Template Course

[JC Jones]

The 1925 manifesto thread has lead me to a place im not sure i want to be.

Does the fact that knock on the classical (national) school is that the holes are "template" holes, affect your anticipation for/respect of/desire to play, Old MacDonald?

In essence, isnt this a purely template course?

Maybe I am misinterpreting or misunderstanding the project.  But, if I'm not, how does this affect your pre-conceived notions of the end product?

Moreover, is TD deligitimizing the "minimalist" movement by creating such a "template" course?  

[Matthew Hunt]

The interesting thing about Tom Doak is the fact that (correct me if I’m wrong Tom please) that he counts as his two biggest influences  MacDonald and Mackenzie which are very far apart as far as design strategies go. I feel this is a good thing and if look at history all good music steams from people who’s own interest in music is quite diverse. In my view Tom ‘style’ until now although unique, has more accurately reflected the Mackenzie side of the equation. I look forward to seeing the results in the Bandon links but I can’t help wondering will a similar success as at Pacific Dunes spur a revival of template holes in the future and will this be good or bad for the Art of Golf Course Architecture?

[John Moore II]

I do not think a template course is bad, always. If the holes you are using as templates are great holes than the course can be quite interesting. World Tour Links in Myrtle Beach is interesting, and its all a combination of holes from different courses in the world and America. Bears Best Atlanta was very nice as well, it take Nicklaus holes from all over and makes them into one course. NGLA is also a template course. In theory the course could be good, even great, as long as the right holes/templates are used.  Now if its made with not so great holes, then it will probably wind up rather stupid. I have nothing against "template" courses though.

[Tom_Doak]

JC:  I am not sure "delegitimizing" is a real word but if it is, you should spell it correctly.

I've heard several times before that I am not a "true" minimalist because I've done a couple of jobs like The Legends and The Rawls Course.  I don't know where I signed something that says I have to take that approach to every project, including the ones which aren't conducive to it.  I think I've demonstrated by bona fides on the subject and should be free to build whatever the job requires.

If I've learned anything from The Legends and The Rawls Course, it's that I should have been even bolder in the earthmoving department.  We will put that thought to use at Old Macdonald.  But, the good news is that we have natural features to tie into this time, so even when I'm doing more, you may not be able to tell so easily.  The new seventh green location may be the first case in point.

I do not think of Old Macdonald as a "template" course, in fact, far from it.  We are committed to using most of the same strategies for golf holes that Mr. Macdonald brought back from overseas.  How we do that is up to us.  I guarantee you that nobody will mistake this course as having been built by Seth Raynor.

[JC Jones]

JC:  I am not sure "delegitimizing" is a real word but if it is, you should spell it correctly.

I've heard several times before that I am not a "true" minimalist because I've done a couple of jobs like The Legends and The Rawls Course.  I don't know where I signed something that says I have to take that approach to every project, including the ones which aren't conducive to it.  I think I've demonstrated by bona fides on the subject and should be free to build whatever the job requires.

If I've learned anything from The Legends and The Rawls Course, it's that I should have been even bolder in the earthmoving department.  We will put that thought to use at Old Macdonald.  But, the good news is that we have natural features to tie into this time, so even when I'm doing more, you may not be able to tell so easily.  The new seventh green location may be the first case in point.

I do not think of Old Macdonald as a "template" course, in fact, far from it.  We are committed to using most of the same strategies for golf holes that Mr. Macdonald brought back from overseas.  How we do that is up to us.  I guarantee you that nobody will mistake this course as having been built by Seth Raynor.

Tom D:

My hope/guess is that you were not attempting to delegitimize my questions by pointing out my typographical error!

I have never seen a CBM course, I have never seen a Raynor course.  My questions were not intended to question whether Old MacDonald will be a good course (I am certain it will be great, in fact I'm delaying my next Bandon trip until it opens).  

The questions were intended to draw responses from the likes of Wayne Morrison etc. who openly admit to enjoying a course that "takes what the land gives them" vs a course that uses a template (i.e. National/Post-Classical school).

I dont think you've signed anything that says you have to design any course in any fashion, in fact, you're probably at the point now where the exact opposite is true.

The question is whether a course that is using the strategies of a "template course" builder can still be or will be considered minimalist?  Or, whether that matters at all.

Also, your statement re the making of features that arent natural to look natural reminds me of Dr. M's comments re Alwoodey.  (Another course I havent seen).

I'm still learning what CBM's strategies were, Im still learning what minimalism is, that is the point of why I am here and my questions, to learn your thoughts and others thoughts on how something that appears, on its face to be incongruent (i.e. a "minimalist" architect doing a course modeled after a "template" course builder) can make sense in this crazy world of GCA, which has overtaken my life.  

[Michael Dugger]

I am sure Tom will blast me to pieces if I don't sum this up correctly, but it seems the use of "template" in the context of gca seems to imply something far different than what it really is.

In a sense, almost every golf hole has roots in a template of some nature.  It posit only those "concepts" which have not yet been built are exceptions to this rule.

What I mean by that is what necessarily makes a redan a redan?  At the heart of the matter you take a green, turn it at a forty five, guard it in the front and ask the player to hit a running draw.

There are numerous variations on the theme.....do you bunker it back, how deep are the fronting bunkers, does it play uphill, downhill, etc.....

Yet what I outlined is the heart of the matter.  A green on a forty five bunkered front captures the "essence" of the redan.

That's all MacRaynor did at NGLA.  No redan is truly identical.  They did not stamp out golf holes on an assembly line.

And I'm sure that's what Tom is doing at Old Macdonald.  Applying time tested design concepts to the land.  For the sake of understanding, somebody a long time ago gave these concepts names.  

[Norbert P]

 . . . We are committed to using most of the same strategies for golf holes that Mr. Macdonald brought back from overseas.  . . .  I guarantee you that nobody will mistake (Old Macdonald) as having been built by Seth Raynor.

 IMHO, Those are very reassuring statements about the land being designed with. I think my blood pressure just dropped 20 points.

[TEPaul]

JC Jones:

My God but haven't you asked some good and really pointed questions recently? Frankly, I never exactly thought of Bandon's or Keiser's Old Macdonald the way you couched it, even being aware of Tom Doak's apparent inclination, stated by him on here a number of times, as not wanting to get into template or "copy" holes.

I don't know how to weigh in on this thread. If I do and no matter how I do, it will probably piss somebody off.

No matter, I'll weigh in tomorrow!  

I love the honesty and bluntness of this website and it's getting better and more so all the time!

Should it be any other way?

[Jim_Kennedy]

JC,
A wise man once wrote: http://www.renaissancegolf.com/essays.asp?e=minman  

You wrote that you have yet to play a CBM/SR/CB course, and also that you were: ....still learning what CBM's strategies were, Im still learning what minimalism is, that is the point of why I am here and my questions, to learn your thoughts and others thoughts on how something that appears, on its face to be incongruent (i.e. a "minimalist" architect doing a course modeled after a "template" course builder) can make sense in this crazy world of GCA, which has overtaken my life

I think that you will be surprised at how well those 'templates' have been used by CBM and Raynor and Banks. You can get some idea of this by having a look at Ran's photos of their work in the 'Courses By Country' section.
At a course like Yale, the fairways themselves are 'natural hazards' in many cases. You will get a 'variety of stances'. Your 'shotmaking' skills will be called upon and you won't find much that could be called 'flat' on any of the greens. There was definitely some earth moved but not for frivolous reasons  It is definitely a worthwhile 'challenge' and one where the modern concept of 'fairness' seems meaningless.

 

 

[JC Jones]

Thanks for that link Jim.

Clarification:  I'm not saying CBM/SR/CB didnt use those templates well.  Nor did I say that the courses they made werent good.  I've studied many of the pictures and read many books/articles and I have no doubt the courses they made are good if not great if not amazing.  I can think of only a couple of courses I'd rather play right now than NGLA.  

Again, my intent is not to criticize template courses, I have not developed an opinion yet.  My intent is to try and figure all of this out the best I can.

On to your link; its been a while since I've read that essay, I love that essay.  Here are a couple more things from that essay I found relevant:

"The minimalist's objective is to route as many holes as possible whose main features already exist in the landscape, and accent their strategies without overkilling the number of hazards. Sometimes, though, the best solution for the course as a whole may require major earthmoving on a handful of holes to connect the others. That's minimalism, too. And the key to success in those instances is to move enough earth to make the artificial work appear natural, not to move as little as possible."

These questions remain:

Does imposing templates on the land coincide with "rout(ing) as many holes as possible whose main features already exist in the landscape?"

Restated, does approaching a piece of land with the holes already pre-determined, whether they exist naturally or not, still count as "minimalism."

I read the above paragraph as saying this:

Show up with no pre-conceived/template holes, see what the land gives you, build the rest of the holes around the holes that are already "on the ground" and make them look like the ones that were already "on the ground."

Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but that is how I read it.  I could very easily be wrong, and I'd be the first to admit it.  

My little knowledge of "Old MacDonald" leads me to believe that it will be a combination of the above.  Yes they showed up with some CBM templates, but several of those holes were already out there, without any earthmoving required (i.e. natural redan, eden, etc.).  So 8-9 CBM holes (not that CBM "created" those holes but those were templates he used) were already on the ground and TD and his crew are going to "create" the other 9-10 and make them all blend "harmoniously" and those of use without any "inside" knowledge will go out there, have the time of our lives and not ever know which ones he "built" and which ones he "found."

Is that minimalism, is that post-classical or is that Tom Doak-ism (a mix of CBM and Dr M)?  I dont know.  I'd like someone to help me figure it out though.

[Bill Brightly]

Obviously, Tom Doak can answer this question better than anyone since he is building Old Macdonald. But from what I know about the templates and what I am learning about minimalism, I do not think the two are mutually exclusive. I think a skilled minimalist architect can use the templates and build a great course.

I think it probably requires a lot more routing skill and thought. If you believe that the land will dictate certain holes or green complexes, the architect may have to ignore his first impressions and rather, look at the land for the best possible routing of templates (not the "natural" hole that he might otherwise have "seen".)

I could see that being a difficult task, one that might be occasionally frustrating to Tom and his team. I wonder if he felt constrained?

I wonder if the location of the 18 green complexes would have been the same in either case, with only the hole types changing?

To the extent that is true, then I think Old Macdonald would fit in well with a minimalist approach. But if the templates have to be forced upon the land, it would not.

One thing we all seem to agree with is that template features make a great playing field for the game of golf. Even the most ardent naturalist and critic of Raynor's "engineered style" will admit that the courses present fun golf shots. So if a Macdonald course can be built in a minimalist style, won't we have the best of both schools?

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:  I sure hope your first paragraph is correct because that's our objective.  But, I want it to be clear that we are not trying to make Old Macdonald a "minimalist" course.  I just don't think we are wedded to the square-cornered, engineered look of Raynor's construction.  Some of our aesthetic may seep through into the design, but in truth, I think minimalism is more of an approach to design, rather than a style or a "look" as my friend Jack Nicklaus wanted to characterize it.

Sure, there were a couple of places in the routing scheme for Old Macdonald where I was afraid we were trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.  I am happy to say that we made those go away on my visit last week by changing around the routing a bit -- all of which was inspired by trying to figure out the best spot for a halfway house with an ocean view!  I won't say any more about that for now, though, the rest is a surprise.

I don't think there is any difference between the "minimalist" approach to routing and the one C.B. Macdonald used, other than C.B. had particular ideas that he was looking for on the ground, and on most projects I try to avoid that.  But if you can find a good place to build a Redan or a Biarritz with only a modicum of shaping, that's no different than what I normally do.   I'm sure the routing and some green locations would have been different if not for the Macdonald overlay, but whether that's a bad thing is for the jury to decide.  (For one example, I'd guess that I wouldn't have built the blind tee shot on the Sahara hole on my own design, and even if I'd wanted to, Mike Keiser might have said no -- but he'll allow Macdonald to do it!)

Holding a course to the Sand Hills ideal of "no shaping" is pretty unrealistic -- I've only built about ten greens like that in my career to date.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom D.,

I know certain people as well who speak to "minimalism" as a style or "look" rather than an approach to golf architecture; which is entirely wrong. These people don't see Winged Foot as "minimalist" in design, but characterize Whistling Straits as such simply because of the look of the bunkers there!

[Jim_Kennedy]

JC,
I didn't assume you were making any judgement about their courses, and my reply wasn't meant to imply that.

What I was trying to bring to the table was the idea that their use of favored stratagems doesn't seem forced onto the land, nor does it seem that they sacrificed something more appropriate by using the tools in their cabinet. Yes, there can be an engineered look to the work, but engineered and forced don't necessarily go hand in hand.

Maybe CB and co. were maximinimalists  

[Michael Dugger]

I am happy to say that we made those go away on my visit last week by changing around the routing a bit -- all of which was inspired by trying to figure out the best spot for a halfway house with an ocean view!  I won't say any more about that for now, though, the rest is a surprise.

You are going up into the dunes separating the ocean from the property, aren't ya!  

Sweet.

[TEPaul]

"....but engineered and forced don't necessarily go hand in hand."


JimK:

Don't they?

Maybe, that's the brunt of the problem I'm having with this entire philosophical debate about the differences of an "engineered" look in golf architecture compared to a truly "natural" look in golf architecture.

To me an "engineered" look is pretty much the antithesis of a "natural" look and consequently looks to me to be forced on nature.

I'm certainly not saying I hate some kinds of an engineered or forced look on nature in architecture because I don't but to me the one is very very different from the other.

But that's me, I appreciate "difference".

[Jim_Kennedy]

TomP
I appreciate difference too, but I guess I have less of a philosophical problem than you in accepting an engineered look.  I see it as an equally honest approach to architecture, no less valid than the natural approach.
This, to me,.....


......does not seem forced, yet there's no mistaking the engineering at the tee or at the green.