Why did the template model of building golf courses die?

[Gib_Papazian]

Fuck, is there a way to drive through Indiana without going over any bridges?

[BCowan]

Raynor courses are revered because they have weathy memberships.  Just like great homes, art and cars.

and Nicklaus and Fazio private courses don't have wealthy memberships?  This is beyond ridiculous even by your standards

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

You are correct, there is an enormous difference between a Stevinson Ranch, where John made it flat out clear to me he was trying to do an ode to Raynor/Macdonald and courses that take the bare bones underlying intellectual structure of a given strategic arrangement as a foundation for a given expression.

There is plenty of room in the middle of course - starting with Old Macdonald. Is that a template Biarritz you and Urbina conjured up? Maybe sorta . . . . . .  except one well traveled guy commented the irregular nature of the swale looked more like #16 at North Berwick than a Biarritz. The elements are all there - particularly from the strategic standpoint. Unless your ball has a parachute on it, the only way to get the ball on the back section is knock down a 4-iron and squeeze your butt cheeks while it careens along the ground.  

Is #11 at Pac Dunes just a teensy bit like #7 at Pebble or the Postage Stamp? I've played it more than 10 times and it sure feels like at least a 2nd cousin. Is #5 at Pac Dunes really a Reverse-Redan? Isn't #17 a modified Redan hole? Does not #13 at Bandon have the essence of a Channel Hole?

The point is that nothing - and I mean nothing - exists or is created in a vacuum. Unless you're intentionally going off the reservation, there are a limited number of plot structures to work with, just as there are a limited number of chords and combinations to work with on the guitar. You can perfect the blues, you just can't reinvent it - because the foundation already exists.

I just reread Barny's original post and because he did not give any specifics or assert anything beyond a vague statement, so this thread might be more of his malicious phishing.        

Gib,

The 24th post is a thread is often lost so I brought it back.  I knew this was a tough topic so I purposely started with a very unoffending line.  Don't read too much into it.  It has been my contention that people want things that they can call their own, not a copy of what their friends already have.  I think this mind set was accelerated sometime after the wealth started flowing for the greatest generation.

[Michael Whitaker]

Raynor courses are revered because they have weathy memberships.  Just like great homes, art and cars.

Boy, I couldn't disagree more! The fact that the membership is wealthy is why the course exists in the first place, but it doesn't make it a good course or well liked. They are either good courses or they're not. Who owns them has no bearing on what's on the ground. It has an effect on non-members wanting to interact in an exclusive environment, but I doubt everyone is as influenced by that as you would like to believe.

Since you are so uninfluenced by the trappings of wealth, what are your opinions of the Raynor courses you have played. I'm sure the list must be extensive.

[John Kavanaugh]

I was a dues paying member of the Seth Raynor Society for several years. I love his work.

[Michael Whitaker]

I was a dues paying member of the Seth Raynor Society for several years. I love his work.

But, you think they are revered in GCA circles only because the memberships at clubs with his courses are wealthy? Hmm... why did you join the society? Better yet, why did you drop out?

[John Kavanaugh]

Mike,

I was replying to this question by you: "Why are Raynor courses so revered? If someone could tap into the pleasure that Raynor's courses give the general golfing public wouldn't that be a good thing... at least for the golfer?"

I said: "Raynor courses are revered because they have weathy memberships.  Just like great homes, art and cars."

When I look at the list of Raynor-Macdonald courses this makes perfect sense. I could have defined wealthy more accurately but it isn't the guys hanging around the local Nicklaus or Fazio course. These are the same guys who have that original art above their couch that ends up in a museum. The general public reveres that kind of thing. I never even met a wealthy person like that until I joined GCA. It's a different world, one that generally lets us know what to like.

[Tom_Doak]

Is #11 at Pac Dunes just a teensy bit like #7 at Pebble or the Postage Stamp? I've played it more than 10 times and it sure feels like at least a 2nd cousin. Is #5 at Pac Dunes really a Reverse-Redan? Isn't #17 a modified Redan hole? Does not #13 at Bandon have the essence of a Channel Hole?        

Is every short hole the same?  Is every hole where you aim left of the flag a reverse Redan?

The 17th at Pacific is based on a template [the Redan], and we only fell back to that after trying to avoid it and the hole just not working that way.  The other holes mentioned were not.

[Michael Whitaker]

It's a different world, one that generally lets us know what to like.

Sorry, John, but I can't relate to your premise. I like what I like because I like it... not because I perceive it is the thing to do based on what some group of one-percenters think is best. I think I would find that a sad way to live.

[John Kavanaugh]

That is why the general public take the pills that they are told.

[Bill Brightly]

Wow. I avoided this thread for two days because I figured it was just another JK attempt to be provacative. What a pleasant surprise to find a tete-a-tete between Gib and TD! And then Whitaker and Doak!


Tom, I know that you are not the biggest Raynor fan on the site, but certainly Raynor took advanatge of "marketing." It was perhaps the best form of marketing possible: golf writers and golfers in general spoke highly of Macdonald-Raynor courses, and then in city after city people asked Raynor to build golf courses. So while you obviously do not like template-based design, it impossible to argue that Macdonald's product was not wildly succesful.


You can't say template-based desinged wasn't EVER marketed well. How many courses did Seth Raynor build? 100 in 15 years? That is GOOD marketing!

[Ben Sims]

The point is that nothing - and I mean nothing - exists or is created in a vacuum. Unless you're intentionally going off the reservation, there are a limited number of plot structures to work with, just as there are a limited number of chords and combinations to work with on the guitar. You can perfect the blues, you just can't reinvent it - because the foundation already exists.
    

It's intersting when an artist makes sure to notify non-artists of the lack of originality in all art. I have a friend that I trust implicitly in these matters, and he seems to agree largely with your premise above. Funny thing is, both of you are older. I don't hear many artists my age and younger prattling on about the foundations already existing and the limited number of plot structures. It seems like a tepid way to approach the subject of  uniqueness and creativity. And forgive me, but you're smarter than that. If you're main concern when addressing a piece of art is to comment on the creativity of the subject, then I think the point has been missed.

Art, even art as functional as buildings or golf courses, should be judged not solely by the existence of the foundation on which it sits, but also by the reaction it draws forth. Great art demands attention and reaction, whether it is based on something its elder or not. I'm not the kind of person that listens to Zeppelin and gets preachy because it sounds like Howlin' Wolf. I enjoy the music because of how it sounds and the visceral reactions it creates.

And this friend is why the template debate and both sides of the argument is sader than knowing your team still has Kaep as the QB. Who gives a shit about templates? The question is, is it any good? Not wear it came from. Before someone comes in with the time-tested franchise tag for the Redan, remember that some dude came up with the concept from scratch at some point.

Hope you're well.

[Peter Pallotta]

I didn't read this because I knew where JK was going with it. I too almost missed some good exchanges, and Gib's line: you can perfect the blues, but you can't reinvent them. A good line, and a true one I think. But I'd phrase it differently, ie you can bring to life the essence of the blues even when playing swing (like Benny) or bop (like Bird) because its principles are foundational and thus transcend all particulars.
Peter

[John Kirk]

I'm not the kind of person that listens to Zeppelin and gets preachy because it sounds like Howlin' Wolf. I enjoy the music because of how it sounds and the visceral reactions it creates.

Off-topic smart-ass remark:

Led Zeppelin - "Yeah, we wrote that."

Off-topic musical reference:

Barenaked Ladies - "It's All Been Done"

[Patrick_Mucci]

Did it coincide with any other cultural revolutions?


No, I think the answer is simple.

I think architects wanted their own identity, vis a vis being associated with original designs rather than being known for reproducing the works of prior architects.

[Don Mahaffey]

How come every hockey team doesn't have a Gretzky?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Don,

This year's draft has Conner McDavid (or is it David McConner?) who is touted as the "next Gretsky" as have a few before him.

Your post makes me wonder, has any hole been called the "next great template?"  It would seem the Redan is the champ for template holes, but wouldn't it be neat if one of us came up with something so entirely new, it was built for the next 500 years as an almost de facto "must have" hole on ANY course?

For that matter, what hole would any of us have as our one template?  OR at least "pet feature?"

Tillie and Hell's Half Acre Par 5?
Dye and either the Island Green or Cape Hole 18th?

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, I know that you are not the biggest Raynor fan on the site, but certainly Raynor took advanatge of "marketing." It was perhaps the best form of marketing possible: golf writers and golfers in general spoke highly of Macdonald-Raynor courses, and then in city after city people asked Raynor to build golf courses. So while you obviously do not like template-based design, it impossible to argue that Macdonald's product was not wildly succesful.

You can't say template-based desinged wasn't EVER marketed well. How many courses did Seth Raynor build? 100 in 15 years? That is GOOD marketing!

Bill:

I think I've restored as many of Raynor's courses as anyone, so saying I'm not a fan of his work is not quite right.  I just don't think his method was genius, and that other architects should copy him. 

As for "marketing," I'll concede your point ... in fact I will go further.  Template design is 99% marketing.  There are two parts of this business.  One is finding work; the other is doing it.  Building template holes is usually about the former, not the latter; that's why it bothers me.  It's not an artistic statement at all, much less the highest form of the art, as Gib would have it.

I wouldn't apply that same standard to C.B. Macdonald; he came up with the idea of templates, and he was the founder of half the courses he built.

[Jud_T]

It's actually an interesting comparison to other disciplines.  Often the most financially successful building architects, musicians and fine artists are those who develop a recognizable style then go about replicating it to consumers who are comforted to know what they're getting.  Originality and taking big risks is a detriment to sales in this model.  It puts the pure artistic impulse and the evil dollar in direct conflict.  Having said that I still love me some templates.

[Carl Rogers]

This thread is why I signed up for the Dixie Cup this year.  I wanted to play an original Raynor and then play some of the newly inspired by Raynor and see how the approach may work in other contexts.

As a building Architect, my take is that the template gives one only a reference point to start thinking.  The blank page can be terrifying or confusing. Just don't confuse the template for the end result in context.

A few years back, I started a "Raynor" thread (paraphrasing), "did the template always work?".  At the time, I think there was a rough consensus that it did for Raynor beacuase he knew how to route a course and understood the templates strengths and limitations.

[BCowan]

''I was a dues paying member of the Seth Raynor Society for several years. I love his work.''

    You just spent all your time on this thread bashing Raynor.  You a self admitting basically that you are an access whore? 

I was replying to this question by you: "Why are Raynor courses so revered? If someone could tap into the pleasure that Raynor's courses give the general golfing public wouldn't that be a good thing... at least for the golfer?"

I said: "Raynor courses are revered because they have weathy memberships.  Just like great homes, art and cars."

When I look at the list of Raynor-Macdonald courses this makes perfect sense. I could have defined wealthy more accurately but it isn't the guys hanging around the local Nicklaus or Fazio course. These are the same guys who have that original art above their couch that ends up in a museum. The general public reveres that kind of thing. I never even met a wealthy person like that until I joined GCA. It's a different world, one that generally lets us know what to like.

I hope some wealthy JN and Fazio course members take offense to your comments.  I'm sure there is some very fine original art hanging above their couches.  So you joined GCA for Access whoring purposes, that you call out others for???   Many independent thinkers out there besides yourself John.  It's time to go see the Pope....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom, I know that you are not the biggest Raynor fan on the site, but certainly Raynor took advanatge of "marketing." It was perhaps the best form of marketing possible: golf writers and golfers in general spoke highly of Macdonald-Raynor courses, and then in city after city people asked Raynor to build golf courses. So while you obviously do not like template-based design, it impossible to argue that Macdonald's product was not wildly succesful.

You can't say template-based desinged wasn't EVER marketed well. How many courses did Seth Raynor build? 100 in 15 years? That is GOOD marketing!

Bill:

I think I've restored as many of Raynor's courses as anyone, so saying I'm not a fan of his work is not quite right.  I just don't think his method was genius, and that other architects should copy him. 

As for "marketing," I'll concede your point ... in fact I will go further.  Template design is 99% marketing.  There are two parts of this business.  One is finding work; the other is doing it.  Building template holes is usually about the former, not the latter; that's why it bothers me.  It's not an artistic statement at all, much less the highest form of the art, as Gib would have it.

Tom,

I think there's more to "template" holes than listed above.

From the perspective of playability, they tend to have inherent architectural values that can be unique to golf course architecture.

I would offer the "Redan", Biarritz, Double Plateau, Bottle and Eden as good examples.
As to the Eden, it's really unique when played from different angles of attack, as is done at TOC and NGLA.

If a golf course is viewed as providing an examination for the golfer's game, then, those holes provide individual tests that are unique.

The fact that those templates have endured for over a century would tend to lend credence to their architectural and/or artistic value, that they succeeded in providing a valid component of that overall test.

I also understand the inate desire for an architect to create original holes.

As you know, the 5th hole at Streamsong Blue is one of my all time favorite par 3's in golf.
I think it's a relatively short hole that's brilliant in presenting a variety of playing tests, based upon tee and hole location,
not to mention the wind.

As much as I love that presentation of the 5th hole, had you chosen a Biarritz, Redan or Short for that location, I wouldn't view it in
a negative perspective.

While I find # 5 to be brilliant, had a template been the default design on # 5, I wouldn't be critical of it's introduction.

Likewise, when I ascended from the 16th green to the 17th tee at Pacific Dunes for the first time, I was in awe of what my eyes observed.

I viewed the 17th at Pacific Dunes as a wonderful golf hole, regardless of the fact that my memory banks indicated that the hole looked familiar.  

I wouldn't apply that same standard to C.B. Macdonald; he came up with the idea of templates, and he was the founder of half the courses he built.

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Using a template, here and there, is a design decision.

Making your whole style based on the templates -- the "Raynor lite" model described by Michael Whitaker, or Raynor's own career -- is another thing entirely.  You are no longer trying to get jobs based on your own ability and creativity as a designer.  Surely you can see that difference.

To go back to Jud's analogy to music, there are musicians who occasionally do their own take on someone else's song ... and then there are bands that are known as "cover bands" because that's all they do.

[Mark Fedeli]

Patrick:

Using a template, here and there, is a design decision.

Making your whole style based on the templates -- the "Raynor lite" model described by Michael Whitaker, or Raynor's own career -- is another thing entirely.  You are no longer trying to get jobs based on your own ability and creativity as a designer.  Surely you can see that difference.

To go back to Jud's analogy to music, there are musicians who occasionally do their own take on someone else's song ... and then there are bands that are known as "cover bands" because that's all they do.

Tom, I was going to ask if your full thoughts on minimalism vs templates were written anywhere, but I think you summed it up well above (although, Raynor repeating himself would probably be more like late-era Rolling Stones than a cover band).

On the surface, minimalism and templates would seem like natural opposites, but there are quite a few shades of grey there. Templates are the blues to minimalism's free form jazz. The theory of composition is quite different, but the best examples tend to sample aspects of one another.

Much like the blues, the popularity of templates (and of late-era Rolling Stones) owes much to the power of recognition. Templates provide an opportunity for the golfer to immediately recognize tried and true design tenets and attempt to master their known strategic requirements. And much like free form jazz, minimalist designs require more work from the golfer to discern what strategic decisions are being requested. The former provides a more consistent reaction, while the latter seeks higher highs and risks lower lows.

An oversimplification, of course, but one I feel justified in making as I am equally fascinated by both schools.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

Understood.

I was viewing the issue in the context of a hole or two and not an entire golf course based upon templates, although, I understand there's an exceptional one somewhere south of Portland.