[Bill_McBride]

Skimming the Sleepy Hollow #16 thread, it's apparent that there is a major schism among the 1500 members of this discussion group with regard to the formal, templated approach to design of the MacDonald/Raynor/Banks design group.

As many seem to find this design theme fascinating and attractive as those who find it unnatural and unattractive.

I am as big a fan of the naturalness of MacKenzie's designs as anyone, and love the look of courses where the hand of man is not readily apparent.

(I use MacKenzie as my example here because I have played more of his courses than those of other Classic Age designers)

I also have truly loved playing the formal, hard-edged, hardly naturalistic design style seen at NGLA, Yale, the Creek Club, and Mountain Lake.

Am I weird, or is it possible to truly cherish, admire and enjoy both styles?  

I do note that there are few modern examples of the MacDonald/Raynor style - Old MacDonald is high on my list of anticipated new courses and seems to be the only exception other than Brian Silva's few examples - and most designs seem to pursue the MacKenzian school of natural minimalism.

Help please!

[Tom Jefferson]

Bill.......why you think you need help?

Sounds to me like you're asking the right questions.

Rhetorically, why do humans think we have to exist in the black/white world?  My world is full of gray...I am comfortable with it.

I tend to like the natural design, yet what Raynor, et.al. have done is entirely good, if only I let it.

Merry Christmas!

Tom

[David Stamm]

Bill,


   I think there is nothing wrong for liking both. Like you, I'm an admirer of MacKenzie's, but I appreciate the shot values that CBM/Raynor holes present to the golfer. While they would not be my first choice as what I would prefer in a course, I can respect the work of the both of them.

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:  It just so happens that the two architects whose work I know the best are the two polar opposites -- Raynor and MacKenzie.

And it is certainly possible to love them each for their own strengths.

My own work more closely aligns with MacKenzie, and that's one of the reasons I chose to take on the Old Macdonald project, to break away from what we have been doing just a little bit.

[Jon Spaulding]

Bill, perhaps we can start a support group for those that appreciate both styles  .

It is OK to enjoy the work of Renoir and Rembrandt, right?

[Bill_McBride]

Bill, perhaps we can start a support group for those that appreciate both styles  .

It is OK to enjoy the work of Renoir and Rembrandt, right?

Yes, but I don't believe their styles were as diametrically opposed as those of MacDonald/Raynor and MacKenzie/other "naturalists."

I guess that's the point I'm seeking to discuss - most GCAers admire the naturalistic and minimalistic (no apparent earth moving) style of MacKenzie and the others.   The ideal is a course where nothing appears to be manmade.

Yet many of these same are fans of the engineered sharp edges and obvious manufactured style of MacD/Raynor.  

How to account for this dichotomy?

It's easy for me, I'm just able to appreciate both.    But that same attitude would seem to be a problem for some who can't.

[Jay Flemma]

If I can like Phish and Bowling for soup, I can like both Mack and Mac.  God loves wonderous variety:)

[Kyle Henderson]

As I stated in the Sleepy Hollow thread, I appreciate the FUNctional aspects of the MacRaynor style, I just don't find the style to be terribly attractive (based on photos, no 1st-hand experience).

Perhaps the combination of MacRaynor templates with Doak's shaping will yield the best of both form and function at Old MacDonald.

[Eric Franzen]

You are one sick puppy, Bill!

Alright, seriously. William Flynn, Seth Raynor, Pete Dye, Donald Ross, Arnold Palmer, Tom Fazio, Bill Coore, Jack Nicklaus, RTJ II, Jim Engh, Mike Strantz, Tom Doak, Kyle Philllips, Alister MacKenzie, Gil Hanse, Charles Blair MacDonald, AW Tillinghast... and the show goes on. But a good golf course is a good golf course and a good golf hole is still a good golf hole at the end of the day.

And I believe that one of the reasons why this board exists is to challenge and expand our definitions of good golf course architecture by frank discussion about the subject.

In the immortal words of the Australian philosopher Angus Young:
"For Those About to Rock, We Salute You!"

[Peter Nomm]

Standing over any golf shot and envisioning what it takes to pull it off is the essence of memorability.  While none of us always execute properly, it is the possibilty of hitting a great shot that responds to the presented challenge that excites us.  A golfer can experience this whether the course was found or constructed - if the designer did it right.  Even though I prefer the minimalist mindset, there is no doubt that many great designs were created and offer the golfer these memorable shot opportunities - and this to me is what makes a course great.  

[Kalen Braley]

Bill,

I would like to chime in on this thread with a slightly different twist on this.  To me its really all about what gets my interest and juices flowing.

It if means playing one of the courses at Bandon, then thats great.  It it means playing a hidden gem by one of the ODG's, thats great.  Or if it means playing my local muni, then thats great.  I suppose for me, I try to ascertain if I like a course or not and then re-visit or not depending on the course, not who designed it.

Sure there are name architects to seek out and I suppose many in here do that, but at the end of the day its really about having fun, keeping my interest, and having a great experience that is the most fun about the game.

[Bill_McBride]

Standing over any golf shot and envisioning what it takes to pull it off is the essence of memorability.  While none of us always execute properly, it is the possibilty of hitting a great shot that responds to the presented challenge that excites us.  A golfer can experience this whether the course was found or constructed - if the designer did it right.  Even though I prefer the minimalist mindset, there is no doubt that many great designs were created and offer the golfer these memorable shot opportunities - and this to me is what makes a course great.  

Peter, welcome to GCA.com and Merry Christmas!

[Kirk Gill]

I agree with Peter's first-ever post. My enjoyment in playing golf an a particular hole or course is not affected as much by the visual style of the construction as it is the challenge and interest inherent in the shots needed to play the hole well.

I happen to be one of those people for whom all golf courses just look artificial. I've walked a LOT in many different natural settings and have found almost no natural sand bunkers that look anything like what I've seen on a golf course, regardless of the surrounds, regardless of the edges, regardless of the shapes. There are sandy blowout areas all around the area of my house, and I can't imagine a gca who would put one on their course, They'd be unplayable, or unmaintainable. And that's okay, because I love golfing grounds and don't care that they're artificial, I love when an architect creates an interesting synergy with the surrounding landscape, and dagnabbit, I sometimes love it when they don't. What makes that 16th hole at Sleepy Hollow so worthwile to me is that I've never played anything quite like it.

As Lionel Richie would have said - I'm easy, easy like Christmas morning..............

[Bill_McBride]

You are one sick puppy, Bill!

Actually more of a curious puppy!

One of the things I really enjoy about the MacDonald/Raynor courses, or more precisely the template holes, is that they demand very specific shots in specific situations.

A precise short iron on the Short holes.

A draw with a longer iron on the Redan.

A high (and brave) long iron on the Alps.

A longer drive to a location where you can see the pin on the Leven.

You see all of these shots on more "naturalistic" designs, but not in such formulaic situations.  I think that's one of the things I have enjoyed a lot about the MacD/R courses, seeing the hole and thinking back to "The Evangelist of Golf."   Maybe it's the historical as much as the physical that gets me turned on.

 

[Billsteele]

Bill-This is a great question and one that I think about occasionally. To me, it is appreciating two different skill sets. I appreciate both the artist and the engineer. To me, MacDonald/Raynor approach golf architecture as I would. I don't view myself as a creative person but do recognize what works. The ability to adapt what works to different situations is somewhat of an artistic endeavor, isn't it? That's why I have always thought the strength of MacDonald/Raynor was routing. Fitting the template holes on to a given property so that the holes are recognizable but the experience of each course differs is fascinating to me. I also think that the visual distinctiveness of the MacDonald/Raynor holes (as artificial as they may appear) is quite intriguing. How can you play #'s 9 and 10 at Yale and not admire the artistry present in how the holes were set up?

Maybe I'm not that discerning or I'm incapable of being so, but I don't find it intellectually dishonest to appreciate the more artistic and natural older architects as well as MacDonald/Raynor. I fully understand those who think that their courses are manufactured/unnatural and do not care for them. However, it is possible to enjoy and appreciate both for what they are. Isn't it possible to like both Gershwin and Dylan?

[Bill_McBride]

Isn't it possible to like both Gershwin and Dylan?

Interestingly enough, you have somehow picked out my two favorites!  So the answer is yes.

Nice to hear from you, I enjoyed our round together at The Creek Club savoring that MacDonald/Raynor stuff!

[Garland Bayley]

Bill,

Big world theory.

TEP

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

Big world theory.

TEP

Yo.  

[Mike Golden]

Ace,

I don't see the dichotomy at all.  Isn't golf a game about challenges and our ability to execute both the strategy and the golf swing necessary to at least occasionally overcome such challenge?

Of the golf course I have played in my life, Bethpage Black, Cypress Point, and NGLA are probably my 3 favorites-a CBM, MacKenzie, and Tillinghast.  Each has its unique characteristics but, in the end, I love these course because of the interest created on each and every golf hole to hit the ball someplace requiring both accuracy and precision.

We can look at a golf course as a artist's canvas all we want, but, as the famous Ted Robinson has shown, beauty doesn't equal quality.  Give me interesting strategy and I could care less about the artistic merit.  That might put me in the minority on this site but that's OK by me.

[Tim Gavrich]

One of my favorite golf courses is Yale GC.  Another is Palmetto GC.  I think it's perfectly fine to like both styles.  I think I like the MacRaynor style a little bit more because I really like the templates and want to see them in different settings.  The artistry of Mackenzie is really interesting.

Has it ever been mused that all golf holes can be seen as some form of a MacRaynor template hole?  I don't know if there's any truth in it--my experience and expertise are limited--but it's an interesting thought.  Kinda like the idea that all modern fiction storylines are derivative of one or more of Shakespeare's works.

[Bill_McBride]

Ace,

I don't see the dichotomy at all.  Isn't golf a game about challenges and our ability to execute both the strategy and the golf swing necessary to at least occasionally overcome such challenge?

Of the golf course I have played in my life, Bethpage Black, Cypress Point, and NGLA are probably my 3 favorites-a CBM, MacKenzie, and Tillinghast.  Each has its unique characteristics but, in the end, I love these course because of the interest created on each and every golf hole to hit the ball someplace requiring both accuracy and precision.

We can look at a golf course as a artist's canvas all we want, but, as the famous Ted Robinson has shown, beauty doesn't equal quality.  Give me interesting strategy and I could care less about the artistic merit.  That might put me in the minority on this site but that's OK by me.

Obviously we are in synch.     Happy Holidays!  How are things?

[Adam Clayman]

Bill, Dichotomy is not the case. We have two sides to our brains. The differing principles attract, test or inspire one of them.

Golfing in a natural setting is preferred to those who see the competition differently.  Might even be game mind v. sport?

[Steve Lang]

 

A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts.

have to guess you like the original whole... split it up any way you like.. naming things only goes so far..

my interests in gca are to learn enough to play better, have fun, with inputs of discourse or visuals..  gomme the whole of it!

[Lester George]

Bill,

I don't think it is weird at all to like both.  Those are certainly three of my favorite architects (CBM/Raynor, MacKenzie)  along with others.  

The contrast in style is almost polar opposite while the shot values resemble each other, as far as I am concerned.  You should really check out the Old White at the Greenbrier which has as many of the CBM/Raynor template holes as most courses.  

The restoration (pretty strict) has opened a lot of peoples eyes, at least how a course can be diluted over time and what it takes to bring it back.  If you will e-mail me, I can find some pretty good photos.  There was a thread on the reconstruction on here somewhere as well.

Lester  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()