do templates get boring?

[PThomas]

From the magnificent Planet Golf USA book, Darius Oliver writes in his Yale section:

"Although the Short, Redan and Eden holes are quite good, they are not among Raynor's best, and these replicas do get less interesting the more you see of them." (He then goes on to rave about Yale's Biarritz)

Agree with the above quote?  Is repetition of the templates any worse than a modern architect producing similar and/or mudane holes?

[Tom_Doak]

Is repetition of the templates any worse than a modern architect producing similar and/or mudane holes?

It's no worse.  But is it really any BETTER, unless you try to do something to improve upon the templates?

And is your standard for new architecture really "similar and/or mundane holes"?  Shouldn't we demand a bit of creativity?

[PThomas]

Is repetition of the templates any worse than a modern architect producing similar and/or mudane holes?

And is your standard for new architecture really "similar and/or mundane holes"? 

Absolutely not Tom! 

I want to see well desiged golfholes, that's my highest wish

do you think that most/some of the template holes really try to better their predecessors..or do they try to closely replicate?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul,

I can't remember a replica or template I didn't enjoy playing.

There's something about them that presents an enjoyable challenge.

Would anyone not want to play courses that were exact replicas of NGLA and Fishers Island, start to finish ?

I don't view the question in the context that every hole on the golf course is a replica, and therefore, diversity, in the form of creativity or deviation from replicas would be mixed in with the template holes.

My guess would be that certain landforms tend to be a magnet or ideal setting for certain templates.

How original is any par 3 ?

You hit from point "A" to point "B"
It's dictated, target golf.
But, that doesn't mean it can't be made interesting, even in duplication/imitation.

[Adam Clayman]

A sense of place is more important than whether the concept is tried and true. Variations of variations can be quite interesting if the place is right.

[Tim Gavrich]

I could play Yale or Old White every day.  I'm guessing that many would say the same about Fishers Island, Chicago GC, Creek Club, Piping Rock, and other CBM/SR courses.

[Scott Warren]

I'd rather get tired of playing a brilliant, strategically sound template than a lesser hole.

That said, what do Fishers Island and Yale's Biarritz holes have in common other than length and green/swale?

What do Yale and National's Redans have in common?

What is common to the Edens at MPCC and TOC?

Of course the one common theme among all the above is that they are wonderful holes.

[Andrew Summerell]

"Although the Short, Redan and Eden holes are quite good, they are not among Raynor's best, and these replicas do get less interesting the more you see of them."

Why do "these replicas" get less interesting, while the myriad of other holes we all play not get less interesting? Should it mean once you have played your home course 10 times it gets less interesting?

It's a pretty silly quote from Darius really. If template holes were not named or identified as templates, they would be seen as interesting holes similar to others designed by MacDonald, Rayner et al, just as many of the best modern day architects have holes that are recognisable as their designs from course to course.

[Sean_A]

You have to put Oliver's quote in context.  He was playing quite a few targeted courses in a fairly short period of time.  It would be hard not to say "been there done that" for practically any archie or hole theme without purposely picking versions on very different types of terrains.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

I am never bored playing template holes and the comparisons are always fun. The line about Yale`s Short, Redan and Eden being quite good but not among Raynor`s best should not be counted as a knock but rather a testament to the quality of Mac/Raynor`s work as a overall collection. A back handed compliment at worst.

[Scott Warren]

Yale's set of one-shotters -- hardly a weak bunch.

Short:


Biarritz:


Redan:


Eden:

[Anthony Gray]

Just tweek them a little. Isn't that what makes Old Mcdonald so appealing ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Interesting question.

To be honest, I would say no.  At least I have never been bored seeing yet another version of the CBM templates.

Philosophically,  many gca's and golfers have a mental list of challenges they like to see in a well balanced and fun round of golf.  If those include a precision shot to a well guarded green, or running a shot through a valley to a back pin, or using slope to access a back left pin, for instance, then I would say no, they wouldn't get boring unless that type of challenge became boring to you.  And, why would it?

Now, it could be that at any point in time, you get tired of one of those shots at least for a while.  Since there are more than 18 ideal holes/challenges you could certainly go play another course for a while or mix them up all the time.  But, a well crafted golf hole can usually challenge one thing really well, and can't be easily changed, nor should it be for natural changes of mind for golfers.

What the statment and answers really got me to thinking about is whether we as modern golfers are really starting to substitute the experience of others (mostly of PGA pros on TV) over our own experiences in evaluating golf courses?  In this case,  Darius had the good fortune to play or tour several Raynor courses in a short time, which is not the experirence most golfers would have with any of the holes.

I think I would be happy to play a Raynor course day after day, with only an occaisonal break.

[Don_Mahaffey]

How original is any par 3 ?

You hit from point "A" to point "B"
It's dictated, target golf.

Dictated? Target golf? When you have a par 3 where a foursome of low handicap golfers (less then 3) all use a different club with a different plan of attack, I'd hardly call that target golf. Haven't seen an original par 3? You need to get out more.

[cary lichtenstein]

I love the 9th at Yale, tried to talk Von Hagge into doing here at Admirals Cove...was definitely talking to an individual with dumb and deaf ears.

When I was a member of the Ritz, the had a 175 island green ala the 17th a TPC iin Sawgrass. I hated that hole, especially everytime I hit it in the water or worse when I hit the green and the ball went over the back into the water.

[Wade Whitehead]

Dang.  Those par threes at Yale are awesome.

The folks at Contentment would say no.

WW

[Frank M]

I enjoy both template and non-template holes. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

How original is any par 3 ?

You hit from point "A" to point "B"
It's dictated, target golf.

Dictated? Target golf? When you have a par 3 where a foursome of low handicap golfers (less then 3) all use a different club with a different plan of attack, I'd hardly call that target golf. Haven't seen an original par 3? You need to get out more.

Don, some golfers fade the ball, others draw it, some hit it high, some low, some are longer/shorter than others, but, they all have the same pass/fail test... hit the ball from the tee to the green, from point "A" to point "B".

It's target golf.

You must tee up from a very limited designated area and hit to a specified target.

That's inherent in all par 3's.

[Tim Gavrich]

Wade--

The funny thing is--in my opinion, at least--the par threes are not the main stars at Yale, with the exception of #9.  I just did a crude ranking of my favorite holes at Yale and #9 was the only par three in the top half for me.  The other par threes are by no means weak holes in the grand scheme of things, but their very-goodness is outstripped by the greatness of many of the par fours.

[Jim Franklin]

If templates are boring, why is Old Macdonald so much fun? I enjoy a good template.

[Don_Mahaffey]

Pat,
I always viewed target golf as when all players have to execute the shot to the same target. In the case of a par 3, if your saying all are aiming at the flag, then I guess its target golf. But if design, weather, and conditions allow for different ways to get to the pin, and each golfer chooses a different target to land the ball in an attempt to use contour and shot trajectory to get to the hole, is that really target golf?
In your definition it would seem every golf hole would be target golf.

[Mike Hendren]

I like templates - a lot.  Let's come at this another way:  How many pedestrian (architecturally mailed in, if you prefer) golf courses would be made more interesting with the inclusion of a few templates?

Mike

[Alex Lagowitz]

Templates, to me, present a fun, interesting hole, that was designed to test some aspect of your game...
For example, how could one get bored of hitting a shot to the right side of a redan, watching your ball roll disappear and roll all the way down by the back right hole location.  To me, that shot just doesn't get old, so whether I'm hitting the shot into National's 4th or even any other redan, the shot can always be interesting. 
Another greatness to template architecture is variety, similarity and remembrance.
Variety in that each template hole is very much different than its siblings on other courses.
Similarity in that one can notice the same style of hole, strategy, and potentially green complex.
Remembrance in that template holes (and names for that matter) allow the golfer to easily remember the hole after the round.

I also enjoy making sort of a checklist...
Try to play all the redans, biarritzes, edens, roads, alps, etc. and its always fun to compare:
"Oh that alps has a similar drive to this one but the green complex kind of looks like that one" etc.

[jeffwarne]

Templates get really good shortly after the death of the architect.........

[Mac Plumart]

Frankly, I don't think it is the templates alone that are interesting.  I think it is the routing of the courses that have templates and how the course flows that highlights the fun, concepts, and challenges imbedded in the templates.

And, for the record, I am no template guru.  I've only played a few of these types of courses...NGLA, Lookout Mountain, Yeamans, Shoreacres.