The limitations of template holes

[JC Jones]

The following is an excerpt from the January 1923 issue of the USGA Green Section Record

One of the notable advances in golf architecture in America was made when the National Links were built by Mr. Charles R. Macdonald, each hole being a more or less exact replica of one in Europe whicb had become well known. Valuable as this plan may be, there are two obvious limitations.  First of all, if used generally there could be no progress but merely constant replications of the holes chosen as best. Second, there is wide divergence of opinion in regard to certain well-known holes, some architects insisting they are in reality not famous for their good qualities but, infamous for their bad traits.

Do you agree with the above limitations? 

[Mac Plumart]

I would tend to disagree with the first limitation...

"First of all, if used generally there could be no progress but merely constant replications of the holes chosen as best. "

Maybe the "generally" disclaimer covers this, but I think interpretation can be used to tweak and modify the holes.  Think the Cape hole at NGLA and Yeamans.  One is a Cape with water and the other has sand bunkers.  You also can have redans that are elevated, sunken, and level.  And things like that. 


And on the second one,

"there is wide divergence of opinion in regard to certain well-known holes, some architects insisting they are in reality not famous for their good qualities but, infamous for their bad traits."

I am not an expert on this, but what are the bad traits?  All the template courses I've played have been complete test of a golfers game and have been a ton of fun as well.  I think this one is wrong, but, again, I am not an expert.


Perhaps my only criticism on the template holes from Raynor and CBM ais, I would have like to have seen more blending of the template holes characteristics in with the terrain.  The shapes and features are so abrupt they seem to take away from some of the lands natural beauty/flow.

[Ronald Montesano]

If this does not further the discussion, we apologize.

I agree with Mac that the first element of the is incorrect, to the extent that there are/were not thousands of template courses.  It occurs to me that there are CBM/Raynor template holes, then there are next-generation template holes from RTJ Senior, Finger, Lee, et al., continuing to the present with Fazio, early RTJ Junior, Rees, Hills, et al., with the CBM/Raynor template holes proving far superior.  it is these second-generation template holes that limit the game, whereas the CBM/Raynor ones further it.

The second begs clarification, both from the original quoted (which holes?) and from Mac (on which courses/holes are the attributes forced onto the land with their abruptness?)

[Bill_McBride]

I think the article goes astray immediately with the supposition that the template holes are "more or less exact replicas of the holes CBM admired in the UK.

Obviously this is false, each template hole was modified to fit onto the existing terrain in order to avoid massive earthmoving (except for the obvious exception, the Lido).

Once that assumption is rejected, the rest goes away.

[Jim_Kennedy]

JC,
I would question whether or not the author knew what he was talking about. This article comes 14 years after the construction of NGLA and in that time frame there were many golf courses of real quality being built by several architects of note who pursued their own way.  
I also question the notion that the "divergence of opinion" amongst architects about the relative merit of individual golf holes should be seen as a negative. Isn't that the mark of quality, an idea forwarded by MacKenzie?

The complete article is here. I think you'll find other misconceptions in it, like 'architects don't criticize one another in print' and 'nothing has been written about architecture.

   http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1920s/1923/230109.pdf

[JC Jones]

Thanks for posting the article in full, I was working towards figuring it how to do that and of course I was making it much more complicated than just posting the hyperlink.

Jim and Bill,

How do you feel about the stated limitations? 

[Peter Pallotta]

What's interesting to me, JC, is the subtext at work a decade or so after the Father of American Architecture completed his masterpiece - that subtext seeming to be: "Yeah, it's a great golf course but don't overpraise it or fail to recognize the implications of CBM's philosophy, which is that American golf and American architects can never and will never produce anything better than what the Scots and Brits produced overseas decades earlier --- and we refuse to accept that as a fact."

Peter

[Jim_Kennedy]

JC,
If you mean the "exact replica" portion of the article, well,  Bill hit the center of the fairway with his post.

If you want a general answer: CB and SR built between 30 and 36 courses between NGLA and the publication of this article, that's roughly 2.5 course per year, so they were in great demand. CB/SR courses were the 'high art' of their day and they were 'collected' by the most discerning golf clubs in America. None of them were prints.  

[JC Jones]

Jim,

Do you think that the continued use of template holes would restrict progress and creativity because the architect would approach the project with a narrowed focus (that is, finding a place for the templates) as opposed to being open to what the land provided?

I think that is the point being made in the author's first limitation.

[JC Jones]

What's interesting to me, JC, is the subtext at work a decade or so after the Father of American Architecture completed his masterpiece - that subtext seeming to be: "Yeah, it's a great golf course but don't overpraise it or fail to recognize the implications of CBM's philosophy, which is that American golf and American architects can never and will never produce anything better than what the Scots and Brits produced overseas decades earlier --- and we refuse to accept that as a fact."

Peter

That is interesting.  I had not thought of the implication of american egoism.

[Chris Buie]

I haven't really thought this entirely through but I don't find repeating something that has already been done many times over impressive. I have the naive idea that a arch would go out and really look deeply at the land that is available for the course and sort of let the land dictate what would work best.  To be able to really read the land and see what could be made from the undulations unique to the property seems the way to go.
That is what occurs to me.  A natural looking place would appeal to me more.  Something like the photo below from a template...strikes me as extraordinarily unnatural.  I'm sure I'm not picking up on all the elements but I'm equally sure that remarkably unnaturally looking presentations would not be something I would hold in the highest regard.

[JC Jones]

The following is found in a later, 1925 article titled "The Progress of Golf Architecture":

Some indeed work on a cut-and-dried series of models, which are reproduced here, there and yonder regardless of the terrain.  When you see one course built by such an architect, you can recognize at once every other course he has built.  This is true not in the sense that one can learn to recognize a Corot or a Landsdowne, but true to actual mechanical details. There is merit in the idea that holes of proven reputation ought to be copied-especially if these replicas apply as to principles hut not as to details. If however this idea is embalmed in a set of mechanical models; then there can obviously be no progress as long as these are followed, neither for the architect himself nor for his art. To be blunt, such an architect is sacrificing his art to present commercial gain.

http://turf.lib.msu.edu/1920s/1925/2506135.pdf

[Jim_Kennedy]

Chris,
You need to visit FI.

JC,
They had their repertoire, but they did mix it up quite well.

Mac,
Here are a few golf holes to look at. Which are so abrupt that they take away from the natural beauty and flow of the land?

[Jim_Kennedy]

JC,
Probably written by Flynn or Tillinghast. 

[Chris Buie]

For me these two photos show an architecture which is not congruent with the flow of the land.


I'm not saying they don't play well.  I'm saying that for me they are unnatural looking - stilted.
And I have no objection to visiting Fishers.  I've heard literally nothing but raves from many people - a few of whom are very conversant with GCA - to put it mildly.  It is a matter of personal taste I suppose.  I prefer something that looks closer to natural.  
It would be a privilege to play there and I'm sure I would love it.  But I doubt I would ever hold a manufactured look (especially one that has been done over and over) in the same esteem as something fashioned more closely in accord with the natural movement of the land.

[Tom_Doak]

Jim / JC:

I believe several of those articles in the 1920's were written, if not by competing architects themselves, by friends of theirs.

Much of the language is coded.  For example, in JC's first set of quotes, the holes on which "there is a divergence of opinion" were, I think, the blind holes like the Alps -- a subtle shot at Macdonald / Raynor from another architectural camp who did not approve of blind holes.

[JC Jones]

I agree with your assessment, Tom.

Here is another question, does the author's motivation negate the validity of the claim that the template style has major limitations?

[Tom_Doak]

JC:

Using templates in one's design is clearly limiting -- after a while.  I could see experimenting with them on a few courses to try and learn from them and get the most out of them, as Macdonald did, but then I would think it would become pretty boring.  Indeed, Macdonald became bored with it after a few tries, even though there was no one who was more passionate about the subject than he was at the outset.

Raynor took the concept and ran with it for a while, and it probably suited him fine since he was not much of a golfer anyway.  The other factor is that he may not have had TIME to get bored because he was running around the country non-stop from 1919 to 1926 and then passed away from exhaustion.  It would be the same for a busy modern architect ... some are so busy going from place to place and dealing with different people and different sites and climates, that they don't even realize how repetitive their work has become.

[JC Jones]

Tom,

Thanks.  You are the first one to actually answer the question as addressed

To all others, I'm not seeking an answer as to whether templates are good/bad/neutral.   I'd like to know people's opinions on whether the use of templates limits the progress of golf course architecture.  Is the identification of those certain holes the end of the pursuit?

[Tom_Doak]

JC:

The only thing wrong with your question is that you assume that limiting the strategies of golf holes you might use constitutes the "end of progress" of golf architecture, as though strategy is all there is to it.

We certainly did some things at Old Macdonald differently than Macdonald and Raynor would have done, which I believe constitute "progress" of another sort, but still a part of golf architecture.  In much the same way, you can take the same old stale floor plan of a house, and build a more interesting house.

But, I'm not disagreeing with you that the use of templates as a design style is limiting in other respects.

[JC Jones]

Tom,

Thanks for your response.  To be clear, I am not making the assumption, the author of the quote is.  I am just asking whether people agree and I'm trying to re-phrase the question in a way that would get more of a response to the limitation posed and not a discussion on the merits of template holes, generally.

[Jeff_Brauer]

JC,

Interesting question and the obvious answer is of course they limit golf architecture.  And limiting perhaps to any specific attempt at architecture.  

Trying to fit a template into the land isn't as "sincere" as trying to come up with a design dictated by the land.  However, having many general ideas about what makes for good golf, and looking for the land to support them is not a bad approach, either.  That is sort of a cross, and the approach most gca's probably use.  The key is not forcing a preconceived idea on the land too harshly and being open to other ideas that evolve.

That said, if a Redan shot is a good test of golf at one place, worthy of including in a balanced test of golf, it is most likely worth including elsewhere, no?  I try to come up with a list of shots that the architecture encourages, rather than a template of holes with names and features.  There are more than 18 of those so no two courses need to come out alike.

The other limitation is that as golf changes, I presume the templates should change too.  A great example is the Biarritz, which may never have played all that well anyway, but as golf became less of a running game because of equipment really didn't fit anyone's typical shots.  The redan probably fell out of favor for similar reasons as everyone became used to firing right at the pin and expecting it to hold.  That its making a comeback is a sign that things really do keep changing!

[Jim_Kennedy]

JC,
I answered your question as to whether or not templates limit progress in my first reply. I'll  re-post it so you don't have to go back and look:

"This article comes 14 years after the construction of NGLA and in that time frame there were many golf courses of real quality being built by several architects of note who pursued their own way."  


......and they didn't limit Macdonald because he wasn't in the business of building many golf courses, his was more like a mission and I don't think he was as much bored with the concepts as he was done with his evangelization.

[JC Jones]

Jim,

You're right.  I apologize for missing that response. 

[JESII]

My first instinct to the snippet is that an infinite number of variations can be placed on the core concepts of the template holes so progress, for me, would need to be defined.

If, and it's a very big if, it is agreed that the templates cover all of the primary challenges a golfer should face, than I disagree with the author.

In the end, I feel golf course architecture should be about interesting, fun and challenging GOLF primarily, with unique artistry a distant consideration.