Are Template Holes The Answer To Architectural Mediocrity?

[Mike Hendren]

Okay, I know many didn't agree with my premise on a recent thread, but aren't there template holes that could be designed and built just about anywhere?  I'll offer the 15th at Fenway, realizing that a sister green might be needed if play is heavy:



I envision an architectural Chinese menu where you just order by number.  Heck, you could even use pictures like they do on the Waffle House menu.  

Mike

[Kyle Harris]

Michael,

Template holes may more correctly be described as the answer to sustaining good architecture. Use them as a reference point, but be not afraid to branch out and yes, risk mediocrity.

I see mediocrity as a necessary result of creativity. A failed attempt. One cannot have original and great without original and mediocre.

[Tom_Doak]

I think the result of your Chinese menu would be the same as my reaction to Chinese food -- twenty minutes after you're finished, you'd be hungry for something more substantial.

Every architect has some things they tend to fall back on when natural inspiration is lacking, but to categorize it (as some have) and give up on creativity is the ultimate sellout.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Hmm its 10 to 12 and this lunch discussion is looking better all the time.

[John Kavanaugh]

This thread is drowning in the assumption that Raynor played only a minimal role in the design of his courses.  Hendren was not satisfied in only disparaging living architects.

[cary lichtenstein]

Okay, I know many didn't agree with my premise on a recent thread, but aren't there template holes that could be designed and built just about anywhere?  I'll offer the 15th at Fenway, realizing that a sister green might be needed if play is heavy:



I envision an architectural Chinese menu where you just order by number.  Heck, you could even use pictures like they do on the Waffle House menu.  

Mike

Based on the mediority of the vast majority of the courses, this suggestion does have more merit than at first glance.

 Obviously, where you have great topography, there is no reason not to do your creative best, but I'd have no trouble with 9 great template holes well done and 9 others.

I would bet that for every architect that really gets it, there are at least 10 that don't. I know that was at least the ratio in my textile business, alot of pretenders and only a few real design directors.

[Wayne_Kozun]

This may be heresy to some, but perhaps Tillinghast used templates to a certain extent as 15 at Fenway seems quite similar to 7 at Scarboro which was done by Tillie at almost the exact same time as Fenway although the 7th at Scarboro has a green about 6 ft above the fairway and the hole is a bit shorter at around 275 yds.

[Michael Blake]

I'll have the beef and broccoli, redan, alps, and postage stamp please.


I think something like this quote was on another thread a bit back, "How many distinctly different types of holes can actually be designed before eventually some begin to look like others?"

This may be heresy to some, but perhaps Tillinghast used templates to a certain extent as 15 at Fenway seems quite similar to 7 at Scarboro which was done by Tillie at almost the exact same time as Fenway although the 7th at Scarboro has a green about 6 ft above the fairway and the hole is a bit shorter at around 275 yds.

Wayne, that may be the longest run on sentence I've ever read.  





kids crying, nap over, gotta go...............

[Kalen Braley]

Perhaps a follow on question is.

Would you rather play a flat or otherwise featurless golf course, or one that used template holes of the greats?

I think I'd much rather play someones attempt at a Redan, biarittz, or otherwise than a featureless dull hole..

[Mark_Fine]

An interesting post might be a list with photos, of "original" hole designs from the past 60 years or so?  I wonder how many there would be  

[Mike Hendren]

Hmm its 10 to 12 and this lunch discussion is looking better all the time.

Tiger, please tell me there's a lunch joint nearby called the Chinese Bandit.

Mike

[Mike Hendren]

This thread is drowning in the assumption that Raynor played only a minimal role in the design of his courses.  Hendren was not satisfied in only disparaging living architects.

Barney,  you "society" boys are all alike.

 

[Wayne_Kozun]

Wayne, that may be the longest run on sentence I've ever read.  

Unfortunately for you my undergrad degree is in Engineering rather than English.

[Peter Pallotta]

Wayne -
Unfortunately for me, mine WAS in English. How many times since did I wish I'd been better in math.

Michael -
I think it would lead to higher construction costs, and would also prove to be the worst kind of mediocrity, namely "cynical mediocrity".

I have my preferences for what I like, but I tend not to think of ANY golf course as mediocre.  Better a golf course than a parking lot, I say. ANY golf course; ANY parking lot.  In that sense, and for me at least, there ARE no mediocre courses. I may be setting my expectations too low, I know; but then, I don't think the alternative (i.e. few if any new courses being built) is all so far-fetched.  And THAT alternative is worst of all, by far.  

Peter

[cary lichtenstein]

Perhaps a follow on question is.

Would you rather play a flat or otherwise featurless golf course, or one that used template holes of the greats?

I think I'd much rather play someones attempt at a Redan, biarittz, or otherwise than a featureless dull hole..

I think that statement is 100% correct!!!!!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Michael Blake,
The question was posed by me, in all seriousness, in the Raynor/Macdonald Template Holes thread and it was: "How many 'different' holes are there, from tee to green, in the world of golf?"

Followed by:
 "There are around 275,000 holes in the US, about 6,500 in Ireland, add in the rest of the world, doesn't there come a point when everything becomes a template??"

Again, in all seriousness: What does an architect draw on for inspiration during the creative process of routing/designing a course? Doesn't his/her knowledge of what makes for good golf holes play a part in it? Isn't some, or most, of that knowledge already found in the dirt at some of the greatest, and less great, existing courses of the world and creatively adapted, to some extent, into 'new' work?

The above is not a 'bash'.

   

[Michael Blake]

Jim,

Thanks for re-posting the exact quote.  I was close.


I would imagine that an architect sometimes consciously or subconsciously designs holes with the "composite" in mind. They have favorite holes that have inspired them and if the site allows they can use some of those "classic" strategies in their design of a hole.  

In the back of their mind they envision a tee shot similar to the 4th at Beth Page Black.  Then a second shot like the 16th at Merion to a green not unlike the first at Woody's Golf Center pitch and putt course.


I don't know about mediocrity, unless I'm referring to the state of my golf game, but I think anyone can refelct on any hole/shot and think it is resembles one they have played or studied or read about before.  


Would be interesting to hear some from some of the other architects out there.

[Tom_Doak]

Michael and Michael:

Your thread prompted me to sit down last night and think through several of my courses and decide how many holes of each are (to my mind) unique and not entirely derivative of something I've seen before.

Of course, if you paint the templates broadly enough [i.e., using a fairway bunker in the left-center automatically makes the holes Braid Type AB negative], nothing would qualify as original.  But, if you factor in the topography and the various options and how the green setting relates to it all, then I think a hole like the 2nd at Pacific Dunes qualifies as unique, or at least a significant improvement on a flat hole with a bunker left-center.

Still, even allowing for my huge ego , it was somewhat surprising to find that there are only one or two holes on most of my courses which I would categorize as unique (four holes at the most on any of them).  I am sure my definition of "unique" would inspire much debate, and perhaps I should start my own separate thread on the topic, but I found it almost impossible to categorize any par-3 hole as unique as the nature of the one-shotter minimizes the possibilities of interesting combinations.  Indeed, most of the short holes which you would call templates are so either because they are designed to be played in two shots by some people (Redan and Eden) or because of a template green type.

Some of the balance of my holes were populated by templates -- I've built a few Redans in my time, too -- but the majority were relatively simple, sound golf holes which fit the land but were fairly generic in terms of their design.

I am not quite sure what to conclude from this.  Perhaps the lesson is that good simple design in great condition and a great setting is what the consumer really wants.  Perhaps it's that trying too hard to make every hole original is ultimately self-defeating and likely to produce a few that are so quirky that they are rejected by most golfers.  Perhaps it's that most golf architects are too jaded to work hard on designing something different, and myself only slightly less than those who insist there is nothing new under the sun.  Or perhaps it's that finding the right balance among the three approaches is the closest approach to true greatness we get anymore.

I do know this:  a few of the truly great courses like Pine Valley and Crystal Downs and Cypress Point have more unique holes on them than a dozen other courses put together.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom D - thanks; fine post.

I think in any of the arts, the best work is done by those who care not a whit about whether the work has been done a thousand times before, or never before.  

They have more important things to think about; they aspire to higher goals and demands, including being true to themselves and to the art. (And to me, that includes being true to one's word, and to the specific demands of the specific project: e.g. if you've committed to building a simple, inexpensive 9 hole municipal course aimed at beginners, do THAT.)  

And, IMHO, even a golf hole that's been done a thousand times before is not necessarily a template hole, and certainly not one consciously chosen from a menu.

Peter

edit: More and more, I believe that an artist's innermost and psychic 'intentions' and 'choices' DO manifest themselves in the final product, very clearly and as sure as day.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I think it is because of your last post that I beleive as an outsider looking in that golf course architecture is much more "art" than it is a "science".

Its difficult to teach someone how to be an artist.  I'm in the same boat with many on here, that I've always believed that I could design and build a unique one of kind golf course, but the more I learn about gca, unfortunatly the more I have to question and reign in the perceptions of my abilities.

Do you have a certain place you go to either physically or mentally to "Refresh" and "refill" the well of originality?  You mentioned in your book "Anatomy of a Golf Course" that for many architects, thier best work is often thier few first courses because they are full of so many ideas and "chomping at the bit" to do it.  So how to keep that freshness in the forefront after the newness of the work wears off?

[Michael Blake]

Posted by: Tom_Doak

Perhaps the lesson is that good simple design in great condition and a great setting is what the consumer really wants.  Perhaps it's that trying too hard to make every hole original is ultimately self-defeating and likely to produce a few that are so quirky that they are rejected by most golfers.  Perhaps it's that most golf architects are too jaded to work hard on designing something different, and myself only slightly less than those who insist there is nothing new under the sun.  Or perhaps it's that finding the right balance among the three approaches is the closest approach to true greatness we get anymore.

...A very thoughtful analysis.  Thanks.

I think the condition/setting point is spot as to what the majority of the golfing public (not necessarily gca.com enthusiasts) want.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Isn't uniqueness terrain related ?

With respect to template holes, Mike seems to hold them out in a vacuum, absent their surroundings.  I feel that their surroundings are inate in their fitting or being successful.

# 17 at PD appeared to be a wonderful hole when I first viewed the hole after the climb from # 16 green.

It fit into the global and particular terrain perfectly.

I don't see how anyone could be critical of # 17 at PD, irrespective of its similarity or conformance to the "Redan" template.

The "template" holes function well.

Isn't that a, if not the, critical test ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom D,

That is a thoughtful analysis. I will do the same tonight (in between reading ethics dox supplied by Tony via link)

Nugent always said that he wanted that same 2-4 "original holes" per course, and that most of the others were adaptations and improvements of other concepts tried and proven before.

Your results are practically the same, although I doubt you started from the 15-3 ratio as being good, and you are comparing a world of holes, not just ones you have designed previously.  That said, it just turns out, perhaps, to be practical, or average for all of us in the biz to go back in some way to comfortable beginnings when designing a hole.

On an "average" site I see no problem with borrowing ideas, providing they are "play based" ideas.  I mean, a good shot type like a Redan, or the reverse slope green at the 12th at White Bear Yacht Club, or platform green, is a good shot type on most courses, if wind allows.  And borrowing "en masse" allows you to create a certain balance of holes and shot types you have found favorable for golf balance.

Borrowing aesthetic design elements like clusters of bunkers, or whatever may not be so successful, without thinking through the look and feel of the site.

Generally, I think your approach is right - if you look at each hole with the idea of doing as little as possible to make it "right" it should be a fairly charming hole, whether there is one like it on similar ground anywhere else.  I think the key to design is to design without thinking about those extraneous factors.  Just do what is best 18 times in a row!

Now, we can debate the phrase "what is best" as much as "what is unique" but there could easily be a dozen "best ideas" for any piece of golf ground.

To me, borrowing

[Mike Hendren]

Patrick,

Could not the 15th green at Fenway be employed in a number of ways on virtually any site?

Give me a flat site and a bulldozer and I'll build you a duplicate of the redan-wannabe 7th at Shinnecock:



Again, these holes mustn't be copied, but surely they could prime the creative pump of the architect when all else fails.

Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Why do people discuss the 7th hole at SH in the context that it's a mediocre hole or poor ?

It's a great hole.

In addition, the prevailing winds, which can't be seen in your photo, make it even better.

As to the 15th at Fenway, it's been a while since I played there.  I'm supposed to play this summer and will let you know.

Remember, you can't view a template hole in the sole context of the green.  You have to examine and evaluate the entire hole.