Why are we obsessed with templates?

[Adrian_Stiff]

Hardly anyone in the real world likes the 'Redan' concept.

Adrian-I would be interested in having you develop this assertion a bit more as I don’t remember seeing any polling regarding same. “Hardly anyone” casts a pretty wide net. If I’m a bettor I would wager there are no shortage of GCA members that are fans of the concept and revere many of subject holes which are not only limited to Mac/Raynor/Banks interpretations.

Real word  = the normal person that plays golf. They don't like back to front greens where a ball is swished away to hollows or bunkers.
GCA = is wicky wacky people that like obscure stuff like sheep shit, howling winds, slopes going the wrong way, balls lying in divots, playing golf in the rain, driving 500 miles past 50 other courses to play golf on unirrigated turf....that sort of thing

You purport to know what everyone in the “real world” likes? I’m not a fan of any of the credentials you list above to get inducted into the “wicky wacky people” fraternity but I like the redan concept so go figure. The vast majority of greens in my playing experience slope from back to front and I’m not sure that I know what a slope going the wrong way is.

Tim-
Sorry I meant front to back greens ie sloping away.
My reasons are just from the comments I hear and the tee time sheets which are factual. For example one course where there are 4 nines, Sean Arble who we all love on here likes one nine in particular and does not like the other nines. The 'real world' says that nine is the one people are less likely to play and the demand for the other nines is much more. When you talk to those people and ask why, they cite their dislikes for things on GCA that we tend to love. It has a redan type green on one hole which the golfers generally dislike.
Q to All?
That aside what exactly is a Redan, wording would refer to a fortification. NBs 15 is the original so how much does a REDAN have to replicate that hole to be a Redan. That hole originally would have been a driver over those fronting bunkers, are those essential to a Redan or is it just the green. Is it the perch of the green, the kickplate to the right, is the left bunker essential.

Q to All?
How much of a template needs to be included for it to be a template. I tend to think every hole lends a % to some sort of template.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Adrian,


Your last paragraph touches very much on my points. I’ve played a few MacRaynors and the “templates” can vary quite wildly in playing characteristics from course to course. I tend to think holes are either good or not so good.


E.g. Yale has a cracking Biarritz. But the Redan has almost zero playing characteristics of the original Redan it is modelled on: It is severely downhill which virtually neuters any kind of running approach, even if there is a feed from the middle to the left.


Templates are almost entirely about someone getting a kick out of recognising the template and feeling clever about it. Many of them are excellent holes. Some of them are less so. Some are hardly recognisable from what they are supposed to represent and may or may not work for that exact reason.

[Tom_Doak]

Real word  = the normal person that plays golf. They don't like front to back greens where a ball is swished away to hollows or bunkers.
GCA = is wicky wacky people that like obscure stuff like sheep shit, howling winds, slopes going the wrong way, balls lying in divots, playing golf in the rain, driving 500 miles past 50 other courses to play golf on unirrigated turf....that sort of thing

The problem with this post is that it's so true that it's not true.


If you stick to all the rules of what the "real world" likes, you wind up building exactly the same sort of course as 97% of what's already out there, which is quite boring unless you have an awesome site.  You aren't doing anything to distinguish your own course, you're just catering to the guy who doesn't really care where he plays as long as the conditions are okay.


People drive 500 miles for something different, and not just "wicky wacky people".


The flip side of this is if there are too many courses built with the same templates, or with sheep roaming the fairways, that will no longer be an attraction.

[Ira Fishman]

I have not played that many courses built after WWII to the present, but other than the homage course such as Old Mac, are there many post—MacRaynor courses that incorporate more than one or two templates?


Ira

[Tom_Doak]

I have not played that many courses built after WWII to the present, but other than the homage course such as Old Mac, are there many post—MacRaynor courses that incorporate more than one or two templates?

There are quite a few.  One example I saw last year was the Charleston Municipal course.  It doesn't have the Raynor pedigree like CC of Charleston or Yeamans Hall, but they decided to add a bunch of template greens to give it some cachet.  It was kind of interesting because their greens are quite a bit smaller than the normal versions, but it also seemed to be a "safe" design choice in that a lot of GCA geeks will automatically think of them as cool, even though they didn't try to come up with something more original.

[John Mayhugh]

Real word  = the normal person that plays golf. They don't like front to back greens where a ball is swished away to hollows or bunkers.
GCA = is wicky wacky people that like obscure stuff like sheep shit, howling winds, slopes going the wrong way, balls lying in divots, playing golf in the rain, driving 500 miles past 50 other courses to play golf on unirrigated turf....that sort of thing

It must sometimes be a burden being such an authority on golf and everyone that plays the game.

Not sure where you would categorize me:

• I don't like sheep shit and don't know anyone else that does
• I don't like playing out of divots and don't know anyone else that does
• I don't like playing in the rain and don't know anyone else that does
• I have never driven 500 miles past 50 other courses to play on unirrigated turf, but would if the right opportunity came

However,

• I do think that greens that slope away from the player are a very underutilized feature, but wouldn't want one on every hole.
• I do think that playing in howling wind - on the right sort of course - can be incredibly fun.
• I do like seeing "obscure stuff" in the right context. One thing I love about traveling to play golf is experiencing variety and the sense of place that comes from a course that is connected to its environment. I would rather not see sheep shit or step over wire fences, but visiting places like Brora & Pennard & Mulranny have enriched my enjoyment of the game far more than visiting another well-conditioned predictable local place ever would.

[Ira Fishman]

John,


Spot on.

[Adrian_Stiff]

Real word  = the normal person that plays golf. They don't like front to back greens where a ball is swished away to hollows or bunkers.
GCA = is wicky wacky people that like obscure stuff like sheep shit, howling winds, slopes going the wrong way, balls lying in divots, playing golf in the rain, driving 500 miles past 50 other courses to play golf on unirrigated turf....that sort of thing

It must sometimes be a burden being such an authority on golf and everyone that plays the game.

Not sure where you would categorize me:

• I don't like sheep shit and don't know anyone else that does
• I don't like playing out of divots and don't know anyone else that does
• I don't like playing in the rain and don't know anyone else that does
• I have never driven 500 miles past 50 other courses to play on unirrigated turf, but would if the right opportunity came

However,

• I do think that greens that slope away from the player are a very underutilized feature, but wouldn't want one on every hole.
• I do think that playing in howling wind - on the right sort of course - can be incredibly fun.
• I do like seeing "obscure stuff" in the right context. One thing I love about traveling to play golf is experiencing variety and the sense of place that comes from a course that is connected to its environment. I would rather not see sheep shit or step over wire fences, but visiting places like Brora & Pennard & Mulranny have enriched my enjoyment of the game far more than visiting another well-conditioned predictable local place ever would.

You are not really understanding what I am saying and its a bit tongue in cheek, but basically say 97% of golfers like the stuff we don't. I am in the same sort of 3% as you for what I like, but 3% in a commercial world is aiming at a small market especially when a club is not even full and probably would spell disaster. Perhaps the two redans I have done I have built badly but they are unpopular with that real world golfer. I can't really be arsed to talk to journalists, give interviews, if you want advice on how to run a golf course I charge. This is the only place I talk for free, its up to you if you want to believe what I am saying but what I am saying is always tinged with the commercial areas of making a profit from golf, not just building beautiful monuments.

[John Mayhugh]

You are not really understanding what I am saying and its a bit tongue in cheek, but basically say 97% of golfers like the stuff we don't. I am in the same sort of 3% as you for what I like, but 3% in a commercial world is aiming at a small market especially when a club is not even full and probably would spell disaster. Perhaps the two redans I have done I have built badly but they are unpopular with that real world golfer. I can't really be arsed to talk to journalists, give interviews, if you want advice on how to run a golf course I charge. This is the only place I talk for free, its up to you if you want to believe what I am saying but what I am saying is always tinged with the commercial areas of making a profit from golf, not just building beautiful monuments.

I am interested in golf course architecture, not the golf business. I can believe what you are saying and also not care at all. And that's what I'm doing. I can believe that straightforward hole design (all out in front of you, no quirk) and very good conditions appeals to the majority of paying players. Lots of people also are happy to eat at McDonald's and drink at a Wetherspoon pub. I am not.

The most adventurous, artistic, engaging features may not be the most popular. That does not diminish their quality.

[Dan_Callahan]

I'd played a number of redan templates prior to playing the original. Some, like at Shinnecock and National, are spectacular. Others, like at Yale, are redans in name only (in my opinion). What I wasn't prepared for was just how different the 15th at North Berwick was from every other redan I'd seen. I had no idea the two fronting bunkers were well short of the green, and in fact the green itself is pretty much blind from the tee. Because I'd played a bunch of templates, I assumed I could drop a shot over the right corner of the fronting bunker and it would funnel down. Much to my surprise, there was a ton of space between bunker and green, and the "redan bunker" was actually situated behind the two bunkers I was looking at. I got lucky and way overshot my target and ended up on the green ... but had I executed as I intended I would have been in that valley short. In retrospect, I would have been better off had I never played a template, because I wouldn't have been so confident about what I thought I was seeing.

[Ben Sims]

John,


I’d say that I don’t care about the business side of this but that would be wrong. I care quite strongly about it. Mostly because the business piece of this is the key to continuing to experience new and cool stuff. I’m far less connected to visiting older private clubs than I once was, and that makes seeing new ideas and courses somewhat dependent on the business of golf.


I’d be sad if templates were roundly ignored going forward. I’d be even sadder if too many courses were being built to look like Blue Mound or Lido or Piping Rock. It’s a very fine line.


By the by, the coolest templates are the ones with round edges anyway!


—break break—


In regard to the OP, I’m firmly siding with #2. I think template holes simplify the lexicon and allow a certain degree of easy discussion. Whether this is a lazy tactic, or worse, aloof to what great architecture can be is a debate to be had.

[Charlie Goerges]

Whether this is a lazy tactic, or worse, aloof to what great architecture can be is a debate to be had.

Maybe it's lazy, but it's definitely how the human brain works. So lazy, aloof, whatever, it is inevitable I think.

[Ben Sims]

Whether this is a lazy tactic, or worse, aloof to what great architecture can be is a debate to be had.

Maybe it's lazy, but it's definitely how the human brain works. So lazy, aloof, whatever, it is inevitable I think.

The golf equivalent of Dr Strangelove’s argument. That’s pretty funny.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Whether this is a lazy tactic, or worse, aloof to what great architecture can be is a debate to be had.

Maybe it's lazy, but it's definitely how the human brain works. So lazy, aloof, whatever, it is inevitable I think.

If I take three of the courses I played last August on my trip to the US:


- Chicago is great because of the perfectly executed playing strategies and outstanding set of greens.


- Shoreacres is great because of the way the routing uses the ravine in numerous ways.


- Arcadia Bluffs South doesn’t actually have template holes but because it is an homage to CGC, most people spend their time trying to find them and imagining they did.


In other words, none of the three courses are defined by their templates. The templates are just easy touch points.

[Charlie Goerges]

Whether this is a lazy tactic, or worse, aloof to what great architecture can be is a debate to be had.

Maybe it's lazy, but it's definitely how the human brain works. So lazy, aloof, whatever, it is inevitable I think.

If I take three of the courses I played last August on my trip to the US:


- Chicago is great because of the perfectly executed playing strategies and outstanding set of greens.


- Shoreacres is great because of the way the routing uses the ravine in numerous ways.


- Arcadia Bluffs South doesn’t actually have template holes but because it is an homage to CGC, most people spend their time trying to find them and imagining they did.


In other words, none of the three courses are defined by their templates. The templates are just easy touch points.

You'll get no argument from me on this Ally, my point is about human communication. Our brains are pattern finding machines, so template talk is always going to be a thing. There's often something deeper as you point out but it is more esoteric.

[Charlie Goerges]

Whether this is a lazy tactic, or worse, aloof to what great architecture can be is a debate to be had.

Maybe it's lazy, but it's definitely how the human brain works. So lazy, aloof, whatever, it is inevitable I think.

The golf equivalent of Dr Strangelove’s argument. That’s pretty funny.

It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, but are you referring to the film's argument or an argument the Dr. himself made in the movie? In any event, one of my favorites!

[Ally Mcintosh]

Whether this is a lazy tactic, or worse, aloof to what great architecture can be is a debate to be had.

Maybe it's lazy, but it's definitely how the human brain works. So lazy, aloof, whatever, it is inevitable I think.

If I take three of the courses I played last August on my trip to the US:


- Chicago is great because of the perfectly executed playing strategies and outstanding set of greens.


- Shoreacres is great because of the way the routing uses the ravine in numerous ways.


- Arcadia Bluffs South doesn’t actually have template holes but because it is an homage to CGC, most people spend their time trying to find them and imagining they did.


In other words, none of the three courses are defined by their templates. The templates are just easy touch points.

You'll get no argument from me on this Ally, my point is about human communication. Our brains are pattern finding machines, so template talk is always going to be a thing. There's often something deeper as you point out but it is more esoteric.

Yep agreeing with you. Just reiterating your point.

[Ben Sims]

Whether this is a lazy tactic, or worse, aloof to what great architecture can be is a debate to be had.

Maybe it's lazy, but it's definitely how the human brain works. So lazy, aloof, whatever, it is inevitable I think.

The golf equivalent of Dr Strangelove’s argument. That’s pretty funny.

It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, but are you referring to the film's argument or an argument the Dr. himself made in the movie? In any event, one of my favorites!

Strangelove himself. Not necessarily his argument, but his assumed worldview about the inevitability of human thought.

[Charlie Goerges]

Whether this is a lazy tactic, or worse, aloof to what great architecture can be is a debate to be had.

Maybe it's lazy, but it's definitely how the human brain works. So lazy, aloof, whatever, it is inevitable I think.

The golf equivalent of Dr Strangelove’s argument. That’s pretty funny.

It's been a long time since I've seen the movie, but are you referring to the film's argument or an argument the Dr. himself made in the movie? In any event, one of my favorites!

Strangelove himself. Not necessarily his argument, but his assumed worldview about the inevitability of human thought.

That's right, I'm probably about that inevitability, but I am more optimistic about what we do with that thought. I think even fairly typical golfers are more open to thinking along Ally's line of thinking than we give them credit for. My brother, who really just cares about breaking 80, cool equipment and good conditions had a blast touring the under-construction Red course at Dismal with me way back when. I think openness and appetite for it are limited, but real.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I am straining to think of another design field that says, "You can never do better than 100 years ago, so keep copying old stuff."  In fact, if they did, it would probably be considered among the worst, least creative design eras of all time.


As good as FL Wright was, no one really copies him anymore. Nor do architects copy Greek or Roman temples, art deco, etc. 


If the state of design in other fields is similar to what has become a mantra of gca, thanks in part to this site, they would.....but they won't.  It is one thing to take a good principle that should always work as an inspiration or base, like proportionality (i.e., the "magic" 5/8 ratio, etc.) and quite another to believe that nothing you do originally has a chance of being as good so you copy what was done before.


Once in a great while as a "conversation piece," sure.  But it is time to move on and create some new templates that really work for the future, not the past.


As always, just MHO.

[Tim Martin]

Real word  = the normal person that plays golf. They don't like front to back greens where a ball is swished away to hollows or bunkers.
GCA = is wicky wacky people that like obscure stuff like sheep shit, howling winds, slopes going the wrong way, balls lying in divots, playing golf in the rain, driving 500 miles past 50 other courses to play golf on unirrigated turf....that sort of thing

It must sometimes be a burden being such an authority on golf and everyone that plays the game.

Not sure where you would categorize me:

• I don't like sheep shit and don't know anyone else that does
• I don't like playing out of divots and don't know anyone else that does
• I don't like playing in the rain and don't know anyone else that does
• I have never driven 500 miles past 50 other courses to play on unirrigated turf, but would if the right opportunity came

However,

• I do think that greens that slope away from the player are a very underutilized feature, but wouldn't want one on every hole.
• I do think that playing in howling wind - on the right sort of course - can be incredibly fun.
• I do like seeing "obscure stuff" in the right context. One thing I love about traveling to play golf is experiencing variety and the sense of place that comes from a course that is connected to its environment. I would rather not see sheep shit or step over wire fences, but visiting places like Brora & Pennard & Mulranny have enriched my enjoyment of the game far more than visiting another well-conditioned predictable local place ever would.

This is the only place I talk for free, its up to you if you want to believe what I am saying

For free or freely?

[Sven Nilsen]

I'm more intrigued in discussing how CBM's ideal course was meant to require a full range of shots than I am in discussing whether the Redan at Yale is as good as the one at Chicago GC.


Sometimes I think we lose sight of the concept of discussing each of the templates in light of their role in the composition of the ideal, or, as CBM called his collection of holes, "about right."


Sven

[Adrian_Stiff]

I am straining to think of another design field that says, "You can never do better than 100 years ago, so keep copying old stuff."  In fact, if they did, it would probably be considered among the worst, least creative design eras of all time.


As good as FL Wright was, no one really copies him anymore. Nor do architects copy Greek or Roman temples, art deco, etc. 


If the state of design in other fields is similar to what has become a mantra of gca, thanks in part to this site, they would.....but they won't.  It is one thing to take a good principle that should always work as an inspiration or base, like proportionality (i.e., the "magic" 5/8 ratio, etc.) and quite another to believe that nothing you do originally has a chance of being as good so you copy what was done before.


Once in a great while as a "conversation piece," sure.  But it is time to move on and create some new templates that really work for the future, not the past.


As always, just MHO.

/Jeff - The Island Green would probably be considered the greatest template of them all..AND ITS MODERN

[Ally Mcintosh]

In reality, the island green is usually just another version of the “short” template.


Sven’s point is very valid. The templates were more about a mix of holes to vary playing strategy for an ideal course. It’s just a pity that their easy touch-point has dumbed down architectural analysis…. In the end it IS actually about whether Yale’s Redan is a good hole or not, regardless of whether it’s a good version of a Redan.

[Thomas Dai]

There were island greens in Florida in the 1920’s but it took TV from Sawgrass to make the concept iconic.
Atb