Did MacDonald/Raynor...

[Thomas MacWood]

The smooth white concrete and glass contrasting with the rocks, the river and the waterfall - a very interesting juxtaposition. The organic and the clearly man-made create an interesing aesthetic.

Fontana di Trevi is another example of a famous juxtaposition, the formal structure appears to be growing out of the rocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Trevi_Fountain,_Rome,_Italy_2_-_May_2007.jpg

Did you urinate on Pei's pyramid?

[Ronald Montesano]

Wayne Morrison, Wayne Morrison, where are you?

And which template holes were forced onto the land at Fox Chapel?   The Redan?  The Biarritz?  The Short?  Please elaborate.

[wsmorrison]

I have had it with you and your constant repetitions.  Everyone on this site that bothers to read your crap has a perfectly good idea what an asshole you are.  Do you have to keep demonstrating it?  If you bring up the same stupid nonsense again, I will ask for your removal.  If it doesn't happen, I will gladly take leave and allow you to print all sorts of inaccurate essays and historical revisions.  I could care less if this group is swayed by your terrible analysis and armchair historical research methods.  Neither you or your supporters are worth correcting.  This site is poorer for your participation.  I'm glad your protege has gone.  Why don't you do the same?

[wsmorrison]

Ronald,

Ask Tom MacWood.  I have nothing more to add to any discussion now or in the future in which he is a participant.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

Much of what you said in post #25, even though discussed many times on this website over the years, is interesting and worthy of discussion (and agreement and disagreement).

What you posted on reply #27 is also of some interest even if another art form from the art form of golf course architecture with some really fundamental differences---eg such as the importance of the vastly different medium and function of building architecture compared to golf course architecture.

Unfortunately, the two questions you punctuated both posts with are every bit as unintelligent and petty as you are!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

I think Tom MacWood has a valid point with respect to the juxtaposition of the natural next to the constructed.

With the environmental and permitting problems most architects face today, it's probably fairly common in many new courses.

# 6 and # 8 at NGLA jumped out as good examples.

Both are marvelous holes which have that combination.

Both are highly manufactured greens on or next to natural terrain/settings.

Many holes at NGLA and other courses have that combination, which seems to work quite well in creating an interesting challenge that's fun to respond to.

One could say the same about many of Ross's courses that had the pattern of high tee, low fairway, high green.

TEPaul,

If I recall correctly, the topography at the third hole at Piping Rock ascends from the low tee on # 3 to the high green.  The  tee on # 4 and the green on # 5 which comes back toward the 3rd green, are elevated above # 3 tee.

While the 3rd green is constructed, I don't find it out of sync with the terrain that rises from the 3rd tee toward the 4th and 5th holes and the 6th tee.

JNC Lyon,

I don't know why you would make that speculation unless you've been listening to the voices of those miscreants from the greater Philly area.

[TEPaul]

In my opinion, Wayne Morrison's particular aesthetic preference in architecture coupled with his self-admitted lack of preference for the particular aesthetic look and style of Macdonald/Raynor/Banks is completely intelligent and I feel should be considered very discriminating aesthetically even if I may not personally share the degree of his lack of appreciation for the aesthetic, look or style of their architecture.

At least he makes a very good case in a golf course architecture context as to why he does not favor their aesthetic, look and style.

This fellow Tom MacWood, after stating that an individual's response to various aesthetics is unique, essentially contradicts what he just said and that very point when he asks a few words later if Wayne Morrison is possibly aesthetically tone deaf for not liking the aesthetic, look and style of Macdonald/Raynor architecture.

It seems to me Wayne Morrison understands both aesthetic tone and the differences in aesthetics and artist tonality a lot more comprehensively than Mr. MacWood who heretfore seems only capable of spewing out some quotations from others that he thinks applies, rather than apparently thinking individually for himself.

Frankly, his offering of building architecture as an example in the context of this discussion on golf course architecture shows only an ability to understand generalilites and the "compare" side of the "compare/contrast" format or equation of analysis.

It would seem in Wayne Morrison's particularly lack of preference for the aesthetic or look or style of Macdonald/Raynor architecture he does have one most important and impressive ally---eg A.W. Tillinghast, a man who probably had a far fuller understanding of all of this than Mr. MacWood!

[TEPaul]

"I think Tom MacWood has a valid point with respect to the juxtaposition of the natural next to the constructed."


Patrick:

Of course he has a valid point but so does Wayne Morrison. MacWood does not make a very good point or impression, however, when he asks Wayne Morrison if it's possible that he is aesthetically tone deaf for not liking the aesthetics or the juxtapositions of them in Macdonald/Raynor's architecture.


As far as the redan at Piping Rock it is of no real relevance to talk about the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th tees as that is far too broad and general topographically. All one needs to do is look at the entire left 3/4 of the redan green, particularly the front and entire left side of that green that's probably a dozen to fifteen feet above what was once the natural grade of that ground in that spot and how it just drops immediatly down from both front and left. Obviously, there's a reason for that as natural grade was probably too steep for a putting surface but the point is Macdonald/Raynor's engineered style was not one to even attempt to use additional fill to tie way out to the front and left to eventual natural grade.

It seems to me they did that engineered style, particularly of bunker faces intentionally, and I think there is probably a very good historic reason Macdonald did that----eg it was what was found on some of the man-made features on even some of the very famous holes from abroad in the 19th century. Everyone knows that's where he went to find his principles and apparently some of the style he used in his own unique architectural look.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The engineered look is usually only discernable from behind the green.

You may recall my advice to others to walk NGLA backwards, starting behind the 18th green to get an idea of just how manufactured some of those greens are.

However, from the golfer's perspective, as he plays the golf course, the manufacturing is mostly invisible.

# 9 green might be a perfect example from the 2nd shot DZ.
There are other examples but that one seemed the best.
# 18 is another good example.

So, it's the presentation to the golfer that's the critical factor.
It's what the golfer sees as he plays the hole, not what he sees after he's played the hole.

[TEPaul]

JNC Lyons:

I hope you don't think your thread or the subject of it has been hijacked again. Personally, I don't believe it has been. I realize your essential question is whether Macdonald/Raynor built any mediocre golf courses but in the discussion of that subject things like aesthetics is an inevitable and important topic, don't you think?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I don't think anyone's identified a mediocre CBM-SR golf course as of yet, so, it's quite natural that the thread would redirect itself to collateral issues.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I think most of us who study golf architecture seriously understand that when one walks behind greens and such the look of things from back there is generally not quite so natural looking in the vein of lines and grades for pretty obvious reasons.

It's really not much different from the fact that play sets don't look the same if one looks at them from behind rather than from the vantage point of where the audience sits in a theater!

But plenty of Macdonald/Raynor/Banks architecture looks unusually manufactured and engineered from the vantage point of the oncoming golfer compared to the look of numerous other golf architects.

Clearly there are some very important stylistic and historical reasons for that. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just quite clearly different looking. If someone tries to tell me the look of some of Macdonald/Raynor architecture is no different from the look of Flynn, or Tillinghast, or Colt or Mackenzie architecture, I'm sorry pal, but I'm going to just have to tell them they are either pretty blind or really aesthetially challenged!

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Personally, I'm not aware of a single golf course by Macdonald that is mediocre. I very much doubt there is one. Raynor did far more courses than Macdonald, however, and so with him it is certainly harder for me to comment on that point or question.

[Ronald Montesano]

All right, since MacWood has angered Morrison, I'll supercede both and state that Fox Chapel is in no way, shape or form a mediocre Raynor design.  The piece of land is in no way mediocre, either.  It occupies two sides of a road, kitty corner to Pittsburgh Field Club.  It rolls and rises, tumbles and slides in gentle fashion.  The holes are open yet challenging, the greens are raised at times, fairway-height at times and absolutely beguiling to putt.  The speed usually runs above 11 on the stimp.  The par threes are incredibly varied, from the pitch at the Short Hole to the long bomb at the Biarritz.  The third hole is a great mid-iron across a chasm while the reverse Redan carries a yawning bunker to a sloped putting surface.  If you need info on the 4s and 5s, I'm glad to provide.

[TEPaul]

"All right, since MacWood has angered Morrison, I'll supercede both and state that Fox Chapel is in no way, shape or form a mediocre Raynor design. "


RonaldM:

Wait a minute. Where did Wayne Morrison ever say that Fox Chapel is a mediocre golf course? And please don't point to Tom MacWood's response to Wayne Morrison that Fox Chapel is NOT a mediocre golf course. This is just another example of someone saying one thing and someone else twisting it to mean something that was never said or even implied! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

I think most of us who study golf architecture seriously understand that when one walks behind greens and such the look of things from back there is generally not quite so natural looking in the vein of lines and grades for pretty obvious reasons.

It's really not much different from the fact that play sets don't look the same if one looks at them from behind rather than from the vantage point of where the audience sits in a theater!

But plenty of Macdonald/Raynor/Banks architecture looks unusually manufactured and engineered from the vantage point of the oncoming golfer compared to the look of numerous other golf architects.

I disagree with that.

Tell me what looks unusually manufactured and engineered, from the golfer's perspective, when playing Westhampton ?

The Knoll ?  Essex County ?  Montclair ?  Hackensack ?

The Creek ?  Piping Rock ?

Clearly there are some very important stylistic and historical reasons for that. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, just quite clearly different looking. If someone tries to tell me the look of some of Macdonald/Raynor architecture is no different from the look of Flynn, or Tillinghast, or Colt or Mackenzie architecture, I'm sorry pal, but I'm going to just have to tell them they are either pretty blind or really aesthetially challenged!

It depends upon the course.

Let's take Westhampton.  What's so different looking about it ?

MacKenzie had a unique style with his bunkers so I don't think many are going to confuse his work with any of the others, although, if you were to examine ANGC today, you might find the look similar to the look of Ross courses in the Southeast.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I was thinking of starting a thread (cancelled for lack of time) called "The case for templates."  Since no one can think of a bad course from the Kings of Templates (if you guys start a rock band, theres a name for ya) I think I will include that as argument no. 1 for the defense!

In short, the argument goes, if its a good hole, its a good hole, providing you do fit it on the land.  For that matter, Fazio has shown you don't have to worry about that, if the budget provides enough for ample earthmoving.

Is a good template hole a bad hole just because its a template and/or just because it modifies the topography and template together, each a bit, to make it work in its newest reincarnation?  In some respects - like green contouring - there is only a limited range of contours that can work.  And, if a 1.75% upslope works here, I can only imagine it wouldn't work there, unless prvailing wind conditons were different, or green speed, etc.

I think the fact is that most of us have templates and the ones shouting loudest that they don't, probably have them even more!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I agree.

The values inherent in some of the template holes stand for the ages.

So what if they're repeated.

How many holes require a carry over a stream/pond/waterway ?

Does that fact/feature make them an inferior hole ?

Are # 11, # 12, # 13, # 15 and # 16 at ANGC inferior holes because a similar, or the same carry over water is an architectural component and a playing requirement.

The template holes present unique values cleverly packaged.

The "Road" hole is a perfect example.

Template holes have inate values that challenge the golfer to the degree that they enjoy meeting the challenge, each with his own unique game.

These holes are sporty and fun to play, over and over and over again.

These holes have lasted and been replicated over and over again for a simple reason.

They are great golf holes.  End of story.

[JNC Lyon]

Mark Fine:

I stated there is a difference between being 'manufactured' and being 'forced into the land.'  Shadow Creek, Whistling Straits?? From my understanding there was no land to be forced into; the architect had to work hard in both cases to create something great on a blank template.

TEPaul:

This discussion is exactly what I hoped would happen in this thread.  Since I haven't played that many great courses in my young life, I much prefer discussing theory of architecture versus listing great courses and holes.  I am still trying to understand what makes great holes great.  I think the issue of how the land is used is critical in this discussion.

Pat Mucci:  I remember Hackensack impressed me because it was very much land-of-the-land architecture.  Of course, Banks had a great piece of land with which to work.

Ultimately, I wonder why so many Golden Age Architects/Great Architects of the Modern Era (ESPECIALLY Pete Dye) don't get criticized for heavily manufactured features while RTJ, Dick Wilson, Fazio, etc. do.  Garden City is a classic example of how a relatively flat site doesn't need to be heavily engineered to create interest, variety, and greatness.  I'm not saying manufactured courses are intrinsically mediocre.  Simply, I'm wondering why some features are praised and some are maligned.

[Ronald Montesano]

TE Paul, you presumptuous user of initials...where in my post do I declare or quote Morrison as calling Fox Chapel mediocre?  Reread my post and stop splitting hairs.  I also used the term "supercede" instead of the misleading "refute."  My goal was to establish Fox Chapel's superior design, not forge a voyage into my idiolect or the lexicon in general.

How could one interpret "forced onto the land" as being an affirmation of excellence?  It is a case of recognizing what Morrison meant.  I doubt that he would give his seal of excellence to a course of such a nature.  Immediately after, MacWood indicated that it is "far from it," it being a mediocre golf course.

So, after much waste of digital ink, I say it ain't so.  Fox Chapel is superior.

[Sean_A]

I was thinking of starting a thread (cancelled for lack of time) called "The case for templates."  Since no one can think of a bad course from the Kings of Templates (if you guys start a rock band, theres a name for ya) I think I will include that as argument no. 1 for the defense!

In short, the argument goes, if its a good hole, its a good hole, providing you do fit it on the land.  For that matter, Fazio has shown you don't have to worry about that, if the budget provides enough for ample earthmoving.

Is a good template hole a bad hole just because its a template and/or just because it modifies the topography and template together, each a bit, to make it work in its newest reincarnation?  In some respects - like green contouring - there is only a limited range of contours that can work.  And, if a 1.75% upslope works here, I can only imagine it wouldn't work there, unless prvailing wind conditons were different, or green speed, etc.

I think the fact is that most of us have templates and the ones shouting loudest that they don't, probably have them even more!

Jeff

I agree entirely with you - except for the part about a rock band name.  But to be fair, is anybody saying that the template holes aren't good?  My take of the situation is that some prefer a more natural look (even if engineered) and some don't mind about the aesthetics so long as the hole is good.  It is plainly obvious that the concepts behind these template are solid and enduring, but what isn't so obvious is why the lack of concern over the "finish work" (if you will)? 

I will generally always favour the courses which look as they they belong on the site.  Having said that, two of my favourite courses, Kington and Beau Desert, are about as manufactured as can be around the greens, but both are unique (so far as I am aware) and for this reason I give them a very welcome pass.   

Ciao

[Thomas MacWood]

JNC
Pete Dye has reinvented himself a few times over his career. I actually prefer his early style - Crooked Stick and The Golf Club. I believe he has admitted Raynor was an influence upon that style. I like it because although there are some clearly manufactured features the design comes across as being quite natural - the emphasis is clearly on the natural features of the site. Whistling Straits is in a whole different world. The manufactured dunes are clearly the dominate feature, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

Shadow Creek is in a different league. Here you have a completely man-made idealized vision of nature - like a landscape architect given an unlimited budget. I'm not a big fan of this hyper natural style. Real nature has some elements of ugliness and roughness, which is missing from this style. There is nothing more beautiful in golf than broken ground, you won't find that at Shadow Creek.

Here is a good example of M-R-B being able to place their manufactured greens near an outstanding natural feature, at the bottom of a ravine adjacent to a stream. This drop shot is followed by a dramatic teeshot out of the ravine.



M-R-B were blessed with some very dramatic natural sites, which their style worked very well with for a couple of reasons. One, they could place their greens and tees near the interesting natural features, in that way maximizing the natural features of the site. Really the only thing unnatural on their courses are the tees and greens, everything else is more or less left untouched. (Macdonald & Raynor were two of the best routers in history, I think their style gave them a built in advantage) Two, they used very bold features, big greens and big deep hazards, which IMO work very well with the boldness of the land.

Another architect worthy of study, who used a very similar style without templates, was William Langford. CH Alison's work has similar elements as well.

[TEPaul]

"I'm not saying manufactured courses are intrinsically mediocre.  Simply, I'm wondering why some features are praised and some are maligned."


JNC Lyon:

I'm not saying manufactured looking courses are intrinsicaly mediocre either; all I'm saying is they look manufactured to me. But that certainly does not mean they can't play really well for a whole host of reasons that get into the basic principles of golf course architecture and not necessarily the aesthetics of art in some naturalized looking way.

The problem I see on this website is there are too many who think if someone calls the look or style of a Macdonald/Raynor/Banks "manufactured" that they are criticizing the course and the way it plays.

To me that just doesn't exactly follow. But what definitely doesn't follow to me is when those who think others are being critical of those golf courses for their manufactured look start  to somehow rationalize the lines and look and style of Macdonald/Raynor/Banks features (particularly greens and surrounding features) as actually looking natural or site natural.

This kind of rationalization gets to the point where they start using terms like "The Raynor Paradox" or "aesthetic JUXTAPOSITION" etc. Then they start using other art forms such as building architecture (which has remarkably and fundamentally DIFFERENT artistic aspects to it very much including the vastly different "MEDIUMS" between the art forms) as analogies or examples to make some un-makeable point. It even gets to the point of ridiculousness where they post photographs on here of Frank Lloyd Wright BUILDING architecture to prove their point. 

Frank Lloyd Wright was a remarkable building architect but his materials, his artistic lines in the shapes and forms he created in natural settings (like Fallingwater) are most certainly not natural looking or site natural looking in the sense that someone might think nothing had actually been man-made.

Matter of fact it is practically the opposite extreme---it creates an EXTREMELY OBVIOUS JUXTAPOSITION of the Natural and the Man-made, and clearly there is artistic interest in that too. It's almost like placing some mammoth ultra straight lined statue, such as a pyramidial monolyth out in the middle of the woods. Does that make the statue or monolyth look as if Nature made it and Man didn't?

Of course NOT! This is not to say that juxtaposition can't be interesting or artistically interesting. It just means to me that the clearly man-made ultra linear lines of the monolyth don't look natural (as if nature itself formed it).

[JNC Lyon]

Tom MacWood: I was thinking about the 12th at Shoreacres as well as an example of a template hole being well-fitted into a natural setting, with another being the 16th at Sleepy Hollow. 

TEPaul: One of the most impressive things about Yeamans Hall was that it used the ideal terrain so well.  The rolling aspects of the course are used perfectly on holes like 7, 8, 11, 14, and 18.  At the same time, the course possesses easily identifiable as manufactured, particularly 3 and 14 greens.  Both of these holes are two of my favorites.

Why are these features so good?  I'm guessing it's because, even though they are clearly man-made, they are not at odds with the land.  You see this juxtaposition of man-made and natural features (14 falls over ideal rolling terrain, and the raised green fits right in with these features) working well because the features don't clash.  The Ocean Course (same city but completely different land) executes this well too.  Dye had only a flat beach to work with, but he molded dunes to fit a natural vision for the course.  If he had laid out wall-to-wall turf (an extreme example), this would not have appeared to fit with the surroundings, and would therefore have been a flaw in the design, no matter how great the individual holes were.  Mr. Paul, you mention basic design principles.  I maintain (from my limited expertise) that either being or appearing natural is one of the key principles of design, if not THE key principle.  While the Country Club is a highly natural design and the Ocean Course is highly manufactured, both (with the exception of Kiawah's 17th) appear natural in construction

The Falling Waters example fits with this as well.  Certainly it does not appear natural instead of man-made.  At the same time, it is in harmony with its surroundings.  It is juxtaposition of man and nature, but the two forces are not at odds, quite the opposite in fact.

My question still remains: where do you draw the line for manufactured features between creative and forced, between being in harmony and being at odds with the surrounds???  Clearly Raynor didn't cross this line at Shoreacres and Yeamans Hall.  Did he, MacDonald, or Banks ever cross it???  If so, what are examples??? Why might these examples gain favorability over designs of the 'big builders' of the 1960s???

[Patrick_Mucci]

JNC Lyon,

Modern day architects have to deal with environmental and permitting problems not imagined and not faced by the Golden Age architects.

Thus, their task can be far more difficult.

I don't believe that you'll see many greens, fairways and tees in close proximity to natural waterways.

Could # 11, 12, 13, 15 and 16 at ANGC be duplicated today ?