would imagine that that was site related.[/color]

In either case, of the Raynor courses that I have visited most of the bunkering is very close to grade. No question, some of the greens are built on enormous fills, but not all. In fact I would say that there is a good balance of cut and fill, and when something does jut out at you, its for a solid reason - like a Redan green where there wasn't the natural terrain to make one. Tremendous amounts of earth went into making a Redan from scratch, but this is a one shot hole and the entire stratedgy of the hole goes all in to that one shot. There is a reason for all of that fill - a rational which you can not often enough find on modern courses. And yet there is also balance -

when we come to the Short, or the Barritz holes we find that these greens are elevated no higher than was needed for drainage.

I would disagree with you and cite Westhampton as exhibit A.[/color]

[wsmorrison]

"Raynor (and Macdonald) doesn't get enough credit for his routing abilities.  They were blessed with some wonderful sites, with interesting natural features, some being very difficult sites as well, but they had a knack for making great use of those natural features.

Despite what some say about their engineered or unnatural style, I've always thought their courses were exceedingly natural."

I haven't seen enough of Raynor, so I am not arguing from a position of strength, so Tom MacWood, would you please give some examples where and why the routing is so good especially as regards utilizing natural features?  

It seems there would be plenty at Yale but how about other places?  You used the term "exceedingly" that sure seems like a stretch.

To me it seems counterintuitive to have template holes and have exceedingly natural courses.  A natural design to me would be based on a plan that doesn't fit a predetermined template onto the ground but lets the ground determine the plan, by definition it would be unique.  

I don't know how the features were maintained when they were built and as intended, but I don't see the naturalism you refer to except somewhat at National.  The straight lines I see today on the Raynor and Banks courses I've seen don't seem to remind me anything of nature.

I don't think the celebrated St. Louis CC is a very good example of using natural features, nor do I think it is a great golf course; it has some great holes--and I do like the par 3s, they are excellent but the overall collection of holes to me is not great.  Speaking of par 3s, I have a hard time thinking of any natural looking par 3s in the Raynor portfolio.  Someone who knows better please tell me some.  George?

I know #5 at SLCC is supposed to be a punchbowl, I would've forgotten that template green and placed the green up the hill where the 6th tee is.  It is a blind and boring approach shot.  I don't think they used the landforms well at all on this hole.  The 16th Redan is as poor an example as I've seen.  And 18 is a bad hole.  It doesn't come close to what it is supposed to conceptually relate to, or what I think must be Prestwick.  

There's nothing wrong with moving lots of dirt to make a great hole, but why didn't they ever try to make something look like it was there to start with.  I don't think it matters that Raynor had an engineering background, his courses do not look natural, they look manufactured--call it engineered if you want; that's what it is, at least of what I've seen.  Now, many of the designs play great but of the courses I've seen I fail to find anything that makes me wonder what is man-made and what isn't.  It seems obvious.

Toomey was an engineer.  But his constructions, according to Flynn's designs were as engineered as anything M/R/B did.  But they willfully made it look natural.  You go to the Cascades and tell me what is manufactured and what is real.  I think you'd be very surprised.

[ChipOat]

Patrick Mucci, Tom Paul et al:

I didn't make myself clear enough re: the (hopefully) 3rd shot to #9 at National.

I said it LOOKED rather ordinary in the visual - that was not a comment on the significant architectural merits of the green complex.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Merion is one of their very best....just kidding.

I believe St. Louis is a Macdonald design, and I would disagree with your assessment, IMO it is an excellent example of using the natural features of the site (an excellent site too I might add)--and it is a very good golf course.  Whenever you find back to back par-3's, you can be pretty confident you have an architect who is focused upon maximizing a site.

As far as Raynor's best, Yale, Shoreacres, Fishers Island and Camargo are among the best routed courses (anywhere) that I've seen. If they are an A+, I'd give The Creek an A, just becasue the early holes are not inspiring, although they aren't bad either. The first four course are blessed with unique land and interesting natural features, and the golf courses meld perfectly with the site in each case.

The Cascades is wonderful routing over very difficult terrain, but I'd put Yale and Cape Breton's routing ahead of it on rough terrain, mostly because the architects were willing take chances with some very bold and unusual golf holes--I would describe both courses as uncoventional.

[Hunt]

Wayne-

I'll agree with Tom M on this one. MacD/Raynor used the natural terrain wonderfully at SLCC. Sure, they moved some earth to get some desired contouring.

#5 at SLCC was moved up to the 6th tee according to the desires of the USGA years ago. After universal dislike for that decision-it was thankfully moved back to its original punchbowl design. Blind? Yes. Boring? Please.

#16 Redan. I agree there are better renditions in the world-but not as many as you state. To say this is the worst is off base. Remember, Mac had the course designed for country club players-not as the Championship test he created in NGLA.

#18 is a bad hole??? To my knowledge, you are the first person on the face of this earth that has made this statement.

[TEPaul]

Hunt:

If Wayne didn't think that much of some of the holes at St Louis C.C., so what? Some on here act like if they think something is great than there's no question it's great. All that is---is their opinion. There's not a course I'm aware of that I haven't heard various people who know golf architecture pretty well criticize for one reason or another. The only courses I'm aware of that I've really never heard anyone criticize the architecture of is pretty much PVGC, Shinnecock, Merion, and probably CPC to a large degree.

[George_Bahto]

I've uncovered nearly 30 courses Raynor designed and/or built that he had not gotten credit for over the years.

Many of them altered nearly beyond recognition - a few of them, had it not been for information subsequently turned up, had hardly a blade recognizable grass, let alone design features (North Palm Beach muni for one and the Charleston Muni prime examples).

I have seen/played/studied or whatever, about 80 percent of their remaining courses.

On many of the "obscured" designs it was the routing  - the use of property - that was the recognizable feature, the bunkering, the green pads the hole strategies totally altered.

I have always stated the strength of Raynor, as he matured in his design concepts, was his routing of a course.

This was in many cases difficult for him because often he would have to work with a number of holes from a previous design (he was not one to totally blow up a course and felt strongly about not overspending a clubs money).

Shoreacres: there is not much better use of land!!

Midland Hills: if you study the original plans and base your opinion on the game of golf as played when he built this course, you'll see an extraordinary example of his choice of prime landing areas on the course built over pretty violent terrain. On a number of the better holes he offered the player (of that day), often, not more than a third of a fairway to play to for a “comfortable” approach. Miss these areas (which was usually hazard-less) and you bounded into places off-fairway where you did not want to be - an approach, (reaching the green) not going to happen today you blow way over these areas and trying to recapture these design elements “ain’t gunna” happen too often.

Remember, unlike Macdonald, Raynor had to answer to the club that was hiring him, unlike Macdonald, he had to turn a profit. Macdonald could be the "dictator" that no one would challenge.

To me his routing was his strength.

By the way, try routing Westhampton CC; two holes out, turn 90 degrees, to the end of the thin sliver of land, turn 180 degrees and backtrack, another 90 degrees and back to parallel holes 1 and 2. This property was terrible for a course. It is in the shape of a letter "T" with the stub of the "T" enuf for 2 holes out and 2 holes back in to the clubhouse.

Turned out quite good.

Gibson Island in MD is another great example of great routing.  After a few holes, there was a thin finger of land he put to great use before turning and returning "home."

I've been fortunate in being "allowed" access by so many "elite" clubs.

The 5th at St Louis: they had moved the green out of the deep hollow it was built in (where it is today) and for a while had it up beyond perched on the hill where the 6th tee was originally. Two problems - it took away the blind green (as intended) and shortened up the 6th hole. I'm glad they saw the light and put it back a few years ago. That design is a BLIND shot - a dinosaur? for sure. so what! It was meant to be an (unfair - hah) blind punchbowl.

And at St Louis (great terrain) I think CBM saw many places for par-3s and used them - couldn't resist, I would think. He was not one to follow the "rules" too closely. 5 par-3s there only 3 par-3s on his National Golf Links.

Tony Pioppi was with me as we toured Dedham C & Polo in MA - much of the back nine was much more “Raynor” than the front where he “lived” with a number of holes from a previous design - but it was his use of the land, again, that shown thru in the back. Tony would back me on that one, for sure. It just jumped out t us (even thought the green pads didn’t look too much like his)

[wsmorrison]

"The Cascades is wonderful routing over very difficult terrain, but I'd put Yale and Cape Breton's routing ahead of it on rough terrain, mostly because the architects were willing take chances with some very bold and unusual golf holes--I would describe both courses as uncoventional."

Tom MacWood,

I think you have to understand the amount of engineering to understand the demands that existed prior to the routing and hole designs at Cascades.  To appreciate the vision to route the course as it was, you have to understand what faced teh architect in the beginning and not view it as it is today.  It must be among the highest engineered courses ever built, after Lido and Indian Creek that is.

Please give me specific examples of the exceedingly natural uses of features on Raynor courses.

Hunt, George, etc.

The USGA suggested they move the green up the hill to the 6th tee?  And they did it for a time?  Yikes, I'm starting to think like those guys! Well, the members didn't like it--might have something to do with their comfort in the long time design, but I guess they grew to love the hole and it would take some distance off 6.  OK, I'll think of something else.

Boring, I think the end of the hole is just that.  The blindness of the approach is not appealing to me.  So what?  I am comfortable in the minority.  I still feel that way.  A blind hole to a punchbowl that collects a vast majority of the shots....what's the point of being blind?  George, how could it be unfair when it accomodates so many shots, indifferent included?

I am sticking by my general impression of St. Louis CC.  I'm glad Tom Paul agrees that just because a golf course is historic and held in high regard doesn't mean that there has to be universal acclaim.  I was thrilled to see the course and accomodated very well by the entire staff.  It is a great club, although I understand it to be more of a country club than golf club--I was told that hardly anyone plays there!  And there are great holes there.


Explain to me how this is not one of M/R/B's least appealing Redans.

As to 18, I just don't get it.  Why build something to look and play like that?  Granted it is a short uphill hole, but something far better could have been done.  A skyline green would've been much better there in my opinion.  That's all it is after all.  I don't mean to offend anyone's course or favorite architect; but I won't stand with the masses on this one either.

George,

Was the Westhampton (I really like the course by the way) land for the golf course dictated to Raynor or was he free to roam and that's the routing he came up with?  If he had to fit the golf course to the property boundaries, there wasn't much else he could have done.

I have to say my mindset is sort of fixed, but I am trying to figure out the readily evident appeal these courses have for everyone.  I just have not been converted and remain a heathen, for now anyway.

[TEPaul]

When it comes to actual Macdonald courses, it seems to me the best source for that would be Macdonald himself---and one probably only needs to look to his book. It seems he covers the courses he was involved in (or interested in) pretty well in that book. The book was written in 1926 and it seems at that point he was bascially done with it all. If some course is not mentioned by him in that book it seems pretty safe to assume he didn't have much, if anything, to do with it. As to Raynor, it seems that since he died in 1926 and basically had a solo career that could only have lasted 12 years at most that attributing over about 100 courses to him becomes a bit of a numbers stretch.

[T_MacWood]

Why are you guys getting on Hunt? He was just expressing his opinion. Is he the first to disagree with Wayne?

"I think you have to understand the amount of engineering to understand the demands that existed prior to the routing and hole designs at Cascades.  To appreciate the vision to route the course as it was, you have to understand what faced teh architect in the beginning and not view it as it is today.  It must be among the highest engineered courses ever built, after Lido and Indian Creek that is."

Wayne
I don't think it is difficult to appreciate the difficulty an architect would face at sites like Cascades, Yale or Cape Breton...all three must have been monumental tasks. All three are great courses, although IMO the routings and designs of Yale and Cape Breton are much more adventuresome.

I don't see anything wrong with that Redan. Do you find the background unappealing?

[Hunt]

Tom Paul-

Thanks for the everybody can have an opinion note.  

Someone gets on here and makes some blanket statements of opinion that I happen to disagree with. I'll call 'em on it.

You can call it the worst golf course in the world and I could care less, but I would like to at least understand your reasoning.

Hence, you have a discussion.