[wsmorrison]

You are right, Tom.  That's why he comes up with Flynn's horrible routing flaw at Lehigh and how brutally offensive the routing is at Merion East.  WHAT THE HECK IS HE TALKING ABOUT?

Then when I relate Indian Creek to Lido, he points out the age difference.  When I discuss Yale vs. Cascades, he concludes Yale was harder to build without knowing the facts at all.  OK, they used more dynamite at Yale.  Does that mean it was harder to construct?  Then I relate NGLA to Shinnecock and he picks on the 7th green and even more surprisingly the 17th green (which he thought was the 7th).

Once that pit bull Mucci latches onto a conclusion, he doesn't let go.  If he was a Hip Hopper, he'd be Tenacious M.

[Bill Brightly]

Waynes writes:

"I know the photo is taken from the side.  The view from the front of the green is not more natural in appearance, so I didn't bother to search for it.  This photo was on the same page and suits my point very well."

Oh really Wayne, you might want to change that position real fast befor you scroll down and see what the hole looks like from the golfers perspectice:









Hard to believe that the picture that Ran posted on the homepage of this website is the same hole!



As I said above, MacRaynor courses give you fantastic side views and back views. To me, it is one of the bonuses of playing the courses.

Now everyone can see why Wayne did not bother to search for the TRUE picture of the hole, because it disproves his point!

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

First of all, I don't know the hole first hand.  I've only seen photographs of it.  I may have been mistaken about the nature of the hole, but it wasn't intentional.  When others that have posted photos, I assumed of this very hole, it is always the same view with tees that line up very much the same as all Short Holes do.  I concluded that it was from the playing perspective.  Yet you accuse me that I was trying to mislead to prove a point.  That is incorrect and in very poor taste.  Would you criticize the ones that posted the following pictures for also attempting to misinform?  







Secondly, this one hole indicates Raynor's tendencies to not hide the engineering in any case.

[TEPaul]

Bill:

Take the photo just above (the bottom one on your post #101) as an example of what I'm talking about with the style of architecture that photo represents.

I'm not speaking for Wayne, just for me.

Look at the basic shapes of particularly the top lines on the farthest lanforms you can see just juxtaposed to the skyline. Now look at the top lines on the nearer landforms on the other side of the river. Now look at the top lines formed by the top of the treeline on the near side of the river.

All those gently and sometimes not so gently rolling top lines are what I call "natural lines". I think Wayne feels the same.

Those are the basic types of "lines" to emulate from Nature if an archiect is trying to emulate the natural lines of a particular site (in this case that one in the photo) with the lines of what he manufactures and builds.

I don't see that Macdonald, Raynor or Banks attempted to do that or certainly nowhere near as much as some of the other architects of their era.

Their lines were mostly so much straighter or flatter or even very consistently curving or however one describes the man-made architectural lines we're all looking at in that photo.

That type and style of architecture does not bother me as it apparently bothers Wayne. It used to bother me but I've come to have what I suppose I might call a fascination with it. To me it was the ultimate in a type of architecture of a particular and most interesting era in American architecture.

But I do recognize the huge distinction and difference in it from the look of the overall architectural 'lines" of other architects of the same era who were trying to dedicatedly make their architectural lines look so much more like they didn't make it at all---eg they were trying to emulate the natural "lines" of the sites and overall visible surrounding area they were working with.

For me to say this is in no way a criticism of Macdonald, Raynor or Banks. Again, I'm fascinated by their style despite how different I think it looks from the so-called "natural style" architects like Mackenzie.

I believe in the "Big World" theory and that means to me that the art form of golf architecture should have a very wide spectrum, and that includes in "look" and aesthetics. That doesn't mean I like the look of it all but I do like some that is and can be very different from others I also like.



And having said all that about the top lines of all the landforms that can be seen in the background, NOW take a look at the rather straight and flat line created by the shoreline on the other side of the river or even the lines formed by the ground beyond the green below the trees on near side of the river!!

Does that basic "line" match the manufactured top "lines" of that green, the "lines" created by the sand/grass line of the bunkering? Do those various lines emulate one another in the way they are generally straight or with very consistent gentle curves?

Of course they do, and that alone may be interesting too and perhaps something that could be considered something of a natural emulation except for the fact the top line of the shore on the other side of the river is essentially formed by water and not land.
Or is it??

See what I mean?

(As for the straight line of the land below the trees on the near side of the river I can not say).


This is all interesting stuff. Was Macdonald and Raynor aware of all those "lines" over there as far as the eye could see when they did what they did at Sleepy Hollow?

That's probably part of the question. And, if they didn't do that at all or didn't even notice or didn't even care, that's also probably part of the question!  

To me, none of this is negative and I don't intend it to be that way. I just think it's all very interesting, and particularly recognizing the vast differences in "LOOK" and aesthetics between that photo and other styles of architecture.

I guess the ultimate question always needs to be---Do you like it? Do golfers like that look? But I think the question for this board is do they recognize how different these styles and their "looks" and aesthetics can be or really are from the "look" and aesthetics of other types and styles of architecture?

[Mike Sweeney]

Just so others are clear, Bill is showing the second hole a par 4 short uphill hole, and Wayne is talking/showing about the Short Par 3 16th hole.

The greens are next to one another, but other than being in the same state........ However, I am enjoying this!!

As a compromise of both positions, may I offer the 5th hole at Sleepy?

[JESII]

Just so others are clear, Bill is showing the second hole a par 4 short uphill hole, and Wayne is talking/showing about the Short Par 3 16th hole.

The greens are next to one another, but other than being in the same state........ However, I am enjoying this!!

As a compromise of both positions, may I offer the 5th hole at Sleepy?

Now that's funny...

[Bill Brightly]

Tom,,
Geeze, just when I have Wayne on the run, you come to the rescue with a reasoned response! He got himself into this mess, let HIM get himself out!

I actually agree wholeheartedly with your "Big World" theory. I think it is fascinating where the other architects went after Macdonald invented the artform we now call golf course acrhitecture. He and Raynor (and later Banks) went one way, while Tilly, Ross, Flynn and Strong, etc. went in other directions. (I think Strong kept some Macdonald elements, such as the Biarritz he built a Saucon Valley.) I think its great that architecture evolved. I also think it is fascinating how well the MacRaynors have held up over time.

Banks is almost a sympathetic figure in my eyes. The guy was an Englis professor by training, had about two years experience working with Raynor before Raynor died, and then finished about 20 projects over the next 4 years on his own before the Depression comes along and he was out of business (in the Unites States.) So OF COURSE he building templates! It was his only shot at keeping the contracts with clubs that wanted Raynor, and of getting new business from clubs that wanted that style. Putting architecture aside, he HAD tremendous business reasons not to attempt a change in style. But he did try to put his stamp on the templates; I think he went a little deeper and wider with his bunkers. So while I think he went a little too far on some holes, rather than be critical of him, I am somewhat amazed at how many great holes he built given his limited experience.

[JESII]

Wayne,

JUst one question and then I'll duck back out...is your problem with this style the non-natural appearance? Is it that you feel an opportunity might have been lost due to a need to conform to the need to build an imitation (we might call it An Homage)? Or is it some of both?

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

You are mistaken.  I am not in any mess.  Once again, this is only a matter of opinion.  Why would my opinion of Raynor's style get me into a mess?  OK, I look at it in a negative way and Tom Paul embraces it for what it is and you are very positive about it.  Our reactions may differ but the cause of those reactions is in common and that is a highly manufactured style.  If not on all sides on one or more at any rate.  Pat Mucci won't even admit that it is manufactured in appearance.  That makes one wonder.

I was mistaken until your previous post and thought one photograph was a side view of another.  They are both engineered looking, one from all angles and another, from one side at least.  This egregious error (in your view) doesn't change the fact that Raynor in general elected not to hide his handiwork and went with an engineered look using lines and planes that do not harmonize with nature.  In fact, it demonstrates the repeated use of his of his highly engineered design practices that are overt from one angle or more.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Just one reply and then I'll join you in the ducking out.  I find his use of templates (many of which don't fit into the surrounds at all) a narrow form of expression which is more craft than art. However, it is outstanding in its craftsmanship.  I find his lack of evolution curious and very unusual in an art form.  

Pat asked me to answer whether there was design evolution by Flynn, Ross, Colt and others.  I'm sure he knows the answer but disregards it to make his point that it is no concern that Raynor and Banks did not, certainly to the extent nearly everyone else did in any case.  It is easy to figure out that other architects did evolve their styles and Raynor and Banks were unusual in that regard.  

Ross started out with abrupt green pads with squared-off corners to his greens. He gradually evolved into lobed corners and then complex outlines.  He also evolved into tying in his green sites with more fill with more natural angles.  Flynn evolved by using offset fairways and greens that created diagonals which caused golfers to consider line and distance considerations on tee and approach shots.  He began to develop a wider range of bunker styles, different grasses and construction techniques, used a terrific sense of perception and perspective to make diagonals seem perpendicular, to foreshorten distances and to hide landing areas behind raised bunker lines that tied in with other bunkers on the hole and elsewhere on the course.  MacKenzie did this as well.

I also believe that templates limit artistic freedom and cannot in anyway be liberating to an artist.  Intuitively, I think this affected routings.  Did Macdonald choose the land he did for NGLA when better land was available, because the templates he used fit it better?  

I also would like to hear from superintendents.  Are the man-made features with abrupt angles, flat bottom bunkers and steep slopes that are not tied in using angles found in nature harder or more expensive to maintain than more natural looking features?

[john_stiles]

Bill,

An intetesting question for George Bahto would be how many Raynor routings or plans were left for Banks to use when Raynor died unexpectedly.  And did he change much or anything ?

At Lookout Mountain (1925/1926),  Banks was left with a Raynor routing and by inspection of the plan and course, Banks didn't deviate one bit from the Raynor plan in the routing or placement of the greens.  Hence Lookout Mountain was the most expensive to build after Yale and Lido.

Raynor's routing on the rolling and hilly terrain left Banks to do nothing but create the large fill pads for several greens.

Raynor's use of templates wasn't limited by much, certainly  not by the terrain, and in many cases, not even by money.

We will see how much Flynn evolved when Wayne's book is out.  I wonder if he evolved an acceptable amount for you ?  


Wayne,

Get that book out soon as I don't want to pay for it in Euros or that Chinese currency.

[wsmorrison]

John,

The guy who is editing the book is not returning my calls or emails.  He's either too busy editing or since he isn't getting paid, simply gave up.  I wish I knew    

Unfortunately, I suspect he hasn't started doing anything yet.

[TEPaul]

"Tom,,
Geeze, just when I have Wayne on the run, you come to the rescue with a reasoned response! He got himself into this mess, let HIM get himself out!"

Bill:

Is that what you're trying to do here---get Wayne Morrison on the run?

If so, don't bother. Since he's my Pissboy, I'm the one to get him running, not you.

Wayne, what in the hell is a Pissboy anyway? Does it have something to do with one of the movies of that crazy-cap Mel Brooks?

[wsmorrison]

Yes, it is Mel Brooks at his funniest.  You are Count de Money and I am the piss boy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGAgu6zI9v0

[Bill Brightly]

John,

It is an interesting question. I know Banks finished Fishers Island after Raynor died in 1926.

I believe that my course, Hackensack, may have been Banks' first solo effort. (I just spent a day going through our old minutes.) Raynor died in January of 1926, and we made the decision to move from the City of Hackensack (9 hole Bendelow course) to Oradell in August of 1926. We interviewed architects to review the site of the Kiderkamack Club in Oradell, and hired Banks in November of "26.

I had a theory that perhaps Raynor routed our course in 1925, but it appears that was not the case. No mention of Raynor, other than a memo from the Grounds Chairman describing Banks' qualifications in his recommendation to the board.

There is no question that he relied heavily on the templates. But I really think he did a superb job of fitting the templates on our property, which is an excellent one for a golf course. The Redan is superb, and if the floor of the Redan bunker not been raised over the years, I'd rank this hole right with Piping Rock.

We found a scratchy old movie of the course being built. There is a picture of the Short Hole green being constructed, and behind the green is steep drop off (a natural one, Wayne ) and you can see the huge Oradell Reservoir in the distance. The view is amazingly similar to the view from Sleepy Hollow's Short which overlooks the Hudson. There are too many trees around the reservoir now, but I have to believe Banks was inspired by SH when he routed this hole at HGC.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I only have a second and then I have to run, but, I'll be back on Tues or Wed.

I can answer the maintainance question for you.

FLAT BOTTOM BUNKERS ARE EASIER TO MAINTAIN

Unless the bunkers are in a location with zero gravity and no rainfall.

I'll be bach !

P.S.

Sean Arble,

How many Raynor courses have you PLAYED ?
How many Bank's courses have you PLAYED ?

Tommy Naccarato,

Thanks,

I've already stated that the inherent nature of the "short" hole dictates that it be constructed.

It's essentially a skimmed off, steep volcano surounded by a moat of sand with interesting internal contours in the putting surface.

It was in 1911 and remains today, a wonderful test for a short iron, recovery and putting skills.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Try to understand that nobody is challenging the fact that the Short hole design is not a test for a short iron, recovery and putting skills.  Nor am I, as the harshest critic, saying the courses aren't enjoyable or tests of golf.

When you mention, "It's essentially a skimmed off, steep volcano surounded by a moat of sand with interesting internal contours in the putting surface." you use terms that are not found in nature like a "skimmed off steep volcano" and completely man-made:  "moat."  Can you admit that they are engineered looking and naturally do not tie into their surrounds naturally?  Macdonald had interesting contours in his Short holes.  Raynor and Banks used geometric forms that look utterly out of place on a golf course.  Those horseshoes and bathtubs looks more at home on a miniature golf course.

Though they are interesting to play, they are engineered in appearance.  If you can admit that, your state of denial will be at last be at an end  

[Jim_Kennedy]

Wayne, "
Can you admit that they are engineered looking and naturally do not tie into their surrounds naturally"-WMorrison

The world is filled with 'engineered' landscapes, some more abrupt than others:  




Do you really think that the 'short' hole at SH doesn't fit into its environs, up against Nature's very engineered Catskill plateau?  
Again, why do we consistently see 10 or 11 or 12 or more MacRayBanks in the top 100 classic courses? Something about the architecture rings true, it may be it's relationship with the macro environment, it may be the sense of boldness that's implied, the routing, the extended challenge, etc.; its exclusivity has little, if any, bearing on the answer.        

[mark chalfant]

Jim:   good point

Raynor and Banks were both masters  of routing golf holes,regardless  if property was mild or  more bold terrain.
To be fixated of a few of their standard holes  is tenuous at best.  #3,6,and 9 at Camargo are not templates, yet excellent. The routings at Shoreacres, Whippoorwill  and seldom heralded Rock Spring, NJ are all outstanding uses of terrain.


Same holds true for Fishers island, Tamarack and Essex County (10-18). I caddied at Shinnecock for  4 seasons and during my 250+ walks there #17 never appeared as an artisitic epiphany. The picture posted here is beautiful , but an objective analysis would include  a side /profile view `

[Patrick_Mucci]

Try to understand that nobody is challenging the fact that the Short hole design is not a test for a short iron, recovery and putting skills.  Nor am I, as the harshest critic, saying the courses aren't enjoyable or tests of golf.

When you mention, "It's essentially a skimmed off, steep volcano surounded by a moat of sand with interesting internal contours in the putting surface." you use terms that are not found in nature like a "skimmed off steep volcano" and completely man-made:  "moat."  

Wayne,

While the terms are not found in nature, the features are.

Instead of "moat" I could have used canal, rivulet, stream or a number of terms connoting features found in nature.

"Skimmed off steep volcanos" are found world wide and quite natural.[/color]

Can you admit that they are engineered looking and naturally do not tie into their surrounds naturally?  

It depends upon the setting, their surrounds.
They look no less natural than # 7 at Shinnecock.[/color]

Macdonald had interesting contours in his Short holes.  Raynor and Banks used geometric forms that look utterly out of place on a golf course.  Those horseshoes and bathtubs looks more at home on a miniature golf course.

That's where we disagree.
The internal contouring is a critical design element in the putting surface, one that serves a critical function.

Based on the holes that I've personally experienced I haven't seen "geometric forms that look utterly out of place"

One of the things that you and others overlook in the context of style, and remaining within the confines of that style, is the DEMAND for that style.

Why would you want to alter or evolve a "style" that was in great demand ?  Put another way, if it ain't broke, why fix it ?

The works of Raynor and Banks were in great demand.
The golfing world recognized the product, understood the product and wanted the product.

If a client wants your "Brand", your "Identity", "YOUR PRODUCT", why on earth would you give them what they DIDN'T want ?

Banks was involved with about 20 courses and Raynor about 45 courses.  Raynor died at 51, having only been in the architecture business for less than 15 years.  Banks died at 48, having only been in the architecture business for less than 10 years.

In those short cycles it's pretty difficult to have an evolving style, wouldn't you agree ?

Flynn was an architect for about 36 years, that's a far longer span, one that would lend itself to evolving, wouldn't you agree ?[/color]

Though they are interesting to play, they are engineered in appearance.  

Only certain holes have an engineered appearance.
If you ever get a chance to play The Knoll or Essex County, do so, you'll be surprised at how natural those courses look.

The fact that they remain interesting, fun and challenging to play is a testament to their architectural merit.[/color]

If you can admit that, your state of denial will be at last be at an end  

Why would I want it to end ?  [/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()