[Mike Sweeney]

They are "holes for the ages" due to the values they possess and present to the golfer.

Wayne,

Here are two modern versions of a Redan by C&C and Brian Silva. Other than the 1500 or so nuts here, who in the world would know these are replica holes, and more importantly what are the chances that they play similarly? I have not played Silva's Black Creek.

[Mike Hendren]

Unfortunately I have not been fortunate to play enough of Raynor's work to be qualified to respond other than saying "if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I think the adaptations of the redan and biarritz at Lookout Mountain are fantastic and fit the site extremely well.  Neither would jump out at you in a photograph but the architectural principals behind the designs are well displayed there, albeit in subtle fashion.

As for Patrick Mucci's question as to whether one has ever played a bad redan, I must honestly answer yes - at Shinnecock Hills, which I consider to be the finest golf course I have ever played.  The hole is poorly manufactured and doesn't "work" in my opinion regardless of green speeds.  It's not a bad hole, but is a bad redan.

Mike

[Peter Pallotta]

I think this discussion has focused on the wrong thing. It's been mainly about what the golf/template holes that Macdonald created looked like. But since I think it's true that Macdonald didn't import golf holes as much as he imported "the fundamental principles of strategic design", to me the more important question is whether Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American architecture.

Of this I'm not sure. I'm sure that Macdonald didn't invent those fundamental principles. I'm almost sure that he wasn't the first to identify those principles, or that he was the only one who understood those principles. And I have a strong feeling that he wasn't the first to articulate those principles.  So what I have left is that Macdonald was the foremost promoter of those principles in America in the early 1900s. But the fact that he was forceful and committed and passionate about those principles, and well-connected enough to be given a free hand to manifest those principles at NGLA, doesn't persuade me that he was the only one who knew and cared about those principles, even way back in the early 1900s.

I think that this gets to the centre of a lot of the debates around here recently, i.e. to put it too simplistically, you either believe that these fundamental principles were floating around "in the air" and being absorbed and discussed by a lot of smart and committed people in America (including the early amateur-sportsmen) or you believe that in the early 1900s only Macdonald really understood them and was committed to them.

I tend to lean towards the former belief, if only because I believe that the nature of "fundamental principles" is democratic, i.e. they exist out there for all with the eyes to see them

Peter       

[Mike Hendren]

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.

Wayne, I too liked Weed's version at Glen Mills, particularly the way he utilized the downsloping backside of the left hand bunker maintained as fairway to kick the ball right onto the green.  Perhaps the rear plateau could have been a little deeper, but a nifty use of the Biarritz on a reachable par five (where I witnessed an eagle by the Redanman!).

Mike

[Jim_Kennedy]

Wayne,
My view may not be shared by anyone else,  but I have yet to play a par 3  that isn't first and foremost about execution. C'mon, there are three ways to hit the ball and three trajectories to hit it on, nine possible combinations, period, and a player is locked into one place to hit from, over and over and over.

If "The concepts (used by CBM/SR) are easily recognizable and the game plan a given"  then your statement that "Original holes tied into the surrounds adds another layer of difficulty...uncertainty" is no more true, unless you are saying that this "original" hole can change it's shape daily, presenting something totally unrecognizable between visits. The only things that change on either type of hole, other than the cup, are your mental state and the elements, effectively changing the game plan for each.

[Anthony Fowler]

Thanks to everyone for making this an exciting thread.  I feel the need to respond to everyone who has put so much thought into their responses, but the variety and passion of views already expressed make me partly content to just sit back and read.  I have no intention of having the last word on the matter.

First, I would like to clarify my initial post as there has been some discrepancy.  I in no way am claiming that M&R's courses are not good or that they did not make a good team.  You have asked me if I have played NGLA as if I cannot possible have any credibility on the matter having not.  No, I have not played NGLA.  I would love to see it and many other M&/orR courses to see first hand some of these great holes, shots, angles, etc.  However, I have not made any claims that I am not entitled to make having not played some of these great courses.  I simply posed a question: "Why do we go easy . . . ?" and made an observation: "We would tear apart any modern architect . . . "  I think this observation holds true and have heard many people criticize Fazio, Dye, Jones (all of them) for manufactured approaches and reuse of hole concepts, aesthetic devices, etc.

Another quick but unimportant clarification.  In my initial post I referred to the humor of the modern copies, second generation template holes by Silva, Brauer, Doak, C&C et al.  I was only trying to point out that they are in some way copies of copies.  RFGoodale brings up another humorous aspect of template holes, that people talk about them way too often and try to create one in their minds when it's absent.  It's as if a mundane hole now has new life by being called a quasi-alps hole.  RFG and I agree in our enjoyment in laughing at ourselves.  Haven't all of us at one point said, "OOOH, this is sort of a ______ hole!"

I used the word "copy" to describe template holes, but I well realize that they are not copies.  Many of them play very differently from one another (and from the concept for that matter), but I still reject the notion that concept copying should be free from criticism.

Back to the initial question.  Why do we go easy on M&R?  I have heard 4 types of answers  Feel free to point out others that I missed.

1. We don't or we shouldn't.
2. The work they did, while primitive, was so much better than everything else at the time that we give them a pass and thank them for their incredible contribution to the game.
3. Approach to design doesn't matter.  All that matters is the quality of the end product.  M&R made great courses so why criticize the methods.
4. The conquest of man over nature is something to behold, and the MacDonald approach is actually desirable to most people.

2 may be a valid point but doesn't explain why M&R should be on the short list of "greatest architects."  I and others have already fumbled around with this point.

3 is actually the most compelling argument to me.  Ideology can be a dangerous thing even if it seems harmless like "naturalism."  Maybe it's best to abandon principled philosophies and only look at end products.  However, the question still remains.  Could M&R courses have been better if they had been more willing to deviate from the template strategy?  I think yes, but I will allow others to have it out on this one and wait until I have seen more of the courses to express this strongly.

4 is simply a question of preferences.  I can imagine that some people have these preferences, but they are certainly not my own.


I would like to thank everyone for the though and effort they put into their replies and discussions.  In particular, I would like to respond to TEPaul because he made it clear that he had carefully considered his direct replies to me.  Tom, I partially get your drift and hope to get it more upon playing some of these courses that you have cited.  I believe that some of the concepts really are great concepts.  However, I find it disconcerting that M&R lacked the originality to try lots of new concepts and that they may have overlooked the opportunity to make exciting unique holes because they were so focused on making the templates work.  I lament the fact that many of the original hole intents (if any) are lost on the modern golfer.  On most Redans I’ve played, the best play is a high cut landing as close to the hole as possible (it might kick a little, but that only leaves an uphill putt).  Likewise I have never ran my tee shot through a Biarritz gully because today’s greens just don’t release that much (even on courses that pride themselves on F&F).  There are a lot of other holes over the templates that require fun, challenging, and exciting shots to be played.  I can imagine the fun of some of the templates if they are done right, but I don’t understand why those are so much more appealing than more unique hole types that may also put a similar level of demand and excitement in a shot.

Once again, thanks to everyone.  As I said, I have no intention of having the last word, and will look forward to a continued, lively discussion.

[wsmorrison]

Whatever we do, let us consider Macdonald separate from Raynor. 

Macdonald's influence on American golf architecture is significant.  It is also significant to realize that he was a fairly short window of influence.  How could American golf architecture not become Americanized?  The fact that it did infuriated Macdonald and he retreated.  Perhaps he thought his model was in good hands with Raynor and he was getting a lot of work but the architectural influence was narrowing all the time and he was being criticized by a later cast of architects that did not like his model.  I do not forget that some of Macdonald's original hole ideas even those with concept components directly linked to UK holes but utilized differently turned out great.  One of my favorite holes in golf is the 6th at Creek Club.  I believe Macdonald's place in American golf architecture is on high and most secure.

And what of Raynor?  He got great sites, built a range of courses from decent to solid and some undeniably excellent.  Macdonald's influence on him is evident.  Was he enough of an original creative force to grant him top-tier status in American golf architecture?   Was he too much the apprentice that carried on his mentor's work in a narrowly defined way?  What were some of his original contributions to golf architecture?

[Mike Sweeney]

Wayne,

In general I would agree with your request on Raynor. He was clearly engineer first and creative second type of guy. I personally don't consider Yale a Raynor-only course and I don't know Fishers well enough to say if he had any original stuff there. However, I have never seen a hole like the third at Fishers anywhere, maybe Donnie can chime in if there is history or originality there or elsewhere at Fishers. I will also say that the third and fourth at Southampton are very unique but all of these could easily be attributed to working with great land.

Maybe Flynn learned a thing or two from the MacRaynor school after all. 

[Thomas MacWood]

Was he enough of an original creative force to grant him top-tier status in American golf architecture? 

The bottom line in judging a golf architect is how good were his golf courses. Undeniably Raynor has a deep portfolio of excellent courses, not only in sheer numbers, but also in the variety of course types - parkland (Camargo), mountain (Fairyland), open prairie (Chicago), headlands (Fishers Island), wetlands (Yeamans Hall), lakeside/ravine (Shoreacres), seaside (Wailai) and rugged forest (Yale). I'm not sure how you would characterize his Florida courses or The Creek, they are unique sites as well. If he hadn't died prematurely - had completed CPC and whatever came after - would the debate be is he America's greatest golf architect?

What were some of his original contributions to golf architecture?

I don't think originality was his greatest strength, but tht is probably true with most of our tier 1 architects. Producing great golf courses is their greatest strength. Herbert Strong may be one of the most original architects of that era, and where did that get him? Not far, most of his courses have been redesigned or closed. In comparison to his contemporaries, I would guess Raynor's courses have been changed the least over the years.

Raynor's ability to excell in a wide range of environments may not be the originality you're looking for but IMO it elevates him into a very elite group. And I think it could be argued that his original holes are his best holes.

[wsmorrison]

I don't believe Creek Club is a Raynor design.  Macdonald fingered him for the engineering errors made in the lower holes.  Macdonald was the president of the development company, the august membership expected him to oversee the design and build of the course.  That's what happened.  In this regard, I'll go along with the one man in America that has studied all the records of the club for years and also saved them for posterity.  His analysis points squarely to Macdonald as the designer.  I'm do not know how the Yale golf course design came about.  I don't know what proportion or what specific design work is Raynor or what is Macdonald.  Contemporary accounts contradict one another.

If he hadn't died prematurely?  He did.  So did a number of other talented architects.  If he had completed Cypress Point?  He didn't.  We don't know how that design would have been received since it has not been seen in decades.  Certainly the site itself is among the greatest ever utilized for golf.  It is hard to imagine that any one of the top ten architects of that era would not have come up with something great.   These sort of "ifs" could be applied to nearly every architect.  So let's discount them from the start.

Which original holes of Raynor particularly appeal to you and why?

[paul cowley]

Interesting thread....it's almost become a GCAtlas template thread in that it gets to be played again over and over, but with subtle and not so subtle changes....you get the picture.

While speaking of pictures one just popped into mind while perusing this thread....and that was of a hybrid Redan/Biarittz hole that I think I will build.
I would start by taking a typical Biaritzz layout and place it a redanish angle to the tee....I would then kick up the front and middle creating a hole that slopes back to front, but leave the rear flattish and maybe even kick up the rear edges.
Then I would add a very long helping kick on canted ramp to the front of the green that would be slightly banked and curving back to the tee.

Then, having tired, I would take a nap under a tree.

[Thomas MacWood]

Wayne
I don't think there is any debate Raynor is among our greatest golf architects. If he hadn't died early the debate would have changed. I don't think there is much doubt about that, based upon what he had on the table and what his protege did after he died.

Not every golf architect had a commission like CPC. He won what could be argued the greatest opportunity in history.

Off the top of my head I really like the 3rd and 4th at Yale for the use of the water hazard. The 18th is one of  the wildest holes in golf. The 8th at Fishers Island and 15th at Shoreacres are both great short par-5s. The 12th at Camargo with it steep fall off and diagonal hazard also stands out in my mind.

[BCrosby]

Certainly Raynor did some good hole. So did lots of architects.

A useful way to locate Raynor among the greats is the question I asked above.

I can imagine tribute courses to CBM, Ross, Thomas, Colt, Tillie and others.

I can't imagine anyone building a tribute course to Raynor. That's not because his courses weren't any good. It's because people see him for what he was. A talent largely derivative of the talents of someone else - CBM.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

Peter Pallota,

If you read what Horace Hutchinson and Bernard Darwin wrote, contemporaneously, I think you'd change your mind and choose the latter

[Thomas MacWood]

Bob
Aren't they in fact building a tribute course to Raynor? In some ways building a tribute course for Macdonald and/or Raynor is easier than most because their style is so disctinctive and identifiable, and that style melded well in most any environment.

On the other hand trying to build a tribute course for golf architects is an excercise in futility because its difficult to separate the qualify of the hole design from the site/evironment. They go hand in hand. How do you build a tribute to the 16th CPC or the 13th ANGC or the 18th at Pasateimpo? 

Are you a fan of greatest hits albums?

[BCrosby]

Tom -

The issue isn't whether tribute courses can be well done or not. The issue isn't whether you can really replicate the 13th at ANGC, etc.

The issue is you wouldn't do a tribute course to someone who himself did tribute courses.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Patrick Mucci said:

“Peter Pallota,
If you read what Horace Hutchinson and Bernard Darwin wrote, contemporaneously, I think you'd change your mind and choose the latter.”


Whoa, Pat, on that I would very strongly disagree with you, at least until some very strong (and probably contemporary to the early time) evidence is produced to virtually prove your point. For starters, you should produce whatever you have from Hutchinson and Darwin that speaks directly to this point----eg Peter Pallotta’s point. And don’t forget, as good and informed as Hutchinson and Darwin were on architecture at that time they were British and therefore obviously not as well informed of what was going on over here at that time as some Americans were.



This is the point Peter Pallotta made:

“I think this discussion has focused on the wrong thing. It's been mainly about what the golf/template holes that Macdonald created looked like. But since I think it's true that Macdonald didn't import golf holes as much as he imported "the fundamental principles of strategic design", to me the more important question is whether Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American architecture.

Of this I'm not sure. I'm sure that Macdonald didn't invent those fundamental principles. I'm almost sure that he wasn't the first to identify those principles, or that he was the only one who understood those principles. And I have a strong feeling that he wasn't the first to articulate those principles.  So what I have left is that Macdonald was the foremost promoter of those principles in America in the early 1900s. But the fact that he was forceful and committed and passionate about those principles, and well-connected enough to be given a free hand to manifest those principles at NGLA, doesn't persuade me that he was the only one who knew and cared about those principles, even way back in the early 1900s.

I think that this gets to the centre of a lot of the debates around here recently, i.e. to put it too simplistically, you either believe that these fundamental principles were floating around "in the air" and being absorbed and discussed by a lot of smart and committed people in America (including the early amateur-sportsmen) or you believe that in the early 1900s only Macdonald really understood them and was committed to them.

I tend to lean towards the former belief, if only because I believe that the nature of "fundamental principles" is democratic, i.e. they exist out there for all with the eyes to see them.”


Personally, I tend towards the former too, as Peter Pallotta does. Macdonald was a hugely important factor to early American architecture but to think he was the only one over here in the first decade of the 20th century with a good understanding of architectural principles to me is misunderstanding that era, what was going on in some areas and who was doing it. It certainly does occur to me at a time like this, Patrick, that since you’ve never seen Myopia, for instance, you aren’t able or capable of appreciating it and its very early significance. On this point I do have Macdonald’s own confirmation!

[Jim_Kennedy]

In my initial post I referred to the humor of the modern copies, second generation template holes by Silva, Brauer, Doak, C&C et al.  I was only trying to point out that they are in some way copies of copies.

Are you suggesting that none of the above, or others, haven't taken the time to see the originals? 

2q. The work they did, while primitive, was so much better than everything else at the time that we give them a pass and thank them for their incredible contribution to the game.
2a. may be a valid point but doesn't explain why M&R should be on the short list of "greatest architects."  I and others have already fumbled around with this point.

I think you are correct, you and others have fumbled around with this point, i.e. you just called CBM's work 'primitive'. CBM/SR make the short list, (you'll probably consider this a non-answer) because their most highly rated courses (a dozen or so) have stood the test of time, and countless critics of architecture and golf course raters, some of whom actually know what the hell they're talking about, have said it is so.
[quote

I lament the fact that many of the original hole intents (if any) are lost on the modern golfer.  On most Redans I’ve played, the best play is a high cut landing as close to the hole as possible (it might kick a little, but that only leaves an uphill putt).  Likewise I have never ran my tee shot through a Biarritz gully because today’s greens just don’t release that much (even on courses that pride themselves on F&F).

The percentage of golfers capable of hitting a 'high cut' is quite lower than you imagine it to be. Of course you could look at in another way if you chose to,  modern equipment afforded you another way to play a Redan. If you ever find the cup cut just a few steps past the swale on a Biarritz green you will be happy that you know how to run a ball in. Your point has merit, but I don't think you can name one golf hole anywhere, 'template' or 'original',  that hasn't suffered to some degree by modern advances.
 

I can imagine the fun of some of the templates if they are done right, but I don’t understand why those are so much more appealing than more unique hole types that may also put a similar level of demand and excitement in a shot.

I don't think I've read, in this or any other discussion of this topic, that 'more unique hole types' were less appealing.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom -

The issue isn't whether tribute courses can be well done or not. The issue isn't whether you can really replicate the 13th at ANGC, etc.

The issue is you wouldn't do a tribute course to someone who himself did tribute courses.

Bob

Bob
The idea that the true measurement of an architect is how many want to make a tribute course is strange IMO. Based upon your theory how does Stanley Thompson measure up? CH Alison? Tom Simpson?

Claiming Macdonald & Raynor did nothing but tribute courses is misleading. No doubt they were inspired by certain classic holes and different interpretations of those holes appear on all their courses, but they were a lot more than that. They were brilliant routers who took full advantage of the natural advantages of the given site. Their original holes are every bit as good as their knock offs. And they also developed their own unique style, a very bold and distinctive style that stands up well today IMO.

[DMoriarty]

But what is the mystery about the Biarritz?  The Short?  The Redan? The Eden?  The concepts are easily recognizable and the game plan a given.  Of course you must execute the shot called for, but the template concept (not exact replication) clearly takes away the uncertainty about what is presented and the way to play it.  Of course wind direction, distance and elevation are different so the shots are not exactly the same, but there are no strategic demands, merely execution demands.

These are all par threes.  What par 3's give the golfer more to think about than NGLA’s redan?   What par threes provide more strategic avenues?   
_________________________________________________

Peter,

You start off by stating that “the more important question is whether Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American architecture.”    I agree that this is an important question.   But it is not the one you attempt to answer.    Catalyzing a change does not require inventing a principle or being the only one who knows about those ideas.   It only requires bringing about change.   One cannot compare the state of golf course design before NGLA and after, and not see the change that the course brought.

And I don’t know who else you think really understood and was advocating these principles in America.  Leeds?  Travis? Who?  For argument, I take your word for it that there were others, but I have seen little evidence of it.   But whoever they were, if they did understand and advocate for the incorporation of these fundamental principles into golf course design in America, they were not doing it on the worldwide stage like Macdonald.  And they did not provoke a running discussion on two continents about their ideas and work.  But most importantly, whoever these people were, they did not design a golf course based entirely upon these fundamental principles; a course almost universally considered far and away better than anything else in the country, and one of the best in the world.   

And Peter, I don't know if these fundamental principles are democratic and graspable by anyone, but if they are and this means we cannot credit someone like Macdonald with actually having an influence, then I have trouble seeing how anyone could ever be considered an influence, especially in the more artistic endeavors.   

Macdonald did not invent the fundamental principles, but he told us where to find them, how to find them, and he showed us how to incorporate them into our golf courses.   He didn't just give us fish, he also taught us how to fish. 

I shocks me that we even question whether “Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American Architecture.”  This great age of golf design was not inevitable.

_______________________________________________________________________________

. . .  It is also significant to realize that he was a fairly short window of influence.  How could American golf architecture not become Americanized?  The fact that it did infuriated Macdonald and he retreated.  Perhaps he thought his model was in good hands with Raynor and he was getting a lot of work but the architectural influence was narrowing all the time and he was being criticized by a later cast of architects that did not like his model.   

He was "a fairly short window of influence?"  On what is this claim based?    Is it because many architects quit building holes with names like "Redan" and "Road?"    Is it because others preferred a different aesthetic style?  His influence went well beyond these things, and was not nearly as superficial.   

But even if we stick to your narrow understanding of Macdonald’s model . . . If his realm of influence was so short lived, then why do you suppose that the best architects going are still openly emulating him today?   Do you mean “short window of influence” in a geological timescale?

How many cape greens did your man Flynn build? 

You also claim that Macdonald became “infuriated” and “retreated” because “American golf architecture became Americanized.”  On what basis do you make this claim?    I know that Macdonald was not happy with how golf was being governed in the United States during the period of “Americanization” of golf in America.  But what you are claiming is different.  What is your basis?

And what of Raynor?  He got great sites, built a range of courses from decent to solid and some undeniably excellent.  Macdonald's influence on him is evident.  Was he enough of an original creative force to grant him top-tier status in American golf architecture?   Was he too much the apprentice that carried on his mentor's work in a narrowly defined way?  What were some of his original contributions to golf architecture?

My understanding is that Raynor often applied the same fundamental concepts in similar ways on different sites.  But he still had to work the holes into the site he was given.    What designer did not apply the same fundamental hole concepts over and over again?    They all have to fit their ideas onto the site, and most importantly they all have to make courses that are enjoyable to play.   It sounds like Raynor was pretty good at this.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I am referring to Seth Raynor.

The point of the tribute course thing is that it unpacks views about the standing of an architect. It's a thought experiment I think is useful.

I can easily imagine tribute courses to CBM, Alison, Simpson and many others. They were all imaginative, innovative architects.

Such a course for Raynor wouldn't make much sense, however. That is because he spent the bulk of his career building tribute courses. So you would have to go meta with Raynor. You would end up with a tribute course to tribute courses to tribute courses. Or something.

It is a way to get a handle on Raynor's standing among other architects. The fact that doing a tribute course to Raynor makes little sense is suggestive of the lack of heft of his contributions to gca.

Bob

 

  

[Adam_Messix]

Bob--

They've already built a tribute course to Raynor, Black Creek in Chattanooga.  In my opinion, it would be easy for an architect today to pick up the Raynor mantle and build Raynor type courses without missing much of a beat because his style and the template holes are not that difficult to do given today's earth moving equipment. 

I've enjoyed playing many Raynor courses however, he doesn't receive the kind of criticism that Pete Dye sometimes gets for using the same hole types over and over again.  I think Doak said in TCG, but when you play a Raynor course, the player looks forward to seeing what the Redan, Short, Eden, Road; etc. are going to look like. 

I agree with Tom MacWood that Raynor was able to use the templates in many different types of settings successfully and there is something to be said for that. 

Hope things are greening up in Atlanta and that the run from the 15 inches we received are coming to Lake Lanier.....

[John Mayhugh]

Certainly Raynor did some good hole. So did lots of architects.

A useful way to locate Raynor among the greats is the question I asked above.

I can imagine tribute courses to CBM, Ross, Thomas, Colt, Tillie and others.

I can't imagine anyone building a tribute course to Raynor. That's not because his courses weren't any good. It's because people see him for what he was. A talent largely derivative of the talents of someone else - CBM.

Bob

I haven't had the chance to play there, but Black Creek looks & sounds pretty good to me.  It's not simply a tribute to Raynor, but his courses & work were certainly an inspiration.
http://golfclubatlas.com/blackcreek.html

It's exactly the kind of course I would love to play every day.

[TEPaul]

"Their original holes are every bit as good as their knock offs."


Mr. MacWood:

In my opinion, that sounds and looks good but it's a real overstatement. Maximumally, I doubt a third or less of their original holes are as good as their templates and maybe even less than that, even though NGLA is proably an exception to that. The holes from them that really insterest me are some that have only a vestige of template a hole. A great example is the green on The Creek's #1.

[Thomas MacWood]

John
That is a good point. Brian Silva has definitely been inspired by Raynor's style in recent years.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()