Bringing something new to the table

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,
Lot of 'somethings new' in your previous thread.

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42260.0.html

[Jim_Kennedy]

By the way, back then you weren't as critical about CBM/SR having a goodly number of courses on top 100 lists:

 Interestingly enough as a tandem…Raynor and MacDonald have 6 courses on our list.  Way more than anyone else.  Are they the most groundbreaking/revolutionary architects in the history of the game? -Mac Plumart

 

[Connor Dougherty]

I'm pretty sure I saw a week ago a few people (including Tom Doak) complaining that the rankings gave too much credit to diversity, that the publications were actively trying to diversify the location of golf courses that made their rankings. Nine Bridges was used as an example.

I do think there is a place for discussion about the most influential golf courses on the world. But the purpose of the Golf Magazine Top 100 is (at least it should be) to determine the Top 100 golf courses in the world. While the MacRaynor courses may have not done too much for the golfing world, most of those which retain their original character are wonderful tracks that are some of the best golf courses in the world.

If we're talking about what they did for golf architecture, isn't it enough that the golf course provides another interesting place to play the game? Does it have to do something new/unique for the game?

[Mac Plumart]

Does it have to do something new/unique for the game?

Of course it doesn't, Connor.  I am simply wanting to talk about that.  As stated previously, I'm not interested in talking Top 100 courses on this thread.  Simply wanting to talk about unique courses.

Also got to thinking about The Chasm hole.  It is gone now.  Was that hazard too severe or is there another reason that it went away and hasn't returned?  Or is Cypress' carry akin to it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Ever since the release of the 2013 Golf Magazine Top 100 lists, I've been feeling disappointed.  I think this disappointment centers around their inclusion of 10 Raynor/MacDonald template courses in their US Top 100 list.  To me, that seems like it has to be too much.  Too much repetition.  Too much sameness.    Of course, I haven't played all of these template designs, but I've actually played a good amount of them.  And it strikes me as, first and foremost, wrong to have all those courses in the Top 100.  But it also strikes me as lazy and lacking imagination and courage to go with the same thing again and again and again (10 times over).

But regardless, the thing I would like to talk about are unique designs.  Designs that actually added something new to the world of architecture.

If The Old Course was the first course, that certainly added something to the world of architecture...a golf course.

CBM/Raynor's work at NGLA did as well.  The first template course, which was used to show the world what architecture was and build an "ideal" course.

But what other courses added something new to the world of architecture?  What were they?  What did they add?  They can be wonderfully great or noble disasters.  But what are (or were) the unique golf courses of the world?

What courses don't you think belong in the top 100 ?

Which top 100 CBM/SR/CB courses have you played and which haven't you played ?

[Mac Plumart]

Once again, I am not interested in talking about the Top 100...but there seems to be a lot of focus on it.  Ok...I'll indulge you Pat.  If you will, in turn, indulge me.

Here is a list of the CBM/Raynor courses I've played (with Golf Magazine's ranking in ())...

The National Golf Links of America (8 in the US)
Shoreacres (33 in the US)
Chicago Golf Club (16 in the US)
Fishers Island (15 in the US)
Camargo (38 in the US)
Yale (70 in the US)
Southampton
Yeamans Hall (66 in the US)
Lookout Mountain


CBM/Raynor courses I haven't played that are in Golf Magazine's Top 100 US...

Piping Rock (73rd)
Fox Chapel (88th)
Country Club of Fairfield (95th)



To stay along the lines of Top 100 thinking...

Pat, have you played Kingsley, Rustic Canyon, Rock Creek Cattle Company, Dismal River (either one)?



To focus more on the unique aspect of golf courses...

Pat...what do you feel these CBM/Raynor courses bring to the table in terms of uniqueness on a course by course basis?

[Mac Plumart]

Steve, Mac

     Merrick Road Park Golf Course (William Mitchell 1966) was built over a former garbage dump in 1966. I'm sure this couldn't be the first. But it would be interesting to know where in the US is/was the first course built in such a manner.

                    Gene

Gene...could this be the first dump reclaimation course?

Victoria Golf Course
 Carson, California
 1962

[Patrick_Mucci]

Once again, I am not interested in talking about the Top 100...but there seems to be a lot of focus on it.  Ok...I'll indulge you Pat.  If you will, in turn, indulge me.

Here is a list of the CBM/Raynor courses I've played (with Golf Magazine's ranking in ())...

The National Golf Links of America (8 in the US)
Shoreacres (33 in the US)
Chicago Golf Club (16 in the US)
Fishers Island (15 in the US)
Camargo (38 in the US)
Yale (70 in the US)
Southampton
Yeamans Hall (66 in the US)
Lookout Mountain

Which courses do you think are underserving of a top 100 rating ?


CBM/Raynor courses I haven't played that are in Golf Magazine's Top 100 US...

Piping Rock (73rd)
Fox Chapel (88th)
Country Club of Fairfield (95th)

Of the above two lists, I  haven't played

Fox Chapel
Shoreacres
Chicago GC
Camargo
Yeaman's
Lookout Mountain



To stay along the lines of Top 100 thinking...

Pat, have you played Kingsley, Rustic Canyon, Rock Creek Cattle Company, Dismal River (either one)?

I have NOT played any of the above four (4)

To focus more on the unique aspect of golf courses...

Pat...what do you feel these CBM/Raynor courses bring to the table in terms of uniqueness on a course by course basis?

Yikes, I don't think I have the time to devote to properly answering your question.

NGLA, Yale and Fishers Island are so incredibly unique, where does one start ?

As a simple example, how could you possibly compare the Biarritz at Yale to the Biarritz at Fishers Island.
Even though they're both "deemed" Biarritz holes, they are so incredibly disimilar, yet so spectacular to play.

You could say the same for the punchbowl at NGLA and the PunchBowl at Fishers Island.
Again, the nomenclature tells you they're similar, but, in terms of design and play, they're as different as night and day.

Part of the genius of CBM/SR/CB was how they applied the template "principle" to the terrain.
In most cases, it was quite unique.

If you've played the courses listed above, you recognize that when you analyzed them.

But, let me put it another way.

When you look at the 50 contestants in the Miss America Contest, they all have very similar physical attributes, yet all are unique.
Would you throw any of them out of the contest because they bear a general resemblance to any of the other contestants ?

[Mac Plumart]

NGLA, Yale and Fishers Island are so incredibly unique, where does one start ?

I agree with this 100%.  Those courses are incredible.  I actually just played Yale recently and when I walked off the course I immediately thought if it was better conditioned it would be a Top 25 (maybe a Top 10 course) like NGLA and Fishers.


To answer you question about which ones don't belong in the Top 100, I don't want to answer that question.  Why?  Because it seems like that might be twisted into me saying those courses aren't good...and they are...I just think other courses are better.  I really think Kingsley is great and should be on every Top 100 list.  I think at a minimum you could swap out 1 CBM/Raynor for that one...and maybe a few others on that list.


But, again, I was disappointed after reading that Golf Magazine list.  I suppose because of the lack of original courses, unique courses, outside the box type courses.  Not goofy courses, however.  I suppose I just didn't want the same of the same of the same and if you they got stuck on what courses to put in, it seemed they just picked another Raynor (or CBM).  I don't like it.  Personal taste issue, maybe...I don't know.

Hence, the thought to talk about unique holes, courses, ideas.  Focusing on Kingsley...how 'bout their 9th hole and the different angles of the tee boxes?  Neat.  Unique.  Cool for repeat members play.

[Steve Kline]

When touting Kingsley I think the 9th is one f the last I would mention. Definitely my least favorite par 3 on the course.

[Mac Plumart]

Steve...

It doesn't matter if you like it or not...as I said before, noble failure discussions are welcome.  But, regardless, I think it is unique.  I happen to like it, but totally accept that some don't.  Heck, the entirety of Tobacco Road is like that too me.  Too much.  I don't like it.  But others love it.  There is no question that course is unique and, in my book, becomes a must play for everyone...golf architecture people simply need to see it.

[Brad Isaacs]

Golf is a template game. So when you take a template and apply it to a unique terrain it will either work or not. I don't really see this as different than the modern minimalists or the mold it out of clayists. Sme architects are more creative and some, well ,fail.  CBM and Raynor and Doak and C & C generally succeed.

Garden City is the perfect example of an architect using land that looks featureless to succeed in creating an incredible course, while the Wolf Abomination in Mesquite Nevada used modern devices to build a contrived, I know not what, but it is new and unusual and unique.

I am in love with the template of golf that works, whether it is SR,TD CBM, CC, RTJ, PD or whoever. The game of golf is 500+ years old?  I think that just as in medicine we are refining the science, we are refining golf architecture not discovering it.

Therefore bringing something new to the table is confusing to me. I love the different interpretations of those classic "templates" by modern designers whether they intended it to be a "template" hole or not. Does it work in the the golf course as a whole?  I love the Sand Hills, Ballyneal, Pine Valley, Cal club, Martis Camp etc. interpretation of the golf template,

[Mac Plumart]

we are refining golf architecture not discovering it.

Brad...great line!  I like it a lot. 

Maybe that is spot on.  Maybe Mackenzie, Thomas, Ross, MacDonald were still discovering. And our current generation is spit polishing things.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

[Bill Brightly]

Mac,

You are having a problem with this thread because you brought a top 100 rating in your first sentence, but don't really want to talk about lists...

And I have to take issue with the underlying premise of your question: somehow you feel that MacRaynors are over-represented in the top 100 lists. Perhaps unintentionally (but I doubt it) you take a slap at MacRaynors by saying there is too much sameness. This statement absolutely misses the mark with Macdonald's courses. He did a fabulous job of fitting his holes with the land. His punchbowl holes were completely varied, for example. Raynor may have created more similar-looking holes, but the undeniable truth is that golfers love playing his courses. That's the reason why MacRaynors remain in the top 100.  It proves the strength of the template features that Macdonald believed in. The pros rave about Fox Chapel for one simple reason: it is an absolute blast to play.

You acknowledge the greatness of NGLA, and then imply that all the other MacRaynors merely copied these holes. That not only unfair, it is flat out wrong. They copied (great) features and the found ways to fit the features into their routings.

New and unique golf hole design does not necessarily make the holes more fun to play; it does not help vault these courses into the top 100. It does not make them better playing fields for golf. Sorry if that disappoints you.

Building a bunch of great golf holes gets you into the top 100, which is what C & C and Doak and did with Streamsong, for example.

[Mac Plumart]

He (MacDonald) did a fabulous job of fitting his holes with the land. His punchbowl holes were completely varied, for example. Raynor may have created more similar-looking holes, but the undeniable truth is that golfers love playing his courses. That's the reason why MacRaynors remain in the top 100.  It proves the strength of the template features that Macdonald believed in.

I think you may be spot on, Bill.  

[Bill Brightly]

What NGLA really did was provide one huge, critically important kick in the ass to all the other architects building courses in the US. (Perhaps abroad, as well, but I can't say.) You think Tilly, Ross etal did not have NGLA in their thoughts as they designed courses that the owners wanted to be held in high regard?

[Bill Brightly]

And Tom, really, I'm not sure how large yours are, but it would take a pretty good pair to make the following comment

"I'm always a little uneasy when anyone wants to take credit (or give credit) to some design as being original, but I agree totally that the love for the same old templates has gotten out of control.  Give me something else ... anything at all."  

Weren't you the "architect" of a certain highly ranked (oh those pesky lists) course on the Oregon coast that was a copy of their copies?    

Jim, this a rather dumb and snarky comment. Do some research on the creation of this course in Oregon. The owner had decided that he was going to build a Macdonald tribute course. The course was going to be built whether or not Tom was part of the design team with Urbina, Olson, Klein, Bahto, or not.  It is not as if Doak was given the job to build the 4th course at Bandon and simply ran out of ideas and said: "hey, let's use Macdonald's templates!"

But he did slip in a pretty cool original hole: Ocean.

[Jim Nelson]

And Tom, really, I'm not sure how large yours are, but it would take a pretty good pair to make the following comment

"I'm always a little uneasy when anyone wants to take credit (or give credit) to some design as being original, but I agree totally that the love for the same old templates has gotten out of control.  Give me something else ... anything at all."  

Weren't you the "architect" of a certain highly ranked (oh those pesky lists) course on the Oregon coast that was a copy of their copies?    

Jim, this a rather dumb and snarky comment. Do some research on the creation of this course in Oregon. The owner had decided that he was going to build a Macdonald tribute course. The course was going to be built whether or not Tom was part of the design team with Urbina, Olson, Klein, Bahto, or not.  It is not as if Doak was given the job to build the 4th course at Bandon and simply ran out of ideas and said: "hey, let's use Macdonald's templates!"

But he did slip in a pretty cool original hole: Ocean.

Well, we all have opinions.  I do know about the creations of Old Mac, have played it a number of times and have it in my top two at Bandon.  I'm quite fine with whatever the owner wants to do, as it is his property.  I am also fine with whoever is chosen and in turn choses to work on the project.  All good.  But I thought TD taking a rather sanctimonious position regarding others rather ironic.  Thought I'd point that out.  Was it snarky?  You bet it was.  That was my intent.  But then, how do you rationalize TD's comment?  Really all, this makes not one whit of difference to me.  And besides, I've been banned from this thread, so I better move on.

[Mac Plumart]

Bill...

Any thoughts or comments you'd like to share in regards to MacDonald/Raynor's style and beliefs relative to Mackenzie's?


PS, any thoughts on Brad's comments about us no longer discovering architecture but instead refining it?

[Mark Bourgeois]

"Don't seek an original idea in building a golf course." -- CB Macdonald, "Scotland's Gift"

Ha ha!

[Bill Brightly]

And Tom, really, I'm not sure how large yours are, but it would take a pretty good pair to make the following comment

"I'm always a little uneasy when anyone wants to take credit (or give credit) to some design as being original, but I agree totally that the love for the same old templates has gotten out of control.  Give me something else ... anything at all."  

Weren't you the "architect" of a certain highly ranked (oh those pesky lists) course on the Oregon coast that was a copy of their copies?    

Jim, this a rather dumb and snarky comment. Do some research on the creation of this course in Oregon. The owner had decided that he was going to build a Macdonald tribute course. The course was going to be built whether or not Tom was part of the design team with Urbina, Olson, Klein, Bahto, or not.  It is not as if Doak was given the job to build the 4th course at Bandon and simply ran out of ideas and said: "hey, let's use Macdonald's templates!"

But he did slip in a pretty cool original hole: Ocean.

Well, we all have opinions.  I do know about the creations of Old Mac, have played it a number of times and have it in my top two at Bandon.  I'm quite fine with whatever the owner wants to do, as it is his property.  I am also fine with whoever is chosen and in turn choses to work on the project.  All good.  But I thought TD taking a rather sanctimonious position regarding others rather ironic.  Thought I'd point that out.  Was it snarky?  You bet it was.  That was my intent.  But then, how do you rationalize TD's comment?  Really all, this makes not one whit of difference to me.  And besides, I've been banned from this thread, so I better move on.

OK, now you are getting to something that is pretty important.

I don't need to "rationalize" Tom's comments, but as a student of gca, I find them fascinating. I have come to believe that TD has a bit of a love-hate relationship with Macdonald & Raynor. I think he has great respect for Macdonald's work and probably feels that Raynor relied too heavily on the templates and his courses had too much of an engineered look.

The parallels between Macdonald and Doak are interesting. Both traveled to see the great courses abroad (as well as playing the top courses in the US) before beginning their design career.  Both developed very strong convictions; and these beliefs would guide them in all the courses they built. The difference is that while TD liked all the Macdonalds he saw, he probably became tired of seeing all the Raynor courses and their similarities. But I have come to believe that this was also a critical piece in the development of TD's design beliefs. While he studied, admired and would be influenced by the great designs of Mackenzie, Macdonald, Old Tom Morris, etc.,  he would try to build golf holes that were NOT straight copies. And he determined that he did not want to leave the manufactured look of many Raynor greensites. And this was not just a reaction to Raynor, but also other systematic golf hole designs by RTJ, Wilson and others.  Personally, I think it was a pretty important piece in the development of minimalism and surely other modern architects came to similar conclusions.

So it probably irks all of these guys a little bit that MacRaynors stubbornly cling to their positions in top 100 lists.

[Matt MacIver]

Did someone mention Oakland Hills, for its runway tee boxes and fairway lined bunkers?  We're they firsts?  Was OH the first course to use major earth-moving equipment?

At HarbourTown, Dye introduced railroad/sleepers to the US, along with strategic Wye oaks.  And elsewhere, stadium courses.

Jones and Mackenzie at AGNC for introducing TOC's width and strategy to parkland USA.

[Rich Goodale]

The best thing that could be "brought to the table" on this forum is a commitment to listening rather than blethering and/or bloviating.  There are far too many people on this site who think that they have a voice that others want to listen to and far too few people who prefer to seriously listen to others before they speak.

[Tom_Doak]

And Tom, really, I'm not sure how large yours are, but it would take a pretty good pair to make the following comment

"I'm always a little uneasy when anyone wants to take credit (or give credit) to some design as being original, but I agree totally that the love for the same old templates has gotten out of control.  Give me something else ... anything at all."  

Weren't you the "architect" of a certain highly ranked (oh those pesky lists) course on the Oregon coast that was a copy of their copies?    

Jim, this a rather dumb and snarky comment. Do some research on the creation of this course in Oregon. The owner had decided that he was going to build a Macdonald tribute course. The course was going to be built whether or not Tom was part of the design team with Urbina, Olson, Klein, Bahto, or not.  It is not as if Doak was given the job to build the 4th course at Bandon and simply ran out of ideas and said: "hey, let's use Macdonald's templates!"

But he did slip in a pretty cool original hole: Ocean.

Well, we all have opinions.  I do know about the creations of Old Mac, have played it a number of times and have it in my top two at Bandon.  I'm quite fine with whatever the owner wants to do, as it is his property.  I am also fine with whoever is chosen and in turn choses to work on the project.  All good.  But I thought TD taking a rather sanctimonious position regarding others rather ironic.  Thought I'd point that out.  Was it snarky?  You bet it was.  That was my intent.  But then, how do you rationalize TD's comment?  Really all, this makes not one whit of difference to me.  And besides, I've been banned from this thread, so I better move on.

OK, now you are getting to something that is pretty important.

I don't need to "rationalize" Tom's comments, but as a student of gca, I find them fascinating. I have come to believe that TD has a bit of a love-hate relationship with Macdonald & Raynor. I think he has great respect for Macdonald's work and probably feels that Raynor relied too heavily on the templates and his courses had too much of an engineered look.

The parallels between Macdonald and Doak are interesting. Both traveled to see the great courses abroad (as well as playing the top courses in the US) before beginning their design career.  Both developed very strong convictions; and these beliefs would guide them in all the courses they built. The difference is that while TD liked all the Macdonalds he saw, he probably became tired of seeing all the Raynor courses and their similarities. But I have come to believe that this was also a critical piece in the development of TD's design beliefs. While he studied, admired and would be influenced by the great designs of Mackenzie, Macdonald, Old Tom Morris, etc.,  he would try to build golf holes that were NOT straight copies. And he determined that he did not want to leave the manufactured look of many Raynor greensites. And this was not just a reaction to Raynor, but also other systematic golf hole designs by RTJ, Wilson and others.  Personally, I think it was a pretty important piece in the development of minimalism and surely other modern architects came to similar conclusions.

So it probably irks all of these guys a little bit that MacRaynors stubbornly cling to their positions in top 100 lists.

There is really no need to try to analyze my feelings on things when you can just ask me.

I've built thirty courses and exactly one of them is a Macdonald tribute.  So that makes it sanctimonious to say that I'm getting tired of the old templates?  I don't mind when designers use them on occasion ... in fact, I was just working on a Redan hole in China today, since I don't think they have one here yet   But, to keep building versions of the same holes over and over again, as Raynor did, is not my idea of creativity.

That said, my comment was not aimed at Seth Raynor (who really doesn't care what I think, since he's dead) or at other architects ... it was directed at the lazy panelists who lap up more of the same old templates, instead of broadening their horizons a little bit.  Would a food critic keep going to more and more branches of a good chain restaurant and rate them all among the best in a city?  

There are a heck of a lot of good golf courses out there, by a lot of different architects.  The variety of great golf is unlimited; I wish more people were able to appreciate more of it.  When people are too fond of the familiar, I fear it's really because they can't understand anything on its own merits.

[JC Jones]

But, to keep building versions of the same holes over and over again, as Raynor did, is not my idea of creativity.

This is a great point.  Although one of my top 2 favorite courses I've played is a Mac/Raynor, I still struggle with the idea of repeating templates regardless of the site.

I think I've used the term before but I call it derivative architecture.  Now, perhaps to someone's point above, all modern architecture is derivative.  However, I think that there is a difference between being inspired by a certain hole's strategy but building a new hole based on what the land gives you and imposing a specific template onto the land irrespective of what the land is.  

We tout MacRaynor around here but dislike the Fazio's of the world who are doing the same thing.