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:
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?