Why Did The Macdonald/Raynor/Langford/Moreau Style Of Design Disappear?

[Tom_Doak]

Joe - I get it that you must problem solve on site and work out how you want a hole to play... but, our your concept of what is an acceptable golf hole derives from everything that has come before. This generation didn't invent golf or how courses should be laid out, we just inherited the game and its tenets.

fixed that for you

Elaborate please.

Joe, I just don't accept that "it's all been done before".  I've built quite a few great holes that were not inspired by any existing hole, starting with the 13th and 14th at High Pointe, back in the day.  Were most of them kinda sorta like something, somewhere else?  I guess you can always stretch to find something if you contort yourself hard enough.  I guess I just react to anyone who preaches following conventional wisdom, because so much of conventional wisdom is stale and unnecessary.  There is a HUGE gap between common sense [simply using what is there] and conventional wisdom [thinking you must produce a certain result].


I do understand that Michael [like our old friend Mr. Mucci] believes that certain ideas are so good you should repeat them over and over again ... that's why I changed the word "our" concept of what's acceptable in the quote above to "your" [his].  My concept of what's an acceptable golf hole goes back to what I could see and what I could imagine about the early days of golf in Scotland, which was that golf is a cross-country game, and pretty much nothing is off limits.  That's the real lesson of the 13th at North Berwick ... but imagine if guys took away from it that you should build a stone wall on every golf course!


I just think that with the templates you get too many instances of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.  It's one thing to build a Redan on a natural site for one ... it's another to haul in 5000 yards of fill to build the 7th at Chicago Golf Club in a cornfield.


The Road hole was not a template, when it was built.  The 16th at Cypress Point is not a template.  The 13th at Kingsley is not a template.  The 5th and 6th and 7th and 8th and 9th at Crystal Downs are not templates.  And if their designers believed in using templates, we would never have had any of them.  We'd have had something lesser.[size=78%]  [/size]

[Derek_Duncan]

I have mentioned this before, but you can't discount the obsessive need for that generation to move forward in a completely new world of design, trying to forget the decades of Depression and war.  At that point, "streamlining" and new age design was the rage and the last thing they were going to (at least admit to) do is copy something pre-WWII.


Secondly, construction technology and maintenance technology (not to mention club technology) advanced fast, and matching design to mowers had an effect to keep costs low.  (Golf was a tough biz then, as it is now, and maintenance concerns took a bigger priority on most courses from 1950 to the boom of the 1980's.)


Lastly, newly minted golf course architects were trained more and more as landscape architects, and the flowing style prevailed in universities.

This sums it up about as well as anything. It also might explain why Langford himself didn't continue with the distinct cut and fill style he became known for before the Depression.

[Sean_A]

Joe - I get it that you must problem solve on site and work out how you want a hole to play... but, our your concept of what is an acceptable golf hole derives from everything that has come before. This generation didn't invent golf or how courses should be laid out, we just inherited the game and its tenets.

fixed that for you

Elaborate please.

Joe, I just don't accept that "it's all been done before".  I've built quite a few great holes that were not inspired by any existing hole, starting with the 13th and 14th at High Pointe, back in the day.  Were most of them kinda sorta like something, somewhere else?  I guess you can always stretch to find something if you contort yourself hard enough.

Really?  You think new concepts are still being created with any degree significance?  I can understand the terrain defining a hole and making it singular (even many of these are still similar to other holes), but new concepts being created?  I am doubtful, but willing to listen.  To me, inspiration isn't the issue at all.  The issue is new concepts and I don't see these very often...even when I come across them for the first time doesn't mean they don't exist somewhere else.

Anyway, I think it would be a hard pill for archies to swallow in just building a career out of blatant and obvious copying and the MacRayBanks style is the epitome of blatant and obvious.  That said, there are tons of courses from the 60s-90s which are so indistinguishable (a style a call garden style because its not at all natural) that it makes one wonder.  At least the MacRayBanks style is dynamic and visually challenging....and it hasn't disapppeared because it was never that popular.  I guess what it comes down to is do archies think of themselves as artists or elaborate playground engineers

Ciao

[Jeff_Brauer]

After a night of deep thought, I came to this conclusion about how RTJ era architects decided to abandon the Mac style:


Because the wanted to......

[MCirba]

What a lesser world it would be if the MacRaynorBanks courses didn't exist.


But even lesser I suspect would be a world where many, many more of them did.

[Michael Whitaker]

I do understand that Michael [like our old friend Mr. Mucci] believes that certain ideas are so good you should repeat them over and over again ... that's why I changed the word "our" concept of what's acceptable in the quote above to "your" [his].  My concept of what's an acceptable golf hole goes back to what I could see and what I could imagine about the early days of golf in Scotland, which was that golf is a cross-country game, and pretty much nothing is off limits.  That's the real lesson of the 13th at North Berwick ... but imagine if guys took away from it that you should build a stone wall on every golf course!

I just think that with the templates you get too many instances of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.  It's one thing to build a Redan on a natural site for one ... it's another to haul in 5000 yards of fill to build the 7th at Chicago Golf Club in a cornfield.

Tom - I don't think certain ideas are so good that they "should" be repeated, but that it is not unacceptable for them to be repeated. Most golfers don't travel to compare courses, so having a hole on a course in SC that is similar to a course in New York is not an issue for me... if it is a great hole design and executed properly.
As Sean says, there is an element of "playground engineering" to designing and building any golf course. Obviously, Raynor falls heavily onto the engineered vs artistic side of the "style" scale... which is really what I was getting at with my original question.
Maybe the MacRayBanks courses just weren't pretty enough for new architects to want to hang their hat on that style. Or, maybe the golfing public just became enamored with more the attractive "parkland" styles and the desire for engineered courses was abandoned.

It's just that the engineered style of MacRayBanks (et al.) had its day and clubs from Hawaii to SC to New York sought their design services... and, wonderfully successful "playgrounds" were created for these clients. Then, it just all stopped. Poof! And, now, these courses are honored as special, unique and treasured... with many meticulously restored to their original glory.

In that context, one would think that the renaissance in appreciation of these courses (no pun intended!) might lead to more of this style being created. It is obviously, a good way to create a top level course on a bad piece of property by, as Tom says, hammering a square peg into a round hole. There are a lot of very sad, unforgettable courses I have played that could have definitely benefited from the MacRayBanks treatment... and still could!

PS - the 13th at North Berwick doesn't say that you "should" build a stone wall on a course... but, that you "could" build a wall and it would be OK if it is done properly. It sets a precedent.

[Michael Whitaker]

What a lesser world it would be if the MacRaynorBanks courses didn't exist.

But even lesser I suspect would be a world where many, many more of them did.

Why would you say that, Mike? The vast, vast majority of golfers have never seen a MacRayBanks course or even know who those guys were... and, never will. Providing these golfers the opportunity to play a MacRayBanks style course versus the mediocre crap most of them have to play on a regular basis would be a good thing, I think.

[Kalen Braley]

Just like music, or cooking, or technology, or whatever...I don't think the final word has been spoken on golf course design either.  For example, while I know its polarizing, Jim Enghs stuff is pretty unique, and remains so to anything else I've seen, even if he does frequently re-use his own templates...


And credit to Tom, his E green on 7 at Ballyneal, the 5th at Rock Creek, the 6th at Pacific....all fairly unique as well.

[MCirba]

Why would you say that, Mike? The vast, vast majority of golfers have never seen a MacRayBanks course or even know who those guys were... and, never will. Providing these golfers the opportunity to play a MacRayBanks style course versus the mediocre crap most of them have to play on a regular basis would be a good thing, I think.

Great question, Mike.   And looking at it that way, it's inarguable that you're correct.

As someone who has been fortunate to have played 21 MacRaynorBanks courses to date, I appreciate each as representative of a particular style and it is admittedly fun and interesting to cross-compare the various iterations of classic template holes on each site.  Some of those courses like NGLA, Fishers Island, Mid Ocean, The Creek, are stellar, but as others have stated, they also benefit from dramatic sites.

However, I'm more of the school that golf has much greater interest and variety in letting nature prevail rather than imposing structure to reach a predetermined end, and in that respect I also suspect construction costs would be exorbitant today to achieve that same degree of earth-moving.   

 To sum it up, I'm happy that Alistair Mackenzie was able to construct Cypress Point instead of Seth Raynor, even if there may be some evidence that it was the latter's routing.

[Ira Fishman]

In my limited experience, there is room for unique, great holes even on template courses themselves.  The best hole at Old White at the Greenbrier is Number 6 which as far I as know MacDonald was not basing on an already existing hole.  And at Old Mac, Number 7 may not be the best hole on the course but it is one of them and certainly the coolest.  Now, are either of those holes "concepts" that did (Old White) or will (Old Mac) take gca in new directions?  Probably not.  But isn't the idea of using the land in innovative ways such as those two holes exactly the concept that lies in opposition to templates. Please do not get me wrong, I like templates and like to see some of them incorporated in non-template courses, but as others have noted, there remains plenty of room for great holes that are not imitations or nor even inspired by existing holes.


Ira

[Peter Pallotta]

Would most of us recognize 'great architecture' even if it jumped off a train and bit us in the ass? I'm less sure of that with each passing day. Now, 'great courses' we apparently recognize very easily and see them everywhere -- by last count there were 178 courses in America's Top 100 list. That's one advantage of the templates (for architects using them today): they are so vibrantly 'architectural' that even the colour blind can see/praise them.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Yes, MacRaynorBanks and Langford & Moreau  are alive and well at Arcadia Bluffs designed by Dana Fry:


http://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/content/a-sight-for-square-eyes-at-michigans-arcadia-bluffs


Here's one example:

[Tom_Doak]

Would most of us recognize 'great architecture' even if it jumped off a train and bit us in the ass?

Not unless they knew a couple of other people who were already on board.

[Ira Fishman]

Would most of us recognize 'great architecture' even if it jumped off a train and bit us in the ass? I'm less sure of that with each passing day. Now, 'great courses' we apparently recognize very easily and see them everywhere -- by last count there were 178 courses in America's Top 100 list. That's one advantage of the templates (for architects using them today): they are so vibrantly 'architectural' that even the colour blind can see/praise them.

Peter,


As a jazz fan, do you have the same view of all of the covers of Round Midnight?  I am quite sure you would know great jazz when it jumped off the train.


Ira

[Kalen Braley]

I'm curious too regarding Peters last comment.


What courses did people in the treehouse have to be talked into/hit over the head to think was good architecture?

[Tom_Doak]

I'm curious too regarding Peters last comment.


What courses did people in the treehouse have to be talked into/hit over the head to think was good architecture?

Kalen:


I'll go back to my original post on this thread.  When I was in college, NGLA wasn't in the GOLF DIGEST top 100, even though it had long since moved past being "America's Toughest Courses".


I don't think my reviews of it changed everybody's minds.  I think my reviews of it helped make it okay for other people to agree that it was pretty good after all.  [The restoration of it helped a lot, too, but still, I thought it was great when I saw it in 1980, before they'd done any of that work.]


Everyone here may believe they have formed all their opinions on their own, but as I hinted above, I think many are emboldened to agree after someone else goes out on the limb.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,


That's a good example, but that predates GCA or any other online chat/enthusiast group.


How did fairly big groups of like minded people communicate before the internet?  A once per year convention or meetup somewhere?


P.S.  Do you have any examples of current places that are relatively unknown that could be evangelized?

[Peter Pallotta]

Ira, Kalen:
I'd mostly come to praise the templates, not to bury them. One of the templates that (nowadays) is most famous/popular, the Redan, practically screams 'architecture', even to the uninitiated -- and in a way that many of the golf holes that Tom & Joe build and are referencing simply don't, even to the *initiated*.
That doesn't necessarily make the originals or copies any better -- or worse -- than those unique/one-off/site-honouring golf holes; but I do think it makes them easier for most (nowadays, because of Tom D and then the magazines and then the raters/rankings) to understand and appreciate as examples of golf course *architecture* -- and that, from what I can tell, is actually quite rare, even around here.
We talk a lot about the many great new 'courses' that people have played, but I simply don't read much insightful and critical analysis about the architecture *as* architecture. (Indeed it's been pointed out to me several times that we really shouldn't try to separate out the 'architecture from the 'course', and so few of us actually do.) I think in your last few threads/posts, Ira, we have touched on this subject via
your appreciation for the stripped down/pure fields of play you recently experienced in GB&I.
Re your jazz analogy: I'd say that it's like someone who saw a growing interest in jazz among the general population and wanted to tap into & leverage that to foster his own career: ie he'd probably choose to 'copy' an early and foundational and straight-ahead Louis Armstrong solo instead of one from John Coltrane's Giant Steps period.
P

[Ira Fishman]

Peter,


Now I think I see where you are coming from. I know little about golf course architecture as a topic separate from how I interact with the courses. Just like I know even less about jazz composition separate from the music that I do or do not like. So in that vein, I would not know good architecture if it bit me in the ass, and I “lost” both Coltrane and Davis as they transitioned to “avant-garde”. But I still maintain that Golspie is a more enjoyable and interesting course than Royal Dornoch. On the other hand, no one could convince me that a lesser known singer was better than Billie Holiday:-).


Ira

[Joe Hancock]

Tom,


Thanks for that reply. It cleared up what you were conveying.


All others,


Thanks for the good debate. Good questions, answers and opinions.

[JMEvensky]

 On the other hand, no one could convince me that a lesser known singer was better than Billie Holiday:-).

 You may not know anything about golf course architecture but you know everything there is to know about jazz singers.

[Sean_A]

The jazz discussion is interesting because of its standards, songs  which over time which are heralded as the best of the genre.  Granted, the more one listens/knows about jazz the longer the list of standards.  Its no different with golf.  We go on about templates, but the templates of golf go beyond the MacRaynorBanks small offering.  Sure, folks can argue if so and so concept is really great, but that doesn't alter the status of the holes, just as it is with jazz (and blues for that matter) songs.  Just as in jazz, the standards of golf are copied in an endless variety of ways, though I am not sure any golf hole/concept has as many copies as Summertime 

Unlike jazz and music in general, because golf is a physical and cerebral activity, I don't think the keen student needs to know much about the nuts and bolts of architecture to form sound opinions on design quality.  I do think not knowing how to read music or play an instrument to a decent standard are impediments to getting music, at least some music and at least on some level.  For instance, while I like very early New Orleans style jazz, much of it sounds the same to me with the same patterns used over and over, even when the great soloists emerged.  Much more than about 30 minutes and I get bored and that is how I feel about a lot of 60s-90s architecture.  I am certain that if I knew more about music that my thoughts would be different. 

Pietro...I like the idea of a guy willing to go back to Armstrong for inspiration rather than Coltrane Giant Steps...although I would plop for A Love Supreme because to me Giant Steps isn't at all hard to get..half the album are standards.  Regardless, Armstrong does seem a more accessible type of music. However, at some level, and this may be the case with archies as well if they ever stepped that far outside the box (and maybe a reversable courses is one such case), with the right musician (and Coltrane is one such example), I have to believe that regardless of how I feel or think about the music/concept, its my problem and my problem alone.  Coltrane is right for lack of a better way to describe it, I simply just don't get it or maybe I am not ready to get it.  I have thought this about MacRaynorBanks as well. 

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

I played Westhampton CC (Long Island, NY) yesterday for the first time with a family friend. It was never on my "Raynor Radar" as it was known back in the day as a "country club course" on flattish terrain. Obviously there are others in the neighborhood with greater pedigree.


Gil Hanse came in 2011, and he seems to have done the now-standard tree removal, green expansion, and fairway widening. WCC was awesome, incredibly fun, and in a 20+ mph wind it was very tough to score. Ladies Day before we went out, tons of kids on the range, many players on the tennis courts, it is the BIG family club in that area but that course is perfect for the membership.


There was one green that had a huge ridge and I missed the correct side of the ridge by 3 inches. Automatic 3 putt zone vs a mini-punchbowl that would have kicked my ball to a real birdie putt.


To me, that is fun. Many may not love that but I just find the MacRaynorBanks courses to be very fun to play. Yes they had a Biarritz and a Redan, but I think that is secondary to the fun factor.

[V_Halyard]

Jazz is a good analogy for this discussion. Having spent a long time working in the arts as a professional, producer and an executive, this makes for an interesting comparison. When one speaks of the Jazz fan, it spans eras and incites heated debate. Is jazz defined by Benny Goodman, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, Pat Metheny, Duke Ellington or Kamasi Washington? Glen Miller or Mitch Miller? (Mitch Miller... No)
I've seen people walk up to Miles Davis and berate him for not playing one of his earlier works the way they remembered it and he would remind them that his music evolved. The fan didn't like that answer. Miles was curt: "My s*** evolves, you should too."

What I most enjoy about this site is that we appreciate great classic golf architecture, while also celebrating creative evolution. To that end, I don't necessarily think that forced templates are a credible or viable answers but that does not exclude holes inspired by architectural greatness.

I am pleased to have played courses by, and/or interacted with Tom, C&C, Gil, Ron Forse, Mike Young, David MK, Ron Prichard, Jeff Mingay, Ryan Farrow, Jimmy Craig and numerous others within this community of the GCA Afflicted. Their collective creativity, originality and work is inspired and informed by the classics and is enjoyable, exhilarating and creative.
There is a need recognize classic and creativity. If all one does as a golf architect is re-create templates, they are un creatively building the equivalent of Muzak.

If jazz is to be used to anchor an analogy to great golf architecture, there is much great jazz, and for that matter, great music that can be defined as classic.
That said, creativity that stands still eventually sucks.

[MCirba]

This is probably the best thread on GCA so far this year.   

Just sayin'...