Why are we obsessed with templates?

[JC Urbina]

Ben,


The templates are like and Old Friend,  You recognize the face but sometimes can't remember the name.


They remind you of the old days and wishing you were back there over and over again.

[Kalen Braley]

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.

Jeff,

When I read this a meme popped in my head that I saw a few weeks ago.

It was two pictures: a perfectly intact cobblestone road on top and a pothole ridden street on the bottom.

The caption read something along the lines of on top "The Romans built this 2,000 years ago", and on bottom "the crappy local contactors 2 years ago"

P.S.  I agree with you in concept on this one, but some things sure seem to have been built with higher quality in the old days to last longer.  I mean there is no money to be made in building something that doesn't require frequent re-visits for repairs and such right?

[John Mayhugh]

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.

Exactly. CBM & Raynor built courses that are both challenging & consistently fun to play and are well suited to their site. The greens usually photograph much better than ones with more subtle features and the "templates" are easy talking points. Comparing one Redan to another completely misses the point of the design.


Jeff Brauer,
Can you explain what this means?
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.
What about a Redan or Eden or Road does not work? Courses that feature these "templates" have held up well because the principles are sound.

Adrian Stiff,
The Island Green would probably be considered the greatest template of them all..AND ITS MODERN
Who would say this? Your punters that hate redans? Having a hard time making sense of that.

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,


I think the Redan works.  The Road Hole has never been practical or even desireable, i.e. playing over structures.  Even the Road Hole green is probably theoretically too hard, but it is still great as a conversation piece, i.e., interesting, but you wouldn't repeat it.  I never cared for the Eden, because it is really bunker left, bunker right, albeit, the staggering and variable bunker depth makes it better than most other greens with flanking bunkers. 


In general, all the carry based templates fell out of favor as getting the tee shot airborne became easier.  Even though they are making a comeback, it is based as much on nostalgia among golf design geeks as anything.  With more stats available to players, the carry risk is reduced.  Either you can carry it, or not.  The Cape Hole, with a reasonably straight lake edge (like a typical Pete Dye 9 or 18th hole) works a bit in making it harder to pick a line.


But overall, the game has changed so much, those templates are still fine, but not so great they should be repeated every time without question.  In other words, although it pains many who are emotionally tied to the Golden Age, basically, golf architecture largely followed the path that events suggested it should.  Not all of the Rayor templates should be abolished, but then again, not all of them are so great to keep doing again, really.  That just makes sense to me.  Just like only the best songs of each era are still on Sirius XM, most have been discarded to the dust bin of history, I would expect only some of the great old ideas would survive and really work with all the changes to the game.  Some would survive in modified form, and some should just go away.


As always, just MHO.

[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.

Jeff,

When I read this a meme popped in my head that I saw a few weeks ago.

It was two pictures: a perfectly intact cobblestone road on top and a pothole ridden street on the bottom.

The caption read something along the lines of on top "The Romans built this 2,000 years ago", and on bottom "the crappy local contactors 2 years ago"

P.S.  I agree with you in concept on this one, but some things sure seem to have been built with higher quality in the old days to last longer.  I mean there is no money to be made in building something that doesn't require frequent re-visits for repairs and such right?

Kalen,


First, your quote seems to be mixing design and construction quality, and may not be apt.


Second, it ignores the fact that nearly every great, old course, has been rebuilt.  Few will have lasted as long as a Roman road without reconstruction.  We celebrate the few push up greens that are still in existence, although even those have been helped along by topdressing, additional slit drainage, etc., if not wholesale mix replacement.  Modern construction is in general much better than the old days.  Even so, the newest greens will still need some kind of help to survive past 25-30 years.


In the 25 years I have been on this site, shady architects and contractors doing bad work in the name of pure profit have been a theme among a few.  I was in the biz for 40+ years and have only seen a few examples of this.  In general, I believe the golf world has a lower number of scoundrels than almost any other business.


On the design side of the question, I again believe that the fealty to the Golden Age only certainly is more emotional than factual, not to mention, most great courses have been tweaked design wise as well.  They get put in play and only time can tell if the original design idea worked.  If it doesn't (in either player satisfaction or ease of maintenance) it tends to get renovated.  And, if form follows function, redesigning something to work for now and in the future as best it can is certainly a more sincere design brief/charge, etc., than trying hard to restore "original intent."  And most don't really do that anyway, usually finding justifications to move bunkers into play, soften contours, etc.  Very sympathetic to the original, but fixing problems that time has shown to exist.


Short version......you can tell I never was going to be a star in the restoration market with that attitude!


So yes, many older design concepts have stood the test of time, but not all as so many here seem to presume.

[John Mayhugh]

Jeff,
You seem to be like a lot of people who misunderstand the use of "templates."

Let's start with the Road. You said:
The Road Hole has never been practical or even desireable, i.e. playing over structures.  Even the Road Hole green is probably theoretically too hard, but it is still great as a conversation piece, i.e., interesting, but you wouldn't repeat it.
I think the major principle that makes this type of hole work is that it requires challenging a hazard (of some sort) to have an easier approach to a wide, shallow green that is diagonal to play. A safer tee shot leads to a much more difficult approach, especially with a nasty bunker in the front. This works really well to make a par 4.5 hole. The notion that you would need to play over a building is misguided. At the Old Course - the inspiration behind this ideal hole - there were railway sheds and now a hotel. CBM and Raynor never felt the need to hot over any sort of structures when they built this type of hole, yet the holes work just fine. Note: the greens aren't a specific copy of the Old Course's either.

Then there's the Eden. You said:
I never cared for the Eden, because it is really bunker left, bunker right, albeit, the staggering and variable bunker depth makes it better than most other greens with flanking bunkers. 
AND
In general, all the carry based templates fell out of favor as getting the tee shot airborne became easier.  Even though they are making a comeback, it is based as much on nostalgia among golf design geeks as anything.  With more stats available to players, the carry risk is reduced.  Either you can carry it, or not.
You fail to acknowledge the role that the tilt of the green plays. That's what makes the bunkers even greater hazards than a typical greenside bunker would be. Players need to be below the hole, so with the hole up front, the shell bunker is a huge risk for a mishit shot. Sure, "either you can carry it or not," but every shot that tempts should have consequences if you don't execute and the Eden does. Recovery from the sides is difficult as you have to factor in the tilt. I played the original three times back in May and didn't find the green a single time, but did have plenty of adventure.


Critics would do well to think about the principles behind the templates and not just consider them copies. The principles are why they are still relevant.

[Jesse Kodadek]

I haven't seen anyone mention this on GCA yet, but John Fought is currently building a second course at Windsong Farm outside Minneapolis. He built the original, which is very "big" and very modern and does not really have any classical template holes (Jason Topp can correct me on this if I am wrong).


But the new course, according the article below, "will include several famous template holes" by Raynor, and specifically cites Shoreacres. Fought says it "will be like creating a course from the early 1900s but with a modern infrastructure," and the land "gives us the opportunity to integrate several old-style holes into the mix."


I find this fascinating because it sounds and looks like this will be an entirely different style course than the original, but both are by the same architect. Other than Doak/Urbina at Bandon, are there other places where the same team has designed a very modern course alongside an intentionally "old school" course?




Article with course layout schematic: https://golfweek.usatoday.com/2023/02/01/windsong-farm-john-fought-new-course-minnesota/

[Jeff_Brauer]

John,


With all due respect, I think I understand templates.


As to the tilt on 11, I understand that too, having once had to chip from the back of the green and seeing the ball run like a swine possessed by the devil past the hole, LOL. 


I agree that the principles are what is important, and many still apply.  And many gca's have attempted to use similar principles without doing exact copies (although many also replicate the strong banks of the original Raynor style, too)  For example, there have been many Biaritz greens built with a wavy valley rather than straight, which at least makes it look a little more natural.  That makes sense to me, although I wonder if the wavy slopes could be trusted to help you run the ball through the swale to the upper  deck, so sometimes, reinterpreting might be dangerous, design wise.


I imagine someone obsessed with templates could actually find that to be distressing, as it is not an exact Raynor replica.  Actually, even NGLA is more natural and curvy than most folks actually know, and it was just Raynor's engineering take that resulted in his unique style.

[Ira Fishman]

Has anyone played The Lido? Do the templates work for the “modern” game?


Ira

[John Mayhugh]

Jeff,
I would have expected you to understand templates. I was simply responding to your mischaracterization of the Road as needing to play over structures. It does not. Period. I had no way of knowing if your original statement was due to ignorance or you were intentionally using a false dilemma.

It's the principles that are important. Copying is silly and lazy.

Have you played Old Macdonald? I think it's a terrific course. This is no copy and it seems to stand up really well in modern times.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Ya,  I really like being called ignorant by anyone who has designed 57 fewer golf courses than I have...but such is the nature of the internet, where all opinions and content suppliers are seen to be equal.


Yes, most modern road holes do not play over buildings, substituting mounds, bunkers, or purpose built walls similar to that at the original.  But, in general, playing over OB has been ruled out.  Are the modern holes as scary as the original where there is a real danger of death or property destruction?  No.  Without the real fear of OB on the tee shot, I would argue that what is really being designed is a hole inspired by yet another CBM Template of sorts - the Cape Hole.


But, it's perhaps all semantics, which we can debate forever.  Cheers.

[Sean_A]

Ya,  I really like being called ignorant by anyone who has designed 57 fewer golf courses than I have...but such is the nature of the internet, where all opinions and content suppliers are seen to be equal.


Yes, most modern road holes do not play over buildings, substituting mounds, bunkers, or purpose built walls similar to that at the original.  But, in general, playing over OB has been ruled out.  Are the modern holes as scary as the original where there is a real danger of death or property destruction?  No.  Without the real fear of OB on the tee shot, I would argue that what is really being designed is a hole inspired by yet another CBM Template of sorts - the Cape Hole.

But, it's perhaps all semantics, which we can debate forever.  Cheers.

This is one of those situations where taking the bite out of the original hole makes a huge difference. The option of safe vs over a building is stark and is a central element of the original. If it wasn't important nobody would mention the hotel. You could argue the hotel has made the hole far more exciting. Playing over mounds etc isn't nearly the same thing. So there are Road holes and ROAD HOLE.

Ciao

[John Mayhugh]

Ya,  I really like being called ignorant by anyone who has designed 57 fewer golf courses than I have...but such is the nature of the internet, where all opinions and content suppliers are seen to be equal.

I never called you ignorant. I simply pointed out that ignorance was one of the two most likely reasons for your mischaracterization of the road hole template. Note that it's possible to be ignorant of one thing and not be considered ignorant overall.

Really helpful for you to mention you have designed 57 more courses than I have. I've never made a single post on GCA implying that I know how to design a golf course. Everything I comment on is from the perspective of someone who visits and plays golf courses. In that role, my opinion maybe doesn't have as much merit as yours, but it's far closer than you imply. I do spend time and money visiting golf courses, which is the type of person that the work you used to do catered to.



Sean,
The 17th at the Old is iconic due to the shot over the hotel. The template is still very good even without it - that's why CBM adopted it. Are the other versions as good as the original? No. Do the angular principles still work? I think so.

[Sean_A]

Ya,  I really like being called ignorant by anyone who has designed 57 fewer golf courses than I have...but such is the nature of the internet, where all opinions and content suppliers are seen to be equal.

I never called you ignorant. I simply pointed out that ignorance was one of the two most likely reasons for your mischaracterization of the road hole template. Note that it's possible to be ignorant of one thing and not be considered ignorant overall.

Really helpful for you to mention you have designed 57 more courses than I have. I've never made a single post on GCA implying that I know how to design a golf course. Everything I comment on is from the perspective of someone who visits and plays golf courses. In that role, my opinion maybe doesn't have as much merit as yours, but it's far closer than you imply. I do spend time and money visiting golf courses, which is the type of person that the work you used to do catered to.

Sean,
The 17th at the Old is iconic due to the shot over the hotel. The template is still very good even without it - that's why CBM adopted it. Are the other versions as good as the original? No. Do the angular principles still work? I think so.

Yes, the watered down principal works, but in a much less satisfying way. I am not sure OoB was present when CBM adopted the concept 

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Its been a number of years since we had the in-depth conversations on greens specifically...

But I recall that California greens as a general rule have a much better track record in the long over the modern USGA designed greens in terms of not needing to be rebuilt as often, much less the cost savings in building them.  Would this be an accurate statement?

P.S.  Jeff I wanted to re-iterate that I agree with you in concept of basic design improvements.  However, it seems that budget/cost constraints dictate how many goods in our modern society (not just those related to golf) are built vs durability or longevity in hopes of deferring maintenance and/or repair costs along for someone else to bear.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Kalen,


My overall experience (granted, some implied by others and not my greens) is that CA greens tend to last 20 years vs. 25 for USGA. Some of that data I gleamed when I was actually on a USGA committee studying the subject.  What you may be referring to is that many supers preferred the no organic CA greens.  Yes, hard to keep wet initially, but after a bit of thatch grows in, closer to ideal percolation numbers than many USGA greens.


I will actually disagree with you on the general notion of things being built worse these days.  One example in my experience is that modern cars beat the crap out of cars from the 1970s for durability and reliability.  Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I often say, "These are the good old days."

[Charlie Goerges]

I will actually disagree with you on the general notion of things being built worse these days.  One example in my experience is that modern cars beat the crap out of cars from the 1970s for durability and reliability.  Maybe I am overly optimistic, but I often say, "These are the good old days."

I agree that modern cars are better, I made the same point in another thread. That said, it's also that they're fitter for purpose and for current use. I wonder how easy it will be to take my current Honda back to bare metal and do a full restoration in 50-100 years? Probably not very. That may be fine, who will want to restore a current Honda? (Of course they probably thought that about a 55 Nash Metropolitan too)

[Jeff_Brauer]

Charlie,


I still cringe at cars from the 60's and 70's now being called vintage.  Someday, current cars will be museum pieces.  And someday, beehive hairdos will make a comeback......

[John Mayhugh]

Ya,  I really like being called ignorant by anyone who has designed 57 fewer golf courses than I have...but such is the nature of the internet, where all opinions and content suppliers are seen to be equal.

I never called you ignorant. I simply pointed out that ignorance was one of the two most likely reasons for your mischaracterization of the road hole template. Note that it's possible to be ignorant of one thing and not be considered ignorant overall.

Really helpful for you to mention you have designed 57 more courses than I have. I've never made a single post on GCA implying that I know how to design a golf course. Everything I comment on is from the perspective of someone who visits and plays golf courses. In that role, my opinion maybe doesn't have as much merit as yours, but it's far closer than you imply. I do spend time and money visiting golf courses, which is the type of person that the work you used to do catered to.

Sean,
The 17th at the Old is iconic due to the shot over the hotel. The template is still very good even without it - that's why CBM adopted it. Are the other versions as good as the original? No. Do the angular principles still work? I think so.

Yes, the watered down principal works, but in a much less satisfying way. I am not sure OoB was present when CBM adopted the concept 

Ciao

The seventeenth or Road hole at St. Andrews was, of course, easy to duplicate, but I determined that the station-master's garden should not be out of bounds as that is a forced situation, so I made it a great expanse of bunkers and mounds, so that one who played into it would find difficulty in getting out with one shot capable of making any distance.

Scotland's Gift Golf
Charles Blair Macdonald

[Sean_A]

Ya,  I really like being called ignorant by anyone who has designed 57 fewer golf courses than I have...but such is the nature of the internet, where all opinions and content suppliers are seen to be equal.

I never called you ignorant. I simply pointed out that ignorance was one of the two most likely reasons for your mischaracterization of the road hole template. Note that it's possible to be ignorant of one thing and not be considered ignorant overall.

Really helpful for you to mention you have designed 57 more courses than I have. I've never made a single post on GCA implying that I know how to design a golf course. Everything I comment on is from the perspective of someone who visits and plays golf courses. In that role, my opinion maybe doesn't have as much merit as yours, but it's far closer than you imply. I do spend time and money visiting golf courses, which is the type of person that the work you used to do catered to.

Sean,
The 17th at the Old is iconic due to the shot over the hotel. The template is still very good even without it - that's why CBM adopted it. Are the other versions as good as the original? No. Do the angular principles still work? I think so.

Yes, the watered down principal works, but in a much less satisfying way. I am not sure OoB was present when CBM adopted the concept 

Ciao

The seventeenth or Road hole at St. Andrews was, of course, easy to duplicate, but I determined that the station-master's garden should not be out of bounds as that is a forced situation, so I made it a great expanse of bunkers and mounds, so that one who played into it would find difficulty in getting out with one shot capable of making any distance.

Scotland's Gift Golf
Charles Blair Macdonald

So the station garden was seemingly OoB. Good to know.

Ciao

[David Kelly]

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.

The first time I went to Lawsonia in the late 90s the staff couldn't believe that we only wanted to play the Links course and not the "more popular" Woodlands course. We went out to play the almost empty Links course and told them how great it was and how much better it could be. They seemed bemused by us. They eventually learned what they had and one look at their website will tell you which of the two courses drives their business now.

[David Kelly]

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.

I think we could use dozens of more Blue Mounds or Piping Rocks throughout the country. Texas and California have none.  It would contribute to golf becoming more fun and more popular.