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

[BCowan]

I understand a few I mentioned only worked in certain regions.  I think Colt and the Good Dr might be the only 2 with template holes after them.  Why haven't Archies in the last 30 years re-produced new templates from Ross, WPJ, Flynn, Emmet, or Alison best holes? 

[Tim Gavrich]

I reckon one reason is that by and large, the listed architects' American courses are mostly private, with Ross being the exception. Not coincidentally, IMO, of those architects Ross is the best-known.

[MCirba]

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.

[BCowan]

Mike,


   No, why hasn't Flynn and the above mentioned been copied by today's archies? 

[Rees Milikin]

Mike,


   No, why hasn't Flynn and the above mentioned been copied by today's archies?

What is a Flynn template hole?

[BCowan]

Mike,


   No, why hasn't Flynn and the above mentioned been copied by today's archies?

What is a Flynn template hole?

I haven't played a Flynn course to begin with.  Many on here think highly of him.  Why weren't some of his best holes done recreated is the question.  I'm glad Andy Staples copied the 5th at Huntercombe for the Meadowbrook renovation. 

[Mike_Young]

All architects ave template holes..especially the big sigs who use the same GC's over and over...

[Jack Carney]

Good Question Ben - not really sure but Flynn was exceptional at using the land and greens that fit with such. You really need to play a few and outside of the obvious(Brookline/ Cascades/ Shinnecock/ Cherry Hills) i highly suggest Rolling Green and Lancaster. As we missed in Michigan last year would love to join you sometime

[BCrosby]

Because those architects designed courses that are less repetitive?


Bob

[Kyle Harris]

Construction methods changed from 1940 onward. Flynn construction templates exist in the form of courses by William and David Gordon. As my Dick Wilson resume expands I see some of the construction methods from Flynn in place there, as well.

I think it's important to apply the methodology of these architects, especially in the years after opening. Flynn revisited, tweaked, and even outright renovated a handful of his designs as play dictated necessary changes. I am talking things like bunkers added and holes rerouted.

Ross and Park often used mailed-in plans, though one of the Parks usually made site visits before and during construction.

I don't believe any of the above lend itself so easily to a template style of architecture in appearance. It's clear to me the Gordons especially attempted to emulate the end result of Flynn's tweaking prior to opening the golf course. Saddle greens and 10/4 o'clock bunkering for example.

[Ira Fishman]

I love every Ross course I have played which are too few in number. Indeed, we just finished a round at Hope Valley this afternoon. To the extent, though, that he had template holes, I can understand why modern architects have not adopted them. The sharp dogleg left with trouble in the elbow being the least appealing. The Volcano Hole actually is a favorite, but would probably not appeal to modern golfers.


Ira

[Jack Carney]

Hope Valley In NC? which hole do you refer to as Volcano?

[Ira Fishman]

Jack, sorry, I was referring to Ross Volcano holes generally. Hope Valley does not have one although number Six has a bit of the feel. But come to think of it, Number 13 is a par 3 a version of which I have seen on the Ross course I have played. Slight downhill short/mid with heavy bunkering and/or water. Pine Needles number 3, Broadmoor East number 4, and Mid Pines number 11 fit the bill. All very good holes.


Ira

[Anthony Gholz]

Franklin Hills (MI) has a very good Ross Volcano.  Always great fun to play.   Drive and chip or 4 iron wedge.  Your choice.

[Ronald Montesano]

Who is WPJ?

[Marty Bonnar]

Who is WPJ?

Willie Park Jr?


Cheers
F.

[Mark_Fine]

ALL architects use variations of other architect's holes.  Flynn for example used many ideas from Pine Valley in his designs.  Others did the same such as Tillinghast.  The list goes on and on. 

[Sean_A]

I would think that a near 100% of holes built after MacRayBanks were using the original templates (and other holes) to one degree or another.  I mean, which archies were building original concept holes...which is presumably what a template would be based on.  Its kind of like pop music, after so many years later musicians are using previous songs whether or not they realize it...the building blocks of the songs are so internalized.  Archies hate to hear it, but for at least 99% of their work they aren't creating concepts, they are reinventing concepts. So I guess the answer is archies are using "templates", but they already existed prior to the rush of great archies in form or another.

Ciao

[Joe Hancock]

The previous two posts, along with others, suggest most(if not ALL) architects purposefully regurgitate previous design ideas that they have built or studied. I disagree, and haven’t experienced many requests to impart an old idea in the field with the guys I’ve worked with.


Reason No. 1- When architects do a routing, it revolves around siting the greens on topography the makes a putting green possible. In other words, the green is always going to be on land the can produce pinnable grades.


Reason No. 2- Golf courses have a fairly traditional range of yardages for the holes implemented. Those yardages make sense. Too short of a hole may not create the challenge expected, and too long of a hole will lose the golfers attention. So, all well respected golf holes fall into the range of approximately 90 yards out to 600 yards, with rare exception based on elements or elevation/ terrain.


Reason No.3- Most architects allow the shapers they work with some freedom in the process. Every shaper, whether intentionally or not, imposes a bit of their personality and creativity into the course.


Reason No. 4- Most architects want to be as original as possible.






So while I agree that there are times that old, tried-and-true hole concepts are implemented, it isn’t the only way holes get built....not by a long shot. The bottom line is that there isn’t many times that re-inventing the wheel is a good idea, but there is still plenty of room within the process to produce great, original ideas that are dictated by the land rather than a memory.

[Peter Pallotta]

That was a very good post, Joe - thanks. I’m sure that other architects and industry folks on here have conveyed the same message you just did many times before - and yet, for some reason, I never understood it so clearly before.
It also brings out how unusual/rare CBM’s initial impulse and approach really was.
Peter

[Sean_A]

Thanks Joe. However, I don't really think even with the unique aspects of every property that originality is hit on very often. I am not saying old concepts are used on purpose. I am saying it's all been done before, somehow, somewhere and that golf sites are usually within certain parameters. Even the crazy sites aren't all that unusual in the type of holes they yield.


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

It's not hard to be original when you are just starting to design courses, if that's your goal.


It is more difficult to stay there, once you've built ten or twenty courses.  Your instincts and tastes lead you in the same direction in a given situation.  You may be keenly aware of which of your holes other people have liked the most, or which templates garner the most discussion.  And some people will insist on finding comparisons, even where they are thinly sourced.  [Not every angled green is a Redan.]


I think the architects named in this title thread did not build so many recognizable templates because they weren't ones to move a lot of dirt around to build one ... so even though they used the same concepts over and over, those concepts don't look so much alike. 


Also, perhaps more importantly, they didn't use templates to market their ideas as being more brilliant than others' ideas.  That's at least part of what Macdonald's templates were about.

[Adam Lawrence]

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.

[Peter Pallotta]

.... Your instincts and tastes lead you in the same direction in a given situation.  You may be keenly aware of which of your holes other people have liked the most, or which templates garner the most discussion...

Tom, and/or others:
Do you have reason to believe that most golfers *notice* any resulting similarities?
I don't think I do, or could.

I've played about a half dozen courses by Canadian architect Doug Carrick; and, while I've grown very familiar with his basic approach and style/ethos, I can't think of a time when I was playing one of his golf holes and was reminded of any other.
Others might have a different experience; but for me I guess there are always enough differences in the overall site itself and in specific features and settings and vegetation that I don't notice a similarity.

Yes, as Sean suggest, the majority of golf holes/courses do seem to fall within existing and familiar "parameters", as I suppose the work of most individual architects does too. But that seems a different thing entirely from an architect clearly (to the golfer's eye) replicating a specific golf hole, whether a familiar template or not.

Peter

Just saw Adam's post, and I thought: well, if the experts have just uncovered the "pattern" now, Mr. Park must've done a exemplary job in making the model truly his own.   

[Tom_Doak]

Tom, and/or others:
Do you have reason to believe that most golfers *notice* any resulting similarities?
I don't think I do, or could.

I've played about a half dozen courses by Canadian architect Doug Carrick; and, while I've grown familiar with his basic approach and style/ethos, I can't think of a time when I was playing one of his golf holes and was reminded of any other.
Others might have a different experience; but for me I guess there are always enough differences in the overall site and in specific features and settings and vegetation that I don't notice a similarity.

Yes, as Sean suggest, the majority of golf holes/courses do seem to fall within existing and familiar "parameters", as I suppose the work of most individual architects does too. But that seems a different thing entirely from an architect clearly (to the golfer's eye) replicating a specific golf hole, whether a familiar template or not.

I'd guess you have to have seen a few courses before you can start detecting duplicates in an architect's work.  It's not like we use the same ideas on EVERY course, as Raynor did ... so you could go see 25 of my courses before you found another short par-4 that's similar to the 6th at Pacific Dunes [at Streamsong].


Does the average golfer notice such things?  Probably not.  But the average golfer probably doesn't even pay attention to who designed the course he's about to play.