[Eric Smith]

I would like to raise my hand in class and ask a question. Are the concepts of Old Macdonald and Old American (+ The Tribute) pretty much the same, or have I just flunked GCA?  I ask this as if I'd never read a thread on GCA because I want the truth! and can handle it.  It was 6 years ago that George Bahto corrected me during a phone conversation when he said, "No, you don't want to copy holes, Eric, but the strategies of the holes", or something to that effect, with emphasis on strategies.  To this day, I am still somewhat skeptical of the nuance that distinguishes the two, but I am willing to learn if you guys are willing to teach the class.

Reading the following passage, I think Tripp and Justin are on the same page as George was with me:

"One of the many things Justin Leonard and I have in common is a love for the early American golf courses – the “classics” created during a period from about 1910 to about 1937 that was know as the “Golden Age of Golf Architecture”. It was a period when the greats of golf architecture, such as A.W. Tillinghast, Seth Raynor, Donald Ross, and Perry Maxwell crafted golf courses into the land with strategic interest and variety as their main objectives.

When presented with the opportunity to create a new and unique golf experience along the shoreline of Lake Lewisville, Justin and I immediately agreed that this was great piece of ground to build a golf course that paid homage to the great early American designs we so loved. What resulted was a design process that took us all over the country, physically and mentally, to recall and study the details of courses like Shinnecock, National Golf Links, Maidstone, Pinehurst, and Prairie Dunes, eventually leading to an untold number of hours spent debating and brainstorming design ideas that would meld together to create a golf experience that would not only give players a visual sense of the courses from this era, but the ability to experience the strategic interest and variety that has often been lost in the modern era." - Tripp Davis  http://www.theoldamericangolfclub.com/

So, replica, or not a replica? Tribute? Road? Templates? Inspired by Golf? Redan? Amen Corner? NGLA?

Are the differences in concept between Old Mac and Old American so great? Why are the the words replica and template seemingly taboo, yet to me, the drawings, the talking about putting holes from other golf courses (call it strategies, it's still from that hole) in the ground is, for lack of a better word, okay with the cognoscenti?

[Tom_Doak]

Eric,

It is mostly about marketing.

Tom

[JC Jones]

Eric,

It is mostly about marketing.

Tom

Tom,

I would be expecting a reply from John Mayhugh that is less than conciliatory.

Eric,

I have always understood it as employing strategies because I have always been told that although there might be an Eden at St. Andrews, NGLA, Fishers Island, etc., etc., etc. they are not the "same" at each course insomuch that they are not replicas. 

Just think, does the bottle hole #18 at Harbour Town look anything like the one at NGLA?  Even though the strategy to play them might be the same?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Eric

Inspired By Golf: Tributes, Replicas and Templates - great, so you go all out to keep as close to the heart of Golf, then you screw it with carts and cart tracks.

Why even go down this road of Tributes, Replicas and Templates if it is your intention to change the very thing you seek to honour in the fist place?

Melvyn

[Bill_McBride]

Eric

Inspired By Golf: Tributes, Replicas and Templates - great, so you go all out to keep as close to the heart of Golf, then you screw it with carts and cart tracks.

Why even go down this road of Tributes, Replicas and Templates if it is your intention to change the very thing you seek to honour in the fist place?

Melvyn

Anbother question....why can't you give it a rest?

[Sean_A]

Eric

I sort of fall in line with you.  Its all a bit of a mish mash, but you can't blame archies for wanting to distinguish their work somehow even if only in name. On the flip side, the differences in where the template hole is built can be quite significant as the character can change even if the concepts don't.  This is one reason why I would like to see more Raynor courses.  Folks say the templates are much of a muchness and others say while this is true, somehow it still works.  Of course that could be down to the supreme concepts involved, but I wonder if slight nuances in climate, nature & terrain help to foster the idea of same hole/different hole.  At the ned of the day this is all really about current archies looking for validation in their work and/or folks being willing to see the nuances as valuable.  Its hard for an artist to accept he is likely never going to create an original idea, but what he can do is create an original course.  I don't know about anybody else, but the original course is what I care most about.

Ciao

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bill

For someone who spends time in Scotland, you seem not to either understand us or our culture. You forget our history and the underlining determination of my fellow countrymen and women. Our history like our passion for the Game of Golf are interwoven with the determination of the first totally independent King of Scotland, Robert The Bruce. Check out the following link and you may recall the story of the Spider http://www.showcaves.com/english/explain/History/Bruce.html

I would also add that it has a major effect upon the GCA, more so than list of some ones greatest 100 courses as designers seem to have to address the cart issue early within their design process. It also adds a heavy financial burden not to mention scars to any new course before any revenue is generated.

It’s a modern requirement and is now so integral with modern GCA that it is a very valid subject for a site whose purpose is to discuss golf course architecture.

I accept its can rub people up the wrong way but that’s down to their guilt by association and I have nothing to fear except from the users of the cart. Its alien to the game and GCA so should be open for discussion, he more they are used the more debate we need IMHO

Sorry it upset you Billl, but surprised that you are not tolerant enough to openly discuss the GCA issues.

It would be wrong of me to continue as we may hijack Eric’s topic.

Melvyn.

-

[Eric Smith]

Maybe the gray area is best left undisturbed.

[Bill_McBride]

Bill

For someone who spends time in Scotland, you seem not to either understand us or our culture. You forget our history and the underlining determination of my fellow countrymen and women. Our history like our passion for the Game of Golf are interwoven with the determination of the first totally independent King of Scotland, Robert The Bruce. Check out the following link and you may recall the story of the Spider http://www.showcaves.com/english/explain/History/Bruce.html

I would also add that it has a major effect upon the GCA, more so than list of some ones greatest 100 courses as designers seem to have to address the cart issue early within their design process. It also adds a heavy financial burden not to mention scars to any new course before any revenue is generated.

It’s a modern requirement and is now so integral with modern GCA that it is a very valid subject for a site whose purpose is to discuss golf course architecture.

I accept its can rub people up the wrong way but that’s down to their guilt by association and I have nothing to fear except from the users of the cart. Its alien to the game and GCA so should be open for discussion, he more they are used the more debate we need IMHO

Sorry it upset you Billl, but surprised that you are not tolerant enough to openly discuss the GCA issues.

It would be wrong of me to continue as we may hijack Eric’s topic.

Melvyn.

-

You already hijacked Eric's thread.  He's talking about one thing and you (as usual) step in with your anti-American golf culture rant.  That's why I suggested you give it a rest, what's to be gained by interjecting your standard message, which I think we all get by now?  And yes I love playing golf in Scotland, not sure what that has to do with Eric's polite question.

[Eric Smith]

No worries, Bill, but thanks. I exchanged pm's with Melvyn and he explained more of what he was getting at in re: to his first post.  If he cares to do so in a new post here for everyone else to understand, that's fine too. This thread is quickly headed out to sea anyway, along with Tommy Naccarato's secret ballistic missile. Where the hell was he aiming that thing do you suppose?

[Melvyn Morrow]

My whole point is that carts and cart tracks are regrettable now part of modern day design procedure, so IMHO justify serious discussion to be undertaken and we should not accept it as the norm. It’s alien to the game, the spirit of the game and to others who walk. It is also a cop out to ones commitment to the game they profess to love and cherish.

AS for my Anti American Golf Culture rant, tell me how did America play golf from its introduction in the 19th Century through to the mid 20th Century – they played Golf by WALKING, so please get you own facts right because your culture was built up in the first 50-60 years of playing golf not the last 20 years.

So if the current generations can’t hack what your fathers and grandfathers did, then do not try to lay the blame at my feet. As I have said it clearly shows a total lack of commitment but also respect not just for the game but the real Americans who honoured the Game pre WW2 and after by Walking

If trying to discuss a real and serious issue on GCA is anti American, then you guy’s have the problem as I am only interested in golf.

Melvyn

[PCCraig]

You've really added to this thread Melvyn, thank you!

Eric:

Back to your first post, which was very well done. It made me think about the differences and, marketing aside, I think the difference between Old Mac and Old American is the intent in which each respective GCA set out to build the course. For example, Tom Doak built Old Macdonald by trying to use the land given to highlight a specific template's strategy and soul, the way CBM or Raynor would of done if they were given a similar opportunity. On the other hand, Old American may be using template (or "tribute") holes, but on land not perfect for the desired use.

So, in the end is it possible to build a great example of a template hole if the land isn't suited for it?

[JC Jones]

Pat,

Good questions.  I think there are at least a few Seth Raynor courses on land that one wouldn't normally deem suitable.  Yeamans Hall and Country Club of Charleston come to mind.  Yet, from what I hear, both are very good and Yeamans is spectacular.

[Greg Clark]

I believe there is a misunderstanding related to The Old American.  While the first course on the property, The Tribute is a replica course of famous Scottish holes, The Old American is not a replica or tribute course.  Nor is it a "template" course.  Rather Davis and Leonard were inspired by early american golf courses, and attempted to use that inspiration to build a course that shares the architectual merits of the early classics.  Nothing is forced on the land to build a specific replica hole, or to make sure an Alps hole is present.

I've only played the course once, and need to post a few pics and thoughts in the near future, as well as get out there again to gain better perspective.  The architects got it more right than wrong IMO, with the fairway bunkering being particularly interesting.  It is certainly worth playing if you are in Dallas and looking for a round on a public course.  It isn't going to make anyone forget Merion or Shinnecock.

[Eric Smith]

Melvyn. Anti-American is not how I would describe you or your posts. Anti carts? Absolutely. Fair enough. You don't have to write me, telling me I have chosen sides. I appreciate Bill and I think you do too. Why don't we just discuss now and not 60 years ago, because this is our time and it is too precious to be bogged down in debate over a subject like golf carts and their place in the game.  Tenby, the oldest club in Wales had carts lined up in front of the clubhouse when I stayed there. It's not just here.

I wish you well sir!

[PCCraig]

Pat,

Good questions.  I think there are at least a few Seth Raynor courses on land that one wouldn't normally deem suitable.  Yeamans Hall and Country Club of Charleston come to mind.  Yet, from what I hear, both are very good and Yeamans is spectacular.

As I was writing my last question I could think of a couple really good examples...the 11th at CC of Charleston and the 1st at Yeamans Hall. Both were built on dead flat low country and both feature severe built up greens with some serious slope.

On the other hand, I played Blue Mound CC this past year and I thought the holes on the front nine were fantastic as they are located on the more dramatic side of the property, however the back nine uses less interesting land and I believe the holes are less interesting because of it.

[Eric Smith]

Greg, (my fellow Playa Grande loyalist!) thanks for the clarification re: Old American. If I'm ever in Dallas I'd love to try to meet up with you there to play one or both of them.

[Greg Clark]

Eric,

That would be great.  Please look me up if you make it this way.  I only took a few pics when I played Playa Grande shortly after it opened, so it was great to see your thread awhile back.  Good memories.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()