[Anthony Gray]

 

  C B Macdonald..."When you come to think of it, that is the secret of most of the great holes all over the world. They all have some kind of a twist."

  What courses are comprised of 18 holes each with a little twist. I have searched for a way to explain my love for Cruden Bay. It is because although not a championship course, it does have 18 holes each with some kind of twist. What other courses come to mind?

  Anthony

[Tom_Doak]

That is the second Macdonald quote I've seen this week that I don't remember.  That one doesn't even SOUND like Macdonald.  Where is it from?

[Anthony Gray]

That is the second Macdonald quote I've seen this week that I don't remember.  That one doesn't even SOUND like Macdonald.  Where is it from?

  Geoff Shackelford's book GROUNDS for GOLF. Page 65.

  Anthony

[JESII]

I believe his definition of The Redan.

[Tom_Doak]

That is the second Macdonald quote I've seen this week that I don't remember.  That one doesn't even SOUND like Macdonald.  Where is it from?

  Geoff Shackelford's book GROUNDS for GOLF. Page 65.

  Anthony

Ah, no wonder ... a book I never look at.  But where does Geoff get the quote from?

[DMoriarty]

That is the second Macdonald quote I've seen this week that I don't remember.  That one doesn't even SOUND like Macdonald.  Where is it from?

  Geoff Shackelford's book GROUNDS for GOLF. Page 65.

  Anthony

Ah, no wonder ... a book I never look at.  But where does Geoff get the quote from?

From the opening paragraph of Macdonald and Whigham's article on the "Redan" 1914 in Golf Illustrated.   Part of their short lived series on the great holes.   The entire paragraph:

TAKE a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have
the Redan. At North Berwick, of course, all these
things were done in the beginning by nature. The
only original thing that the greenkeeper did was to
place the tee so that the shot had to be played cornerwise,
so to speak, instead of directly down the tableland.
And when you come to think of it that is the
secret of most of the great holes all over the world.
They all have some kind of a twist.  

The article is a must read for anyone still suffering under the delusion that Macdonald and Whigham were wedded to very specific and formulaic templates as opposed to more general strategic concepts.  From the last paragraph of the same article:

There are several Redans to be found nowadays
on American courses. There is a simplified Redan
at Piping Rock, a reversed Redan at Merion Cricket
Club (the green being approached from the left hand
end of the tableland) and another reversed Redan at
Sleepy Hollow where the tee instead of being about
level with the green is much higher. A beautiful
short hole with the Redan principle will be found on
the new Philadelphia course at Pine Valley. Here
also the tee is higher than the hole, so that the player
overlooks the tableland. The principle can be used
with an infinite number of variations on any
course. In reality there are only about four
or five kinds of good holes in golf. The local
scenery supplies the variety. Here is one
of the four or five perfect kinds. The
principle of the Redan cannot be improved
upon for a hole of 180 yards.

[Note the apparent contradiction between the principle being used in "infinite number of variations" and the dogmatic sound of "there are only about four or five kinds of good holes in golf."   It is arguable, but I presume that Macdonald either means there are only four our five kinds of good short holes, or that he is speaking more generally, about four or five basic strategic principles.  I suspect the latter.]

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

That is the second Macdonald quote I've seen this week that I don't remember.  That one doesn't even SOUND like Macdonald.  Where is it from?

  Geoff Shackelford's book GROUNDS for GOLF. Page 65.

  Anthony

Ah, no wonder ... a book I never look at.  But where does Geoff get the quote from?

I just got this book last week and it's a disappointment.

Dónal.

[Tom_Doak]

David:

Better send me the rest of those articles.  George B. never produced them for Old Macdonald, and I've never seen them.  I wonder how many times we'll be shown up for what we built?

[DMoriarty]

David:

Better send me the rest of those articles.  George B. never produced them for Old Macdonald, and I've never seen them.  I wonder how many times we'll be shown up for what we built?

I'll send them.   But you won't be shown up unless you forgot his pride and joy, his famous "whoop-tee-do hole" with its four distinct fairways and the microscopic green.

[Tom_Doak]

We've got that hole covered.  You can play to #10 green down the fairway of #10, or #6, or #11 ... or if you are being really sneaky, you can play over to #4 and then onto the Short green #5 and then putt to #10 from there.

[Geoff_Shackelford]

Tom,
So let me get this straight, you just did a Macdonald theme/tribute/homage course and you've never read that line? That's embarrassing.

Maybe you should expand your reading horizons. The quote in question first appeared in the article noted here by Moriarty, which was reproduced in Masters of the Links, a book you were a contributor to (thanks again!). Hopefully you still have that on the shelves to refer to?

Don't tell me you've become like Oscar Levant: "I've given up reading books; I find it takes my mind off myself."
Geoff

[Gary Daughters]

Was that the sound of a pin dropping?

[Jim Nugent]

From the opening paragraph of Macdonald and Whigham's article on the "Redan" 1914 in Golf Illustrated.  

TAKE a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have
the Redan.

It sounds like they are saying here the green must slope from front to back.  Is that right?   

[DMoriarty]

From the opening paragraph of Macdonald and Whigham's article on the "Redan" 1914 in Golf Illustrated.  

TAKE a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from
right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front
side, approach it diagonally, and you have
the Redan.

It sounds like they are saying here the green must slope from front to back.  Is that right?   

Jim this has been discussed endlessly, but I have trouble necessarily equating "tilt it a little from right to left" with "tilt it from back to front."    If you read the entire article you will see that the standard was a rather loose one.   It could be applied in an infinite number of circumstances and included such diverse holes as Merion's third, which slopes a little from left to right, but not back to front.   

[Sean_A]

David

You may have trouble equating the two concepts from the quote, but what is in the ground tilts right to left and generally front to back with a rise near the middle.  If it didn't, what would be the motivation to run a ball to a back hole location rather than fly it? 

There have been all sorts of wannabee Redans out there, many of which are not Redans - including, quite obviously, Merion's 3rd.  But then I spose any of us can randomly pick and choose which elements of the Redan are important and which aren't.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

I presume he is alluding to the 3rd at Pine Valley?

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
The article does say that: "It would be almost impossible to drop the ball on the green near the flag and keep it there if the green were not banked a little beyond the hole"  and: ..."the green is banked like a circular bicycle track"...


Sean,
I suppose that any of us could pick and choose which elements we think are necessary, architects do that all the time. I think the real 'beauty' of the hole lies in just how rich it is in these elements and how well they lend themselves to the many holes which you might not call Redans, but who owe their creation to it.

[Sean_A]

David,
The article does say that: "It would be almost impossible to drop the ball on the green near the flag and keep it there if the green were not banked a little beyond the hole"  and: ..."the green is banked like a circular bicycle track"...


Sean,
I suppose that any of us could pick and choose which elements we think are necessary, architects do that all the time. I think the real 'beauty' of the hole lies in just how rich it is in these elements and how well they lend themselves to the many holes which you might not call Redans, but who owe their creation to it.

Jim

Right you are.  Its incredible how many different elements come together to make Redan such a great hole.  I spose you are also right in that the individual elements in and of themselves are enough to make very fine holes.  Just think of how many holes we have today which rests an angular green on a wee plateau.  I believe Colt helped create what we think of as modern architecture by using at least the plateau aspect very liberally.

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

David

You may have trouble equating the two concepts from the quote, but what is in the ground tilts right to left and generally front to back with a rise near the middle.  If it didn't, what would be the motivation to run a ball to a back hole location rather than fly it?  

There have been all sorts of wannabee Redans out there, many of which are not Redans - including, quite obviously, Merion's 3rd.  But then I spose any of us can randomly pick and choose which elements of the Redan are important and which aren't.

Ciao

Sean,  I understand what you are saying and generally agree with you, but I wasn't addressing what you or I think a Redan should be.   Jim Nugent asked about Macdonald and Whigham's understanding of the Redan, as expressed in the 1914 article.   As I read the article and look at the examples and descriptions within the article, it seems to me that their understanding and application of the various underlying components was more flexible than yours, mine, and most modern conceptions of the hole.   Why else would they include as examples a "simplified redan" (Piping Rock,) a reversed redan that slopes back to front (Merion), a reversed steeply downhill redan (Sleepy Hollow), and short drop shot hole with the "Redan principle" at Pine Valley?

Macdonald and Whigham were not laying down formal, specific, and detailed definitions (or exact "templates") of what these holes necessarily had to be to qualify as "Redans."  Rather, they were using great holes to present and discuss some of the underlying principles that made these holes great, and encouraging others to consider and apply these principles to their courses whenever they could.   In this regard, they noted that "the principle of the Redan can be used wherever a long narrow tableland can be found or made" and emphasized that "the principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course." (my emphasis)

As an aside, others such as Tillinghast and Findlay must have viewed it similarly, because they considered holes to be Redans that you and I might not (for example, Merion's 3rd.)  As far as I am concerned, it would be presumptuous of me to tell Macdonald, Whigham, Tillinghast, and Findlay that they didn't understand the Redan.  Not only that, but substituting our understanding for theirs would make the study of the history of these concepts rather pointless, don't you think?

[Gary Slatter]

That is the second Macdonald quote I've seen this week that I don't remember.  That one doesn't even SOUND like Macdonald.  Where is it from?

I love the book.  Thanks for starting this Anthony. 

  Geoff Shackelford's book GROUNDS for GOLF. Page 65.

  Anthony

Ah, no wonder ... a book I never look at.  But where does Geoff get the quote from?

I just got this book last week and it's a disappointment.

Dónal.

[Sean_A]

David

You may have trouble equating the two concepts from the quote, but what is in the ground tilts right to left and generally front to back with a rise near the middle.  If it didn't, what would be the motivation to run a ball to a back hole location rather than fly it?  

There have been all sorts of wannabee Redans out there, many of which are not Redans - including, quite obviously, Merion's 3rd.  But then I spose any of us can randomly pick and choose which elements of the Redan are important and which aren't.

Ciao

Sean,  I understand what you are saying and generally agree with you, but I wasn't addressing what you or I think a Redan should be.   Jim Nugent asked about Macdonald and Whigham's understanding of the Redan, as expressed in the 1914 article.   As I read the article and look at the examples and descriptions within the article, it seems to me that their understanding and application of the various underlying components was more flexible than yours, mine, and most modern conceptions of the hole.   Why else would they include as examples a "simplified redan" (Piping Rock,) a reversed redan that slopes back to front (Merion), a reversed steeply downhill redan (Sleepy Hollow), and short drop shot hole with the "Redan principle" at Pine Valley?

Macdonald and Whigham were not laying down formal, specific, and detailed definitions (or exact "templates") of what these holes necessarily had to be to qualify as "Redans."  Rather, they were using great holes to present and discuss some of the underlying principles that made these holes great, and encouraging others to consider and apply these principles to their courses whenever they could.   In this regard, they noted that "the principle of the Redan can be used wherever a long narrow tableland can be found or made" and emphasized that "the principle can be used with an infinite number of variations on any course." (my emphasis)

As an aside, others such as Tillinghast and Findlay must have viewed it similarly, because they considered holes to be Redans that you and I might not (for example, Merion's 3rd.)  As far as I am concerned, it would be presumptuous of me to tell Macdonald, Whigham, Tillinghast, and Findlay that they didn't understand the Redan.  Not only that, but substituting our understanding for theirs would make the study of the history of these concepts rather pointless, don't you think?

David

I am not presuming  the chaps you mentioned didn't understand what a Redan was.  I am assuming they thought they could build better Redans even if they deviated from model.  As for calling them Redans - I guess it was laziness and/or convenience. 

Ciao

[DMoriarty]

David

I am not presuming  the chaps you mentioned didn't understand what a Redan was.  I am assuming they thought they could build better Redans even if they deviated from model.  As for calling them Redans - I guess it was laziness and/or convenience.  

Ciao

They knew better, but were mislabeling these holes in an article explaining the Redan concept because of laziness or convenience?  Wow.  I don't understand why you insist on demeaning what was actually extremely subtle and sophisticated approach to golf design.  

They weren't acting out of laziness and inconvenience as you claim.  They understood and applied the concepts and terminology differently than you.  Specifically, they did not intend these principles and terms to be applied only as literal and mathematically precise templates.  To do so would have been counterproductive not only to their approach to golf design, but also to their efforts to spread quality golf design across North America.

Macdonald is sometimes criticized for supposedly copying holes in a manner that required no creativity or original thought, yet he is also criticized for failing to create exact copies.    Both criticisms miss the point and misunderstand his approach completely.   He wasn't trying (and sometimes failing) to create exact copies of golf holes.  He was applying the time tested, fundamental principles of golf design in new and unique circumstances.  That was his design philosophy in a nutshell.  

When you say that "they thought they could build better Redans even if they deviated from the model" you misunderstand their approach on numerous levels.

[Sean_A]

David

I am not presuming  the chaps you mentioned didn't understand what a Redan was.  I am assuming they thought they could build better Redans even if they deviated from model.  As for calling them Redans - I guess it was laziness and/or convenience.  

Ciao

They knew better, but were mislabeling these holes in an article explaining the Redan concept because of laziness or convenience?  Wow.  I don't understand why you insist on demeaning what was actually extremely subtle and sophisticated approach to golf design.  

They weren't acting out of laziness and inconvenience as you claim.  They understood and applied the concepts and terminology differently than you.  Specifically, they did not intend these principles and terms to be applied only as literal and mathematically precise templates.  To do so would have been counterproductive not only to their approach to golf design, but also to their efforts to spread quality golf design across North America.

Macdonald is sometimes criticized for supposedly copying holes in a manner that required no creativity or original thought, yet he is also criticized for failing to create exact copies.    Both criticisms miss the point and misunderstand his approach completely.   He wasn't trying (and sometimes failing) to create exact copies of golf holes.  He was applying the time tested, fundamental principles of golf design in new and unique circumstances.  That was his design philosophy in a nutshell.  

When you say that "they thought they could build better Redans even if they deviated from the model" you misunderstand their approach on numerous levels.

David

I am in no way demeaning Mac and Co.  It is your interpretation which is off base.

My point is to build a Redan one must incorporate all of the critical elements of the hole - otherwise its a Redan in name only - which in fact isn't very helpful as there are certain expectations that come with the name.  Often times  Mac and Co chose not do incorporate critical elements of the Redan in their designs.  I don't have a problem with that at all.  What I have a problem with is when the critical elements are not incorporated yet the title Redan remains.  Its misleading and as a result is we have a load of east coast folks calling holes Redans which aren't.  They may be Redan inspired, but that is necessarily a very different thing - as can be evidenced when looking at the holes.  Its sounds weird, but because Mac and Co were doing their own thing by using elements of much tested and loved holes I think they were quite clever.  There were no pretenses about reinventing the wheel as it is clear Mac didn't think the wheel needed reinventing. 

Ciao   

[DMoriarty]

I don't know, Sean, claiming that they were too lazy or inconvenienced to use the correct terms sounds pretty demeaning to me.

This is definitional.  You have a certain modern understanding of the necessary components of a redan hole.  Quite obviously they had different requirements.   Not sure why you think your understanding is superior and should trump theirs.  If these holes didn't qualify under the understanding at that time, they wouldn't have called the holes Redans.  For you to claim they were misapplying the term takes things out of the context within which the term was used.  

These concepts change over time, even when based on specific holes.  A cape hole is no longer a Cape hole and a biarritz isn't a Biarritz (if it ever was.).  Not even dogleg means what it once did.   So why is it so hard for you to accept that their understanding of what constituted a redan is different than yours?  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Surely all will agree N Berwick's Redan is a pale shadow of the original.

Those CBM & Whigham articles are great; here's a link to all four:
http://bit.ly/Q2KYk

Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()