The contribution of templates to land particularly suited for golf

[JC Jones]

I recently played a template course, Yeamans Hall.  It was my first experience with such a course and I absolutely loved it.  In particular, the green complexes were superb and compelling.  One other thing that struck me was the terrain.  My previous experiences with low country golf have been on very flat pieces of land, yet Yeamans Hall has a wonderful rolling topography noted by Olmsted and Raynor to be particularly suited for golf.

So, as I reflect upon my round and why I enjoyed it so much and what I enjoyed so much about it, I have many questions. Most relevant to this thread is this:

With land that is particularly suited for golf, having many wonderful and natural features, do template courses maximize the natural features of the land in ways that non-template courses cannot?

[Mac Plumart]

With land that is particularly suited for golf, having many wonderful and natural features, do template courses maximize the natural features of the land in ways that non-template courses cannot?


I'd love to hear some of the gurus on this site weigh in on this, but I'll offer my thoughts to hopefully get the ball rolling.

When I hear template holes, I think CBM/Raynor.  And I don't think they maximize the natural features of the land.  I think they can make almost any land interesting for golf by applying the templates.  The holes don't look natural at all, but they are fun to play.  That is the key to the templates as I see them...they make for fun, diverse, and interesting golf.

I think Mackenzie and Doak might be the best at using the natural features of the land. 

I haven't seen Old Mac, but it has to be a wonderful mix of the templates with a more natural flow of the land.

Anyway, like I said...I'd love to hear more opinions on this.  Great topic JC.

[Jim_Kennedy]

JC,
I can't think of anyone who has ever accused CBM/SR of taking any parcel of "land that is particularly suited for golf, having many wonderful and natural features," and tearing those features up so they could superimpose their respective visions upon it.







 

[Tim Bert]

With land that is particularly suited for golf, having many wonderful and natural features, do template courses maximize the natural features of the land in ways that non-template courses cannot?

I'd say that Sand Hills, Pacific Dunes, Ballyneal, and Kingsley do a pretty good job of maximizing the natural features of the land without using templates.  I agree that template golf can be a blast, but I think in many cases they may be more suited to moving dirt as opposed to using the natural features.  I think it can go both ways, but for my personal taste I'd rather see the architect inspired by his own creative instinct as opposed to a combination of his creative instinct and a need to look for certain features.

Old Macdonald is awesome, but I still like Pacific Dunes better.  I know many disagree, but I also know I'm not alone.

[JC Jones]

JC,
I can't think of anyone who has ever accused CBM/SR of taking any parcel of "land that is particularly suited for golf, having many wonderful and natural features," and tearing those features up so they could superimpose their respective visions upon it.

I don't think I've ever seen that either.  Those accusations are generally left for the likes of Fazio.

[TEPaul]

"With land that is particularly suited for golf, having many wonderful and natural features, do template courses maximize the natural features of the land in ways that non-template courses cannot?"



I know I sure could never answer a question like that very well in some form of a generality. However, it certainly is a very interesting question. I believe I could do it to some extent with individual holes and individual template holes.

I think the ones to use for me at least would be a few of the template holes of CBM/Raynor courses that I grew up on and know so well, particularly Piping Rock and also The Creek.

The hole I would start with would be Piping's redan. I think that redan plays as well or better than any other I know and perhaps almost including NGLA's. I have studied that area intensely and I just know I can detect what Macdonald/Raynor did with that green-end. If they had just left that green end landform as it was naturally would it have been as good or better than what they built there?

Not even close; not within a country mile of what they actually built! So yes, that particular template hole at Piping Rock enhanced what was there naturally just huge!!
 
 

[Jud_T]

Tim,

I would tend to agree...Haven't seen Old Mac yet, but it seems to me that Templates are one of the best ways to produce a very good course out of an average site.   While it's certainly possible to make a great course using templates on a great piece of property, it's only one of many options and the risk is that in lesser hands too much dirt moving on a great site may not maximize the possibilities.

[JC Jones]

Tim,

I agree with you as far as my preference to date (though I've only seen one template course).  I think in our limited interactions we've exchanged comments on our preference for Kingsley in particular.

I think Jud might hit on something that a template course might be the best way to get something out of land that isn't quite good.  However, there are some great template courses on some great land.

You've hit the core of my question, Tim.  With land as good as Yeamans Hall or NGLA or any of the other great template courses, could a non-template course have produced a similarly well regarded or better golf course.  I don't know the answer to that question because the golf course that is there is really, really good.

Tom Paul,

Your feelings towards the redan at Piping Rock are my feelings towards Yeamans Hall.  Despite the fact that there is good, rolling topography at Yeamans, I feel it is more on a macro level and the greens would not be nearly as good as they are if it weren't for the templates.

[Adam Clayman]

JC, Weren't you just slightly disappointed in Yeamans Punchbowl?

[JC Jones]

JC, Weren't you just slightly disappointed in Yeamans Punchbowl?

More than just slightly.  It was the one memorable negative from the day.  Our group talked about it while on the green.  It just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the course.

[Adam Clayman]

JC, Us too.

I couldn't help but think about Lawsonia while at Yeamans.

Have you played it?

It's on wonderful ground, but uses the geometric architecture usually associated with Raynor.

So, as I read your original post, I could see replacing "template" with the juxtaposition that "geometric" provides, on great golfing ground.

[Mark Arata]

Yeaman's redan was outstanding........ I really loved that course, but your right, the punchbowl was not that great, and just like Piping Rock, I wish they would cut the grass in front of the swale on the biarratz(sp?) at green level, like they do for Yale's, I think it would make the hole more fun. 

[JC Jones]

Adam,

I've not played Lawsonia.  I refuse to acknowledge that the state of Wisconsin has anything worthwhile to offer. 

I think what differentiates a geometric design like Lawsonia from a Raynor course is the pre-determined use of particular templates so I'd be hesitant to make the switch you suggest.  At least for purposes of this thread as I think it would otherwise yield a very interesting discussion.

Mark,

I agree.  Mowing the area in front of the swale on the biarratz would really make it a cool hole (more cool than it is now).

[George Freeman]

JC,

Interesting question.  I tend to agree with previous posters that template holes do a great job of creating interesting and thought-provoking golf on less than "ideal" parcels.  However, that doesn't mean that template holes don't work on good land (see Old Mac and NGLA to name two).

But, I think there is a difference between good land for golf (maybe a site like Lawsonia) and truly great, unique pieces of property.  Would templates have yielded a better course on the Sand Hills site?  What about Ballyneal?  Kingsley?  Pac Dunes?  I'm not so sure.  

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but to me it seems like the template design worked better on Old Mac's piece of land b/c they had more of a big open "field" to work with (granted, there appeared to be tons of micro interest in the ground undulations) than with the site for Pac Dunes.  And b/c of that, it worked quite well.  I could be wayyyyy off, but from my view of the Old Mac site (very early on in construction) and from pics, that is the feeling I get.

It would be really interesting to hear Tom D. opine on what he thinks it would have been like to build Pac Dunes with template holes in mind.

[Tom_Doak]

It would be really interesting to hear Tom D. opine on what he thinks it would have been like to build Pac Dunes with template holes in mind.

I hear the sound of fingernails scratching a blackboard.  Yeech.

It's the same as when I think of what Raynor might have built at Cypress Point.  It surely would have been a good golf course, but it surely would not have been as inspiring of a course.

[Peter Pallotta]

JC - a question back to you:

Do you believe that the fundamental principles/concepts of good golf architecture made manifest in those 'templates holes' whose names and characteristics we have become so familiar with necessarily maximize the 'golfing terrain' (i.e.the natural site adpated to the playing of the game) better than any golf hole that a designer can create based on the land itself and not overtly/consciously on a template?   In short, do you believe that those famous templates are -- and will continue to be -- the best holes/hole concepts ever?

Pete

[JC Jones]

It would be really interesting to hear Tom D. opine on what he thinks it would have been like to build Pac Dunes with template holes in mind.

I hear the sound of fingernails scratching a blackboard.  Yeech.

Perhaps that is the sound of your voice while singing Christmas carols in blustery TC .....?

It's the same as when I think of what Raynor might have built at Cypress Point.  It surely would have been a good golf course, but it surely would not have been as inspiring of a course.

Not to completely de-rail my own thread ..... but, are you saying that template courses, generally, aren't as inspiring?  And, even further off point, is it possible that Raynor had envisioned #16 at Cypress Point to be a 4 shot Cape hole?  I looked at a picture of it today in George Bahto's book and it sure looked like if the tee were 100 yards back it would play exactly like a Cape.

[Joe Bausch]

Yeaman's redan was outstanding........

A few pics of the Redan (#6) at YH:

[George Freeman]

I hear the sound of fingernails scratching a blackboard.  Yeech.

It's the same as when I think of what Raynor might have built at Cypress Point.  It surely would have been a good golf course, but it surely would not have been as inspiring of a course.

That is a very interesting reply, Tom.  And one that provokes many questions!

First and foremost: How differently would Old Mac have been built/turned out without the template emphasis?  Would it have been a drastically different routing?  Different par?  etc?  Less inspired (i.e. worse)?  More inspired (i.e. better).  And I know you can't answer the better/worse question, but I had to ask...

[Tom_Doak]

Not to completely de-rail my own thread ..... but, are you saying that template courses, generally, aren't as inspiring?  And, even further off point, is it possible that Raynor had envisioned #16 at Cypress Point to be a 4 shot Cape hole?  I looked at a picture of it today in George Bahto's book and it sure looked like if the tee were 100 yards back it would play exactly like a Cape.

JC:  I am saying that if you have a really great piece of land ... Cypress Point quality ... then the template approach is not the best way to go.  My defense of that is that there are a few holes at Cypress Point [9, 15, 16] which are better than most of Raynor's templates, and many others which are arguably just as good.

As for the 16th at Cypress Point, I am sure it would have been a great hole as a short 4, too, though a lot of weaker players would never have finished the hole that way.  But I fail to see how anyone can defend the thought that it would have been BETTER than the hole that's there now, which is generally proclaimed to be one of the two or three best golf holes on the planet.  Indeed, the 16th at Cypress Point in its current form would BE a template for others to copy, were it not for the fact that it would be a tad expensive to copy that landform in Chicago or Oregon.

[Tom_Doak]

George F:

Old Macdonald is built on a very good piece of property, but it's not nearly the same sort of property as Cypress Point (or for that matter, Pacific Dunes).  So I did not mind adapting the template approach to it ... especially factoring in that if we hadn't done it that way, Mr. Keiser would have hired someone else besides us to design it!    So, I never really thought about what we would have done had we taken a different approach, and I don't see a point in starting now.

[George Freeman]

George F:

Old Macdonald is built on a very good piece of property, but it's not nearly the same sort of property as Cypress Point (or for that matter, Pacific Dunes).  So I did not mind adapting the template approach to it ... especially factoring in that if we hadn't done it that way, Mr. Keiser would have hired someone else besides us to design it!    So, I never really thought about what we would have done had we taken a different approach, and I don't see a point in starting now.

Fair enough!

So would you agree that template holes are better suited to create interesting architecture on less than "perfect" sites than they are for truely original sites full of interest?

Also, have you created your own set of rough templates over the years that you find yourself coming back to when the land lends itself to that particular style/strategy?

[JC Jones]

 In short, do you believe that those famous templates are -- and will continue to be -- the best holes/hole concepts ever?

Pete

No.  I subscribe to Tom Paul's Big World theory.  I'm not sure a more naturalistic approach to Yeamans would have produced a better golf course.  I am also not sure that a template approach would have yielded a better golf course at, say, Crystal Downs.

I believe that the best holes/hole concepts ever are those that arise from what the land yields and inspires (perhaps the land inspires a Road Hole or a Redan).  I call it the Kung Fu approach to Golf Course Architecture.

[Sean_A]

I am definitely in the camp of template courses being best suited for the less than best land - which is why it works at YHC.  The property is good (with the best part being the turf rather than the terrain), but in no way idea or outstanding. 

You lot didn't like 17?  It was a hole I admired at YHC for two reasons: 1st, the bunker scheme is a bit different - encouraging more of a ground game and 2nd, the green is obviously not raised (though I wouldn't be surprised if the back end is jacked up a  bit) - imo there are too many raised greens at YHC which facilitate the ott greenside buunkering.

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

"Other architects have seen the value in adapting and reproducing the strategic building blocks of the classic holes. If not actively, they have done so unconsciously, falling in line with my firmly held belief that there are only 50 original golf holes in the world—the other 500,000 or so are mere variations on established themes." - Brian Silva