The contribution of templates to land particularly suited for golf

[Sean_A]

Obviously, one of the downsides of Templates, and naming them, are the expectations. I don't know if I would've had that much of a problem with YH's Punchbowl, if I hadn't been expecting more bowl.

Adam

To me this is the great liability of templates - expectations.  I didn't bother to dig into what the entire range of templates were at Yeamans before my first play so it didn't occur to me that 17 was meant to be a Punchbowl - for it is certainly not that even in one's wildest imagination.  I was a bit surprised to find out the Alps hole as well, while playing the game.  The hole didn't impress me as a hole worthy of the name Alps, but I thought it a good hole regardless of its name.   

Ciao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
I look at it differently than you or Adam. What you both are saying, in effect, is that your conservative expectations dampened your enthusiasm for the architect's more liberal presentation, whether you knew about the concepts before or after.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Obviously, one of the downsides of Templates, and naming them, are the expectations. I don't know if I would've had that much of a problem with YH's Punchbowl, if I hadn't been expecting more bowl.

Can't you say that about pretty much everything in life ?

Isn't that thought process, the thought process of comparisons with the ideal, a mistake ?

When you go to a new steak house or Italian restauarant and have a good meal, do you say, it was good, but it wasn't as great as my favorite restaurant ?

I don't, I enjoy the food, service, ambiance and company based on their respective merits.

Why can't the template be enjoyed for its own merits.


 I don't, I enjoy the meal, ambiance, service and company for what they're worth.

Why is there a need to compare each template to the ideal ?

Why can't the template be enjoyed for its own merits.

[Tom_Doak]

Why is there a need to compare each template to the ideal ?

Why can't the template be enjoyed for its own merits.

You're the one who started all the threads about which Redan or Biarritz is the best, aren't you? 

[Sean_A]

Sean,
I look at it differently than you or Adam. What you both are saying, in effect, is that your conservative expectations dampened your enthusiasm for the architect's more liberal presentation, whether you knew about the concepts before or after.

Jim

No, I wouldn't say my enthusiasm was at all dampened.  I think for a hole to be a template it must have a certain amount in common with the namesake.  I am quite happy to say a hole is great, but not necessarily a great template hole.  So from this perspective the interpretation doesn't matter in the least.  Personally, I would rather the entire concept of "template" not exist because it necessarily must bring forth certain expectations on the part of the golfer AND the architect.  If the archie chooses to ignore those expectations is he really building a template hole? 

Ciao

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

  Personally, I would rather the entire concept of "template" not exist because it necessarily must bring forth certain expectations on the part of the golfer AND the architect.  If the archie chooses to ignore those expectations is he really building a template hole? 

Ciao

Sean,

If the inspiration for a hole is really one of the classic templates, I think for an architect to say so is really the only honest thing to do.  However, any architect should still have the artistic license (indeed, the responsibility) to make the hole his own.  It is possible he will be. Riticized for building a "poor Redan," but those who do so miss the point that building an exact copy was never the purpose of the exercise.

By the same token, I think there are a lot of times when an architect invokes a template just to draw attention to his work and to show that he knows something about the history of golf architecture.   And it is really sad when, on occasion, the hole in question seems to show no understanding of the original.   

[Peter Pallotta]

Terrific thread. My thoughts keep changing/expanding.

Funny that the 'template hole' in gca doesn't have the same connotations as 'genre piece' does in fiction-writing....and it probably shouldn't, as the analogy is stretched. And yet the traditional and proven 'forms' of genre writing has served many a quality writer with gudelines/guideposts/parametres by which to let their talents really shine. In other words, for the good writer the genre engenders liberty, for the poor writer it provides cover.

Peter

[Melvyn Morrow]

Poor Redan - sorry that’s wrong, it should read sloppy or lazy designer/architect.  That's why it is  bloody important that the land is certainly ‘fit for purpose’. In my book crap is crap, if you want a Redan then give the customer what he wants, if he wants Like a Redan, give him Like a Redan but call it Like The Redan but Not.

But then it depends where you stand on imitation or fake, usually not worth the bother of getting involved unless you intend to do the real thing.

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

Melvyn...

I think Bill McBride touched on this topic quite some time ago (at least I think it was Bill).  One of these holes in question can never the The Redan, but they can be a redan. 

And why wouldn't a golf course architect want to design a hole to the embodies the amazing golf strategies and concepts of The Redan?  It is one of the greatest par 3 holes in the history of golf.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Mac

No problem doing it if that is what the client wants but do it correctly so people can understand the original. Don't fake it, modify it or whatever then still call it a Redan.

What make me unhappy is the fact that we want to template a great hole but we want to use all the modern facilities to play it, rendering the whole experience a sham – so why not just produce an new hole. But no we want our cake and to eat it as well, caring little for the concept or design behind that original hole. One reason why I want control over technology within the equipment/ball debate.

Otherwise what is the golfer being presented with, yet another watered down fake of the original and IMHO that not good for anyone.

Melvyn

[Mac Plumart]

Melvyn, Melvyn, Melvyn...AWESOME stuff!!!!

I mentioned the following on Donald Ross--Golf has never Failed me thread; "But I really do think that the key to understanding architecture is not to simply analyze todays architecture using todays equipment and looking through modern eyes.  IF someone has a desire to learn about architecture and architectural history, I think understanding the context of the times is important, the changes to architectural theory, and the catalysts for those changes."

And then you say this in your last post, "What make me unhappy is the fact that we want to template a great hole but we want to use all the modern facilities to play it, rendering the whole experience a sham – so why not just produce an new hole. But no we want our cake and to eat it as well, caring little for the concept or design behind that original hole. One reason why I want control over technology within the equipment/ball debate."

I am with you!!

Give me a redan, but adjust the yardage and height of the front embankment and slope of the green the take into account technology changes.

Also, if I am remembering correctly, the forced carry on the Chasm hole, which in the foundation of the biarritz hole, was something very extreme given the clubs and ball technology back in the day.  Again, give me the concept but adjust it for modern technology.

I think that would be pretty cool!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why is there a need to compare each template to the ideal ?

Why can't the template be enjoyed for its own merits.

You're the one who started all the threads about which Redan or Biarritz is the best, aren't you?  

Only in terms of the relationship between the tee and green, and which of the three relationships you favor, I believe I asked:

"Which rendition do you favor and why ?"

Due to the unique configuration of both greens and the significance of elevation differentials I was curious how much the element of "visibility" in terms of seeing the entire flight and roll of the ball,...... factors into every decision.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,

One could be misled by personal expectations that are fueled by rigid definitions when looking at Raynor and his bag-of-tricks because he mainly stayed within the confines of the Ideal hole concepts that he learned from Macdonald (I think that is a legitimate supposition). Remove the expectations created by the definitions and it becomes easier to see that there are many instances where his work is not architecture-by-rote, one of many examples being the 4th at Yale. Its Road Hole concept was misidentified for many years, I think because of someone’s expectation of what one should be.  No one ‘saw’ the water on the right as sheds or the bunker left of the green as road, but by using some imagination and straying a bit from the rigid confines of the definition the concept is easily seen, after all, that’s how Raynor saw it.  
 Same goes for Banks’ adaptation of the Biarritz at Essex County CC. Turned out to be a very unique and imaginative one-off hole based on a ‘classic’ principle, yet completely ‘unseen’ because, once again, expectation was driven by definition.  
 Reading from Ran’s review, when Raynor built the Alps at YH he was under some constraints at the time not to make the approach blind. I think he chose to ignore expectations, broadened his definition, and created the hole that’s there today while still maintaining a ‘classic’ concept.
I'd say that these are all holes that Raynor/Banks “made their own”, to paraphrase TomD…and to continue paraphrasing TD, the holes are “honest” because Raynor and Banks’ almost exclusively worked within the framework of Ideal hole concepts.      

[Sean_A]

  Personally, I would rather the entire concept of "template" not exist because it necessarily must bring forth certain expectations on the part of the golfer AND the architect.  If the archie chooses to ignore those expectations is he really building a template hole?  

Ciao

Sean,

If the inspiration for a hole is really one of the classic templates, I think for an architect to say so is really the only honest thing to do.  However, any architect should still have the artistic license (indeed, the responsibility) to make the hole his own.  It is possible he will be. Riticized for building a "poor Redan," but those who do so miss the point that building an exact copy was never the purpose of the exercise.

By the same token, I think there are a lot of times when an architect invokes a template just to draw attention to his work and to show that he knows something about the history of golf architecture.   And it is really sad when, on occasion, the hole in question seems to show no understanding of the original.  

Tom

Yes, I think this is the heart of my distaste for templates.  Once the archie takes license with the concept and the hole(s) are only inspired by a Redan (or whatever) I don't think it need be said.  To do so is trading on a bit of history without the form in place - which in the end is just cheap marketing.  Can't an archie just build a hole like any other that is surely inspired and not go for the marketing gimmick?  Once an archie publicly delves into their concepts and mentions templates the punter has every right to be critical (as in a critical reading) about the hole as it relates to its success or not in recreating a classic concept.

Jim

You call it rigid definitions I call it being faithful to the concept or don't trade on the name.  Of course if one calls a hole a template name some golfers will have expectations (depending on tehir experience of course) on the necessary elements of the hole - isn't that reasonable?  That said, my objection is NOT about the quality of the hole for surely a hole can be great without meeting the template hole expectations.  My beef is the marketing scam and what has become a confusing language landscape.  The templates have been so messed with that in many cases their name is meaningless and therefore should not be used in the title of a hole.  Otherwise, everytime an archie has an inspiration should he name the hole after the original name (if there is one)?  No, for me, its best for the archie to allow golfers to draw their own conclusions rather than trying to lead them down a path of architectural enlightment through some sort of naming education.  That said II, this is exactly why I didn't bother finding out what the entire template menu at YHC.  I would have gone in with more exxpectations than I already had in playing a Raynor.  A guy like me who reads about the design or courses and their history doesn't need anymore expectations.  Its awfully difficult to recreate that no knowing child-like frame of mind before playing new courses, but I try to do so each time I tee it up at new plays.  As they say, you never get a second chance to make first impressions, so one may as well give a course a break with prior expectations - afterall, you are only spoliing yourself. 

Ciao 

[Adam Clayman]

Jim K n Pat.  I didn't have any expectations going into the day. It was only after reading the back of the scorecard. I do expect fish when I order it. Not something else. The current punchbowl at YH requires too much imagination to envision what part is bowled. As Jim Urbina has detailed, the massaging of a couple of elements are responsible for that lack of character.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
Raynor learned at the foot of CBM and the duo were the first to use templates and concepts in any significant way. Someone like yourself who has prior knowledge of the man’s work knows that he adapted these concepts, it’s not like he built the same “Alps” over and over again, and you probably also know on which course the ‘truest’ version of any of the ‘named’ holes was built. Expectations won’t be dashed if the ‘architectural enlightenment’ is grounded in seeing how Raynor adapted certain concepts at the various courses he built.

As the ‘original’ users in America, I don’t consider them to be ‘trading on the name’, nor were they scamming the market, those are modern issues, and I think TomD explained them clearly earlier in this thread.   

Adam,
You got catch-of-the-day.    Did Raynor massage the elements out of the hole?

[Tom_Doak]

Sean,

You are just underestimating the marketing imperative on new courses.  We get requests all the time to talk about our inspirations, to name the holes, etc., etc.  Way more than Donald Ross ever had to deal with.  So we have to talk more about our holes and how they relate to something from the past.  Interestingly, the only guys who have been exempted from this phenomenon are Nicklaus, Palmer, Fazio, Rees Jones, and maybe Pete Dye ... they were all so busy that no one expected them to take the time to discuss their courses on a hole by hole basis.  If they had had to, we might have seen in one or two cases that the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes.

[JC Jones]

Tom,

It is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy, right?  When one markets themselves as a throwback to the past they probably open themselves up to more of those sorts of questions and obligations than one who never speaks of it.

[Tim Bert]

Is this really pointless?

[JC Jones]

Tim,

Your posting of that picture or this thread?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tim,
Not if you believe, as CBM did that green complexes are  “what the face is to a portrait”, something unique and personal.

 

[Peter Pallotta]

Tim - the trouble is, I can't tell who those 'celebrities' are supposed to be. Are they the lastest batch of "Survivors"? 

Now, give me a potato that looks like Jimmy Stewart or Richard Nixon and it changes everything.

[Tim Bert]

Tim,

Your posting of that picture or this thread?

My question was geared toward neither one of those.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom,

It is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy, right?  When one markets themselves as a throwback to the past they probably open themselves up to more of those sorts of questions and obligations than one who never speaks of it.

Jc,

I don't think it has anything to do with marketing yourself as a throwback ... Jim Engh and Mike Strantz had their own p.r. demands to fulfill, too.  But, perhaps it is a given for anyone trying to market themselves as DIFFERENT or especially SMARTER.  Whereas if you are just churning out the same old stuff there is no need to apologize for it as long as people keep buying.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

You are just underestimating the marketing imperative on new courses.  We get requests all the time to talk about our inspirations, to name the holes, etc., etc.  Way more than Donald Ross ever had to deal with.  So we have to talk more about our holes and how they relate to something from the past.  Interestingly, the only guys who have been exempted from this phenomenon are Nicklaus, Palmer, Fazio, Rees Jones, and maybe Pete Dye ... they were all so busy that no one expected them to take the time to discuss their courses on a hole by hole basis.  If they had had to, we might have seen in one or two cases that the emperor wasn't wearing any clothes.

Tom

Yes, marketing is a premium no matter the product and you are also right that I have only an inclining of an idea of the demands made on architects for their quick blurbs on tehir own work or that of others.  All I am asking is for a new line, or are templates really that pervasive in modern architecture?  Perhaps its a matter of templates being an easy concept to grab off the shelf (because at least some people know about them) and use as examples when talking about classic architecture. 

Its probably fairly obvious that I haven't completely bought into the Raynor style of templates as method of design, but I can certainly see the value of templates.  Its sort of like the Motown formula for making hits.  There is enough difference between artists to be easily recoginized by anybody with a reasonable interest in the music, but its obvious that its a bit of a factory.  Like the templates have endured, Motown is still quite popular and well selling some 35 years after anything remotely meaningful was produced by the company.  We can look at it as quite a simple formula today, but in reality Motown was bloody brilliant to sell black folks and their music to the crowd with money.  In much the same way, templates were a great way to introduce sound architectural principles to a market (I am thinking more of the market to mean the people whi made courses and decisions concerning golf rather than golfers) starved of knowledge.  However, I am not sure the concept carries as much revelance today and maybe too much is made of it, especially in an age where many people can actually play the original yet never have the opportunity to see the templates.

Ciao