Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?

[TEPaul]

"I think he gets ranked too high because I think people tend to forget that the template holes he built weren't his idea."



BobC:

Apparently you aren't aware of Raynor's "Lion's Mouth."

Absolutely awwwwwsome...GRRRRrrrrrrrr....WOOOoooofph....MUUUuuunnncchh  

[Thomas MacWood]

Anthony
Are there any specific M & R courses you don't like or understand?

[Donnie Beck]

If you clowns played a few Raynor/Macdonald's you wouldn't ask such stupid questions.. No two holes play exactly the same.. Different Topography.. Different Vistas.. Different soils... If you bothered to look at their use of topography to create angles and lines of play you wouldn't ask why they are considered great but rather why haven't more architects followed their example..

[DMoriarty]

If a modern architect copied the same holes on every course we would tear him/her apart.

I don't even know what to say about all the MacDonald/Raynor replica holes and courses.  At this point, the copies of the copies should probably be acceptable due to the humor.  Maybe the template holes have become the way by which architects compare themselves.  Everyone try to make a Redan and then we can all debate whose is better. 

Contrary to popular legend Macdonald and Raynor were two different people.  

What were Macdonald's "replica courses?"

For that matter, of Macronald's existing work, what holes were exact copies?  Of what?

What are the copies at NGLA?  Sleepy Hollow? Piping Rock? Mid-Ocean?

Are all of CBM's Redan's the same?

Most have built a redan but there is very little debate about which North American Redan is the best.

[Bill Brightly]

OK Anthony, I will try to explain it to you. (Even though I know this will re-awaken Wayne... and I am still exhausted from the last time we had this discussion...)

The templates were modeled after the best holes, or best parts of holes,  in Europe. There were no great courses in America when NGLA was built, so there were certainly no "styles" for architects. Macdonald developed his own style, which was to build template holes on great pieces of property. And the results were STUNNING! He blew away all the other golf courses in the US, and that in turn, gave rise to a demand for more great courses.

Macdonald became in great demand, as did his protogee Raynor and later Banks. They built private clubs for members who WANTED THAT STYLE.

While template holes may have been used, the land on which these holes were built varied greatly. They are NOT the same holes! I challenge you to play Fishers Island and say you are bored by the holes...

And they are great, classic holes. People loved the courses then and still love them now. Rather than use a simplistic criticism, most people choose to be amazed at how well the style has withstood the test of time.

So Tilly and Ross and Flinn and others also benefited from the great demand for better courses as the game grew in popularity and people saw what was possible. They each developed their own style and built great courses.

It is also silly to say Macdonald and Raynor built only templates, while Tilly etal all never repeated themselves, and built unique features every time a shovel hit the ground...

I find it kind of silly to look back in 2008, after golf course architcture has developed into an artform, and somehow be critical of the use of templates 100 years ago.

As I see it, the minimalist style (which I also love) was a natural progression from the use of templates. So yes, Anthony, if an architect built only templates today he would be roundly criticized. But to do so now shows a lack of understanding and appreciation for the history of GCA.

But go ahead, Wayne, knock yourself out...

[Phil_the_Author]

Anthony,

You cite #4 on Bethpage Black as a hole you would like to see serve as a template for others.

As I posted on another thread, tilly did not generally like the use of templates; he was, though, a believer in hole styles that he liked, and the 4th at BB is one of these. It is a classic double-dogleg (just look from overhead and its clear). It is a right to left, right to left hole.

The reason Tilly liked Double Dogleg's is because they maximized the use of angles and shot values. They also could greatly vary and so it is not uncommon to find holes that run right-left-right on the same course as ones that run left-right-left.

As on the 4th at BB, just as that runs right-left-left, there are others that run left-right-right and every conceivable combination of those two turns made in a alrge or slight way on a single hole. It is a fabulous "style" rather than a template and certainly is one that is applied individually by site rather than by demand that a "redan" (for example) be placed upon a golf course.

[Anthony Fowler]

OK Anthony, I will try to explain it to you. (Even though I know this will re-awaken Wayne... and I am still exhausted from the last time we had this discussion...)

The templates were modeled after the best holes, or best parts of holes,  in Europe. There were no great courses in America when NGLA was built, so there were certainly no "styles" for architects. Macdonald developed his own style, which was to build template holes on great pieces of property. Ane the results were STUNNING! He blew away all the other golf courses in the US, and that in turn, gave rise to a demand for more great courses.

Macdonald became in great demand, as did his protogee Raynor and later Banks. They built private clubs for members who WANTED THAT STYLE.

While template holes may have been used, the land on which these holes were built varied greatly. They are NOT the same holes! I challenge you to play Fishers Island and say you are bored by the holes...

And they are great, classic holes. People loved the courses then and still love them now. Rather than use a simplistic criticism, most people choose to be amazed at how well the style has withstood the test of time.

So Tilly and Ross and Flinn and others also benefited from the great demand for better courses as the game grew in popularity and people saw what was possible. They each developed their own style and built great courses.

It is also silly to say Macdonald and Raynor built only templates, while Tilly etal all never repeated themselves, and built unique features every time a shovel hit the ground...

I find it kind of silly to look back in 2008, after golf course architcture has developed into an artform, and somehow be critical of the use of templates 100 years ago.

As I see it, the minimalist style (which I also love) was a natural progression from the use of templates. So yes, Anthony, if an architect built only templates today he would be roundly criticized. But to do so now shows a lack of understanding and appreciation for the history of GCA.

But go ahead, Wayne, knock yourself out...

Hi Bill,

Thank you for the very thorough and well thought out reply.  There is no doubt that they executed their "style" well, created courses that pleased their clients, and created demand for more courses.  For all of these things CBM, SR, and CB deserve their due.  Your point about other classic architects repeating concepts is valid, but nobody else came close to their extent.   

From a philosophical point I don't like the notion that one would come to a beautiful site and "build" the holes he wants there instead of using the intricacies of the site to create new hole concepts.   

You concede that architects today would be rebuked for this approach, but you say that this is simply the evolution of great architecture.  I am willing to partially buy this argument, but I am not willing to fully handicap CBM just because he came earlier.  We can respect him for being a revolutionary in the game without listing him as one of the greatest ever.  Haydn and Muddy Waters revolutionized music at their respective times but most don't consider their talents as equal to Beethoven and The Beatles, respectively (I am simply using this as an example and am not trying to start a music debate).  If you carry your argument to fruition, CBM deserves his place in history as a great predecessor, but not one of the few greatest architects.

Thanks again for the wonderful reply.  I do find it informative and compelling, but I must respectfully disagree on these few points.

Anthony

[Jim_Kennedy]

Anthony,
This is why many try to stay way from such discussions. It just became clear in your last post that you weren't hear to add anything new, or learn something that might influence your decision, you just wanted to mentally masturbate in front of a crowd.

I'm not impressed.

[Bill Brightly]

Anthony,

There is also another way to look at this. I have been fascinated by the places on each course that Macdonald, Raynor and Banks chose to build certain templates. My theory is that they first located the best locations for their par 3's. For example, the Short at Sleepy Hollow overlooks the Hudson River, and at first glance, it looks like a shot that flies the green will run down to the River! (Not really, but your attention is invariably drawn to the river.) And 20 years later Banks would place his Short at Hackensack overlooking the Oradell Reservoir. (And by coincedence, the backside of the cliff of the Hudson River.)

I have no doubt that the sites were scouted for the best place for a Redan. And why not?  Redans are fabulous holes and golfers LOVE to play them. As someone else said above, these guys were building playing fields for golfers, not painting pictures for art critics. Take away the Redan from a MacRaynor and it is a worse golf course.

Critics of MacRaynors simply assume that since templates were used, it is a given that the "best possible use of the land" is ruled out. It is a cute argument because it can be neither proved nor disproved. But I look at it this way: if in fact CB SR and CB were "limited" by templates, they did an amazing job on each piece of property because the courses that they came up with are still loved today. They could not simply allow the land to dictate every hole, they had to figure out the best use of the land with respect to the placement of templates. I'm sure Tom Doak and the team can respond better as to which is harder: follow the land or follow the templates, but each style surely presents routing challenges.

But the one thing templates assured was 18 excellent golf holes, and that is what you get on a MacRaynor.

[Anthony Fowler]

Anthony,
This is why many try to stay way from such discussions. It just became clear in your last post that you weren't hear to add anything new, or learn something that might influence your decision, you just wanted to mentally masturbate in front of a crowd.

I'm not impressed.

Jim, this is pretty harsh, and I hope that none of it is true, although it clearly seems that way to you.

I only hoped to add by asking what I viewed was a fair question: would we be as easy on a modern architect for doing the same thing?  The best answer thus far has been Bill's, saying that no we would not but since MacDonald came at a bleak time, we should cut him some slack.  Some have essentially argued that the execution was so good and the end products were so good that we shouldn't care, which is fine.

I have learned from a few of the posts and I hope that can continue.  I would love to hear more about the angles and lines of play that Donnie described.  Can you provide and explain some good examples?

There was no intention of impressing you or masturbating, but once I have been accused of excreting two different bodily fluids on the same thread, I think it's time to take a break. 

[Mark_Rowlinson]

What is it allowable to replicate (Redan, Road Hole, Alps) and what is plagiarism? I come back to my point about Fowler - he didn't seem to replicate himself.

[Bill_McBride]

If you clowns played a few Raynor/Macdonald's you wouldn't ask such stupid questions.. No two holes play exactly the same.. Different Topography.. Different Vistas.. Different soils... If you bothered to look at their use of topography to create angles and lines of play you wouldn't ask why they are considered great but rather why haven't more architects followed their example..

Couldn't agree more!  I've played the National, the Creek, Yale, Mid-Ocean and Mountain Lake, and walked Chicago.  Each is different, each is wonderful in its own way.  It's all in how the template hole fits on that particular piece of property.  Each of those holes has a Redan, no two are alike.  That's true of them all.  These are among the highest regarded courses in the country, and it's not just because Macdonald and/or Raynor designed them.

However, I'm not calling all of you clowns.  Just some of you. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Anthony,
If I was a bit harsh (and knowing myself  I probably was) and it bothered you I apologize, but I am in perfect harmony with Donnie Beck's sentiment: "If you clowns played a few Raynor/Macdonald's you wouldn't ask such stupid questions" (I think you could insert several other architect's name's into this declaration).

[wsmorrison]

There are a number of courses where the template holes were forced into the routing and shaped well above the natural grade and features of their surroundings.  Now, I am not trying to say that these aren't excellent clubs, solid courses and fun shots.  But you tell me how various holes at Fox Chapel, CC Charleston, St. Louis CC, Sleepy Hollow, Lookout Mountain, Westhampton (3rd and 7th) and even Yeaman's Hall (13th) and the Creek Club (17th) harmonize with their surrounds and don't look very out of place.  If Macdonald was somewhat natural in style, especially between the tee and green, Raynor was much less so and Banks even less so than Raynor with Forsgate a solid example of fun but anti-naturalism in design.

I believe many of those that revere Raynor and Banks courses (Macdonald was far more original and had a more natural style--though many of his greensites were poorly tied into the surrounds...he seemed to not care that much) enjoy the strength of those courses, interesting shots and prime sites.  The aesthetics, save for NGLA, are poor in my eyes.  It is a subjective analysis and just an opinion.  There is no right or wrong.  I just don't get why more people don't object to the aesthetics of Raynor and Banks courses.  Of course no two holes or templates are alike, but come on...nothing else would do in their locations?  Most of us are not architects.  Most of us are talking out are asses when we think we know something is brilliantly routed.  We know we like the course and it sounds like we know what we're talking about when we comment on routings.  How many of us non-architects actually spent time trying to route?  I know Tom Paul spent hundreds of hours doing so on several sites.  I did for many hours on two sites.  But we are kidding ourselves if we can look at a Raynor routing and really know if it can be improved upon or not.

I will ask the professional architects on this site a probing question.  Given that Macdonald had a a tremendous amount of land to consider placing his National Links course, did he choose the best spot?  Tom Doak will be particularly interesting to hear from since he knows the adjacent land and land available to Macdonald better than any of us by a large factor.  Did he compromise the best golf course he could have built because he found the right spots for some of his templates?  Could the existing land he built on be better routed if he had not insisted on templates and designed with a perfectly clean slate?

I know that Macdonald and Raynor provided us with excellent work, particularly Macdonald.  But I don't think Raynor is in the top tier because he is so compartmentalized (even though he didn't clone designs...they are not exactly alike) and with concepts that are not his own, even if they were only a fraction of hole concepts on each course.  What if Fisher's Island was completed and the bunker plan fully implemented?  How would it differ from what exists today?

[Donnie Beck]

  What if Fisher's Island was completed and the bunker plan fully implemented?  How would it differ from what exists today?

Wayne,

What bunker plan would that be I highly doubt he had intention of any more bunkers at Fishers. If you closely at the land on Fishers you will see that he used landforms in all the traditional location of cross bunkers. There are forced carries on every tee shot on fishers.
#1 160 carry over fescue to fwy. No need for addition cross bunkering on opening hole.
#2 redan no additional bunkers
#3 the greatest short par in the world IMO.. Look at the use of landform. AMAZING... 170 to carry into the fairway on the left side. The further right the tee ball the more the banking falls off creating longer carry to the preferred angle into the green. The use of land created the same effect as cross bunkering.
#4 190 carry to the elevated fairway. Again tee ball closest to the hazard on the right side of the hole creates the best angle into the green around the Alps and even affords a glimpse of the green with a properly hit tee shot.
#5 Biarritz No need for additional bunkering
#6 170 carry to left side of fairway 250 to top of the hill on right preferred flat landing zone. Again Brilliant use of land. The rolling nature of fairway no need for additional bunkering.
#7 160 or so carry over native rough down the hill to fwy pond on the right at 250 guarding best angle into angled green. (Again pond instead of bunker)
#8 is there a better example of the road hole. Carry the dunes on the right for the proper angle
#9 fwy bunker
#10 No bunkering at all.. and one of the toughest holes on the course. 170 or so carry over fecsue to fwy
#11 Eden
#12 190 carry up the hill into fwy.. Again land forms the bunker
#13 170 over waste area 220+ to get over the hill
#14 cape uses cove on the left side.. Closer you flirt with the pond the better the angle to green.
#15 190 carry to fwy
#16 short
#17 190 over pond to fwy
#18 absolutely brilliant shape of carry over the cove. Very similar to #3 shortest bail out to left about 190 carry right side falls away to the best angle in and carry is 230 plus.

I would find it hard to believe he intended on additional bunkering at Fishers.

[Tom_Doak]

Anthony:

Just curious -- have you ever played The National Golf Links of America?

If the answer is no, I'll forgive your question.

If the answer is yes, how can you say they weren't a pretty good team?

I agree with you they could have been more original.  That's why Macdonald got bored with it and referred the rest of the work to Raynor.

[Bill Brightly]

As Ronald Reagan would say, now there you go again Wayne...

I actually think Raynor was a superb router. Granted, I am no expert on routing, but his courses seem to have great variety of direction into, with and across the prevailing winds versus an up and back pattern. There is great use of the natural terrain in choosing where green complexes and tees should go. I think Banks came up short on doglegs, especially on my home course Hackensack (but he designed three on a third nine that sadly, never got built thanks to the Great Depression and the land was sold after WWII when the club was in financial difficulty...)

Raynor chose to use his engineering skills to fill wet areas and move dirt far more than others. But while a "naturalist" might take points off for this, an educated historian would recognize that Raynor was certainly in step with the times as the "Man conquers the environment" move was in full swing in the US. While Raynor was performing miracles building the Course at Yale, the astonishing New Hudson River Bridge (now called the George Washington Bridge) was in it's early stages.

To say Raynor "forced" many templates on the land is purley speculative, and also quite unfair. Every architect must "force" certain things on a golf course, the only question is a matter of degree. Once the architect selects a green site, isn't he "forced" to put the next tee with 50 yards or so of that green? The vast majority of courses have four par 3's "forced" onto the land, etc.

Wayne obviously prefers a naturalist approach where as little dirt as possible is moved. That is certainly a valid opinion and I can understand why some would give extra credit to architects who build in that style. I think it is cool that he has developed such a great eye. Perhaps Wayne would also prefer an artist who painted a pretty picture with very few strokes. But he should not feign surprise that most golfers do not care. Most golfers know a good golf hole when they play one. They really don't care how many mules were used during construction. And most golfers absolutely love the holes that Macdonald and Raynor built. Deal with it.

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

I respect your opinions and agree with many of them, including the concept of man over nature.  However, it needn't be mutually exclusive.  Cascades and Indian Creek are as manufactured as any golf course designed by Macdonald or Raynor, including Lido in the case of Indian Creek.  Experts have a hard time discerning what is natural and what is man-made at either Cascades (very hard to tell) or Indian Creek (which is completely man-made from 1" above sea level to 35'. 

Naturalism to me is not only using the natural features as much as possible but also making the man-made features (or architecture) look natural.  Minimalism is (for me anyway) using the natural features with as little man-made features as possible.  So don't think me a minimalist as per my definition.  Think of me as a naturalist according to my definition.  I welcome man-made features, I just don't want them drawing so much attention to themselves away from what should be a pastoral sense.

Have you seen CC Charleston?  Fox Chapel?  The other courses I mentioned?  If you think they don't have forced holes or holes for their own sake rather than fitting into a flow or a surround, then we do not have the basis for a discussion since we see things too differently.  Have you seen the short holes on nearly all the Raynor courses?  The Edens?  The Biarritz is about as artificial as possible in the way Raynor went about it...linear swale of consistent depth.  The swale at North Berwick is far more appealing.  The way Bobby Weed designed his variation of a Biarritz green at Glen Mills is brilliant in comparison to the geometric and artificiality of Raynor's versions, especially with those horrid flanking bunkers and occasional fronting bunkers...sorry, I know Hackensack has/had one like this.

If the Biarritz model as expressed by Raynor was so time tested, why are all of them maintained so differently today with green height cut both before and after the swale?  Why didn't Raynor vary the model presentation very much?  How did he miss the more interesting setup of green height before and after the swale?

I can deal with the way Raynor built his golf courses whenever I want.  I don't have to deal with it.  We've gone over this before, maybe I should step back and not bother or interrupt this thread any longer.

[TEPaul]

Wayno:

Don't get into an Internet fist fight with Donnie because he's a really good fellow and he's also a lot bigger than you and he will beat the tar outta you in a nanosecond unless you do something really disgusting and completely against the etiquette of gentlemanly pugilism like bite his ear off first.

Look, Wayno, I was going to save this for a very considered response to Anthony Fowler's initial question, but I think you need to understand a few things at this point.

First, you really do have a heightened sense and understanding of the importance and perhaps even subliminal satisfaction of what naturalism is and means in golf architecture and even if it's not used in the extreme how a good architect can blend in what he makes to get it to look like it sort of is real naturalism at least in a damn fine "fool the eye" sense (how many golfers actually go out off a green and pick up the obvious natural grades and then walk it in to see how well what was made ties in like we sometimes do? ). You know Pal, who knows and understands the real "Nature Faker" who could do that so well better than you do?

But second, and perhaps most importantly (and this is what I was going to get deep into with my considered response to Anthony Fowler), you have got to understand that many, many golfers, perhaps even most, may not like the look of naturalism at all. Matter of fact they may even enjoy the manufactured look of a style like Macd/Raynor more, particularly if a course plays as well as most all of theirs do.

Have you ever wondered why this may be so? Have you ever really considered perhaps the biggest dynamic of all in golf architecture, perhaps one of the biggest and most important dynamics of mankind---the dynamic of Man and Nature, the dynamic of Man against Nature which is fairly primal, the dynamic of man's struggle to survive in Nature, to overcome it, to conquer and control it all in furtherance of the primal goal of instinctual survival, and then perhaps dominance which is uniquely human?

If this be the case, and of course it is, is it any wonder why Man may actually glory in the things he makes and that look like he made them? Isn't this THE instinctual or even subliminal contest with Nature to prove he's got what it takes to be dominant over all things he can see and touch and even imagine?

I do realize this makes one of the most important premises of Maxie Baby Behr pretty wrong because the last eighty years since he wrote what he did about the everlasting importance of extreme naturalism in golf has probably proven wrong his hope and wish and belief that all golfers should and probably would demand extreme naturalism in golf architecture. I think it's pretty certain to say the last eighty years has proven that a very large slice of them really don't care about that, and the most frightening of all is very many may actually like the other more for the very reasons I just outlined above.

Now don't worry your pretty little head about this tonight or you might blow the top off of it thinking too much. You get some rest now and we'll speak tomorrow---OK, Wayno?  NIGHTEE NIGHT NOW! SWEET DREAMS AND DON'T LET THE BEDBUGS FIGHT---I mean BITE.

[Patrick_Mucci]

If a modern architect copied the same holes on every course we would tear him/her apart.

Not if those holes had substantive architectural value and playabilty merits.

I don't even know what to say about all the MacDonald/Raynor replica holes and courses. 

Which ones have you played and how many times on each ?

At this point, the copies of the copies should probably be acceptable due to the humor. 

Have you played the Redan at Morris County ?  Piping Rock ?  NGLA ?
The Knoll ?

What do you find humorous about any of them ?

Maybe the template holes have become the way by which architects compare themselves. 

And maybe the template holes have enduring architectural values and substantive merits in the context of playability.

Everyone try to make a Redan and then we can all debate whose is better.

"Redans" bring an inherent quality with them when translated into playability.

They demand precise execution on the heels of developing a strategy for playing them.

Have you ever played a BAD Redan ?

If so, which one ?

Wayno,

Please don't cite # 3 at Merion    

[Donnie Beck]

..........


Wayne,

Does that look artifical to you

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I don't have a fight to pick with Donnie.  I look forward to meeting him one of these days, perhaps with the Divotees.  I certainly don't want to antagonize him, especially if the information I was told that the Raynor plan was not completed and the fairway bunkering that was planned was not implemented is untrue.  And also if Donnie really is that big, I certainly don't want to piss him off     In an aesthetic sense, I'm a lot more aligned with Maxie Behr than I am with Seth Raynor.  I'm OK with that.

As for a possible majority of golfers preferring the manufactured look of Raynor and Banks, I don't think that has been tested since most of their courses are very private and rarely seen outside the memberships.  Why is that?  Few of the courses have stood the test of time as tests of the very best players.  A lack of elasticity and bunkering schemes relegate a lot of these courses to enjoyable club courses but are they championship courses that have stood the test of time like other designers have in their portfolios?  In general, I think the answer is clearly no.  There was, in my mind, a lack of foresight from Macdonald, Raynor and Banks that wasn't evident in Wilson, Crump, the Nature Faker, Tillinghast, Thomas, Colt, maybe MacKenzie and a few others of that era.

OK, I'm off to bed.  But I will say this, you can have man over nature, but hidden out of respect for nature.  That is a much more agreeable and less egotistical approach.  And guess what?  It looks a HELL OF A LOT better!  To me, golf architecture reaches its zenith with great golf presented in a naturalistic fashion.  It is simpler to create interesting and fun golf without regard to a natural aesthetic, but if you can have both, why not?  The Nature Faker also thought, with his green keeper background, that natural lines and tie ins would hold up longer (Max Behrian if you like) and cost less to maintain over time.  So perhaps it isn't just about aesthetics but also practical as well.

However, to each his own.  As I said, my position is my opinion and it is no better or worse than anyone else's, especially Big Donnie Beck!  

[wsmorrison]

Donnie,

Fisher's Island is on one end of Raynor's continuum.  I grant you that looks great and natural.  It is one of the great sites in all of golf.  I don't know what most of the rest of the golf course looks like since that image and later ones of the same hole are the most photographed or at least the most posted.  However, for everyone of those kind of holes, there are many times more on other courses that are highly manufactured, artificial and out of sync with the surrounds.

[TEPaul]

"Wayne,

Does that look artifical to you?   "


Donnie:

What in the hell is that? All I can see is rocks and shit strewn all over the place, seaweed, some bushes that are unclipped and unkempt and outta control and a lot of humpy bumpy terrain where one of your older and more fragile members is gonna stub his toe, break his whatever, and over which you're gonna get your ass in some deep CaCa.  

What are you doing Donnie? Have you been out there fishing for the last year or something? I can hardly see your golf course. Is that a little piece of it sticking out up there somewhere? What is that up there anyway? Is it a little piece of the "Be-a-Ritz"? if it is it don't look ritzy enough. Now get on it and clean that random highly natural looking mess up!

[Donnie Beck]

...