Why aren't there WPJ, Ross, Alison, Flynn, or Emmett Templates?

[Sean_A]

I am not suggesting that archies deliberately regurgitate ideas. I am saying it just happens, mainly because practically everything worthwhile has been done.


Ciao

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
You hit the nail on the head; very few people/golfers and/or even raters play enough courses from the same architect to even notice (and some as you said don't care).  If you play enough of almost any architect's design's you will notice patterns and preferences and even "regurgitations" of holes they have done elsewhere or that someone else did somewhere.  Tom Fazio once told me in an interview for our book that he never built the same hole twice.  He is absolutely telling the truth!  But he did build a lot of holes that look very very similar    Play enough of his courses (or most anyone else's for that matter) and you will begin to notice. 


Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ron Whitten once spent a week in the Ross archives, and found the same par 3 drawn on 73 different courses.  If that isn't a template, then what is?    Given his out put, similar to Fazio's as Mark Fine notes above, how could he not?  While I have never had that big an organization, I can tell you that if I am in the field or otherwise out of the office when final plan production is going on, the staff tends to do what got approved by the boss the last time.

[Niall C]

We have just uncovered the fact that Willie Park patterned the thirteenth at Huntercombe (now the eighth) on the famous sixth at Musselburgh, the Table or Pandy hole.

Great stuff. It doesn't surprise me as I think these old guys, adapted proven concepts to the land they had. It's just that until probably CBM came along nobody shouted about it.


Niall

[Bill Crane]

Flynn had a number of templatey holes but he was very good at blending the edges so they didn't look forced on the terrain.

He also copied the concept used on the 12th at Pine Valley and 10 at Merion numerous times, such as the 4th at Huntingdon Valley.

Mike is right.



Wm Flynn's doglegs often featured greens situated so that the green opening was angled to the outside or elbow of the dogleg, effectively making the best approach shot further away.  Mike's examples illustrate this perfectly as do several holes on my home course - Springdale, such as the 1st ( old #5), and the 18th ( old #11) and #8 (old #3). 

Sometimes they were short holes - as in Mike's examples, or longer.

Many of Flynn's design incorporated brooks or rivers directly into the layout and Lancaster, Manufacturers and Huntingdon Valley are classic examples.

Another common design theme was reverse camber doglegs, whereby the hole doglegs left and the fairway slopes right or vice versa.  At Springdale the short 14th(old #16) is an example and also has the green skewed toward the outside of the dogleg and the hole runs along our brook.    While I have not played Rolling Green, I understand there are several holes of this type there.

Think of these design elements in the context of 1920s golf when hickories were in play.  They are still effective.

Not sure if these are true templates, however, just design features that he deployed when appropriate.


{{ **   Paging Wayne Morrison !! }}

[Sven Nilsen]

There is a difference between propensities and tendencies on the one hand and templates on the other.


CBM didn't invent most of his templates, for the most part they already existed.  He simply collated them into a group to form the "ideal course."  If one of those templates didn't work on a certain piece of property, he went in another direction. 


All of the architects named in this thread had tendencies.  All of the architects that came later have borrowed from their work in one way or another, whether they know it or not. 


Somewhere out there on the webs is a flawed image of a family tree of golf design.  In reality, that tree is a tangled mass of intertwined connections and influences.  No one grows up in a vacuum.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sven,


Agree on the tree.  Very few architects start and stay with one firm, or apprentice at one firm and then start their own firms, like I did.  And after a few generations, it really gets confusing.  I have had apprentices who either before or after they left my firm  work with more than one architect, including Nicklaus, Rees or RTJII, Von Hagge, and who knows who else. 


Do they fall under the RB Harris/Killian and Nugent/Brauer tree, or somewhere else?  It is quite possible they worked for me the longest, but had more substantial projects with those other firms.  Actually, most ended up still in the biz and working for those others longer, but first worked for me. So, what would be the criteria for their family tree roots?  I guess its up to them, or we find a different system.


As to tendencies, most architects will admit to copying someone, an idea, or even their own green designs in new projects.  I mean, if you like it, and it seemed to work, why not?  As I have said before, if a Redan is a good hole in Texas, it should be good in China, etc.  Most architects, like CBM, did write about the make up of the ideal course, in the theoretical world, and tried to get as close as possible to that in the reality of specific sites.


Sometimes, I have taken a green I liked, and substituted one bunker where three had existed before, or grass for sand, or something else, and also counted on different shapers, the surrounding topo and fitting it to trees, etc. to make it different enough.  That is raising the question of just how much change from green to green does it take to be counted as an original design? 


Seems to me that in music there is some sort of minimum notes that need to change to avoid plagiarism charges, but its quite low.  I haven't heard of any architects plagiarism cases (even Tour 18 was ruled to overstep its bounds by including the iconic Harbor Town lighthouse in its versions) but it is still an interesting theoretical question to ponder over a few post round beers among architects.

[Joe Hancock]

Ron Whitten once spent a week in the Ross archives, and found the same par 3 drawn on 73 different courses.  If that isn't a template, then what is?    Given his out put, similar to Fazio's as Mark Fine notes above, how could he not?  While I have never had that big an organization, I can tell you that if I am in the field or otherwise out of the office when final plan production is going on, the staff tends to do what got approved by the boss the last time.

Jeff,


The line in your post above hits on something that likely defines my experience; that is, “plan production”. I am a field design/ build guy. Hand me a set of detailed plans and tell me to import dirt and paint by numbers to hit grade stakes, and I probably can’t do it. I don’t know how, and I don’t enjoy it. But, more important to the discussion, it’s the plan that gets built that brings the famiarity to the table.

[mike_malone]

 I would consider Flynn’s fairway ending at the tip of an angled green with an opening to the green and an angled bunker is a template.

[Mark_Fine]

Good point Mike about that Flynn hole.  You might have played and studied as many of Flynn's designs as me     I've played all but two or three of Flynn's courses that are still in existence.  Flynn replicated many holes in his designs.  He "dressed" them differently but many were conceptually the same. 

[Bill Brightly]

I can't prove this theory, but my answer to the original question would be that WPJ, Ross, Flynn, etal were in competition with Macdonald and Raynor for many of the courses that were built between 1910 and 1930.


Macdonald was an unabashed advocate of the superiority of the template formula. Raynor built all of his courses, and there can be NO doubt that that this style was in GREAT demand all across the US. Remember, when NGLA opened it blew way everything that was on the ground in the US. It was not just the obvious high quality of the golf holes. Macdonald's advances in turfgrass also must have had a huge impact on what was "acceptable." So when a groups of people decided to build a new golf course or renovate their old course (probably a Bendelow) they would naturally invite CBM and Seth to submit a proposition. That's what they were called, not a proposal. I know this for a fact, my home course interviewed many of the ODG's..

So logic dictates that Ross, Tilly and other competitors would have to come up with an alternative  sales pitch. They certainly couldn't outdo CBM and Seth in the template formula. These guys were going to have to come up with something unique.  And they did! All of this competition sparked the construction of many GREAT golf courses.


Of course, the snarky comment like the one Mike Cirba slippped in, saying the templates were "forced upon the land," is probably just a reflection of what Tilly and others said in meetings with the committees charged with hiring an architect!  I can't be too critical of the Philly/Flynn buttboys, they are just mad that in the Golfweek 100 Classic list, the MacRaynor style dominates Flynn. It kills them to admit it, but Raynor built better playing fields for the game. Some may look back and meekly say Macdonald/Raynor/Banks did not build the best holes available on a given site. But think about it: the MacRaynor style "forced" SO many new holes on the sites they did not get...

[Bill Brightly]

On a different note... I would not call this a template hole, but has anyone else noted that Coore & Crenshaw frequently use this template feature: on a reachable par five, there is a small "scrape" bunker in the middle of the fairway placed about 30 yards short of the green? Just about the point where a long approach may land if not hit long enough or shaped around the bunker. So after hitting a good drive, the player is faced with a classic decision: go for the green in two and risk bogey, or play safely away from this tiny little hazard.


Streamsong Red #2 and the first far five on Friars Head are two that come to mind but I think there are others.


Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this feature! Has anyone else noticed this on C & C courses?

[Derek_Duncan]

On a different note... I would not call this a template hole, but has anyone else noted that Coore & Crenshaw frequently use this template feature: on a reachable par five, there is a small "scrape" bunker in the middle of the fairway placed about 30 yards short of the green? Just about the point where a long approach may land if not hit long enough or shaped around the bunker. So after hitting a good drive, the player is faced with a classic decision: go for the green in two and risk bogey, or play safely away from this tiny little hazard.


Streamsong Red #2 and the first far five on Friars Head are two that come to mind but I think there are others.


Don't get me wrong, I LOVE this feature! Has anyone else noticed this on C & C courses?

Bandon Trails #3 comes to mind. They also use that idea on a number of really long par-4's, like #12 at Colorado GC and #12 and #18 at We Ko Pa.

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
Not sure what you are getting at?  ALL architects have design preferences, marketing angles, patterns,… (both now and in the past).  I am a big fan of McDonald/Raynor/Banks courses but wouldn’t call their collection superior to that of Tillinghast/Flynn,….  All these architects designed great golf courses but you can’t argue with the fact that McDonald/Raynor/Bank "built" their courses vs finding them.  They moved a lot of dirt.  Banks wasn’t called Steam Shovel Banks for no reason.  Their bunkers and greensites do not look “natural" but that’s ok as that was not their intention.  The National, for example, is one of my favorite golf courses but I don’t walk around there and say, this course looks like all they did was throw grass seed on the ground.  The opposite of this would be Sand Hills.


As far as templates go; as I said before, ALL architects use them in some variation - C&C included.  Play enough of anyone’s designs and you will see that it is a lot like dressing mannequins - if you look really closely, you will notice that many times what is underneath is pretty much the same.  Again, great sites can trump some of this but there is still much overlap of design concepts (templates). 
Mark

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ron Whitten once spent a week in the Ross archives, and found the same par 3 drawn on 73 different courses.  If that isn't a template, then what is?    Given his out put, similar to Fazio's as Mark Fine notes above, how could he not?  While I have never had that big an organization, I can tell you that if I am in the field or otherwise out of the office when final plan production is going on, the staff tends to do what got approved by the boss the last time.

Jeff,


The line in your post above hits on something that likely defines my experience; that is, “plan production”. I am a field design/ build guy. Hand me a set of detailed plans and tell me to import dirt and paint by numbers to hit grade stakes, and I probably can’t do it. I don’t know how, and I don’t enjoy it. But, more important to the discussion, it’s the plan that gets built that brings the famiarity to the table.

Joe,


I believe bulldozer operators have tendencies, too.

[MCirba]

Of course, the snarky comment like the one Mike Cirba slippped in, saying the templates were "forced upon the land," is probably just a reflection of what Tilly and others said in meetings with the committees charged with hiring an architect!  I can't be too critical of the Philly/Flynn buttboys, they are just mad that in the Golfweek 100 Classic list, the MacRaynor style dominates Flynn. It kills them to admit it, but Raynor built better playing fields for the game. Some may look back and meekly say Macdonald/Raynor/Banks did not build the best holes available on a given site. But think about it: the MacRaynor style "forced" SO many new holes on the sites they did not get...

Hi Bill,

Great to hear from you.

Let me first say that I've loved almost all of the MacRaynorBanks courses I've played including NGLA, Mid-Ocean, Sleepy Hollow, Hackensack, Yeoman's Hall, Knoll West, Forsgate, Essex County, Fishers Island, Mountain Lake, Southampton, Creek Club, Yale, etc.   They are all very distinctive in their own ways yet also very similar in others.

If I had to characterize their general style, they accentuated the man-made features that made up the original "ideal holes" abroad and did so vividly and unashamedly.    They were trying to teach what made for great golf holes as well as develop them, so it made sense to paint with a broad, bold brush that was unmistakable and impossible to miss.

There is no question that Macdonald preached "naturalness" but particularly on those courses built by Raynor and/or Banks it's hard to argue that the hand of man isn't prominently self-evident.   It is why their style remains so recognizable today, in fact.

Others who followed (and competed against them) like Tillinghast, Flynn and others took a slightly different tack, and focused more on the "blending" process and took active steps to try and hide artificial lines more specifically.   

My answer to the question on this thread as I interpreted it is that indeed Flynn and others used "templates" and similar holes from course to course but that it might not be as self-evident because of this attempt to hide their engineering.

No snark, just historical reality as I see it after playing many of the courses of each.   

Best regards,

[Bill Brightly]

Good to hear from you, Mike! So you really meant to write "the features were thoughtfully placed upon the land" and not "forced upon the land"? No problem if you want to go back and amend your post.


You are right to draw a distinction between Macdonald and his protoges. NGLA sits quite naturally on the land and having seen many of the original holes in the UK, I think he did a masterful job of finding the best places to build his holes at NGLA and leave a natural look. Raynor and Banks certainly did leave a much more manufactured look. But the sharpness of the look adds to the visual stimulation that is present when you approach a Raynor green; it increase the "fear factor" and that makes for great golf.

[Bill Brightly]

Bill,
Not sure what you are getting at?  ALL architects have design preferences, marketing angles, patterns,… (both now and in the past). 

Mark, what I was "getting at" is that I think there might have been a business reason for those other architects NOT to stress their design tendencies, to NOT associate a template approach.

[Peter Pallotta]

Bill - your last point in your post to Mike was a very good one, IMO.
For years, looking at photos of Raynor’s work, I think I ‘saw’ what you describe — but I never realized/admitted what I saw because I was focused instead on the natural vs unnatural and found vs created debates.
But now I think: well, if good gca isn’t about creating golf holes that provide thrills and challenges (and fear), then what *is* it about?
I also think your answer to Mark might be spot on too — but maybe someone like Ross wouldn’t have explained it to *himself* in those terms. Maybe it was something more like: “Well yes, he *would* talk about templates — after all, I’m *from* Scotland, while he was only *visiting*” 
Peter

[Mark_Fine]

Bill,
I agree with your answer about the business reason. It makes sense.  MacDonald was a pretty pompous guy and he obviously believed what he was doing was right and he had a formula for success.  He found "templates" for what he thought were the best golf holes and he was going to stamp them out on every course he could.  Frankly it worked because I love MacDonald/Raynor designs as well as most Banks courses. 


And yes the others didn't promote "template" holes but they all had their own "signatures" that helped sell their design services.  The same goes today. 


I will put myself out there bit and pose the question; who here on this site doesn't think they could identify which course was the C&C course vs the Doak course at Streamsong?  If you have studied either architect's designs it shouldn't take you very long to figure it out.  Why do you think that is the case?  No different than identifying a Ross course from a Flynn course,... Are there times where it might be more difficult, sure there are.  But for someone who has studied these architects, I would bet that 90% of the time they will know pretty easily who was the designer and in the case of some one like Ross, how much time he might have spent (if any) on the site. 

[Joe Hancock]

The ol’ “answer a question with another question” game:


Is style synonymous with template, in the context of this discussion?


My answer would be no, because I see templates as a “big bones” thing, whereas style has more to do with shape preferences, little bumps on back edges of greens, bunker styling, etc.....


As an example, is it easy to differentiate between a Raynor Biarritz vs. a MacDonald Biarritz vs. a Banks Biarritz? Is it easy to differentiate between a C & C bunker and a Hanse/ Wagner bunker?

[Mark_Fine]

Joe,
I won't argue with you that templates are different than design signatures or tendencies.  But I still stand by what I said earlier that most all architects use a version of template type holes.  They just don't promote it like Macdonald did.