News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tim Martin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #50 on: October 18, 2011, 05:25:30 PM »
Something I've found enjoyable about template holes is that even on my first visit to a golf course, I understand how to play a hole. If you stand on a tee and know it's a redan, you dial in the draw to get to a back left pin, etc. For example, I played in an outing at Forsgate recently. When I got to the hole-in-one hole (#7), I knew it was a reverse redan. I hit it where I was supposed to and almost jarred it. Was it fun? You bet, but some of the mystery was gone too. If you played a course with a lot of templates every day (e.g. Yale) I can see how that might get a bit repetitive. I do think some of the beauty of some template holes is how different they can play from day to day.

Tom, I'd be curious to have your thoughts on this, but on most courses a given holes plays roughly the same from day to day. But think of how differently, for example a Double Plateau can with the pin on one of three levels or a Biarritz plays with the pin in the bottom vs. front vs. top. Of course some of this has to do with the severity of the greens which could be recreated elsewhere and courses with interesting greens can have holes that play differently depending on pin location. Template holes, in my opinion, do an excellent job of adding day-to-day interest. Good, creative holes can do the same thing elsewhere.

I think to some extent a lot of us on this forum love template holes because there's a certain amount of familiarity with them. By getting to know the template, we can step on a lot of golf courses and "know" that course a little bit. On one hand, that's great because you have a feel for a course the first time you play it. On the other, it does remove some of the nuance of discovering the intricacies of a course over time.

Lastly, the CBM/Raynor templates are fun because the features are big. Using the features is fairly easy. It's not like playing Augusta where you have to be a professional to control your ball enough to use some of the green features. A decent player has a fighting chance of using the big features in play. In my opinion, that's also why CBM/Raynor courses don't stand up to pros as well (i.e. pros eat them up) and have been less able to adapt to modern equipment.

David- I don`t know anybody that has played Yale on a consistent basis that finds any of the templates repetitive. I guess you would also have to include National and Fishers as repetitive as well if that is the basis for that claim.  
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 06:50:07 PM by Tim Martin »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #51 on: October 18, 2011, 10:40:20 PM »
Interesting comments.  I am not sure I have played enough "templates" to be qualified to answer but I would venture to say that it depends at least in part on how we understand the concept of supposed "templates."   I tend toward CBM and HJ Whigham's view on the subject, As I understand their approach, variety was obtained in through the following:

1. Variety within the Round.  An ironic aspect of "template" discussion is that the the template approach was meant to attain variety, not suppress it.  But the focus was not on whether supposed templates from course to course were the same or different, the focus was on maximizing the variety the golfer would face within the round.  This was a critical aspect of CBM's approach -- significantly varying the challenged the golfer would face from shot to shot and hole to hole.   It is no coincidence that the par three templates are spaced from one end of the distance spectrum to the other with about 30 yards in between each!  It was each of them was supposed to represent a unique challenge.  Frankly, most modern architects, including some the good ones, could learn a lot about variety if they would try to adhere to such a formulaic requirement as substantial spacing on the distances required on the par threes.  Such variety sure beats multiple holes of the same general length and character, whether some of those holes happened to be decent or not.    Same goes for the two shot holes.  Varying the distances and shots presented.  is a lot less mundane and a lot more interesting than a parade of mid length par fours.  

I think some around here forget that not every golfer hops around the globe playing one great course after another.   I would venture to say that most serious golfers play most of their golf on one or a few courses.  If that is the case, then isn't attaining variety within a round a much more laudable goal than attaining variety from course to course?

2.Variety From Play to Play of the Same Hole.   Another place where supposed "templates" sometimes shine is that they present the golfer with a variety of options depending upon the wind conditions and circumstance of the match and present golfers of differing abilities with different ways to play the hole.   I won't belabor this point, but see the article mentioned above for the different options presented by NGLA's Redan under different conditions.  The idea behind many of the templates is to create variety, even within the holes themselves.  

3.  Variety Depending upon the Site.  This is the kind of variety on which most people focus when discussing templates, but I am not sure it should be.  As I said above,  it just isn't an issue for most golfers, who spend most their time on a limited number of courses.  That said, I don't think that CBM was as formulaic with his supposed templates as people seem to think, at least not initially.  For example, in their 1914 article on the Redan concept CBM and HJ Whigham noted that the underlying principle of the Redan could be applied "with an infinite number of variations on any course," and that "the local scenery [I would say the natural setting] provides the variety."  While this view is obviously wider than many here would accept, CBM and HJW seem to be pretty good sources on the subject, and the holes mentioned in that single article (the Redans at North Berwick, NGLA, Piping Rock, the reversed Redans at Merion and Sleepy Hollow, and the "beautiful short hole with the Redan principle at Pine Valley") give one an variety they thought possible.

People get caught up so much on whether a hole should be classified as a "template" or not, that they tend to forget that one of the initial ideas behind the templates was to teach general principles so they could be used in a variety of situations, depending on the site.  And if one breaks down interesting holes, some of the same basic concepts underlying the templates crop up again and again, whether or not the hole would or should be identified as a template or not.

Are templates necessary to attain the kind of variety discussed in points one and two above?  Obviously not.  But many non-template designers would design much better courses if they would pay a bit more attention to these things.    

________________________________________________


Tom Doak wrote:
Quote
I think the main difference between myself and C.B. Macdonald is a simple one:  in my early education, I saw probably 20 times as many good golf courses as he did, because there was so much more to see.  Therefore I saw a lot more than 15 or 20 holes which I could choose as possible templates.  Certainly, on occasion, I go back to some of those ideas.  But the bigger point was that other architects had expanded the art of golf course design by coming up with great ideas of their own, so why should I settle for any less?  Why should anybody? . . .

Tom,
No doubt you saw many more good golf holes that CBM had at the time he designed NGLA.  Nonetheless, I am not sure it is accurate to suggest that he had seen "15 or 20 holes" which he could choose as possible templates. 

In his article on the Ideal Golf Course written in 1906 he listed out eighteen holes on a hypothetical ideal course, but he then wrote; "I have notes on many holes equally as good as a number of the above, but this list will convey to the mind of the reader a fair idea of what I have cleaned during the past few months [of study] as constituting the perfect length of hole consistent with variety."   He seems more concerned with getting variety and variance of distances than adhering to these holes in particular, and was perhaps offering up these particular holes to provide an example of such variety.  

Likewise, earlier in 1906 he wrote of having studied 1000's of holes:
"In the thousands of holes I have played and studied abroad with one idea in view, the principles that make up a good hole have cropped up again and again.  I found myself classifying the holes on their basic principles, forming them into groups in which their desirable features were due to the reproduction of the same characteristics.  On the new course these principles will be introduced to give attractiveness to each hole, and, according to the nature of the land finally selected, some three or four of the holes may be exactly resembled.  

Perhaps "thousand's" was an exaggeration, but what is interesting to me is that his focus was on the underlying principles which made holes good rather than on the specifics of the holes themselves.   That said, as CBM implied with his reference to the three or four holes that he might copy more closely, there were the smaller group of core holes that seem to have been more important to him and that pop up again and again.  

Did CBM ever force these core holes onto a property where they just did not fit with the land?

  
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 10:47:56 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #52 on: October 18, 2011, 11:00:02 PM »
Tom, I'd be curious to have your thoughts on this, but on most courses a given holes plays roughly the same from day to day. But think of how differently, for example a Double Plateau can with the pin on one of three levels or a Biarritz plays with the pin in the bottom vs. front vs. top. Of course some of this has to do with the severity of the greens which could be recreated elsewhere and courses with interesting greens can have holes that play differently depending on pin location. Template holes, in my opinion, do an excellent job of adding day-to-day interest. Good, creative holes can do the same thing elsewhere.

I think to some extent a lot of us on this forum love template holes because there's a certain amount of familiarity with them.

---

Lastly, the CBM/Raynor templates are fun because the features are big. Using the features is fairly easy. It's not like playing Augusta where you have to be a professional to control your ball enough to use some of the green features. A decent player has a fighting chance of using the big features in play. In my opinion, that's also why CBM/Raynor courses don't stand up to pros as well (i.e. pros eat them up) and have been less able to adapt to modern equipment.


David:

Your last point is interesting.  I'd always thought the reason pros eat up Macdonald/Raynor courses is just because they're so short, but you are also correct that the features and slopes in the greens are much easier to use than MacKenzie's [or mine].

I would also agree that familiarity is a reason for the success of templates.

But your earlier paragraph is the reason I object to templates.  My experience in the UK was that golf holes were not the same at all from one day to the next, because of the wind.  I remember hitting 6-iron to the Redan at North Berwick the first time I played it, and 3-wood from the same tee two days later!  Longer holes are short par-4's downwind and par-5's when it's blowing in your face.  So, I've always tried to build holes that allow for wild swings of mood, whether it's due to the wind or the tee locations or the variety of hole locations on the green.  Yes, some of the template greens do offer some wild hole locations -- think of the Short hole at National!! -- but the general impression they give is that "this hole is the same as that other one I played".


Brian Hilko

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #53 on: October 18, 2011, 11:00:44 PM »
I have only played a few template courses. I am not completely sold yet but time will tell. My favorite template hills so far have been C&C's version of the short on most of their courses and Doak's version of the redan at Pacific. The holes felt more natural to me. I personally rather see an original golf course with some templates mixed in. As much as I love Old Mac I would choose Pacific 7 out of every 10 times. Once again I have only played Shoreacres, Chicago, and Blue Mound. I still need to see more. Out of those three Chicago is the only one that really blew me away. Shoreacres was very good but I wasn't in love.  
Down with the brown

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #54 on: October 19, 2011, 03:44:30 AM »
David M

I spose I am one of those folks you are leaning on about general themes of templates being the important issue.  No argument there, but at some point, when enough elements aren't present, then we can no longer use the moniker.  The obvious template for this misuse is the Redan because it is the best template of the lot and some version of it seen most often - in my experience anyway.  Where is the line drawn between a Redan, a Redanish hole, a hole with some Redan-like qualities or just an L shaped green on a plateau?  I know you think it is semantics, but I contend the individual elements are important in making up the final product.  Let us take the uphill element as an example.  This encourages (or at the very least offers the option - which is very important for a huge percentage of players) a more running shot which then enables the green shaping & contours and front bunkers to be more pertinent than if a so-called Redan plays downhill.  Furthermore, the uphill sort encourages f&f conditions (which has all sorts of implications for golf design) while the downhill version does not.  Okay, I understand that more modern sensibilities demand that seeing the target is more important than original design principles.  Indeed, seeing the target is a design principle itself.  However, that doesn't mean that we have the same sort of hole by any means - certainly not one that can be described using what is essentially a descriptive moniker - "Redan".  This in no way means that anybody can't or shouldn't roll off a theme, but it is very misleading to use a specific moniker when the hole doesn't meet the basic criteria of the elements involved. 

Question for folks - for the average Joe, does the Biarritz really play all that different from day to day?  It strikes me as a hole so long and narrow that most folks just hit a long club and hope to have a decent shot which enables them to garner a 4.   

Ciao   
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #55 on: October 19, 2011, 07:25:48 AM »
David M

Question for folks - for the average Joe, does the Biarritz really play all that different from day to day?  It strikes me as a hole so long and narrow that most folks just hit a long club and hope to have a decent shot which enables them to garner a 4.  

Ciao  

Sean,

Since I was Grounds Chair and part of a restoration committeee when we converted the front portion to green-height, I have carefully watched how members of all ability play this hole.  The "average Joes" who can't hit it far take driver and play for the ball to roll through the swale. For these guys, the green height (and much firmer) front section really helps them have a chance to reach the back. For the "average Joe" who can hit it far, I notice an increasing number playing for the run up rather than trying to fly the ball to the back. Tee placement seems to be critical to the choice, since the hole can vary in length from 210 to 235 yards. So I think for many players, the hole does offer good variety. Each time I play it I have to work through this question: can I hit it high and far enough to make the ball hold if I carry to the back, or should I play it to run through the swale? Sadly, I almost always choose to fly it because I can't seem to keep my "less than full" swing straight, and I end up in the front bunkers.

The sticks NEVER play for the runner! Even if they have to hit a high cut driver into the wind, it is 245-260 from the back tee, they are just programmed to try to carry the ball to the pin.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2011, 07:29:01 AM by Bill Brightly »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #56 on: October 19, 2011, 01:03:54 PM »
Sean, 

Most of C.B. Macdonald's and H.J. Whigham's examples of "Redans" don't even qualify as Redans under your standard.  That ought to tell us something about the disconnect between the modern understanding of "templates" vs. the original understanding.  I'll go with C.B. Macdonald's and H.J. Whigham's explanation and examples over your more formal definitions and requirements ever time.  But then we have covered this plenty before, haven't we?   Do we really need to go through it again here and risk derailing the thread?
______________________________________________

Bill Brightly,

Interesting description of how your Biarritz plays.  Your remarks hint at something that I suspect was essential to the original conception underling some of these templates --how these holes were meant to pray upon the ego of the better players.  Some of the "variety" seems to have been dependent upon giving the better player a slim chance of pulling off the perfect shot, thus goading the better player into hitting a "nearly good" shot and leading to an unsuccessful outcome.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #57 on: October 19, 2011, 02:14:03 PM »
Tom - Even though I enjoy a good template hole (NGLA, Fishers, Chicago GC...) why would that exclude me from appreciating a talented original (Rock Creek, Sand Hills, Victoria National...)? Maybe Rock Creek is in my top 5 BECAUSE it is so original. NGLA is also in my top 5 BECAUSE the templates are so good. Why can't a golfer like both?
Mr Hurricane

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #58 on: October 19, 2011, 03:32:59 PM »
I think Jim makes a really good point.  I think excellent golf courses can come in various shapes and sizes.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #59 on: October 19, 2011, 08:59:10 PM »
Patrick:

I exaggerated your love of the templates as an example to show how people professing love for the Eden, the Redan, the Short and the Biarritz were leaving no room for any of the other great par-3 holes in the world, and how silly that would be.

Exaggerated ?  Perhaps misrepresented would be more apt. ;D
I think you know me well enough to know that I like variety in golf holes, while at the same time knowing that I also enjoy playing templates.
They seem timeless in that the fun and challenge remain even though there's an inate repetiion in them.
When you consider that many, if not most, remain intact, nearly 100 years after their creation, you have to think that they have intrinsic enduring values, otherwise they would have been altered beyond recognition.
 

I tried to pick a par-3 I knew you liked.  I had no intention of getting into Garden City business.

Then perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned that hole.
We both know that the current version is seriously lacking and that the original was very well regarded by many.
I'm rather passionate about that hole as I think the current version is so out of architectural context with the balance of the golf course.
Mel Lucas wrote to me personally and provided a wealth of information as to how the hole was allowed to fall from grace/greatness into mediocrity.
And yet, almost 50 years after the disfiguration, the hole has been allowed to stand


I do not concur with your purported history of our roles at Garden City Golf Club in relation to hole #12.

I'm fairly confident that my recollection is very accurate.
 

For one, it's absolute total bullshit that I fought restoring it "because it wasn't my idea".

Now Tom, we all have our egos.
You have yours and I have mine.
You're a very talented architect, no one questions that.
But sometimes, "pride of authorship" gets in everyone's way.
Just look at Washington, D.C. for exhibit "A"

If you had continued to champion the restoration effort, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
So, let's leave it at that.
 

Restoration is all about putting back someone else's ideas, and I've done more of that work than anyone who participates here.  As for "half-assed renderings", that's really about as good as my drawings get.  :)  Getting things built is the part I'm good at.

We had a great opportunity, that unfortunately was lost.


I think you've got the sequence of events very wrong, and also the facts as to who's on your side and who's not in that battle.  
Anything's possible, but, I feel comfortable with my position.


However, it would be unprofessional of me to air those details on this forum, as it's a matter between the client [that's the club] and architect.  Perhaps you should consider whether your position as a member and green committee member makes it inappropriate for you to make such statements, as well.

Without criticism, progress is impossible.
Ditto restorations. ;D

Remember, I didn't bring my name, Garden City's name and the 12th hole up.....................you did.


Keith OHalloran

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #60 on: October 19, 2011, 09:12:41 PM »
I am not sure if templates would get boring, but would anyone on this site turn down a chance to play NGLA every day to find out?

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #61 on: October 19, 2011, 10:30:27 PM »
I am not sure if templates would get boring, but would anyone on this site turn down a chance to play NGLA every day to find out?


No.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #62 on: October 19, 2011, 10:42:09 PM »
I haven't been bored by them (as of yet) because they are not them same holes.

Think the alps at NGLA and Yeamans.  Not the same.

Think same courses and the versions of the Cape.  Not the same.

I could go on, but I think you get my point.

Add in good land and an interesting routing and you have a total different experience.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

David Harshbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #63 on: October 19, 2011, 11:28:39 PM »
I second Mr. Moriarty esq. point on playing to the ego of better players with the Biarritz, because even though I'm no great shake with a stick, I'm no stranger to ego.
The trouble with modern equipment and distance—and I don't see anyone pointing this out—is that it robs from the player's experience. - Mickey Wright

Jim Franklin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #64 on: October 20, 2011, 10:43:57 AM »
The only thing more boring than the templates is the predictable defense of them on this forum!  :)

I suppose it's no surprise.  For a bunch of guys who wish they were architects, it's much easier to imagine that some hole could have been a reverse Redan, than to actually come up with an original design.  Of course, that's also true of many of the professionals in the business.

So Old Macdonald is boring? I loved it.

I have no desire to be an architect either. I am happy to play the courses the real geniuses come up with. It is like music. I have no desire to learn how to play guitar; I would rather hear Stevie Ray Vaughn play.
Mr Hurricane

John Shimony

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #65 on: October 20, 2011, 10:59:29 AM »
Templates do not bore me.  They have architectural merit and I have yet to see two that were exactly the same.  Even with regards to the "Short" hole, I have played a few but have never played two greens that were exactly the same.
John Shimony
Philadelphia, PA

Alex Lagowitz

Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #66 on: October 21, 2011, 02:29:58 PM »
Templates, although sharing the same principle of design, are vastly different from course to course...besides the par 3's (whose templates are very much more similar), all other templates are so incredibly different and yet they present the golfer with a great hole.
Take the alps hole, the 17th at Prestwick..
Having played this hole, I can say that the Alps at National, Fishers, Yeaman's, Essex County CC, etc. are all very very different.  The idea, concept is the same but the holes are completely all unique.
Take the road hole, 17th at TOC
This hole is also very different from course to course, and although most are slight doglegs to the right, some are straight away or slight diagonal carries and some are even dogleg rights as North Shore CC.
On top of all the variety presented in each template hole from course to course, one must also recognize that they are not 18 distinct templates on every course, most only have a handful.  The rest of the holes are usually strategically unique to the course and often are very strong holes.

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #67 on: October 21, 2011, 08:29:31 PM »
Given his long tenure on this site, Paul Thomas asking this question is like shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to creating an active thread :)

One of the things I like most about template features is that, by definition, the architect is linking us to the history of the game. Wether it be CBM, his assistants, or modern architects, they all are saying: "I recognize that there are great old holes that were built by someone else (or nature) and they are so noteworthy that I will use them as inspiration for the hole I am designing. I trust that the playing characteristics will translate into good golf in the future."  This entices us to learn about the original hole, and also where else the features have been employed. How can that not be a good thing?

Kevin Pallier

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #68 on: October 22, 2011, 12:31:59 AM »
"......replicas do get less interesting the more you see of them."

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

I can't say I agree with that quote - for mine its more of a quality argument. Do "great" golf courses get less interesting the more you see of them ?

That said - some of the templates I've seen still lag behind the original's ie: TOC's Eden and NB's Redan.

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #69 on: October 22, 2011, 12:38:37 AM »
I just played Old Mac.  The templates were really great.  Some of the best versions I've seen.  But the non-template holes were the best holes on the course. 

Great course.  Great templates.  Sublime original holes.

Food for thought, I guess.

Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: do templates get boring?
« Reply #70 on: October 22, 2011, 02:14:04 AM »
KP: by that do you mean the original Redan and Eden are your favourite holes if those types.

I'd agree re Eden, not re Redan.