Templates

[Adrian_Stiff]

I have never really quite understood this boards fascination with templates. I dont know how other archtects feel but most projects are unique and finding the best routing does not really lead to template golf design.

Second stage designing is still more of incorporating features that fit that micro landscape.

Adapting bits and parts I have seen and like and then incorporation into the way it can work in 2011 is more the way a professional golf course architect would work surely or are there architects out there that just want to replicate?

[Tom_Doak]

Adrian:

I think the bottom line is that there are a lot of architects out there who just want to WORK, period.

The template movement has certainly gotten a big boost in recent years from the restoration movement, where anyone who wanted to work on a Ross or Macdonald or MacKenzie course had to become an expert in their work, and talk in cliches about what those designers did.  It's easy to take those cliches and carry them into your new work, if you've got any.

The trend toward templates has also gotten a big boost from developers who care more about generating traffic and magazine buzz than they really care about what the golf course plays like in the end.  I would not put Mike Keiser in that category:  he cares a great deal about how the golf course turns out.  But he doesn't mind the buzz, either.

[BCrosby]

I'd guess that a large part of the appeal of templates is the obvious point that they provide a vocabulary where no other vocabulary exists. They are an easy way to talk about certain kinds of holes. So we talk about those holes. That's no less true for us than for developers.

Saying that the a hole is a reverse Redan conveys a lot information quickly and efficiently. Trying to describe the details of an equally good, non-template hole requires you to describe its several features. You run two risks when you have to do that: (a) it takes too long and (b) it causes people's eyes to roll back into their heads.

Bob

[Rob Bice]

I'd guess that a large part of the appeal of templates is the obvious point that they provide a vocabulary where no other vocabulary exists. They are an easy way to talk about certain kinds of holes. So we talk about those holes. That's no less true for us than for developers.

Saying that the a hole is a reverse Redan conveys a lot information quickly and efficiently. Trying to describe the details of an equally good hole by describing its features takes runs two risks: (a) it takes a lot longer and (b) it causes people's eyes to roll back into their heads.

Bob

I would hope architects aren't incorporating templates into their designs because they are easy to describe!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Adrian

Seems you have you picked up from Pat's topic on "Re: If you were designing your own course" great as its worth talking about.

Melvyn

[Jeff_Brauer]

Adrian,

I think most adapt, not replicate.  Nearly everyone had done a redan (or think they have, even if they don't fully understand it)  Those old Raynor redans had reverse/side slopes of up to 12% in some cases, and no one would replicate that these days, I don't think, with most reversing the slope no more than 2-3%, but it might play the same.

But, if a Redan is good in one place, is it not a good shot/hole in another, properly modified? (and maintained)

[Scott Warren]

Jeff_B:

I think you're right - "adaptation" is the key, and what I believe Raynor and Co don't always get credit for.

To me, template holes are about adopting the classic strategies - not getting out a jelly mould and making a "template" of another hole.

Many of those strategies are timeless in providing great golf, so why ignore them entirely?

He may not have named them, but Braid has templates as well. In the modern day I have seen some reference on here to C&C templates.

Redans are a great example. Smyers adapted it at Chart Hills and Robin Hiseman did so at Casa Serena. Both are good holes that replicate the options and shotmaking demands of the original while looking nothing like the original at North Berwick.

The Edens at Fishers Island and MPCC Dunes don't look much like the 11th at TOC, but they present a similar challenge to the golfer.

I don't see why a current architect wouldn't be open to drawing on the high points of his trade if a particular piece of land lent itself to that.

[JNC Lyon]

Jeff_B:

I think you're right - "adaptation" is the key, and what I believe Raynor and Co don't always get credit for.

To me, template holes are about adopting the classic strategies - not getting out a jelly mould and making a "template" of another hole.

Many of those strategies are timeless in providing great golf, so why ignore them entirely?

He may not have named them, but Braid has templates as well. In the modern day I have seen some reference on here to C&C templates.

Redans are a great example. Smyers adapted it at Chart Hills and Robin Hiseman did so at Casa Serena. Both are good holes that replicate the options and shotmaking demands of the original while looking nothing like the original at North Berwick.

The Edens at Fishers Island and MPCC Dunes don't look much like the 11th at TOC, but they present a similar challenge to the golfer.

I don't see why a current architect wouldn't be open to drawing on the high points of his trade if a particular piece of land lent itself to that.

Isn't this what any expert in his profession should do?  Be he a golf course architect, artist, writer, investor, doctor, or lawyer, he should copy the masters first and then find his own philosophy.  If the land is right, why wouldn't you use a template that is proven to be great?

[Melvyn Morrow]

I feel I need to bring my comment/Reply#12 from a previous post titled Re: If you were designing your own course". I do so because I regret I do not agree with Scott regards his comment 'timeless'. My original comment reads as folllows:-

Templates,  while they are considered an act of reverence, they also still seem to reflect a sterile mind when relating to modern golf course architecture.

In our modern times these holes are best left alone to slowly fade away on their home courses basking in memories of times well passed as our golfing equipment today makes light work of these once renowned holes . The time when they where needed to explain the glories of golf from the home country are now gone thanks mainly to TV and magazine coverage of said original Holes. Another cost thanks to the constant onward surge of technology, alas it’s a loss we can’t afford as templates are used to ease the plight of our designers. Why bust a gut when a template will fill that missing gap(s) that eludes the architect.

Pat, templates define the modern game of golf in that they are trying to cling to a challenge that the new equipment has already pronounced redundant. We, the golfers come out worst for having lost the equivalent of the Mona Lisa, worst still plus much of the works of golf’s Great Past Masters.

We can of course contemplate 18 island Greens, however I can see the first 24 hour round due to lost balls, making 5-6 hours look like a picnic in the park. There you are progress without looking back, perhaps we should get back to the future and design virgin Holes.

Melvyn 

[David Harshbarger]

Jeff_B:

I think you're right - "adaptation" is the key, and what I believe Raynor and Co don't always get credit for.

To me, template holes are about adopting the classic strategies - not getting out a jelly mould and making a "template" of another hole.

Many of those strategies are timeless in providing great golf, so why ignore them entirely?

He may not have named them, but Braid has templates as well. In the modern day I have seen some reference on here to C&C templates.

Redans are a great example. Smyers adapted it at Chart Hills and Robin Hiseman did so at Casa Serena. Both are good holes that replicate the options and shotmaking demands of the original while looking nothing like the original at North Berwick.

The Edens at Fishers Island and MPCC Dunes don't look much like the 11th at TOC, but they present a similar challenge to the golfer.

I don't see why a current architect wouldn't be open to drawing on the high points of his trade if a particular piece of land lent itself to that.

Ian Andrew is working this question on his blog, trying to expand the vocabulary of golf strategy, which in my estimation is the key to improving the strategic quality of courses.

From a player's perspective, if there's an established vocabulary of strategies, then there can be a conversation between players, fans, announcers, etc. that ties together the strategic component and the broader golfing experience. 

Imagine: That course has a great par 4 Redan with OB right protecting the approach, and two holes later a sporty alps with an awesome view, but that runway in between is a drag.

Or: The new course features a snappy twist on the Azalea, which you'll want to figure out to beat this hole.

Clearly, we want courses to express the infinite variation possible, but the template/shorthand of strategies is essential if we want strategy to be valued in the wider golf community.

[Scott Warren]

Melvyn,

It has nothing to do with "explain(ing) the glories of golf from the home country" and everything to do with building good golf holes. Faced with a suitable piece of land, an architect should definitely consider the playing strategies of great holes played over similar parcels.

It's not about copying, it's about applying time-proven strategic concepts in a new way to a unique piece of land.

As for a sterile mind, Is Johnny Cash's cover of Hurt a sterile reproduction of the Nine Inch Nails' original? Is Joe Cocker's With A Little Help From My Friends a sterile copy of The Beatles' version - or do his vocal and arrangement give it new character?

And regarding the original "templates" being made redundant, does #11 at TOC get eaten up by the best in the world? Do low handicappers make mince meat of Redan at North Berwick? Are the challenges and options posed by those holes redundant because the best players now hit the ball further? Of course not. The approach to the Road Hole is stil one of the best and scariest in the game.

As is often the case, your comments seem more to be trolling for a fight than adding constructively to the discussion.

[Sean_A]

The problem with templates isn't about what is in the ground or how well or not a particular template captures the essence of original.  The problem is when speaking of templates a certain set of expectations come as baggage.  To call a hole a Redan means certain things to people who know the key features of the concept.  Its very easy for folks to get a picture in their head when talking of Redan and often times there is quite a wide gap between the original and the template.  Thats a good thing even if it can be very confusing from a language perpsective  This then of course leads to nonsense terms like Redanish or Redan-like rather than the author coming up with an original and more accurate description.  However, the use of templates in language at least communicates an idea very vivid and quickly even if not entirely accurately, but don't people think it strange to start off with a term to describe something then have to add and/or subtract descriptors?  This is how the terms of templates were so stretched to mean practically anything which incorporates perhaps one or two key elements - thus watering down what the terms really mean and thus causing confusion as to what the terms really mean.  Its a nasty circle which in fact has nothing to do with design itself and everything to do with laziness and indifferent use of language. 

Ciao 

[Tom_Doak]

The other problem with using templates is that once you start down that road, your holes are being compared to some ideal hole in the mind of the golfer, instead of being taken on their own merits.  You could make an adjustment to the basic template form that you think is a marked improvement, but it's likely that instead of people weighing your decision, they will just criticize you for straying from the model.  [For example, I still can't fathom that some people put down the 11th hole at Old Macdonald because we didn't build a building or a road as hazards for it!]

I do think that templates represent a "dumbing down" of design so that more people can understand it.  Golf holes are three-dimensional; there should be more to them than words can adequately express.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Scott

My reply conveyed a ’regret’ but no challenge to you or for that matter seeking an in depth argument.

You say “your comments seem more to be trolling for a fight than adding constructively to the discussion”. I am sorry you feel that way.

The point I was trying to make regards templates, is simple the equipment and ball we use today does not do justice to the original holes, in fact many golfers do not know the beauty of these holes not having used the equipment of the day when playing them. Modern equipment against great old courses or holes destroy their once greatness, leave many questioning what’s so great about this copy.

Therefore, why use templates, surely the modern designer is more than capable of creating a good if not great design if he remembers the equipment that will be used with of course a little help from Nature and the natural land. No need to lay back and copy a once great Hole, or to bastardise it when they have the ability to produce new fresh ideas that will challenge todays golfer and his new equipment. That’s the cost of technology

Template holes are copies, many with some added features to define them as different, yet the modern equipment has shown them past their sell by date.

Scott, please do not read anymore into my comments that necessary, many have done so but have been wrong. You my friends seem also to be falling into that trap.

Yes many of my comments challenge, question and hopefully add some humour while at times are being rather serious. Like you I have the right to my point of view and due to my incapacity I spend more time off the course but looking not at players but the game itself noting what it has become and the direction it is going.

I do regret that you see no merit in what I said previously on this topic, as I thought I had hit the nail right on the head when it came down to templates, but then each to his own.

 Melvyn   

[BCrosby]

Tom D says:

"I do think that templates represent a "dumbing down" of design so that more people can understand it.  Golf holes are three-dimensional; there should be more to them than words can adequately express."

Exactly so. We are victims of the template vocabulary. The reasons are pretty obvious. The template vocab. is easy to use and its the only one around. So the temptation is to match design ideas with that vocabulary.

Which is not to say template holes aren't good holes. But they aren't the only good holes and, most importantly, they've been done already.

Bob  

[Ian Andrew]

- mistake -

[Niall C]

Adrian

As the culprit in starting the routing templates thread, I was well aware that I was stretching credibility by suggesting such a thing. My idea was for a bit of fun which hopefully might lead to a discussion on different aspects of routing. FWIW, in my limited time as a student I found the routing of the course the best and most interesting part to do. Clearly its nonsense to try and replicate an entire routing and also questionable whether its worthwhile to replicate a single golf hole (although that didn't stop CBM for one taking plenty of measurements and plans of some classic holes). Why would a creative person want to do that anyway ? It surely can't make the job any easier.

If you don't replicate exactly then what you can do is take some elements of a hole (or a routing ?) and use them in another design. I personally don't believe that we create things in a vacuum. There is always some influence and a well trained mind seeks to recognise those influences and create some sort of order out of them. That way they can approach a problwem with some knowledge of how to tackle it.

Anyway, whats your favourite course routing, out and back or figure of eight ? (insert winking emoticon)

Niall

[George Pazin]

I think templates get an unfair rap, on here and elsewhere. The thinking seems to be that there is no thinking, only duplication, everyone could do it if he had the chance.

Funny, it seems Raynor's average course is far better than the overall average golf course.

Is there something to be said for originality? Sure, originality always gets bonus points, as it rightly should. But do we downgrade Manet because Monet was before him? (Or the other way around, I have no clue who was first, or who started the whole Impressionist thing.)

If it were as simple as slapping down a template everywhere, we'd probably have a lot better golf courses in general out there.

If you think about it, there aren't many fields where you don't build on the ideas of those who came before you.

So in the end, I'd say it's more important to judge the actual hole itself and its effectiveness, as opposed to its lineage.

[Bill_McBride]

For example, I still can't fathom that some people put down the 11th hole at Old Macdonald because we didn't build a building or a road as hazards for it!

Could be a great location for a new hotel!

Is there a bunker behind the green a la #7 at NGLA?

I'm looking forward to playing Old Mac twice in one week!  Is there a yardage book yet?

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bill

If its your first time sod the yardage books, play it with your eyes.

Melvyn

[Sean_A]

I think templates get an unfair rap, on here and elsewhere. The thinking seems to be that there is no thinking, only duplication, everyone could do it if he had the chance.

Funny, it seems Raynor's average course is far better than the overall average golf course.

Is there something to be said for originality? Sure, originality always gets bonus points, as it rightly should. But do we downgrade Manet because Monet was before him? (Or the other way around, I have no clue who was first, or who started the whole Impressionist thing.)

If it were as simple as slapping down a template everywhere, we'd probably have a lot better golf courses in general out there.

If you think about it, there aren't many fields where you don't build on the ideas of those who came before you.

So in the end, I'd say it's more important to judge the actual hole itself and its effectiveness, as opposed to its lineage.

George

I am not knocking templates because they are (if we include all the concepts which get copied and don't have a name) the building blocks of good design. But doesn't the effectiveness of a hole diminish if we see that type too often?  I think this is a case of modern travel catching up with ODGs and NAGs (New Alive Guys) as well.  We can bomb around and see huge numbers of courses and because of this we expect diversity and variety.  This is one reason why originality is always at a premium. 

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Bill

If its your first time sod the yardage books, play it with your eyes.

Melvyn

The yardage book, strokesaver, whatever, serves several purposes.

A snapshot of what the hole looks like.

A visual to help with club selection, always confirmed with the eyeball.

And most importantly, a souvenir in the literal sense (from the French, souvenir, to remember), something to look at long after the play to help in the recollection of the holes and the routing.

[Melvyn Morrow]

Bill

Just try playing it unaided the only info comes from your eyes and the feel of the ground as you walk over it.

Just try one hole even and hopefully you will remember the reason why you started to play golf in the first place. Go on reach out but for yourself, let The Force be with you Bill and enjoy The Royal & Ancient Game of Golf.

Melvyn

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Regarding Templates, I was looking at pictures of different Philadelphia Flynns while working today.  I had not thought of this before, but I have noticed the 1st on the Flynn nine at Huntingdon Valley (or, 10th on the 18 hole course playing the course in its most presented progression), the 3rd at Lancaster, and the 4th at Lehigh are very similar holes in terms of layout and very similar pieces of land.  

Elevated tee shot over a stream or small valley, to a fairway running up to the right, slightly uphill second shot, and a green relatively well defended.  

Was Flynn looking to test a specific shot here, maybe the cut from the hook lie, or was/is this a hole he found to work in one location, and, faced with similar topography on another piece of property, adapted it?  

Flynn also seems to use the short par 4 template (e.g 1st at Philadelphia Country Spring Mill, 4th at HVCC Toomey nine, 16th Lancaster).

What do you think? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have never really quite understood this boards fascination with templates. I dont know how other archtects feel but most projects are unique and finding the best routing does not really lead to template golf design.

Second stage designing is still more of incorporating features that fit that micro landscape.

Adapting bits and parts I have seen and like and then incorporation into the way it can work in 2011 is more the way a professional golf course architect would work surely or are there architects out there that just want to replicate?

Adrian, could you list the names of the courses you've played that were designed by:

Macdonald
Raynor
Banks

A century later, their courses present a challenge that's fun to engage.

Isn't that the ultimate test of architecture, time and trial ?