News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #50 on: August 06, 2003, 08:03:49 PM »
Haven't read the posts, but if people don't think modern architects duplicate their golf holes they are fooling themselves.   They are and they do it more often than you think.  Play enough of their courses and you will see that quite clearly.  Tom Fazio is quoted as saying he has never built the same hole twice.  Technically he is correct.  No architect ever has if taken literally.  Trust me, Fazio like many others, has built the same hole many times over.

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #51 on: August 06, 2003, 10:01:38 PM »
....pat ,i guess i'm late to this party ,but i can assure you that most modern day designers duplicate and use all they can from the past [its hard not to ,and why would you even want not to ?][meow][meow][says my wifes cat]
« Last Edit: August 06, 2003, 10:03:22 PM by paul cowley »
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

DMoriarty

Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #52 on: August 07, 2003, 02:32:25 AM »
DMoriarty,

I think one could say that # 17 is a hybrid redan on steroids.

Patrick.  I think that is an apt description of the PD 17.  

I am still curious, though.  Is PC 17 a duplicate, or does it just share some of the same strategic principles as the East Coast Redans with which you are familiar?   And could you please explain how you determine whether or not a hole like PC 17 is a duplicate?

Thanks in advance for your answers.    
« Last Edit: August 07, 2003, 02:32:53 AM by DMoriarty »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #53 on: August 07, 2003, 08:27:04 AM »
Pat -

My points are very simple.

Frist, there is a bias on GCA. It is very deep. It is almost never challenged. And it is not the one you think it is.

The bias is the assumption that the template holes reflect such extraordinary design brilliance that they ought to be copied more often than they are. Now and forever.

Second, not many people (outside our wacky little world here) share those views. In eight decades of golf design since Raynor's death, his template holes have not been replicated very often - other than some nods to the redan and cape concepts from time to time.

The architectural world has voted.

Why the rejection of template holes? It might be vanity, though you see a lot of newer courses claiming lineages with MacKenzie or Ross.

But it might be that people just don't think that the templates are very special.  That is my view.  

 - Finding the right plateau on a biarritz green at 220 yards is a pure crap shoot. It would be a lot more interesting green if placed at the end of a reachable par 5.

- Though blind shots are fun from time to time, the reverence payed on GCA to the Alps template escapes me.

- The short with the embedded horseshoe has always struck me as a silly way to make a 120 yard par three interesting.

- Etc.

Bob


 
« Last Edit: August 07, 2003, 08:31:48 AM by BCrosby »

T_MacWood

Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #54 on: August 07, 2003, 09:24:24 AM »
Bob
From what I can gather your attitude was shared by most golf architects of that era too. Other than Macdonald (and his associates Raynor and Banks), the architects of that era didn't lean on a template of famous holes.

I know Tillie built a Redan at Somerset Hills (I wonder what the story is behind the creation of that hole), I am not aware of any other famous models in his portfolio. In fact he was outspoken--fairly early in his career--against the policy of copying or recreating famous holes, advocating unique natural holes.

Many of these guys had pet holes or pet concepts (Ross, MacKenzie, Tillie, etc.), but they were normally their own creations and adapted to the land. I suspect this is the case with many architects, past and present.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #55 on: August 07, 2003, 09:51:46 AM »
DMoriarty,

I think the first thing you do in trying to make the determination is to interpret your visual impression, the one that you get as you step up to the tee.  
The look and feel of the hole.

Some get the impression that the green complex resembles a defended fortress, sitting aloft, challenging the attackers.

I would think that the next questions to ask are:

Is the hole 190-215 yards long ?

Is the bunkering configuration identifiable ?
With a deep sand pit guarding frontal attack with deep bunkering also beyond the short side of the green, with a framing bunker positioned well short of the putting surface.

Does the approach have a high shoulder along the outside edge of of the green designed to deflect balls toward the center of the green ?  Especially a fronting mound/shoulder that provides the TEPaul turbo boost to balls hit short and to that spot.

Does the green sit at a 45 degree angle to the tee ?

Is the green boldly tilted to the rear, preferably from front right to back left ?

Like "obscenity" one may not be able to define it, buy you'll know it when you see it.

BCrosby,

The redan hole is an extraordinary design, architecturally.
Would you dispute that ?

The value in the "short" isn't just the elevated island, it's also in the contouring in the green, and the combination of the two.  You think it's silly.  Have you ever played the 6th at NGLA ?  Have you ever played it in a breeze ?  The green within green configuration makes this little hole challenging to hit, and to make par, yet fun to play.  That would seem to be an architecturally sound hole.  Ask yourself, why have they endured so long, and why have they stood up to technology so well ?

The "Eden" hole and green are extraordinary designs.

As are all of the other templates I've listed, which can be seen at some of the clubs I've listed.

These holes not only have significant architectural values, they have enduring values, values that have stood the test of time.

I don't see that the appreciation of these holes and the value placed on their strategic merit as Bias.

Your fourth paragraph is the very reason I initiated this thread
But, I strongly disagree with the conclusion you draw.
Some time ago, I put forth a theory on the abscense of these holes from modern day architects, on the old GCA.com format.
I don't think their abscense is in any way related to what you claim, which is that the holes lack substance and strategy.

The Biarritzes at The Knoll and Piping Rock weren't found, they were artificially constructed, as are most of these holes.

On this issue, we're 180 degrees apart.

My sense is that perhaps you haven't played enough of these holes to get to know them, to appreciate them for their enduring architectural values.

But, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2003, 09:52:53 AM by Patrick_Mucci »

Kelly_Blake_Moran

Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #56 on: August 07, 2003, 11:05:44 AM »
 Patrick:

It is hard to determine why more modern designs do not incorporate these design principles into their designs, however, I am not certain of the basis of your research into modern courses and their lack of these timeless features.  Is your basis an assumption, an informal survey, a scientific survey and analysis?  Have the modern designs received enough study to dismiss connections between them and classic designs, like the amount of research that has gone into the connections between the dead masters designs and the British Isles courses?  If so and based upon this research you have reached this conclusion that there has been an interruption in the connections between the British Isles, and modern courses then it is a sad conclusion.  Most strategic designs you have mentioned, and their recognition and use in course designs by the dead masters I think illustrate the brilliance of their expert analysis, contemplation, and execution in their new designs.  These principles are probably timeless, or maybe a better way to describe them is that no one originated them, the principles have always been there for those who were willingly to receive them.  You mention the 7th at NGLA, and I will say I have only walked the course twice, never played, and reviewed Bahto’s book regarding the hole, some of these principles of design are timeless, and in some way probably are included in the design of modern holes.  How this came about on a modern design is interesting to consider.  It could have been the original road hole or the NGLA design were direct inspirations, it also could have been that the modern architect stumbled upon these principles by just being on their land studying the terrain before them and through this face to face encounter and an active mind engaged in the moment the idea for a design came forth and it just so happens it is similar to the road hole or the 7th at NGLA, simply because they found inspiration from the land and because the strategic principle is timeless.  Jefferson and the Greeks did not necessarily invent freedom and democracy, it is a timeless principle, maybe a divine principle that has always been present, or at least the possibilities have always been present since the earliest man appeared.  It has always been present in the spirit of human kind, the spirit of the Earth, the holy spirit, however you want to term it, but it did take special, creative people to bring it forth for all to recognize, and people still come to under stand it more fully through their own introspection and experience and they may have never read a word about Jefferson or the Greeks.  So, some credit should be given to modern design even if it does not specifically cite the old masters or the British Isles as inspiration because the modern design could very well reflect the same design principles through its own way.  Some may be too quick to dismiss a modern design because it does not pay sufficient homage to the past.  I recall a discussion with some one about a specific bunker style on a modern course and their immediate response was to inquire if Ross influenced that style.  No, it just came to mind as the result of countless time spent contemplating land and strategy.   If you speak of inspiration from something other than the old masters or the Isles people just flat turn you off, they do not want to hear what drives you if you do not have a dead master sitting in the passenger side with you.  

This is all to say that your question is excellent and its implications are correct, more should be done in modern design to incorporate some of the principles you have cited to make golf more fun, but the architect must be allowed to discover these principles in their own way so that design comes more from internal inspiration and introspection.  I think people whom pull design from within themselves, whom allow these design principles to brew within them and allow it to boil out from within sometimes in surprising and inspiring ways are far more interesting as compared to those that talk about what old master inspired them and how this hole they designed was inspired by this old course by this old dead master.  Tell me what really grabbed your mind and your heart when you stood there on that raw land looking over the virgin terrain.  Some one told me the other day that while setting up a volleyball net in their back yard they suddenly discovered their yard was just like a Flynn green, and they took a couple of their associates over to show them this magnificent Flynn green in their back yard.  I did not know whether to laugh because it was a put on or to put my arm around them, hug them and tell them everything would be okay, they could beat this disease.   Some of the implications from your question have resulted in the most ridiculous idolatry and rubbish that sometimes stains this website, and it has led to down right misrepresentation by some practicing designers.  

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #57 on: August 07, 2003, 11:46:18 AM »
Pat -

I've played 5 or 6 Raynor courses (how do we count Black Creek?), so let's not pull the "no standing to have an opinion" card.

Having grown up on Ross (or Ross wanna be) courses and having played a fair amount of Leeds (Myopia) and Flynn (TCC) during my brief but undistinguished college career, Raynor courses have always looked artificial to me. Like manufactured platfroms for playing golf. Fun courses to be sure, but they are outliers. Oddball courses.

Maybe if you you grew up on or near Long Island it's harder to see that. (Not having played golf there, I get the impression that there is a Raynor course behind every gas station east of Queens.)

Yes, some of the templates are wonderful concepts. I agree about the redan and the cape.

But many of the others are merely odd.

Take your example of the short. Just to pick short par 3's within 250 miles of where I am sitting, ANGC 12, PII 9, East Lake 6, Cuscowilla 11, and Stadium Course 18, are all better holes. All  blend well with local terrain and all manage to create interest without the hokey horseshoe/halo bunker thing.

We won't agree on any of this. But I did not want to let your original post go without someone noting that it is not unanimous that the 7 or 8 template holes are all exemplary designs.

Bob

     

« Last Edit: August 07, 2003, 12:00:33 PM by BCrosby »

DMoriarty

Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #58 on: August 07, 2003, 11:47:49 AM »
Like "obscenity" one may not be able to define it, buy you'll know it when you see it.

You've said this a few times, but I dont think that MacDonald had as much trouble defining it:

Quote
"Take a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front side, approach it diagonally, and you have a Redan."

--MacDonald and Whigham, again from George Bahto's terrific book, p. 92.

MacDonald also talked quite a bit about variation and varieties and differences between Redans.  Still doesnt sound like he is discussing "duplicates" to me.   Oh well, maybe just a difference of semantics between you and MacDonald.  

But again, is Pacific Dunes 17 at duplicate or an original hole applying some of the strategic principles of the Redan?  


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #59 on: August 07, 2003, 12:03:57 PM »
DMoriarty,

I've got to run, but I wanted to answer you before I bolted.

MacDonald's words are very general.
And, I think MacDonald and I are in perfect harmony on this.

If you saw the redan at # 4 at NGLA and the redan at # 6 at Westhampton, and the redan at # 3 at Piping Rock you would understand the duplicate nature of these holes, as well as a number of other redans.

# 17 at Pacific Dunes doesn't strike me as a duplicate, rather a variation or hybrid.


BCrosby,

Have you played any of the courses I mentioned, if so, which ones.  This is not the playing of any card, just the establishment of your data base and frame of reference.
Don't get so defensive.
« Last Edit: August 07, 2003, 12:05:32 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

DMoriarty

Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #60 on: August 07, 2003, 12:04:58 PM »
Patrick.  Thanks for the response.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #61 on: August 07, 2003, 12:33:37 PM »
Pat -

Yale, Yeamans (post restoration), CCofC (pre-restoration), Lookout (don't know what's going on there), Black Creek (replica course) and Chicago Golf Club (25 years ago).

Bob

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #62 on: August 07, 2003, 02:43:21 PM »
The following is what I've written about the 17th at Pacific Dunes for my "someday" book.

"   17th hole:  This is the one hole where the gorse covered nearly all of the golf hole, and clearing it so that the leftovers were not too unattractive was a big concern.  Like clearing through trees, cutting into the middle of the bushes left a lot of bare branches on the outside edge.  In spots, we would clear twenty feet less or thirty feet more than we might have, in order to find a natural break point where the gorse plant came low to the ground for an edge.

   Originally, the green site didn’t stick out so far to the left.  The ridge continued straight on to a high point at the back of the green, then crashed down to the bushes in the valley on the left.  We tried building a green like that, but it would have required a difficult straight shot against a left-to-right crosswind in the summer season.

   Eventually, we gave up that idea and went back to an obvious choice:  the tilt of the green site favored a “Redan” hole, similar to the famous 15th or “Redan” hole at North Berwick, Scotland, which was imitated countless times by the great architects of the Golden Age.  [The fourth hole at National Golf Links is probably the best of them all.]  All we had to do to make it was to extend the green to the left over the bunker, which we needed to do anyway to make it playable.  Few such holes have such an impressive setting, with the elevated tee and the large bowl of gorse-clad dunes surrounding the scene.

   There are two ways to play the hole -- hit a big, carrying shot with a bit of cut, so it will stop fast, or aim to the fairway on the right and hope for the slope to carry the ball down onto the green.  This is the basic strategy of the Redan.

   One twist to the Redan design here is that we gave much more cushion behind the green than normal because of the prevailing wind.  An overclubbed shot is not punished with bunkers, although the slope down to the left side of the green will make it difficult to get up and down for a par.  The right edge of the green actually drains off to the right and around the back of the green.

   The green itself is a much wider target than the approach, which is rather narrow between gorse bushes on the right bank and the steep fall down to the left.  The further back the tees used, the narrower the approach fairway plays. "


We really did try to build something besides a Redan there, because we had tried Redans on a few other courses, and I was never satisfied that we'd done very well with them.  The Pacific Dunes hole is the best interpretation I've done of it because the apron on the right is almost perfect.  But, we did design something more modest to handle the long-right ball, even though Ran M. took me to task for it.

Pat is right, that sometimes it's silly to resist a template hole when it would be an excellent solution.  But I'd rather err in trying to be original, than produce many lame copies.

P.S.  Those of you who like templates will love the 14th hole at Cape Kidnappers, a 320-yard par-4 to a Road green.  I'm curious to see whether people think it's too severe!

TEPaul

Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #63 on: August 07, 2003, 07:17:29 PM »
Tom Doak said;

"P.S.  Those of you who like templates will love the 14th hole at Cape Kidnappers, a 320-yard par-4 to a Road green.  I'm curious to see whether people think it's too severe!"

TomD:

I'm glad you did a hole that short to a "Road" green. On that note I wish they'd remove that back tee addition and go back to the original back tee on Piping Rock's #8 (maybe about 350yds). That's the way the hole was originally designed and I thought that was a nice variation on a much longer Road hole.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why don't modern architects duplicate designs ?
« Reply #64 on: August 08, 2003, 06:06:01 PM »
Tom Doak,

Thanks for the response and clarification.

One of the things I liked about the 17th was that it surprised me, and that it was on a grand scale.

It surprised me in that I had just played (downwind, a par 5 that I reached with and iron, and a short par 4 that I drove.
As I walked up to the 17th tee I wasn't expecting the grand view and huge hole that greeted me.  It was as if the hole was located in a hidden valley, invisible from the rest of the golf course, and that the hole was massive, on a grand scale.

I recogninzed the "redan" qualities of the hole and enjoyed playing it, into a good wind.  It was challenging and fun.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back