Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?

[TEPaul]

Here's a thought---a question;

If there never had been a Macdonald and if Raynor had gone into golf architecture on his own and for some reason did all the courses he did do just as he did them, would Seth Raynor have been considered the architect some consider him to be? I guess another question would be----would the template hole concept have been as accepted as it was?

[TEPaul]

John Mayhugh:

Do you thing the inspiration to do a Raynor tribute at Black Creek was Silva's or Doug Stein's? 

[John Mayhugh]

John Mayhugh:

Do you thing the inspiration to do a Raynor tribute at Black Creek was Silva's or Doug Stein's? 

Obviously the initial inspiration was Doug Stein's.  But there is plenty of inspiration to go around.

Doug's a genius in my opinion.

[BCrosby]

I've played BC a couple of times. Fun course. Doug Stein did a great job.

But promotional materials aside, it epitomizes my conundrum well.

As I played it I wondered what exactly is BC a tribute to? Is it a tribute to Raynor's tribute to CBM? To CBM's original tribute to his UK links models? (I thought BC was more about CBM. But your results may vary.)

With Raynor, there's no way to know where to stop these crazy regressions. I can't think of any other architect for whom that is true. Which, I think, says something about his status as an architect.

Bob






  

[Bradley Anderson]

Someone may have already asked this, but does anyone else here agree with me that Raynor was one hell of router?

I mean say what you will of the style of his features, and maybe even of his fairway bunker placements, but didn't he lay out some pretty darn good routes?

I know of one town where there is a Raynor course and a Bendelow course both laid out on almost identical pieces of land with ravines bisecting the properties. Bendelow attacks the ravines perpendiculary every time his route crosses them, but Raynor attacks the ravines on angles that are just exquistely thought out.

[Bradley Anderson]

Oops, I didn't mean to knock Bendelow on that last post. But I just think that Raynor was a world class router. And isn't that really one of the key standards by which an architect is measured? Am I missing something here?

[Bradley Anderson]

Tom Paul wrote:

"Here's a thought---a question;

If there never had been a Macdonald and if Raynor had gone into golf architecture on his own and for some reason did all the courses he did do just as he did them, would Seth Raynor have been considered the architect some consider him to be? I guess another question would be----would the template hole concept have been as accepted as it was?"

Tom I met a guy at our invitational this years from Blue Mound and he didn't even know what a template hole was. I asked him about the unique Redan at his course and I had to describe it for him because I didn't remember it's number. This guy knew his own Raynor holes by their number. But he knew that it was great hole. So there you go.

[Thomas MacWood]

I've played BC a couple of times. Fun course. Doug Stein did a great job.

But promotional materials aside, it epitomizes my conundrum well.

As I played it I wondered what exactly is BC a tribute to? Is it a tribute to Raynor's tribute to CBM? To CBM's original tribute to his UK links models? (I thought BC was more about CBM. But your results may vary.)

With Raynor, there's no way to know where to stop these crazy regressions. I can't think of any other architect for whom that is true. Which, I think, says something about his status as an architect.

Bob

Bob
The fact that you don't know if Macdonald or Raynor inspired BC is inmaterial, and may not be the fault of Macdonald or Raynor. The more important question is is the course a good one.

[Tony_Muldoon]

FWIW

Hutchinson on MacDonald (eventually).

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi23k.pdf

[Donnie Beck]

Someone may have already asked this, but does anyone else here agree with me that Raynor was one hell of router?

I mean say what you will of the style of his features, and maybe even of his fairway bunker placements, but didn't he lay out some pretty darn good routes?

I know of one town where there is a Raynor course and a Bendelow course both laid out on almost identical pieces of land with ravines bisecting the properties. Bendelow attacks the ravines perpendiculary every time his route crosses them, but Raynor attacks the ravines on angles that are just exquistely thought out.

Bradley,

I couldn't agree more.. He didn't use ravines here at Fishers but his use of the natural contours to create angles is amazing..

[Tom_Doak]

Adam:

I agree with you on Raynor ... in the early days of this site I wrote to some people's consternation that I could design a Raynor course in my sleep.  That is not to say he didn't build some great courses ... he had great sites to work with, and great sites always shine through unless the architect is not competent.

[Paul_Turner]

FWIW

Hutchinson on MacDonald (eventually).

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi23k.pdf

Tony

Thanks for the article!  I thought it was interesting that NGLA has "through the green" sprinkle irrigation from its beginning (or near).   

Was this common for the big new courses in America?  Obviously is contrast to the UK with a more temperate climate where fairway irrigation has only been installed realtively recently, and only on the bigger courses for the main. 

I guess for climate reasons, golf could never have been invented in the US.

[Thomas MacWood]

Adam:

I agree with you on Raynor ... in the early days of this site I wrote to some people's consternation that I could design a Raynor course in my sleep.  That is not to say he didn't build some great courses ... he had great sites to work with, and great sites always shine through unless the architect is not competent.

Tom
Have you done any self analysis? As you know football coaches thoroughly scout and analyze their competition to see if they have an tendencies, in certain situation the competitor may do the same thing. Knowing that gives you a competitive advantage. Coaches will also do a self anaylsis periodically, either at the end of the season or during a break in the season, to see if they have any tendencies they need to break.

If you have done a self analysis of your designs, what have you found?

[TEPaul]

TonyM:

Thank you for that Hutchinson article. It appears to fairly well address Peter Pallotta's inquistiveness reflected in his post #102. It seems to confirm that Macdonald was certainly not the only one or the first one over here to understand the principles of golf architecture or put them into effect on this side. Hutchinson's remark that in the twenty plus years since his last visit to America, Americans had gone after golf with a vengeance certainly confirms what I've always believed about those early years before NGLA, and it certainly confirms the early importance of Leeds and Myopia in the history of American architecture.

The fact that NGLA may've had some form of underground irrigation system in 1910 is interesting too.

Since it now does appear that Hutchinson arrived in this country (apparently Boston) aboard Lord Brassey's yacht, Sunbeam, in 1910, it would be worthwhile to see if the Sunbeam's passenger manifest list is digitized and available on some website. That would certainly say a bit more about the comprehensiveness of those passenger manifest lists around that time.

[TEPaul]

Donnie:

How are holes 13, 14 and 15 at Fishers Island doing this year after those water level problems a year or so ago?

[Patrick_Mucci]

FWIW

Hutchinson on MacDonald (eventually).

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1914/gi23k.pdf

Perhaps Hutchinson's article, written in 1910 would provide more insight to NGLA.

Everyone thinks that ALL of the holes at NGLA are replcas or interpretations of holes from the UK.
Nothing could be further from the truth.  MacDonald himself stated that while some were replicas and others composites, some of the holes are ABSOLUTELY ORIGINAL.

The notion that CBM & SR merely copied or morphed existing holes is nonsense.

Ben Sayers's article in the July 1913 edition of "Golf Monthly" was effusive in his praise.

Darwin's articles in the "London Times" in September 30, 1913 and August 26, 1922 are also worthy of review.

I believe it was Darwin who stated that the 18th at NGLA was the finest finishing hole in the world.

While hi-tech/distance has muted some of the bunkering schemes the hole remains a spectacular challenge.

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul

The 1910 article is also more revealing on the state of golf in the US pre-NGLA.  Caused quite a stir as I recall.

Tom MacWood told you where to look to clear up your yacht mystery.

[Bill Brightly]

Pat hits on the ket point: because Raynor relied on a very spefic set of design concepts, some on this site seize upon  that and say he "copied" holes from site to site. It is a simplistic argument and totally fails to recognize the variety of sites Raynor built on, which in and of itself provided the great variety of his courses and how they play.

I've come to believe that Raynor critics are simply mad that a few simple design concepts, oft repeated, can result in so many great courses that golfers still love to play. It seems to irk them, so they resort to the "cookie cutter" slam.

Tom Doak did come up with a new way to demean Raynor's work: "he had great sites to work with."  I guess that is the ultimate archies slam.

[TEPaul]

“Everyone thinks that ALL of the holes at NGLA are replcas or interpretations of holes from the UK.
Nothing could be further from the truth.”

EVERYONE most certainly does not think ALL of the holes of NGLA are replicas of holes from the UK. It is these kinds of constant exaggerated statements that do not belong on this website. Anyone who’s read Macdonald’s own book “Scotland’s Gift Golf” or is relatively familiar with what it says knows that.



“The 1910 article is also more revealing on the state of golf in the US pre-NGLA.  Caused quite a stir as I recall.”


First of all, it appears Hutchinson’s article was written in 1913 or at some point after the US Open of 1913. It is obviously a compilation of Hutchinson’s diary much of it from his trip to America aboard Lord Brassey’s yacht (a trip Macdonald also mentions in his book). It is interesting to see this Englishman’s take on things in 1910 after apparently not having been in this country for over twenty years (a most important early timespan in the history of American golf architecture he was not here to observe but which he descibes as a time when American's embraced golf with a vengeance).

NGLA did create quite a stir and primarily because Macdonald clearly intended it to create quite a stir and  promoted it and the theme and idea of what it was to be for a number of years before and during the creation of NGLA.

What is important to note vis-à-vis Peter Pallotta’s post (#102) and point is that Macdonald was not the only one in America in 1910 or in the decade before it to understand well the principles of golf course architecture. One excellent example was Herbert Leeds, who created one of the few best courses and architecture in America a number of years previous to Macdonald’s NGLA and he did it with apparently a lot less intentional fanfare or promotion (even if Myopia held four US Opens between 1898 and 1908).


"Tom MacWood told you where to look to clear up your yacht mystery."

I am not the one who has tried to imply that ship passenger manifest lists are perhaps totally reliable in establishing that someone was or was not abroad. That implication has come from others. I would also like to see one of those people produce the ship manifest that establishes the exact date Willie Campbell first arrived in this country. That would at least be helpful to one heretofore unsupported architectural claim regarding an important American golf course.

[TEPaul]

BillB:

I think you might find that back in the day Macdonald/Raynor worked it was not exactly the fact that they both used replica or template or concept copy holes in all of their designs but it was the use of plasticine models of replica holes that bothered a number of architects (and Macdonald or Raynor were certainly not the only ones who did that). Their complaints were that it was not the right thing to do in trying to adapt a golf hole type and concept (copy) to particular sites and landforms that were not as natually conducive to them as their originals or prototypes abroad. Their point was they simply didn't fit well for obvious reasons. There is plenty of this specific complaint in the old text material from that time.

It seems most complaints regarding Macdonald/Raynor's use of this kind of concept copying cropped up much later, primarily in our own time (quite recently).

Tom Doak has always been pretty vocal on here and elsewhere about the fact he just doesn't like the idea of copy type holes. He obviously believes original holes on original landforms are the best policy and he certainly isn't the first golf course architect to feel that way and express that belief.

This seems to be a pretty basic philosophical preference to do with golf architecture generally and so it's too bad that so many on here merely look at it as nothing more than a criticism of Macdonald or Raynor.

It also seems pretty obvious that there are a few on this website who take enormous umbrage if anything at all critical is said about Macdonald or Raynor. I think that's too bad and it is also historically limiting because there is very little question that a number of architects during Macdonald/Raynor's own lives and careers were getting away from this philosophy, style and approach (if they ever even embraced it at all in the first place which most did not), and were either vocal about it or pretty obvious about it in the things they were doing and the direction they were going and why.

This is all most important to know and to know the extent and nature of it back then. This is all made just that much more interesting by the fact that Macdonald/Raynor's architecture and its style has obviously enjoyed a real renaissance of appreciation in the last few decades, AS HAS the architecture of others from their time who were clearly going in different stylistic directions and approaches.

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul

You are mistaken about the timing of Hutchinson's trip.  You should really take a look at his many writings.   You may start to understand the importance of NGLA and M&W to golf in America.

While you would like for it to be accurate, Peter Pallota's speculation is inconsistant with the historical record.  At least as I know it.  He has not produced anything to make the case otherwise.

--------------------------------

Can anyone come up with an early designer who was not relying on a stable of hole concepts that they repeatedly used?

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul
You are mistaken about the timing of Hutchinson's trip.  You should really take a look at his many writings.   You may start to understand the importance of NGLA and M&W to golf in America."



Am I? It seems both Hutchinson and C.B. Macdonald put Hutchinson's trip aboard Lord Brassey's yacht in the summer of 1910. So what is it that you now find wrong about that? And I have taken a look at Hutchinson's writing. I believe I have most or all of his books right here in my office. As for all his articles, I'm not sure how many I've seen but certainly a number of them. As far as understanding NGLA and M/W as well as the importance of them to golf and architecture in America, I'm quite sure I understand and have understood for years the importance of both fundamentally and in far more detail than you do and probably ever will. As well as I understand them, I've just always tried to make it my policy not to unnecessarily exaggerate any of them or their importance. I very much wish some, certainly a few on here, would somehow and someday learn how to do that too, as I feel it truly is most important to an overall comprehensive understanding of not just the history and evolution of golf architecture in America but the entire subject of golf architecture generally.



"While you would like for it to be accurate, Peter Pallota's speculation is inconsistant with the historical record.  At least as I know it.  He has not produced anything to make the case otherwise."




Peter Pallotta may've been speculating but his speculation is neither inaccurate nor inconsistent with the historical record. It very well may be inaccurate and inconsistent with the historical record as you understand it, but all that means is you don't understand the historical record very well.

Myopia, itself, when it was done, by whom and what it was considered to be before the existence of NGLA is more than enough evidence to support the accuracy of Peter Pallotta's speculation and the accuracy of the historical record of quality golf architecture in American and before Macdonald's NGLA. While you may be right that Peter Pallotta did not produce anything to make his point and case, I certainly just did---I produced Myopia, as an excellent example and made Peter's case and point for him.

Furthermore, the case of Myopia (and previous to NGLA, what it represented and what it meant to this point and case) is not a point and case I need to speculate about as I do have C.B. Macdonald's own words to make that case for both Peter Pallota and me. Are you going to next try to question the accuracy of Macdonald's own words about his opinion of Myopia? That would be a pretty neat trick indeed as it seems your intention over the last five years or so has been to promote C.B. Macdonald and his importance.

I suppose you could continue to dismiss, ignore or rationalize this case and point away but given all this evidence and the historical record I can hardly see how without continuing to make yourself look really foolish and uninformed on the reality of early American architecture.

Just as with Mr. MacWood, it might help you a great deal if you bothered to actually see Myopia before attempting to dismiss, ignore or rationalize away its importance to American architecture as well as to Peter Pallotta's point.

It would also help Pat Mucci's understanding of its importance and significance to this point and on that note the other day I offered to take Pat there when he has the opportunity. He said he would certainly take me up on that, and I'm quite confident he will be impressed.

[Bill Brightly]

TE

I happen really like Tom Doak's architectural style. From what I have read of his writings and seen on the ground, I believe that Tom's style (outside of Old Macdonald) is to design about as differently from Raynor as possible. That's fine. TD builds beautiful and fun courses. But he is still clearly DENIGRATING Raynor when he says he had great sites to work with. Talk about damning with faint praise...Gee, I guess the site at Yale must have been a 1920's architects dream...

[TEPaul]

BillB:

I'd buy that, I suppose. I've never really tried to analyze how great all Raynor's sites were, but from what I know of his courses he certainly did have some wonderful sites but I don't know that I'd say they all were. I most certainly would say many of them were extremely different from one another.

Frankly, I've always believed that an architect who can create something on a basically flat, fairly naturally featureless site that golfers consider to be very good, is a very fine golf architect indeed.

At the other end of the spectrum, if an architect can create something really good on a massively complicated site like Raynor/Macdonald did at Yale or Flynn did at HVGC and certainly The Cascades, I would also say they are very good architects indeed! Perhaps one of the most important tools or talents of all to have at one's disposal on a really complicated site is a good engineer and Raynor apparently was that as was Flynn's Howard Toomey. If you ask me, Flynn himself, even if he wasn't one professionally, probably had the intuitive talent of a really good engineer.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tony - thanks for the link. I'd read that article a long while ago, and may have drawn different conclusions from it than you and others have.

David M - I'm wondering whether Macdonald was a "necessary" catalyst for change, i.e. if he'd never been born, whether American architecture would've nonetheless begun to manifest the strategic principles of the world's finest golf holes, and at about the same time.

That might be too stringent a test, I realize, but my point again is simply that Macdonald was not the only one who understood the principles of good design.  Without being able to answer the questions you asked or provide proof, that theory seems sensible and believable to me.

Yes, the Hutchinson article praises NGLA and Macdonald very highly, and rightly so. But look at what he says about some of the other courses he played back then. While he might decry the shortness of some of those courses and (ironically) the too-frequent blind shots, he speaks of good and fine and interesting tests of golf over and over again: at the Canadian courses, which among inland courses take a very high place; the highly praised Myopia;  Brookline;  Garden City, which was rather ugly but another fine test of golf; Baltusrol, too hilly in his eyes but an interesting course; and "others too many to name".

And my point: Shouldn't we assume that for a man like Hutchinson, an interesting golf course and a fine test of golf manifests the strategic principles of good architecture? (And if I CAN'T assume that about Hutchinson, why would I give his views on NGLA much credence, in this context?) And yet, none of those courses -- as far as I know -- bore any resemblance to NGLA, or to the "forms" in which NGLA manifested those principles.

Why does he give Leeds such high praise for his work at Myopia? Again, what else but the fact that the course manifests strategic principles would a man like Hutchinson find worthy of such praise? And if he had seen about 5 years later a course like Pine Valley, even in it's unfinished state, wouldn't he have seen those principles manifest there as well, and again in a form that bore little resemblance to NGLA?

You say that I don't understand the importantce of Macdonald and NGLA to golf in America. You may be right about that, I'm not sure. But I can't see how you can argue definitively that -- despite that truly "ideal" nature of the course that Macdonald built -- he was the only one in America at the time who understood golf architecture's strategic principles.

Amundsen was the first man to reach the South Pole, but was he the only one who knew the way?

Peter