Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Ran Morrissett on November 02, 1999, 07:00:00 PM
-
Seth Raynor's engineered style - many of us love it and a few others think it fails artistically.Which of his courses would have the most "engineered" (for lack of a better word) look? And why do we love it so much?
-
I'm back. In my limited experience, his least engineered courses appear to me to be Shoreacres (excluding the 14th!) and Yeamans. The most either Camargo or Fishers.
-
I would agree with Camargo, Fishers Is. and would add Chicago. It could be argued that his greatest designs were his most 'engineered'.The reason for my fondness for his work is because they are so unique. The combination of the sharp edges of his features, with natural beauty of the sights is a very interesting contrast. His style has a certain old time charm. And although his courses have an engineered look, he also must be given credit for identifying the natural features of the sight and routing the course to take full advantage of them. On a srategic level his copies of some of the great holes of Great Britain is a benifit. They were time tested designs and he was a genius at fitting these duplicates into his sights.With all that being said I wonder if some of his courses are benefitting from his current popularity. Although he didn't design that many courses, he did seem to get to about every corner of the country. Ran you made an interesting comment about your 'limited experience'(hell you've seen more courses than 99% of golfers)but because his courses stretch from Hawaii to Florida to Minnesota to an island off the coast of Connecticut it would be difficult for all but a handfull to have a full experience(combined with the interesting fact that they are amongst the most exclusive clubs in the country).So when I see so many of his designs being acclaimed I'm a little sceptical. I wonder if golfers in say Florida give Mountain Lake extra support because it is their regions Raynor design or Somerset in Minnesota or Monterey Peninsula in California. I could be wrong, but I wonder how these courses compare with the Chicagos, Camargos and Fishers Islands of the world. I don't know.
-
If we can consider Yale a Raynor, (and we probably should), then it would be a candidate for being not very engineered looking. Due to the rugged nature of the property, for me it comes off more natural than Fishers or Camargo. For example, their's is one of the most natural looking redans of his I've seen. TS
-
Very nice Raynor post Tom. I applaud your insight to and knowledge of Seth Raynor's work.I have to make a minor correction on one of your statements: "Although he didn't design many courses......."I won't give you my latest count but they are nearing 90 - Macdnald spoke of Raynor building 150 courses - he may have been right for I have uncovered over a dozen that were never credited to him and they keep cropping up.There are just a few of his courses that have been acclaimed that may be too high in the polls. On the other hand there are a number of his designs that should be listed in the "best of's" that are not. Many of these have been altered substantially but some of issues that have held them off lists are now being addressed.Let's have more input from our particpants on this "Raynor most engineered designs" posting.
-
George,You certainly would be the index finger of the handful of MacD/Raynor/Banks experts.Why do you think their designs are so endearing?Which of their designs should be better known?Why is The Knoll in Dave Marr's top 10 courses in the country and why is it featured in 'The Encyclopedia of Golf.'Why don't you see any golf balls on the green in the new photograph on the home page?
-
Tom,I can't let your crack go un-responded. So would you believe that the reason there is no ball on the 4th green is because the picture was taken after John had hit but before I had?As for no ball on the 1st, of course John has famously not played it and would you believe my approach to the green in two was airborn when the photo was snapped?Tom, if you believe that, you are even a finer man and more of a gentleman than I thought!
-
I think George is going to make us wait for his book (and I'm ready for it too)! Great answer by Tom in the meanwhile.Seth Raynor is a hero for creating manufactured courses and all current architects are reviled for doing the same. I think Tom covers very well why this is the case (brillant routings, etc.)
-
I don't have enough first hand experience with Raynor courses but I agree with Tom MacWood: is this guy getting overrated? 15 courses in Golf Week's latest 100? From never having heard about him a decade ago until today where he is "it" in the rankings, on this website, etc., is it out of control or does his work justify the adoration?Nicklaus 1980s work had a manufactured look too...
-
Fisher's Island would have to be the one with the MOST engineered look out of necessity. With so many holes right next to the sound it appears as if he constructed many of the greenside mounds to protect against storm surges. Of course, many of his other courses have a similar look but I feel not to such as great an extent as at Fishers. However, he did end up losing 13 green and most of 14 fairway a number of years back and both were rebuilt. The course deserves the adoration it gets not only because of the majestic pristine setting but also for the masterful flow and design elements which define many great golf courses, including many of his others. Why we love Seth Raynor courses is the same reason why we love great desserts made in top-notch restaurants. They too have an engineered look to them but are presented in such a manner as to be appealing to both the eye and taste buds all leading to great fulfillment and satisfaction. The engineered courses of the 80's look fine but somehow just don't "taste" as good. "I can't define pornography but I know what it is when I see it." Bob, you'll know why we love them and rate so many on the greatest list once you play one or two.
-
Bob, I am afraid I am going to have to call a two shot penalty on you for even mentioning Seth-man and Karnac Sr. in the same breath.Next we'll be drawing comparisons between Katherine Hepburn and Dolly Parton.
-
Can someone summarize the business relationship between MacDonald, Raynor and Banks. I recall briefly how they got togther, but I do not fully recall how they operated together -- who did what and what was the contracting or partnership relation on how they got paid?Also when did Raynor and Banks go off to work as golf course constructors independently and did they also work for others beside MacDonald? I understand that Banks outlived Raynor and worked on his own too. When did this occur and was there a notable change in the golf courses built under Banks total influence?Thanks for the insight.
-
RW's comments bring about another question. Did'nt Banks basicly build most if not all of Fishers about the time of and after Raynor's death. If so would that not account for a quite a bit of the extra "manufactured look"? I just recently realized that Banks(died in 1931) did not live much past Raynor ( died 1926 ). And I was surprised to realize CBM(died 1939) outlived them both by a good bit. I had always just assumed Raynor and Banks outlived the teacher.
-
Kye: this part I love. On one hand we have Seth Raynor and Charlie Banks, both guys as straight as can be. One dies at age 49 the other at age 51. In the meantime we have Macdonald, pure wine women and song - big-time ... this guy lives to be 83 !!Is there a lesson here??????RW: Raynor went out on his own in the late teens (CB did not want to be a course builder) - he hired Banks in the early 20s (the Roaring Twenties when he had all sorts of things going on - Raynor dies suddenly in early 1926 leaving Banks with many, many courses unfinished, from the east coast to Hawaii and from Milwaukee to So Carolina ....... including 3 courses at Monterey.Banks finished them, lost a few jobs during that period because he just couldn't get there, and did about 30 or so courses on his own including some in South America. He was just coming into his own when he died - had a weak heart for about 2 years before that.(a short overview)Kye: my understanding is that F/I was just about complete that fall before Raynor died. But since banks had so many things to finish, he didn;t get F/I completed for a while.
-
This topic has got me pacing the room in agitation. I haven't played a lot of Raynor courses so I can't compare many of his designs. I have played Fisher's Island many times and have never consdered it to have the "engineered" Raynor look, so I am surprised that it rates near the top. On a golf course with terrain as spectacular as Fisher's with only one fairway bunker and no "chocolate drop" mounding where is the engineered look? So let's define the "engineered" look, what is it? Which features at Fisher's look "engineered"? Which hole is the most "engineered"? To me Raynor's engineered look is square back elevated greens, rectangular plateaus on greens, linear pop up mounding, linear bunkers and rectangular elevated tees. This is what I see on my course, but Westhampton is about as flat as a golf course can be, so maybe Seth had to exagerate things to get character. Our Punchbowl par 3 was done on basically flat ground, how can you do that without making it look manmade?
-
I agree with Mike - I think what a lot of people do not realize is that Fishers Island is very "lumpy" (if you will) because it was left there when the glaciers during the ice age began to recede. This is what I was told by Charlie Ferguson their historian.So, the ground that seems as though it was moved (engineered) was really not - it was a result of what I described above.
-
We've got to get Mike calmed down! I can see him pacing around his house - he usually walking around in bare feet !!! Now you guys have him nuts.(Supers, Committees, Archies etc. are having withdrawals what with all this snow on the ground. :-) ....... )
-
I don't believe the "Alps-Punchbowl" #4 was created by a glacier. Raynor utilized as a defense a large rectangular hump to create a blind approach should one drive to the safe side of the fairway. If one has the game and the huevos to attempt to land the ball where there is a glimpse of the green, flirting with the bank which runs down to that pebbly beach, one is duly rewarded. Stategic golf at its best. When you finally arrive at the green you immediately feel as if you entered a giant egg carton. It has square line angles, linear humps all surrounded by a wall of grass that could just as easily be a stone wall and you wouldn't notice the difference - they both block the view of the sound and encompass the punchbowl in a very linear manner. No natural humps and bumps here. I don't believe I can think of a Raynor hole which looks more manufactured than this one does from approach to the green. #5 is, if not one of the greatest long par 3's in the world, surly one of the most spectacular. It has a giant SQUARE green which is guarded by an embankment which most assuredly WAS created by the glacier. The three-tierd green on #9 is similar to #12 at NGLA. They both have an engineered look with, again, the use of sharp line angles to define each pin placement. The back nine has more of a Banks influence with several greens and tees built up on a grander scale. As I stated before, these had to have been manufactured to protect against the ravages of a storm at high tide on holes 10 and 11. They were created not by nature, not with a natural look of swales etc, but by a man who had a degree in engineering (Raynor). And so on.
-
OK Gene, you've got the lip of the Punchbowl on #4, but I doubt if the hill is artificial. You have a square back green on #5 and plateaus on the greens at #9 and #18, but you've got to do better than that. The lack of fairway bunkers puts Fisher's way behind most other Raynor courses, most of them are loaded with those humpback whale mounds that guard the line to the green. My course has over twenty of them along with 4 plateau greens and 6 squarebacks.
-
Mike: The hill IS natural on #4, the one which faces you as you heroically drive over it. The large hump which blocks your view of the green as you hit your APPROACH (see above) is not.As you say,"..most of them(Raynor courses) are loaded with those humpback whale mounds which guard the line to the green." We can go to all the Seth courses and count all the pop up mounds, square back greens, linear bunkers and tiered greens to arrive at the answer as to which of his courses has the most engineered look. However, quantifying this is not the right way to go about it, just as the procedure GD uses for its course rankings is off base. When I play Fisher's Island I see stark contrast between the crisp corners of the green complexes and the softness and roundness of the little waves and ripples of the water and the glacial bumps surrounding them. In one of the greatest and most unique settings in all the world to strike a golf ball I see more than the genius of a man who routed a course so majestically around the tip of an island, but also the practicality of one who knew that shit happens to greens built butt joint to the level of the water's edge.
-
Gene, the landforms at Fisher's are so spectacular that they greatly overshadow the few engineered features that we listed. You may have information that the hill on #4 is not natural but the key is that it doesn't look "engineered" to me. I think that it fits in with the surrounding terrain so well that if Raynor did build it it can't really be counted as an "engineered" feature. I would be interested to know if the pond on #7 is natural or if Raynor dug it out. To me it looks like it was constructed and maybe recently (relatively speaking), especially with those rocks placed in it. You should come and play Westhampton, you will see Raynor's engineering touch everywhere.
-
Mike: Yes, the landforms are SPECTACULAR. I'm surprised no one listed this course among the most stunning courses in the world in another thread. Fisher's does belong among this group of courses - Sand Hills, Old Head (setting only), Cypress Point, Banff Springs. When I play all these courses "Wow" and "My God" pops into my head at every turn. I've also played Bandon and was taken back by the setting - I bet Mr. Doak's Pacific Dunes will be an architectural masterpiece that will also nestle in nicely among these beauties. I'll call you in the spring before the crowds arrive at Westhampton to continue our chat further.
-
Just back from a Hawaiian trip to the island of Oahu, and had the opportunity to play a supposed Raynor course designed in 1926 called Mid-Pacific Country Club (at the recommendation of several folks here at GCA).I really never had that "engineered" feeling anywhere on the course, except for some of the recent "tweaks" done by the club. Overall, I'd say the course flowed pretty nicely with both the surroundings and topography of the general area including: some lush/dense foliage, incorporating some natural water flows/streams, generous bunkering, and deceptive greens (although aren't all island greens somewhat deceptive?)Not sure if this is truly one of "his" courses, or maybe one that was finished up by someone else. Can anyone here shed some light on this topic?
-
MikeR:I believe I agree with you about Fishers. Sure there is manufacturing and engineering but pretty well disguised on that site as to exactly where it begins and ends. Now I'm agitated too and getting ready to get up and pace myself.I agree with you too about Westhampton. Sure it's a flat, flat site but still nobody who had eyesight could miss the engineering.
-
EVERY Raynor course that I have liked has had the "engineered" look, which as a former highway contractor I have mostly identified with the steeper, uniform slopes and squared edges on most of Raynor's work.The courses like Somerset, Monterey, Mtn. Lake, and some others that I have seen, that have less of the engineered look, I have always assumed to have been altered (and research would confirm this.)The alterations at Lookout Mountain over the years all involved this kind of "softening" or even obliterating the offensive, steep, engineered slopes. It was the style of the day in the 50's and 60's, trying to make everything look "natural". Now Silva ( and his able contractor!;-)) has restored most of those bunkers to their former 1:1 sloping selves. The new bunkers are certainly much more "engineered" looking than they were before."Why do we love it so much?"I'll tell you why I love it:1. the line between success and failure is quite abrupt and clear- even if it's not "fair."2. Most of the gentle slopes found in nature don't actually present as much of an obstacle to deal with as do the steeper slopes on an "engineered" course.3. The starkness of the shadows against the backdrop of a pure natural setting is somehow soothing to my soul.4. I prefer the way flat-bottomed bunkers play and maintain.5. I think the straight edges somehow clarify the strategy- making the geometry of the strategy more compelling.6. I don't know.
-
Herrstein: You have answered most all of this question very insightfully. Mike and TE: I wish I could express MY perceptions as clearly as herrstein has his. The fact is I am as passionate about Fisher's Island and Seth Raynor courses in general as both of you seem to be. In fact, my primary club was designed by Mr. Raynor and now I know why, thanks to herrstein, I love it so much. My office is a wedgeshot from Raynor's former home and I have even gone to the great man's gravesite on occasion. Yes, I am Raynor wacko! So don't be agitated and please go ahead and sit back down in your easy chairs. We just have different perceptions of one of the greatest golf courses on earth.
-
When you stand behind many of the greens at our Raynor/Banks course (Hotchkiss School G.C. in Ct.) you are impressed with the amount of material brought in to construct them and their surrounds. The part that always amazes me when approaching these holes from the fairway is that one never has the sense that all the fill/features weren't always there to begin with. Engineered? -yes, boring? -never.
-
GCA, the early years!
-
Interesting to look at some of our opinions that long ago, including mine.
Given the reflection of time and study and consideration I would say what some of the others seem to imply back then that the most engineered "looking" Raynor course was his first---Westhampton for the reasons given above.
And I'm not talking about the most visible earth moved, just the most engineered LOOKING. One must understand much of it might have to do with Westhampton's extremely flat site.
-
Man...Mike Rewinski, Ted Sturges, Bill Vostinak, Tom MacWood, Dave Axland, John Sessions, Lou Duran, David Moriarty, and many, many more...
wow...that's some serious turnover.
-
When i first saw Camargo i was struck by what i see as the "Banks" look. I think that Rock Spring is akin (only seen pics) The look is one of big flexing muscles, popping out of wonderful Raynor routings. Am I way off target here? There just seems to me to be big differences in look to course(s) that Banks was given more a free hand to build after Raynor did the routing.
-
"And although his courses have an engineered look, he also must be given credit for identifying the natural features of the sight and routing the course to take full advantage of them. "
Look, I know I take the opposite side of most on this site when it comes to Raynor and the engineered look and template model he stuck with in an era when most others were moving towards naturalism (using the natural site as much as possible and/or making man-made features looking natural). I think this is a fascinating contrast to consider. However, when I read opinions like that of Tom MacWood, I really do pause. If a Tom Doak or a Ron Prichard or Bill Coore or someone else said something like the above, well, I would give it some real weight. But how are we arm chair devotees of golf course architecture able to determine something like that? He may have looked at sites to make the maximum use given the need to have templates, but what makes any of us amateurs think that he maximized the architecture of a site in that process?
How can we judge the routing of a golf course with very much insight given our limited understanding? I think we should tread carefully before such conclusions are drawn. Because there are template holes on every site, most give credit to the notion that his routing should be applauded because he was able to find sites to fit in his templates. On the surface, this doesn't make sense to me. What rigorous study was done to consider that the use of natural sites for certain templates (although at times he would just awkwardly pop them out of the ground just to have them) was not done at the expense of a different (and perhaps better) routing that would not have natural template sites but rather original hole designs based on what the ground gives? How do we know that the maximum interest of the site was not compromised to find the template sites?
There are many on this website that are devoted fans of Raynor. I think that is admirable and understandable. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking we know that his routings ended up being the most interesting use of the land. His design methods were bound to constrain his routings. That is a point nobody seems to grant me or agree with. I try to relate that the cause of templates must be restricting and the effects of that are not carefully considered by many. In most cases, we don't have the skills and knowledge to do so. I include myself in that lacking category and so withhold judgment on his skills as a router.
I'm not at all certain that finding template concepts on all his courses is a sign of routing genius or architectural genius. In my mind, his style is more compartmentalized than any other architect. Some appreciate that he stuck with a good thing and delivered interesting and enjoyable golf courses. My criticism has never been about the playability of his courses, simply the self-constraints and apparent lack of artistic growth. I also believe that his routings (the same for all architects) should be considered not only for what he delivered but also what he gave up to do so.
I'm just barking into the wind and nobody hears me. Well, I'll keep on promoting an alternative perspective on Raynor for balance and perspective. Even if nobody listens ;)
-
Do we need differentiate between engineered "look" and engineered? I would say that without a doubt, Yale is the most engineered considering how much rock was moved to create the course. As far as "the look" I would go with Fishers especially when you view holes, not from the line of play. Think about the 11th green as viewed from the 13th fairway or the 12th green viewed from the 14th fairway; those greens look engineered.
Anthony
P.S. Man, this discussion is like Old Home Day. Welcome back boys. All we are missing is the anonymous posters I so dearly miss. Somebody should forward this to many of the recent idiots who have been posting crap all too frequently.
-
One thing about Raynor & Banks is that you always look back at the course in reverse to get a dramatic view of the earthwork.
On sloping terrain, it seems a favorite was to place greens at point where the slope was beginning to fall away, and then you piled a large amount of soil for greens construction and then tied that into the slopes. This also gave you some very good spots for those very large flat bottomed bunkers.
As you play the hole, it is not as noticeable as when you look back after you walk away, or perhaps catch a long view across the terrain.
Lookout Mountain has many such locations for greens, seem to remember a number at Fishers, Camargo as well.
They didn't do much in the fairways but moved quite alot of dirt to create the green sites.
You notice the 'engineering' the most when you look back after playing a hole.
Banks constructed the Lookout Mountain course, but the routing, that set the requirement for the engineering work, was done by Raynor.
If Raynor did the routing, then that determined much of the engineering work that was ultimately required.
-
"Do we need to differentiate between engineered "look" and engineered?"
Anthony:
Of course we do. That is just about one of the greatest fundamentals of all.
One can make a golf course by doing almost nothing to the land (literal minimalism).
Or one can make a golf course doing a great deal to the land which looks like a great deal of earth moving and engineering was done.
Or one can do a great deal to the land and somehow make it look like almost nothing was done or engineered (hiding the hand of man----eg the appearance of minimalism).
-
Wayne,
You wrote this about Raynor:
"His design methods were bound to constrain his routings. That is a point nobody seems to grant me or agree with. "
Let's ask Tom Doak, a naturalist architect. Did he feel constrained routing Old Macdonald?
-
Ask Doug Stein if Brian Silva felt constrained routing Black Creek, Doug's homage to Raynor.
Anthony
-
Bill,
You seem to take exception to my critical comments about Raynor, which can also be applied to Banks. I can appreciate why. However, why ask a rhetorical question of Tom Doak? Of course you are free to ask, but I wonder if you really expect him to answer that it had no effect. The very fact that the design of Old Macdonald is an 18-hole homage to Macdonald's designs, would unquestionably constrain the design and routing of the course. In what way would the freedom to do whatever he wanted not be constrained by the limitation to honor Macdonald despite the interesting results we all expect?
-
"You wrote this about Raynor:
"His design methods were bound to constrain his routings. That is a point nobody seems to grant me or agree with. "
Wayne:
Dont include me. I know exactly what you mean and I certainly grant you that point. It's a good point and a fundamental one and I've never been able to figure out why so many on here can't seem to understand it somehow.
I guess it's just that they must think you're being critical of Raynor and they simply can't abide by that. In a particular way you are being critical of Raynor. Nevertheless they should grant you your point about an overly engineered look because it should be obvious to anyone with eyes that that is what it is.
However, apparently a lot of golfers over the years just like that engineered look.
-
Ok, here is why I take exception to it.
First of all, "constrain" is a negative term. When you use it in discussing an architect's work, you are starting out with a NEGATIVE implication, that the course could not possibly be the best possible for the site because a template was "forced" into the design. It is as if you are automatically taking points off for the design methodology. (If you were professor Wayne Morrison, Raynor would be starting out with a 90 in your class!)
I take a different viewpoint. I have no way of proving this, but having played many Banks and Raynor courses, I have a theory that selecting the sites for their par 3's was one of their first objectives when they walked the site.
Now I happen to think that the Redan is THE BEST par 3 ever created. So to me, if you start your course with a GREAT Redan, properly positioned to take advantage of the natural slope of the land, and use the prevailing wind to fight the shot, you are starting your course off with a GREAT hole, and you are well on your way to building a great golf course.
But you want to take points off because a Redan is a template. You call it "paint by numbers" architecture.
I am not an architect, but I can only imagine that every architect has to start somewhere on the property. They view a particular land form that they "see" as a superb golf hole, and they continue their routing to include that hole. Raynor did the same thing, except their "first hole" vision was a template, probably a Redan or a Short. You want to knock the course, while I applaud them for starting with a guaranteed great golf hole, that will be great forever and ever.
-
"There are many on this website that are devoted fans of Raynor. I think that is admirable and understandable. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking we know that his routings ended up being the most interesting use of the land. His design methods were bound to constrain his routings. That is a point nobody seems to grant me or agree with. "
Wayne,
Gee, you wonder why fans of Macdonald, Raynor and Banks don't agree with your view? Here is the defintion of constrain:
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This con·strain (kən-strân') Pronunciation Key
tr.v. con·strained, con·strain·ing, con·strains
To compel by physical, moral, or circumstantial force; oblige: felt constrained to object. See Synonyms at force.
To keep within close bounds; confine: a life that had been constrained by habit to the same few activities and friends.
To inhibit or restrain; hold back: "Failing to control the growth of international debt will also constrain living standards" (Ronald Brownstein).
To produce in a forced or inhibited manner.
-
Wayne,
Isn't all GCA constrained, in one way or another? There are boundaries that must be adhered to, whether it's the size of the property or the nature, like bunkering, of the game itself.
Architects who post here have said that they find themselves re-using certain elements that they know have worked for them at other places. Are they constraining themselves if they do this, are they just being lazy, or are they seeing that there isn't much that would work better given the particular area of the course they are in? Recently we saw some photos of Flynn's work that look remarkably similar to one another. Did he 'cop' out on his routing, or just realize that something out of his kit bag fit?
I just don't believe there is anyone who could walk around FI or Yale or the back nine at Essex CCC or Shinnecock and find any better routing or set of holes. Of course, someone is always ready to say that 'this could be done differently', or 'this would be much better' but the staying power of these courses show that reasoning for what it is.
I enjoy reading your usually knowledgeable posts, and those of the other voice in the wilderness (at least on this topic), Tom Paul, but I'm afraid your arguments here don't work for me. Why, after all this time, do the courses by CB/SR/CB and WFlynn appear so frequently in every compilation of classic courses, unless what they built was in the upper echelon of architectural values, and worthy of inclusion?
-
I know I'm in for a battle on this, but I think it is one worth waging. I think it is fascinating to consider why Raynor and Banks stuck with their tried and true and failed to be impacted on the naturalism movement. I think it is fascinating to chart the evolution of design practices by various golf course architects just like it is interesting to study the progression of a Michaelangelo or Eakins or Picasso. What progression is there in the artistry and presentation of Raynor and Banks? Why did they stay with overly manufactured looking golf courses? Were they cheaper to build? Were they cheaper to maintain? Did they like the contrast between the manufactured look of the course and the natural settings?
Then there are some fundamental failings. They didn't plan elasticity into their courses so quite a fair percentage were not able to keep pace with technology and better athletes. The Biarritz shot and the Redan shot have been compromised by increased carry distance combined with better stopping power due to ball construction. The Biarritz concept had to be altered to allow green space where it never was before. That is a significant change in design? Why? Because the design became outdated.
I don't fall into the category of highly regarding the courses of Raynor and Banks. Why you think it should be universal acclaim is really beyond my understanding. However, I am more partial to the courses of Macdonald and the ones Macdonald had a hand in. Yet, I see them of a certain kind that I am not entirely fond of. How this is a surprise to anyone is beyond me and beyond Tom Paul (who embraces the work of Raynor a lot more than I do).
I do knock Raynor and Banks for doing things that have been done before and doing them over and over again. If anyone comes on here and says that their template holes are always naturally situated and his routings found the perfect spot for these holes, I would say that is not fact. I've seen enough to know that more than a few were heavily manufactured, popped out of the ground with no connectivity to the routing progression and certainly not the surrounding land. The templates, symmetry and flat bunkers yield predictability and I think that is one of the worst features in golf course design. Where is the use of perspective, offset fairways and greens (except Redan and Road Hole)? The lines of play off the tee are rarely of interest because angles aren't in play as much on their courses as Colt, MacKenzie, Thomas, Flynn, Wilson, Crump, Fownes (on some holes) and others.
It is a fact, their courses, especially at the green end, are heavily manufactured looking. An overwhelming majority of golfers don't consider these factors, they just play. How many go out and really study the green sites and look where the fill came from and what is natural and what is man-made? How many look at a depression or a bunker and consider what its relationship to the hole is? If there is none, how many realize that the pit was dug precisely there merely to obtain fill? I'd say precious few. Those of us that do, find a facet of their work that didn't evolve but rather churned out what the client wanted; and that was a replicated experience. They delivered this quite well.
Of course most of the template holes were different in some ways. The sites themselves were very different so it would seem obvious that differences would exist.
This brings me to one of Bill's points. "Now I happen to think that the Redan is THE BEST par 3 ever created."
What exactly is the Redan that is THE BEST par 3 ever created? Which one are you talking about? The original at North Berwick, the one at NGLA, at Fox Chapel, at St. Louis CC, Westhampton, Yeaman's Hall, at CC Charleston? There isn't one Redan. Or are they all the BEST par 3s ever created? OK, you like the concept. You think it is the greatest par 3 concept in golf. But it was manifested in many different ways and some of them are downright lousy. Are there some Redans that you don't like? If so, why? My personal opinion, which you seem to have an inability to grant me is that it is an excellent concept but I can think of one hundred par 3s that I think are as good and many better.
Bill was going to ask Tom Doak if there are any constraints when building an homage course or building templates. Bill, what do you think? Do you think it allows freedom of routing or does it limit routing possibilities?
Jim,
Of course routings require constraint and often compromise, especially today with more land use restrictions. If an architect was expected to build 4 template par 3s and several other template holes, don't you think that impacts his decision making in many areas? If Flynn, Tillinghast or other architects demonstrated a repeated concept copy (Flynn had 3 or 4 Redan-like concepts and 10 or more short par 4s where the direct line from tee to green was filled with undulating sandy waste or bunkers. He didn't do them everywhere, he did them where they fit. He wasn't bound by a convention that was expected or demanded. The use of the concepts, how they were tied to their surrounds and fit into the routing progression is much more interesting. However, we look at routings after the fact. However, architects must do so without the benefit of hindsite unless they are involved in redesign. I don't give us enough credit to fully understand the routing process to say that a site is maximized. It helps to see different routing plans for the same ground. However, that's rare. I do think it should be easy to see that if 4-6 holes have been predetermined because of a template model, that is bound to impact or constrain the resulting routing. That's my opinion. You haven't proved it to be wrong. Frankly, it takes people with more understanding than you or I have to help us with this issue. Routings are difficult to comprehend.
You don't have to agree or disagree with me. I don't see why I must agree with you. A lot of this is subjective. Where it is objective is what I fail to grasp. I understand your points of view and recognize that it is shared by many. My own differs. So what? How can you possibly expect everyone to feel about Raynor as you do? I don't.
-
Golf Courses aren't natural. Period. I find it easy to accept both if you accept that simple premise.
Or am I missing the random pits of sand strewn about the Philadelphia countryside?
-
Golf Courses aren't natural. Period. I find it easy to accept both if you accept that simple premise.
Or am I missing the random pits of sand strewn about the Philadelphia countryside?
What he said!
-
Wayne,
You take a different perspective on this than I do, which is evident when you say things like: "That's my opinion. You haven't proved it to be wrong".
This isn't an exercise on my part to 'prove' you wrong, so there really is no need for you to resort to such a defensive posture. I'm not trying to change your, or anyone else's, opinion. After all, that's all it is, an opinion, and even though you are one of the few people who hold it, I say stick to your principles and stand by your man.
-
Golf Courses aren't natural. Period. I find it easy to accept both if you accept that simple premise.
Or am I missing the random pits of sand strewn about the Philadelphia countryside?
Kyle
Naturalism isn't an either/or proposition. Of course building any course is like creating a garden, we are trying to bend the will of nature to suit our purposes. However, many do attempt to blend nature with the man-made and some are more successful at it then others.
I know many look at the pic below and see marvelous things. I look at the pic and am immediately drawn to the green/bunker as something that distracts from the surrounds. Little attempt was made to harmonize with nature. It may well be that the hole is great, but a hole can be great and fit in a bit better with its surrounds. For some reason, and it could be because Raynor builds great courses, I don't know, Raynor is given a pass on his sometimes abissssmal aesthetics. I suspect that if modern archies tried to pull a stunt like this they would get slapped around on this site.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Sleepy.JPG)
For me, the look of a course greatly effects how I feel about the course. I would really like to play a Raynor. The only course I have seen like a Raynor was Annapolis CC by Banks. I liked it a lot, but of course, many of the bunkers were missing and the greens shrunk becasue there were no bunkers wrap around as it were. I wasn't a big deal to me because I detest the look of the flat bottom bunker like the one above.
Ciao
-
"Where is the use of perspective, offset fairways and greens (except Redan and Road Hole)? The lines of play off the tee are rarely of interest because angles aren't in play as much on their courses as Colt, MacKenzie, Thomas, Flynn, Wilson, Crump, Fownes (on some holes) and others."
Wayne:
Interesting you say that about off-set fairways and greens of Macdonald/Raynor.
The Redan and Road Hole green type probably are some of the most enduring off-set or diagonal greens ever done and even though the vast majority of Macdonald/Raynor holes don't have off-set or diagonal fairways certainly some do and perhaps even the best ever done---ie the famous Cape Hole fairway of Mid Ocean and to some extent NGLAs #1 and #2 are also functionally off-set or diagonal, and even #3 if one takes the more aggressive right line off the tee. The same can be said for the Bottle hole due to the offset midfairway bunkering.
Even some of the great early architecture such as Merion East and Pine Valley don't have many more greens and fairways that are off-set or diagonal than that.
I still don't understand why so many on here have a problem with Wayne Morrison's point about not liking the engineered look of the lines of Macdonald/Raynor architecture. His point is a good one when he wonders why they didn't get into trying to evolve their architectural lines into ones that were more naturally appearing.
The reasons they stuck with their engineered look might be many, and certainly including the fact that a whole lot of golfers seemed to like that look both back then and today.
But even that fact does not logically extinguish Wayne Morrison's point.
-
Tom,
I did mention the Redan and Road Hole greens as exceptions in a previous post on this thread. However, I did not include your fine examples of a Cape Holes and other Macdonald holes you mention at NGLA, Mid-Ocean, St. Louis CC, Piping Rock, Creek, etc. That is because this thread is about Seth Raynor and I am mostly critical of Raynor and Banks.
Raynor's use of angles does not seem as sophisticated as Macdonald and even more so other architects such as Flynn, Thomas, Tillinghast, MacKenzie, etc. Many of their fairway lines are straight and as engineered looking as their green sites. I don't know why they didn't show signs of an evolution of style nor get into flowing lines, natural slopes and other components of naturalism. This factor is either overlooked or embraced by their fans and other students of golf course architecture.
Their courses, while interesting and enjoyable to play are in stark contrast to their surrounds. A pastoral feeling is completely lacking and wonderful overlooks such as at Sleepy Hollow are dramatically altered with the juxtaposition of the machined look of their designs, especially the green complexes and the geometric shapes and flat bottoms of the bunkers. This is a style they stuck to and didn't evolve from. It is fascinating to consider why that is. I guess you're right, many liked that look back then and today. Though I think fewer than we think experience it today because of the private nature of the clubs and the fact that the portfolio of their courses is very small and their courses are rarely competed on let alone televised. The enduring nature of their courses and the fact that the school of design was not perpetuated relies solely on the continuation of the private clubs themselves. The test of time was narrowly applied.
-
Wayne,
I can't latch on to the idea that Raynor's use of angles was any less sophisticated than any of the architects you've mentioned, at least at Mountain Lake. In fact, I'd say Mountain Lake is as close to a text book example as to how angles off the tee can be used subtly and more blatantly to throw the golfer off and sucker them into a bad choice.
The tee shots on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th(!), 8th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th and 18th at Mountain Lake all feature the golfer "fighting for angle" off the tee much like the golfer is required to at Rolling Green or Huntingdon Valley, for example.
One can stand on the 6th tee (especially from the back) at Mountain Lake and have no idea where to aim in the effectively 90 yard wide fairway. On the 4th and 10th, the golfer is asked to manage both distance and line respective to bunkering littering the line of instinct.
Angles abound at Mountain Lake in some extremely sophisticated and challenging aspects. Coincidentally, both Raynor and Banks did work there.
I can't speak for other Raynors, as I haven't been there. But I'm sure one of the reasons Mountain Lake is right next to Huntingdon Valley in the Golfweek ranking is this sophistication and thought behind the design.
-
Kyle:
I just don't get that fighting for an angle via fairway orientation at Mountain Lake on that many holes. Maybe somewhat on particularly #10, 12 and 13 but I don't think it's that much of an issue on the others. Not to me anyway. I'm not saying that placement on the fairway means nothing to what comes next but I don't see that many fairways themselves oriented that way for actual tee shots.
-
I just want to note to prove his point Sean somehow dropped Ran's caption to #2 at Sleepy Hollow, "good architecture adds to, not subtracts from the environment".
I guess I am the only person offended by a pine tree that "protects" the hole? ???
Of course he might also be wrong with his comment that "little attempt was made to harmonize with nature" as the line of the hill runs from 17 tee through 16 green through 3 tee and finally through 2 green. That you would have to see. I would argue it is more important to maintain that line than worry about what is being dug below it.
But I don't blame anyone for not liking any look, that is fair. In fact, I fully expected 50% of our members would not like the look either.
Does anyone want to look at before and after photos of our renovation to determine what harmonizes with nature better?
Luckily, I happen to like the Mac/Raynor look I don't think our committee could have sold a "Flynn" restoration to the membership.
-
Corey,
There have been three different photos of this hole posted in the past. By far and away, the restoration is a huge improvement on the previous iteration and is very much in line with the earliest photograph. I expect the entire restoration/renovation project will be viewed favorably by the members, at least in the long run. You mention that you understand that the membership will likely be divided in their appreciation of the Raynor look. I suppose you grant the same understanding of non-members.
Why would you mention the following, "Luckily, I happen to like the Mac/Raynor look I don't think our committee could have sold a "Flynn" restoration to the membership."
Given that there never was any Flynn on the site, that seems to be a bit of a jab at me. I don't understand why except that the Flynn style was so different from the Raynor style. If you mentioned that you might never have sold a Tillinghast restoration to the membership, that would make a lot more sense since Tillinghast's work is being rejected and not Flynn's. I don't like everything Flynn did and I am not subject to disliking something because Flynn didn't do it. I like the playability but not the look of Raynor courses, especially on such a lovely site as Sleepy Hollow.
Think of why the Pocantico Hills golf course was done the way it was done, that is in harmony with the natural surroundings and not in stark contrast to them. Why a Raynor (he had passed away several years before the commission award) or Banks model would never have been selected nor even a Macdonald (he was never considered). The Rockefeller family wanted the golf course to not stand out and draw attention to itself on the family estate grounds. It is one of the most magnificent settings in America and an engineered golf course would look so out of place and detract from the views and the gardens. It is a fact that Raynor courses are engineered and are not tied into their sites very well. This has an effect on maintenance and aesthetics. This fact can be separated from the playability. When playability, maintenance and aesthetics work together, that is the course looks and feel as natural as can be given that it is a man-made object, it is to me the highest form of the art and science of golf course architecture.
My opinion definitely seems to hit a raw nerve. It shouldn't. How do those that love the look of Raynor courses feel about the look of the more natural looking courses?
-
Wayne,
There are those that say that Flynn's routings were so constrained that he had to employ cumbersome crossovers, something that Raynor didn't have to resort to.
How do you address that issue ? ;D
-
Routings or routing, Pat? The Pocantico Hills course does have some crossovers and some of the holes reverse upon themselves. This innovative and challenging design gets about 4 rounds per day on average. I think the constraints the design forces on the players is acceptable. Given that the family LOVES the course, I think we can accept the fact. But what do they know, right, Pat? ;D
Do you think that Raynor would be able to come up with a novel concept like the Pocantico Hills course? He would have been thrown out the stone gates on his ear when he would've wanted JDR's house torn down as it was the perfect site for a Biarritz ;D
-
Wayne:
First, my Flynn comment was a bit of a jab at you, but it was good natured. ;). I don't think either one of us would suggest veering away from the original architects style on a classic era course based on our own personal preferences and biases. I don't walk around Merion and try to determine what Raynor would have done, or Macdonald. It's irrelevant IMO.
The two Sleeepy pictures that have been posted #2,16 are perhaps the two most obviously constructed bunkering but the grees themselves are at natural grade. A picture taken from #16 tee with the angular moat bunkering enhances the "skyline" feel and thus enhances the view across the river IMO.
I would readily allow for differences of opinion as to design prefereneces, member and non-member alike. The problem is that the average person/member is not as sophisticated as you and those on this site and they would probably have no problem "changing the style" on a classic era course.
I would argue that Sleepy Hollow is the best "walk in the park" in Westchester County in spite of Macdonald "detracting" from the natural environment.
Maybe someone can post photos of #16 at Sleepy Hollow next to #16 at Hudson National, both par 3's with the Hudson in the background. We can then see what "look" works best.
Pocantico works really well vis a vis Flynn but I also would wonder to what extent Macdonald problems with Rockefeller at SH had in influencing Pocantico commission?
-
Wayne:
When it comes to the question of why apparently so many golfers like the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks style, an engineered looking style, probably can't be explained by the fact that most of the clubs of those courses are private.
The fact is there're a ton of golfers from all walks of life who do not belong to Macd/Raynor/Bank's clubs and courses who seem to love that style and look.
I think it's a most legitimate question to ask why that is.
In my opinion, it just does not do for those who try to explain it to say that the look is not engineered looking to them because it just simply is engineered and consequently engineered looking, and that fact is frankly impossible to deny.
The truth just may be that a very large amount of golfers likes that engineered look in golf architecture for various reasons.
But this does not in any way minimize or extinguish your own point about why you don't like that look because it just is a fact that the look of Macd/Raynor/Bank's architecture is a look that's pretty far from the more natural looking architecture of other architects.
-
Kyle:
I just don't get that fighting for an angle via fairway orientation at Mountain Lake on that many holes. Maybe somewhat on particularly #10, 12 and 13 but I don't think it's that much of an issue on the others. Not to me anyway. I'm not saying that placement on the fairway means nothing to what comes next but I don't see that many fairways themselves oriented that way for actual tee shots.
Considering that on 4, the only way to really have a good angle to have a go at the green in 2 is to catch a good lie in the rough left of the bunkers or hit a BIG cutter that somehow manages to fly all the way to the green. Those tees are lined up so the fairway bunkers are between the golfer and the direct line to the green with plenty of room right in the fairway to bail out and give you no angle.
On 6, the further right one gets in the fairway, the more all the bunkers around the green come into play, the longer the club you have in, and the less green one has to work with.
On 8, gotta hug the left side to have a shot even for a lay up that doesn't either risk falling into the pond or being on the level ground about 200 yards out.
On 10, playing to the outside gives you the shot at a long runner into the green that falls away from you and if you cut the corner on the inside, you have to hit a high 180ish shot over a tree that must fly the green or get caught up in the approach.
On 12, the hole locations dictates which side of the blind fairway from the tee you need to hit.
On 13, you either hit a fade over the middle bunker in the view or take it way right and carry it 240, else the golfer will be at the mercy of the green's fall away nature.
On 14, finding the correct side of the fairway is compounded by the dogleg, approach the hog's back from the incorrect side under firm conditions is never easy.
On 16, you take on the echelon bunkers or bail out way right, bringing the hazard in the approach into play and having the green fall directly away from you... again, the ideal line is from the rough left of the bunkers.
Mountain Lake is VERY much a tee shot course and the angles of approach from the tee to the fairway play the largest role in how easy of the approach shot will be. The course demands both correct ball flight, angle and distance off the tee in order to maximize the ability of the golfer to be aggressive with his approach.
-
Tom,
If you want to know why some people don't accept Wayne's positions all you need to do is read remarks of his, like this:
"It is a fact that Raynor courses are engineered and are not tied into their sites very well."
C'mon Tom, this is only a fact in Wayne's mind and when presented by him as an absolute, chips away at his credibility as an objective reasoner. Does Raynor have an engineered look, of course, but a walk around Fishers alone makes swiss cheese of the rest of his theory.
I understand why he doesn't like 'Raynor', that's his opinion and he's welcome to it. More people than not do like Raynor, probably why his courses always show so well in any compilation of classic courses.
-
Jim,
Are you telling me that Raynor's courses are not engineered looking and thus not tied in naturally to their sites? No, you use the example of an incompleted golf course.
You don't question Tom Paul who stated, "In my opinion, it just does not do for those who try to explain it to say that the look is not engineered looking to them because it just simply is engineered and consequently engineered looking, and that fact is frankly impossible to deny."
I've never been to Fisher's Island and from what I do hear, it has a measure of naturalism and an exceptionally fine course. But it is an exception to a rule that is very clear. I'm not saying 100% of everything he did is manufactured looking. But an overwhelming majority of his work is and that cannot be denied. I maintain that it remains a fact even if it cannot be applied in universally. Sorry, your example does not disprove my idea. By the way, what would Fisher's Island look like if it was completed given there is but one fairway bunker of the many intended? I never said Fisher's Island isn't a great course and thoroughly enjoyable to play. I'd love to one day and was supposed to but it was too cold so we played Yale instead and I had a great time.
If you try to dispute that Raynor courses are very engineered looking and are not tied into their sites very well, I think this can be refuted. However, for your sake, I will add a caveat that his greens and features are not tied in to their natural settings though there are a few hole exceptions.
-
Wayne,
Well, he framed the question about you, not himself, which is why I answered it so, but I think his is the more realistic approach.
When it comes to the question of why apparently so many golfers like the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks style, an engineered looking style, probably can't be explained by the fact that most of the clubs of those courses are private.The fact is there're a ton of golfers from all walks of life who do not belong to Macd/Raynor/Bank's clubs and courses who seem to love that style and look.
I agree with this first paragraph, and wonder how many guests request return visits at the privates. We have a high return rate at our little public course, even though it's far from the haute-couture of Raynor's work.
I think it's a most legitimate question to ask why that is. In my opinion, it just does not do for those who try to explain it to say that the look is not engineered looking to them because it just simply is engineered and consequently engineered looking, and that fact is frankly impossible to deny. The truth just may be that a very large amount of golfers likes that engineered look in golf architecture for various reasons.-TEP
I've never played a Raynor course on flatlands, but I don't agree that the 'engineered look' is predominate or that it projects an out-of-place experience when built over terrain like that found at Yale or FI.
But this does not in any way minimize or extinguish your(Wayne's) own point about why you don't like that look because it just is a fact that the look of Macd/Raynor/Bank's architecture is a look that's pretty far from the more natural looking architecture of other architects.-TEP
You're not an advocate for the 'engineered look' and that is fine for you, I just look at it a little differently, that's all. For me, there is a broad range over which courses are built, from what is more 'natural' on the whole, to what is made to 'look' natural, to courses where engineering is more noticeable, and courses where a combination of approaches is found. I think any one can 'fit' the site it's on and I don't believe any of these approaches exclusively occupy the moral high ground of GCA.
-
Wayne,
Routings.
You seem to have forgotten about Lehigh ;D
Perhaps he was copying that quirk from Wilson at Merion
-
TEPaul,
Not surprisingly, I'm going to vehemently disagree with you.
MOST golfers don't see and/or recognize an "engineered" look.
Much of the "engineered" look, looks natural from the golfers perspective. It's only when they look at the green complexes from behind the green complex that they begin to see the engineered nature of the green complex, AND, how many golfers study the previous green complex from behind it once they finish the hole and head to the next tee.
Most golfers are oblivious to what lies beneath their feet.
You, yourself had to rely on your faithful guidedog Coorshaw to lead you to the back of CBM-SR-CB green complexes before you you had your epiphany and spoke those fateful words, "Voila !, or was it Viola or Violin or Veal Milanese ?
Most golfers, teeing off on # 1 at NGLA rarely see the highly engineered green complexes that become so apparent when walking the golf course in reverse.
So, on this issue, you're all wet, like an old fettucini noodle.
Golfers LIKE the presentations provided by CBM-SR-CB because they send a unique signal to the golfer's eye and because they present a sporty playing challenge. They have a unique but comfortable look, one that entices and challenges the golfer.
P.S. While I realize the Coorshaw is part Chow, stop feeding
him Chow Mein.
-
Pat,
Lehigh's isn't so cumbersome a crossover. For what it gives you in terms of routing progression and wind direction variety (something I know you appreciate) it is a welcome feature and rather brilliant, don't you think?
While the crossover at Merion (cross 6 tee to 3 tee) that wasn't done until sometime between the 1916 and 1924 Amateurs. I don't know who thought of changing the hole progression.
Are you saying you have to go behind this green to realize it is man-made?
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Sleepy.JPG)
Corey,
I didn't take your jab as anything but playful and in good spirit ;)
-
Wayne,
How do you get from # 13 green to # 14 tee at Merion ?
Almost every green is man made.
If I shouldered the bunkers into the green, few would know it.
-
Pat,
Lehigh's isn't so cumbersome a crossover. For what it gives you in terms of routing progression and wind direction variety (something I know you appreciate) it is a welcome feature and rather brilliant, don't you think?
While the crossover at Merion (cross 6 tee to 3 tee) that wasn't done until sometime between the 1916 and 1924 Amateurs. I don't know who thought of changing the hole progression.
Are you saying you have to go behind this green to realize it is man-made?
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Sleepy.JPG)
Corey,
I didn't take your jab as anything but playful and in good spirit ;)
First of all, this picture is taken far from the right side of the green, high up the hill. If you were playing the hole, the Hudson River would be dead to your left, and you would carry the bunker. The hole is dead up hill, so it is not as unatural as this picture might appear. The face of the trap is "with" the prevailing uphill slope.
This picture just happens to be one of the fantastic side-view/back-views you ALWAYS get on MacRaynors
Secondly, isn't it patently ridiculous to criticize a golf course because it appears to be "man made." They are ALL man made, aren't they?
I think a sand trap is one of Man's most beautiful creations. So is a putting green. I don't need to pretend to be dumb, that Mother Nature made these things.
-
"Wayne,
How do you get from # 13 green to # 14 tee at Merion ?"
Oops ;) When the course was first built, you played to the 13th green below the far end of the clubhouse (below caddy shack) and then walked behind the 1st tee to 14tee. Today, you go in front of the first tee. At least they had the good sense to put a bar on the lower terrace for a pit stop which takes cumbersome completely out of the equation ;)
"Secondly, isn't it patently ridiculous to criticize a golf course because it appears to be "man made." They are ALL man made, aren't they?"
Bill,
I know the photo is taken from the side. The view from the front of the green is not more natural in appearance, so I didn't bother to search for it. This photo was on the same page and suits my point very well.
Not all features of a golf course are man-made. Naturalism uses as much of the natural site as possible and strives to make the look of the architecture appear as natural as possible. I suppose you also found something to like in the geometric era with its flat geometrically-shaped sand bunkers (a feature that MacRayBanks had a difficult time letting go of), geometric mounding and abrupt green pads. You may not appreciate the extra effort and artistry it took to try to make man-made look as natural as possible. Some people do. I am one of them. MacRayBanks were a transition between what you see at Shinnecock Hills in 1894 and the naturalism practiced in the 1920s and that is being cycled back to today. MacRayBanks stuck with a good thing and stayed in a narrow convention unlike many others readily evolved beyond that design style. Why MacRayBanks did not is a fascinating question.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1204/885969709_0b23d365bd.jpg)
-
Wayne,
I can't have this conversation any more. We all grant you your preference for Flynn, we allow you your strong preference to "naturalism" (presumably even a bad naturalist attempt is better than a great template hole...)
But what we CANNOT grant you is the backhand slaps at MacRaynors, your inability to discuss their courses without including NEGATIVE terms such as "constrain," "stuck," "failure to grow" etc. You view their work to be substandard BY DEFINITION , and that's why people get annoyed. I dont have to go to a Flynn course and look for negative things to prove that I am a fan of MacRaynors.
(Although I did chuckle at the "progresson" of Shinnecock, as if we didnt know that Flynn altered a Macdonald course...That was pretty funny.)
And you are too smart to pretend to be "fascinated" by MacRaynor-Banks lack of change, it is really very simple. Macdonald introduced great golf holes to the US when there were no great courses. He turned the golfing world on its ear! Other people wanted his courses, wanted those holes. He gave birth to great architecture, and Tilly, Ross, Strong, Crump were spurred on Macdonald's masterpieces. We are all the beneficiary of that competition today. Rayor, an engineer and non-golfer, built the courses that wealthy people wanted Macdonald to build. Banks was a top assistant for two years before Raynor died, so he built what he knew for 4 years before the depression. No need to feign "fascination," just to be thankful for the wonderful differences we are left with today.
-
Wayne,
Unless you're playing in the Sand Hills of Nebraska, there's nothing natural about a bunker on a golf course.
I happen to like the bunker pictured below because of its almost absolute function as a penal feature.
While it might look excessively to linear to you, in the context of unnatural, it's no more unnatural in structure and construction than Flynn's bunkers. Only its perimeter configuration differs
GCGC has some rather linear bunkers, but they work quite well.
They serve a functional purpose not diminished by their shape.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1204/885969709_0b23d365bd.jpg)
Bill Brightly brings up a good point.
EVERYONE wanted CBM's-SR's-CB's designs.
They knew what they looked like and they wanted them. They wanted them replicated on their golf course.
Interestingly enough, those features, those holes and those courses have withstood the ultimate test, the test of time.
The walk from the original 13th green at Merion to the 14th tee was cumbersome. The relocation of the 13th green still presents a cumbersome walk in the context of the purity of the routing.
My point is/was, that you can't claim that SR's insertion of templates compromised his routings when Flynn's crossovers certainly did more to compromise the quality of his routings in purist terms/standards, standards that you want to hold SR to while giving Flynn a pass. ;D
But, I do admire your loyalty
-
Wayne,
Bill Brightly's point about the angle of the photo is valid.
To the golfer, the hole doesn't resemble the photo, which is taken to the left and above the 16th tee.
To be fair, the photo should reflect what the golfer's eye sees.
Anything less is disengenuous and misleading
-
Bill,
Frankly, I don't want to discuss this with you any longer either. This will be my last effort on this thread. You only focus on the negative aspects of my critique and completely ignore my stance on the enjoyable and challenging playability of their courses. You also fail to discern the difference in my appreciation of Macdonald in contrast to his protoges Raynor and Banks. Fine, if that helps you to consider my position as narrow and one-sided thus supporting your better perspective, have at it. Likewise, you think my preference for Flynn must be a component for my disagreements with the design style of Raynor and Banks. You ignore my preference for Thomas, MacKenzie, Colt, and a host of others. My bias isn't nearly as Flynn-centric as you make it out to be.
I'll turn this around and observe that you haven't once acknowledged a single negative aspect of the Raynor and Banks design style. You have defended their style without a single criticism, why is that? Is everything about their style perfectly suited to your sensitivities? You could not agree that template designs dictate routings without considering alternative processes. You ignore a very radical and predictable design style (with predictable bunker lies) yet expect everyone to be as in love with the style as you are and bitterly disagree when someone is not. To me, when someone has complete acceptance of a design style without any reservation, there is something misjudged or not fully considered.
Pat,
I know your regard for Macdonald and I guess there is a transference of that regard to Raynor and Banks with little consideration that their designs are closely linked to their mentor and while narrowly compartmentalized and bereft of artistic evolution. I don't think this is arguable nor do I think this is a slight to the playability and shot enjoyment. It is a critique of the aesthetics and quite possibly the maintenance requirements. I'm not saying their templates are exact replicas, but they sure are close enough given they don't start with blank white canvases but rather different sites with unique topography.
Would the highly engineered look of Raynor work better at Cypress Point or the naturalism employed by MacKenzie? Would you rather see linear lines, flat bunkers, geometric shapes and template designs on that spectacular site or do you embrace the work of MacKenzie as suited to that site? Raynor would have been the architect of record had he not died. This is an important point and one that is applicable to other less spectacular seaside sites but equally spectacular sites such as above the Hudson, in Ardmore or other locations.
There is nothing completely natural about Cypress Point or Shinnecock Hills but they are meant to blend in with their surrounds with more harmony than other architects, particularly Raynor and Banks. I find it difficult to believe that this has not be acknowledged by the most vociferous Raynor and Banks defenders on this website. Their silence speaks volumes. Again, their courses are a delight to play but they are severe in style and it doesn't always work. Macdonald's work is, to me, generally far more interesting than his derivative designers although there are some exceptions.
You bring up cumbersome crossovers as a knock against Wilson and Flynn. I think they are brilliant solutions that are not at all cumbersome but result in an enhanced experience with little demand on the golfer. The walk from 1 green to 2 tee at Lehigh is downhill. The walk from 13 green to 14 tee at Merion is a slight rise (and it does pass a bar). The walk from 2 green to 3 tee at Merion is also downhill and not long. To call these cumbersome is a bit of a stretch. As you know, the change in routing progression from the 2nd hole to the current 3rd (bypassing the current 6th) gives you the wonderful 3 Act Play that is a part of Merion's greatness. So that crossover that you call cumbersome is in fact essential.
OK, here's a picture, although not from the perfect angle, but close enough. Can you please explain why the picture I used was deceptive and this one more appropriate to demonstrate the natural look of the greensite? I'll even stretch a point and say the flat sand bottom is a representation of the Hudson River below and the green the Palisades beyond. How's that? ;)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/SleepyHollowrestoredversion.jpg)
-
"TEPaul,
Not surprisingly, I'm going to vehemently disagree with you."
Patrick:
No, it's not surprising at all that you vehemently disagree with me. Most people who are wrong about 98% of the time do tend to disagree with me.
"MOST golfers don't see and/or recognize an "engineered" look."
Interesting, how do you think you know what MOST golfers dont' see or don't recognize? Perhaps you should just stick with what YOU see and recognize even if it's not much.
Well, on second thought, would you even want to do that if you'd like to learn to be right more than 2% of the time? ;)
-
Wayne:
You and Bill and Patrick should stop arguing with each other on a subject like negatives and such and simply realize you are all just part of what makes my "Big World" theory as valid as it is, and ultimately as beneficial as it is for the entire art form of golf course architecture.
Take Patrick, for example. The point is golf course architecture also needs to accommodate people who are incapable of being right more than about 2% of the time. If they actually enjoy being wrong 98% of the time, don't you suppose golf architecture should accommodate that too?
-
Pat,
I know your regard for Macdonald and I guess there is a transference of that regard to Raynor and Banks with little consideration that their designs are closely linked to their mentor and while narrowly compartmentalized and bereft of artistic evolution.
Here's where I think you go wrong.
Since when does "style" need to evolve ?
One's artistic/architectural "style" is what makes their courses unique. Why should there be a need to change it ?
A deviation from that style might result in a devolution of the product.[/color]
I don't think this is arguable nor do I think this is a slight to the playability and shot enjoyment.
It is a critique of the aesthetics and quite possibly the maintenance requirements.
Wayne, that's sheer nonsense.
The aesthetics at Westhampton, The Knoll, The Creek, Piping Rock, Yale, NGLA and others are terrific, if not spectacular.
How can you posture that any of those courses are lacking in aesthetics ? It's simply NOT TRUE.[/color]
I'm not saying their templates are exact replicas, but they sure are close enough given they don't start with blank white canvases but rather different sites with unique topography.
So what ?
The holes and more importantly, the subject of this thread, the routings, work marvelously, with NO internal flaws, such as crossovers.
You may or may not remember all of the criticism that Atlantic took with respect to the crossovers. Poster after poster was commenting that crossovers were an indication of a flawed routing. If crossovers are deemed by the cognoscenti to be a routing flaw, especially multiple crossovers, then the object of that criticism, as it related to Atlantic, must be applied to Flynn's work at Lehigh and others.
His crossovers must be considered a routing flaw.
The Cognoscenti have spoken and we must listen.[/color]
Would the highly engineered look of Raynor work better at Cypress Point or the naturalism employed by MacKenzie?
Would you identify the highly engineered "look" at Westhampton ? I'd like to know where to find it.
You've described SR's work as having a highly engineered "look", yet, the look you allude to doesn't exist in the golfer's eye.
It's your way of predisposing an opinion.
I'd also like you to tell me how Flynn would have designed and routed Lido, Yale and NGLA. To state that he'd use the natural resources, ala Dr Mac at CPC would be a foolish response.[/color]
Would you rather see linear lines, flat bunkers, geometric shapes and template designs on that spectacular site or do you embrace the work of MacKenzie as suited to that site?
That's an absurd assumption on your part, one that attempts to predispose the answer.[/color]
Raynor would have been the architect of record had he not died. This is an important point and one that is applicable to other less spectacular seaside sites but equally spectacular sites such as above the Hudson, in Ardmore or other locations.
What's so spectacular about the sites above the Hudson ?[/color]
There is nothing completely natural about Cypress Point or Shinnecock Hills but they are meant to blend in with their surrounds with more harmony than other architects, particularly Raynor and Banks.
Wayne, the next time you're at Shinnecock, don't skip # 7.
If you think that hole is more in harmony with the surrounds than Raynor's and Bank's work you're deluding yourself.
The same can be said of # 17 and many other holes.
You're blind to Flynn's artificial work but have 20-20 vision when it comes to the same work by SR and CB.[/color]
I find it difficult to believe that this has not be acknowledged by the most vociferous Raynor and Banks defenders on this website. Their silence speaks volumes. Again, their courses are a delight to play but they are severe in style and it doesn't always work.
That's simply not true.
How don't they work ?
They've been praised and enjoyed since the day they were built.
How does Morris County have a "severe" style ?
Essex County ?
The Knoll ?
Westhampton ?
Piping Rock ?
The Creek ?
Fisher's Island ?
CC of Fairfield ?
Most appreciate Flynn's work, but, don't try to differentiate it from CBM-SR-CB by demeaning their style and work.[/color]
Macdonald's work is, to me, generally far more interesting than his derivative designers although there are some exceptions.
You bring up cumbersome crossovers as a knock against Wilson and Flynn. I think they are brilliant solutions that are not at all cumbersome but result in an enhanced experience with little demand on the golfer. The walk from 1 green to 2 tee at Lehigh is downhill. The walk from 13 green to 14 tee at Merion is a slight rise (and it does pass a bar). The walk from 2 green to 3 tee at Merion is also downhill and not long. To call these cumbersome is a bit of a stretch. As you know, the change in routing progression from the 2nd hole to the current 3rd (bypassing the current 6th) gives you the wonderful 3 Act Play that is a part of Merion's greatness. So that crossover that you call cumbersome is in fact essential.
No it's not. That's narrow thinking on your part. A HOMER call. It's clearly a signal that he was unable to route the golf course within the constraints of the property boundaries, something you've alluded to when it comes to the triumvirate.
CBM-SR-CB would probably been able to create superior golf courses on those sites without crossovers.[/color]
OK, here's a picture, although not from the perfect angle, but close enough. Can you please explain why the picture I used was deceptive and this one more appropriate to demonstrate the natural look of the greensite?
Because any picture that doesn't present what's seen from the golfer's eyes "misrepresents" what the architect intended to be seen[/color]
I'll even stretch a point and say the flat sand bottom is a representation of the Hudson River below and the green the Palisades beyond. How's that? ;)
That's hokey.
This isn't poetry, it's a field of play.;D[/color]
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/SleepyHollowrestoredversion.jpg)
-
Just so we are clear here, this photo above is of the 16th from the golfers perspective. The other photo is of #2 taken from a strange angle. #2 scales a hill and is actually quite natural looking from the fairway.
-
Corey,
I never understood how anyone could claim that # 2 was unnatural looking.
There's a par 3 at Lehigh, probably the 7th, where the golfer tees off from a high tee to a much lower green fronted by a pond. ;D
-
Wayne:
See that post #73 in which Patrick is responding to you?
You know the old adage "Two ships passing in the night"?
Well, that's what Patrick is in that post---a ship passing in the night. If you have no earthly idea he's even there I can't say I blame you. ;)
And Wayne, just back off on this contention of yours that Macd/Raynor architecture is artificial looking. You're never going to get anywhere with these guys trying to make your point. I mean seriously, here we have two greens and surrounding bunkers at Sleepy Hollow trying to act like two gigantic green custards in two huge plates of milk and these guys are still trying to tell you they look like raw and random natural earth forms.
I guess they could claim that a gigantic green custard in a humongous plate of milk is somehow natural looking but that's about the extent of it. ;)
-
Tom,
One of the ships is passing, the other is sinking. ;)
Unfortunately, I have an idea what he is saying and that's the scarier part.
-
"Unfortunately, I have an idea what he is saying and that's the scarier part."
I wouldn't go that far if I were you, Wayno.
The scary, scarier and scariest part of all is Patrick actually thinks he has some idea about what he's saying.
Pat's a friend of mine and I have real sympathy for someone like that who thinks a couple of greens and surrounds that look exactly like gigantic green custards in humongous plates of milk look like naturally occuring land formations.
You gotta understand, Pat must've had a sort of odd childhood. That can result in what's called "Transference"----eg you think golf greens and surrounds that look like gigantic custards in humongous plates of milk look like naturally occuring landforms.
But that's not even the greatest of Pat's problems with "Transference". He also sometimes thinks some of NGLA's greens look like a beautiful woman.
One of these days Pat just might get caught trying to actually make love to the first green at NGLA and then he really is gonna be in some seriously deep DoDo.
-
I had a wonderful response to Pat. It might have even helped him. Then I get this gawdawful message that my reply was too long and it was lost.
If Pat's making love to the greens at NGLA, I hope the club has one of those practice hole makers...you know the one where the hole is only slightly bigger than the ball ;D
-
"I had a wonderful response to Pat. Then I get this gawdawful message that my reply was too long and it was lost."
Even the website's program is getting a headache from Wayne's responses...
-
"Since when does "style" need to evolve ?
One's artistic/architectural "style" is what makes their courses unique. Why should there be a need to change it ?"
Artists evolve, engineers repeat. What artist limited himself to the same narrowly constrained output all the time? That isa more in the mode of a craftsman, not an artist. I will grant you that Raynor and Banks were craftsmen. Here's where Tom MacWood's argument might have some merit ;)
"A deviation from that style might result in a devolution of the product."
It might devolve if the talent wasn't up to speed. It also might just evolve into something better if given a chance. They didn't give it a chance. I don't infer that they didn't have talent to do something different. I simply recognize that they did not evolve. That's open to interpretation.
"Wayne, that's sheer nonsense.
The aesthetics at Westhampton, The Knoll, The Creek, Piping Rock, Yale, NGLA and others are terrific, if not spectacular.
How can you posture that any of those courses are lacking in aesthetics ? It's simply NOT TRUE."
I never said that there was a lack of aesthetics. That was the conclusion you jumped to. I merely said that it was an aesthetic that I do not appreciate as much as other architects. There is a lack of variety and naturalism. The majority of the examples you cite are where Macdonald was in complete control or worked with Raynor (Creek, Piping Rock, Yale and NGLA). I've stated in the past that Macdonald's talent exceeded that of Raynor and Banks.
"The holes and more importantly, the subject of this thread, the routings, work marvelously, with NO internal flaws, such as crossovers.
You may or may not remember all of the criticism that Atlantic took with respect to the crossovers. Poster after poster was commenting that crossovers were an indication of a flawed routing. If crossovers are deemed by the cognoscenti to be a routing flaw, especially multiple crossovers, then the object of that criticism, as it related to Atlantic, must be applied to Flynn's work at Lehigh and others.
His crossovers must be considered a routing flaw.
The Cognoscenti have spoken and we must listen."
If the Cognoscenti have spoken then they are an ass and are not to be listened to (forgive my literary license). First of all, the crossovers you mention of Flynn and Wilson that are FLAWS are not crossovers in the line of play. You walk past one tee to get to another. In two cases downhill and in one case slightly uphill. The members know how to deal with these crossovers and there is such little imposition that it is not worth considering unless you are grasping at straws.
What you fail to reflect is the improvement one gets in creating these tee crossovers. Without the 13 green to 14 tee crossover on such a narrow site as Merion East, you couldn't have a course. Would you scrap the course as is and move elsewhere? Heck, even your illustrious pair of Macdonald and Whigham liked the site. Some would argue that they were instrumental in the design or routing. They are wrong, but let them have their flights of fancy. Without the 2 green to 3 tee crossover, you wouldn't have the three act play and you'd have an even more awkward crossover with its steep climb from 3 green to 8 tee and the possible impact on tee shots on the 4th hole.
Without the crossover from 2 green behind 18 tee and 17 green at Lehigh you wouldn't have that wonderful outside-inside routing with the interesting way the wind effects play, something I know you appreciate. If you really thought about it, instead of being critical, you'd see the merits of the crossovers. They are brilliant solutions achieving outstanding improvements on the routing progression at Lehigh and enabled a great course to be built at Merion. Perhaps Raynor would have looked at the land and passed since he was so narrowly defined by the convention of another and lacked the artistic ability to see out-of-the-box solutions. ;)
"Would you identify the highly engineered "look" at Westhampton? I'd like to know where to find it."
Cheese and Crackers, Pat. All you have to do is start with the second hole with the uniformly level circular berm all around the green. Or did a meteor land on that spot and naturally created the feature? If so, I give Raynor credit for realizing that natural feature merited a green inside the crater rim.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000027.jpg)
How about the Biarritz? Is that linear swale au naturel as well?
"You've described SR's work as having a highly engineered "look", yet, the look you allude to doesn't exist in the golfer's eye.
It's your way of predisposing an opinion."
So you won't answer my question about how Raynor (who was initially awarded the commission) would have differed in his approach to Cypress Point? I'm not surprised. Do you think his linear bunkers with their flat bottoms, geometric green shapes and perched features would have looked as good as MacKenzie's natural style? I certainly don't think so and I believe you don't either, which is why you objected to answer my leading question.
What would Fisher's Island look like if it was completed? It looks more natural because he wasn't finished with it, all but one fairway bunker was never implemented.
"I'd also like you to tell me how Flynn would have designed and routed Lido, Yale and NGLA. To state that he'd use the natural resources, ala Dr Mac at CPC would be a foolish response."
I'd be happy to, especially if it helps you to understand why my question about Cypress Point wasn't foolish. He'd use the natural resources, ala Dr Mac at CPC ;D
Lido-consider Indian Creek, just as much an engineering feet. Indian Creek was built with fill from the Bay to a perfectly level height of 3'. Every contour and elevation above that, up to 35' in height was directed by Flynn. Almost no one can tell that it was man-made.
Yale-consider Cascades, a more difficult golf course to build--by far. Streams had to be moved, including one that emptied a 25 square mile area of mountains. 300 yard ridges were removed, fairway areas were raised and drainage considered on the low valley area between large mountains. Yet it looks like the golf course was laid on the ground and not the ground laid around the golf course, even as great as Yale is.
NGLA-consider Shinnecock Hills. Much more in harmony with the surrounds even if the 7th green pops out above ground. Suppose the membership loved a Redan feature and implored Flynn to design one. He certainly would not have kept the original Redan, it would've stuck out like a sore thumb. The relatively primitive bunker style would have been a dead giveaway. Flynn designed other Redan-like greens at Huntingdon Valley and Philadelphia Country. These, like the one at SHGC had abrupt rises to the green with narrow openings. These were aerial approach holes and not ground/aerial option designs. I never said everything Flynn did was natural and I never said everything Raynor did was unnatural. Just because we are not dealing in absolutes doesn't mean there isn't a point to be made.
"What's so spectacular about the sites above the Hudson?"
Are you serious, Pat. Take a glance at the overlook and one can only come to the conclusion that it is among the prettiest views in America. If this is the sort of counterargument you have, you aren't well armed for this fight. ;)
"Wayne, the next time you're at Shinnecock, don't skip # 7.
If you think that hole is more in harmony with the surrounds than Raynor's and Bank's work you're deluding yourself.
The same can be said of # 17 and many other holes.
You're blind to Flynn's artificial work but have 20-20 vision when it comes to the same work by SR and CB."
I already addressed your point about #7. As for the 17th, how was/is that so artificial looking? The bunkering? Yeah, they could have been straight lines with perfectly flat bottoms. That would have tied in better to the surrounds.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2312/2060276302_32a8f73d87_b.jpg)
"How does Morris County have a "severe" style ?
Essex County ?
The Knoll ?
Westhampton ?
Piping Rock ?
The Creek ?
Fisher's Island ?
CC of Fairfield ?"
Sorry, Pat. If you don't know by now, I cannot help you.
"Most appreciate Flynn's work, but, don't try to differentiate it from CBM-SR-CB by demeaning their style and work."
It is differentiated whether you accept the fact or not. I am being critical of the style of Raynor and Banks, much less so of Macdonald. Their style is different and radically so. It is the most identifiable style of any architect and is site independent for the most part. If that is demeaning, so be it. I don't think so. Despite other protests, I think it is a fascinating subject and worthy of discussion. They built terrific golf courses. To most it is all encompassing. To me, it is limited to playability and shot interest.
-
Bill,
"Frankly, I don't want to discuss this with you any longer either. This will be my last effort on this thread."
You lie, you lie, you lie.! ;D ;D ;D
-
Bill,
Guilty as charged. Pat made me do it, that's my only defense ;D 8) ;D
-
1) If engineering or engineers didn't evolve, artists would still be riding horses.
2) Crossovers are not a problem or a flaw in the routing unless you can come up with something better. You certainly can't for a course where you cross by a bar getting to the next tee.
Nevertheless, I have fun playing most or all of the Raynors I've had the opportunity to see. So what if they are engineered or look engineered. For the most part, I only notice the engineering after playing the hole.
Whereas on some of the artists work, I look forward from the tee and see 'oh' another bunker framing my view of the natural surroundings.
How you can look at any parkland course in the US anyway and not think bunkers are engineered, or perhaps etched by the 'ar tist,' is beyond me. Even artists gouge par 3s in the side of the hills.
Now even more rambling,. Having said all that baloney, if you only played Raynor exclusively all your life, I think you would be missing quite a bit.
But another conflicting thought that doesn't make sense, I have never wanted to walk off a Raynor course. Never. Whereas at some of the artists' courses, I think why is this crap being repeated ?
-
John Stiles,
The principles of engineering haven't changed in a million years.
TEPaul, just because all Collies are dogs, doesn't make all dogs Collies.
The "short" green is inherently a man made structure, just like the 7th at Shinnecock. I know that Wayne likes to try to camoflage that look by posting old, grainy, black and white photos, but, for those who are familiar with it, it's as engineered as almost anything Raynor built.
I'd appreciate it if you could identify the engineered "look" on # 2, # 4, # 5, # 6, # 8, # 10, # 12, # 13, # 16, # 17 and # 18 at Westhampton.
We'll get to other courses later.
-
Pat,
That B&W is the 17th at Shinnecock, not the 7th. I posted a photo of the 2nd at Westhampton. Do you maintain that it is natural in appearance and not engineered looking? If so, we need to use the same dictionary.
-
I posted a photo of the 2nd at Westhampton. Do you maintain that it is natural in appearance and not engineered looking? If so, we need to use the same dictionary.
Wayne,
You need to look in the dictionary under the word "sequence".
You did NOT post a picture of the 2nd hole at Westhampton.
As to your picture of # 17 at SH, that's a nice head on shot, but, the profile that's revealed as the golfer walks to the green presents an entirely different perspective, one where the word, "engineered" comes to mind.[/color]
-
Sorry, Pat. You're right, it was the third hole at Westhampton that I posted. Wow, it is still very manufactured looking! Imagine that. That my friend is one ugly but fun hole. Nobody but Raynor or Banks would do anything that looks like that. It is as unnatural as a hole can get.
The 7th at Shinnecock (I'm glad you disagree with George Bahto and understand that it is entirely a Flynn hole) looks like Mother Nature built it by comparison. ;)
Now let me go back and watch the Eagles lose 54 to 3.
-
quote author=Wayne Morrison link=board=1;threadid=8456;start=70#msg633045 date=1195927036]
"Since when does "style" need to evolve ?
One's artistic/architectural "style" is what makes their courses unique. Why should there be a need to change it ?"
Artists evolve, engineers repeat. What artist limited himself to the same narrowly constrained output all the time?
That's absurd.
If an artist changes his style, he loses his style and his work becomes unrecognizable.
Should Dali have "evolved" his unique style to the point where the work couldn't be identified as being authored by him ?[/color]
That is a more in the mode of a craftsman, not an artist. I will grant you that Raynor and Banks were craftsmen. Here's where Tom MacWood's argument might have some merit ;)
"A deviation from that style might result in a devolution of the product."
It might devolve if the talent wasn't up to speed. It also might just evolve into something better if given a chance. They didn't give it a chance. I don't infer that they didn't have talent to do something different. I simply recognize that they did not evolve. That's open to interpretation.
How did Flynn's style "evolve" ?
Or, did it remain static ?
Ross ? AWT ? Dr Mac ?
Where was the evolution, the movement away from their original work to work that bore little resemblance to their
early work ? [/color]
"Wayne, that's sheer nonsense.
The aesthetics at Westhampton, The Knoll, The Creek, Piping Rock, Yale, NGLA and others are terrific, if not spectacular.
How can you posture that any of those courses are lacking in aesthetics ? It's simply NOT TRUE."
I never said that there was a lack of aesthetics. That was the conclusion you jumped to. I merely said that it was an aesthetic that I do not appreciate as much as other architects. [size=4x] There is a lack of variety and naturalism. [/size]
Where is there a lack of naturalism at Morris County, Essex County, Westhampton or The Knoll ?
The majority of the examples you cite are where Macdonald was in complete control or worked with Raynor (Creek, Piping Rock, Yale and NGLA). I've stated in the past that Macdonald's talent exceeded that of Raynor and Banks.
"The holes and more importantly, the subject of this thread, the routings, work marvelously, with NO internal flaws, such as crossovers.
You may or may not remember all of the criticism that Atlantic took with respect to the crossovers. Poster after poster was commenting that crossovers were an indication of a flawed routing. If crossovers are deemed by the cognoscenti to be a routing flaw, especially multiple crossovers, then the object of that criticism, as it related to Atlantic, must be applied to Flynn's work at Lehigh and others.
His crossovers must be considered a routing flaw.
The Cognoscenti have spoken and we must listen."
If the Cognoscenti have spoken then they are an ass and are not to be listened to (forgive my literary license). First of all, the crossovers you mention of Flynn and Wilson that are FLAWS are not crossovers in the line of play. You walk past one tee to get to another. In two cases downhill and in one case slightly uphill. The members know how to deal with these crossovers and there is such little imposition that it is not worth considering unless you are grasping at straws.
I know what a crossover is and your defensive response is pure boloney, or bologna if you prefer
What you fail to reflect is the improvement one gets in creating these tee crossovers. Without the 13 green to 14 tee crossover on such a narrow site as Merion East, you couldn't have a course. Would you scrap the course as is and move elsewhere? Heck, even your illustrious pair of Macdonald and Whigham liked the site. Some would argue that they were instrumental in the design or routing. They are wrong, but let them have their flights of fancy. Without the 2 green to 3 tee crossover, you wouldn't have the three act play and you'd have an even more awkward crossover with its steep climb from 3 green to 8 tee and the possible impact on tee shots on the 4th hole.
That's only in your limited understanding of the routing.
It totally disregards what they may have come up with, not unlike what Ross and Flynn did with the exact same piece of property at York.
-
Nice way to duck the question.
What NATURAL features at LIDO ?
What NATURAL features at YALE ?[/color]
Without the crossover from 2 green behind 18 tee and 17 green at Lehigh you wouldn't have that wonderful outside-inside routing with the interesting way the wind effects play, something I know you appreciate. If you really thought about it, instead of being critical, you'd see the merits of the crossovers. They are brilliant solutions achieving outstanding improvements on the routing progression at Lehigh and enabled a great course to be built at Merion. Perhaps Raynor would have looked at the land and passed since he was so narrowly defined by the convention of another and lacked the artistic ability to see out-of-the-box solutions.[/b] ;)
Again, your perspective is limited and biased.
Raynor may have come up with a superior routing, one that didn't entail crossovers.
You call them brilliant solutions.
But, they weren't.
Flynn painted himself into that corner vis a vis his own hand because he couldn't come up with a better routing, something that perhaps SR and CB could.
"Would you identify the highly engineered "look" at Westhampton? I'd like to know where to find it."
Cheese and Crackers, Pat. All you have to do is start with the second hole with the uniformly level circular berm all around the green. Or did a meteor land on that spot and naturally created the feature? If so, I give Raynor credit for realizing that natural feature merited a green inside the crater rim.
The 2nd hole green is FLUSH with the fronting fairway.
There is NOTHING artificial about it.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000027.jpg)
That's not the 2nd hole at Westhampton.
How about the Biarritz? Is that linear swale au naturel as well?
It is nowhere near as manufactured as the 7th at Shinnecock.
"You've described SR's work as having a highly engineered "look", yet, the look you allude to doesn't exist in the golfer's eye.
It's your way of predisposing an opinion."
So you won't answer my question about how Raynor (who was initially awarded the commission) would have differed in his approach to Cypress Point? I'm not surprised. Do you think his linear bunkers with their flat bottoms, geometric green shapes and perched features would have looked as good as MacKenzie's natural style? I certainly don't think so and I believe you don't either, which is why you objected to answer my leading question.
That's not why I objected to your question.
I objected to it because you have absolutely NO CONTEXT in which to judge the answer.
You don't know what Raynor would have done at CPC, and neither do I.
Anything you say is PURE CONJECTURE, ABSENT THE FACTS.
What would Fisher's Island look like if it was completed? It looks more natural because he wasn't finished with it, all but one fairway bunker was never implemented.
Again, how can you claim to know what it would have looked like ? You can't.
"I'd also like you to tell me how Flynn would have designed and routed Lido, Yale and NGLA. To state that he'd use the natural resources, ala Dr Mac at CPC would be a foolish response."
I'd be happy to, especially if it helps you to understand why my question about Cypress Point wasn't foolish. He'd use the natural resources, ala Dr Mac at CPC ;D
-
Lido-consider Indian Creek, just as much an engineering feet. Indian Creek was built with fill from the Bay to a perfectly level height of 3'. Every contour and elevation above that, up to 35' in height was directed by Flynn. Almost no one can tell that it was man-made.
Noone can tell that "WHAT" was man made.
The island or the golf course, or both ?
How can you equate 1930 construction to 1917 construction ?
Perhaps that blind idiot-savant who lives nearby and relies on his guide dog, Coorshaw, couldn't tell, but, you can't be naive enough to think that everyone else feels it's a natural phenomenon.
Yale-consider Cascades, a more difficult golf course to build--by far. Streams had to be moved, including one that emptied a 25 square mile area of mountains. 300 yard ridges were removed, fairway areas were raised and drainage considered on the low valley area between large mountains. Yet it looks like the golf course was laid on the ground and not the ground laid around the golf course, even as great as Yale is.
Wayne, surely, even you in your zest to glorify Flynn wouldn't compare the solid rock SR encountered at Yale, a completely hostile site, with the soil at Cascades
NGLA-consider Shinnecock Hills. Much more in harmony with the surrounds even if the 7th green pops out above ground. Suppose the membership loved a Redan feature and implored Flynn to design one. He certainly would not have kept the original Redan, it would've stuck out like a sore thumb. The relatively primitive bunker style would have been a dead giveaway. Flynn designed other Redan-like greens at Huntingdon Valley and Philadelphia Country. These, like the one at SHGC had abrupt rises to the green with narrow openings. These were aerial approach holes and not ground/aerial option designs. I never said everything Flynn did was natural and I never said everything Raynor did was unnatural. Just because we are not dealing in absolutes doesn't mean there isn't a point to be made.
Would that point include the introducton of Toomey, an engineer, the man responsible for construction, and Flynn's partner
Flynn's work at Shinnecock came 20 years after CBM's work at NGLA. CBM's work was revolutionary.
Flynn was a "Johnny come lately" in terms of time frames and architecture on the East End.[/b]
"What's so spectacular about the sites above the Hudson?"
Are you serious, Pat. Take a glance at the overlook and one can only come to the conclusion that it is among the prettiest views in America. If this is the sort of counterargument you have, you aren't well armed for this fight.
Wayne, That's ONE hole, I repeat, ONE hole that sits at the crest of the ridge. What about the rest of the property ?
Tell me about the views of the Hudson on # 1 thru # 15, # 17 and # 18. In most cases, they're NON-EXISTANT, something you've conveniently overlooked.
"Wayne, the next time you're at Shinnecock, don't skip # 7.
If you think that hole is more in harmony with the surrounds than Raynor's and Bank's work you're deluding yourself.
The same can be said of # 17 and many other holes.
You're blind to Flynn's artificial work but have 20-20 vision when it comes to the same work by SR and CB."
I already addressed your point about #7. As for the 17th, how was/is that so artificial looking? The bunkering? Yeah, they could have been straight lines with perfectly flat bottoms. That would have tied in better to the surrounds.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2312/2060276302_32a8f73d87_b.jpg)
The head on shot is nice, the view from the profile angles shows an engineered product, just like some of the greens at NGLA.[/color]
"How does Morris County have a "severe" style ?
Essex County ?
The Knoll ?
Westhampton ?
Piping Rock ?
The Creek ?
Fisher's Island ?
CC of Fairfield ?"
Sorry, Pat. If you don't know by now, I cannot help you.
I know what looks engineered and what doesn't look engineered, and I know when one has predisposed views that won't allow him to give the devil his due.
"Most appreciate Flynn's work, but, don't try to differentiate it from CBM-SR-CB by demeaning their style and work."
It is differentiated whether you accept the fact or not. I am being critical of the style of Raynor and Banks, much less so of Macdonald. Their style is different and radically so.
That's what makes it so unique
It is the most identifiable style of any architect and is site independent for the most part.
That's a tribute to their talent and the incredible demand for their product.
Imitation is THE sincerest form of flattery, and that's what the golf world wanted from them. Somehow, you fail to recognize and acknowledge that.
If that is demeaning, so be it. I don't think so. Despite other protests, I think it is a fascinating subject and worthy of discussion. They built terrific golf courses. To most it is all encompassing. To me, it is limited to playability and shot interest.
Limited to playability and shot interest ? ? ?
Isn't that the core of the game ?
-
Pat asked me to post this to add to this completely interesting dialog from both sides. Bravo Gentleman! Finally a Golf Club Atlas thread which we can all sink our teeth into!
Pat, since you brought up Westhampton, I'm including the Short hole there.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Tommy_Naccarato/IMG_0015.jpg)
And of course, Shinneythingy:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Tommy_Naccarato/Shinnecock7regular.jpg)
Since we are bringing Long Island into this (As we should)
Nature as it was meant to be on a Golf Course:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Tommy_Naccarato/National8.jpg)
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v235/Tommy_Naccarato/SH16.jpg)
I'll take them both anytime! Engineered or unengineered!
-
quote author=Wayne Morrison link=board=1;threadid=8456;start=70#msg633045 date=1195927036]
"Since when does "style" need to evolve ?
One's artistic/architectural "style" is what makes their courses unique. Why should there be a need to change it ?"
Artists evolve, engineers repeat. What artist limited himself to the same narrowly constrained output all the time?
That's absurd.
If an artist changes his style, he loses his style and his work becomes unrecognizable.
Pat
I spose it would be quite an experiment if the Beatles kept releasing versions of their first few albums. They would certainly be recognizable - do you think moreso than now?
It would be quite strange to think that Picasso never went through his Blue, Rose, African and Cubism periods (not to mention anything about sculpture). Do you spose people think less of Picasso because his style of art changed over some 70 odd years of work? Is his work still recognizable for all that?
Bottom line is that you are barking up the wrong tree here Patrick. It may well be the case that artists go out of their way to evolve - perhaps at the risk of losing recognizability. It may not seem so to the likes of me at times, but I am sure most artists will say their work has changed over time.
I don't know how anyone could say that the Raynor-Banks style isn't rather stiff looking compared to other highly successful archies, but to each is own. I don't care for the look, but if it plays well and the members are happy, that is the most important thing. Given that all courses are artificial, some courses are less artificial looking because of the archie's skill in fitting a course into the land. Wayne prefers this more natural look. Is this not all that Wayne is saying?
Ciao
-
Wayne:
As usual Patrick has missed your point. It's not about what's manufactured and what isn't, it's about what really looks manufactured and what doesn't.
-
Thanks, Sean. You summed this up nicely.
Tom,
Man, did he ever miss the point!
-
In Pat's case, a picture is better than 10,000 words. Here are some photographs that demonstrates that Raynor did not attempt to hide the hand of man to any extent whatsoever. While he did use natural features at times, he clearly showed a tendency to manufacture and leave the manufactured look to a greater degree than anyone else. How else can Pat explain the fact that Raynor is the easiest classic era architect to identify? His style was very limited and the use of templates make it so easy to determine for anyone, no matter how new they are to the study of golf architecture.
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000002171.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/charleston10.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/charleston11.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Fishers3bg1.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Fishers12.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/lmgc-%20stairsteps.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000138.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000163.jpg)
(http://http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/000001591.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Shoreacres14bg.jpg)
-
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000027.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000035.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000037.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000029.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000424.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000446.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000436.jpg)
(http://http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/YH3g.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/YH5g.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/YH10gl.jpg)
-
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/YH18sb.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/00000206.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/ML7.jpg)
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/ML22.jpg)
(http://www.mesart.com/enlargeps.jsp?artwork=18831)
(http://www.mesart.com/enlargeps.jsp?artwork=18830)
-
Wayne:
Maybe a guy like Patrick (and some others) just don't think those holes you presented above LOOK manufactured or maybe he doesn't think they look more manufactured than most Flynn holes or Mackenzie holes or whatever. If that's the case I see no real reason to carry on this discussion with him, because if that's the case he never will understand your point.
Even if he somehow comes to understand your point the chances of him conceding you your point are also probably nil.
-
You are right, Tom. That's why he comes up with Flynn's horrible routing flaw at Lehigh and how brutally offensive the routing is at Merion East. WHAT THE HECK IS HE TALKING ABOUT?
Then when I relate Indian Creek to Lido, he points out the age difference. When I discuss Yale vs. Cascades, he concludes Yale was harder to build without knowing the facts at all. OK, they used more dynamite at Yale. Does that mean it was harder to construct? Then I relate NGLA to Shinnecock and he picks on the 7th green and even more surprisingly the 17th green (which he thought was the 7th).
Once that pit bull Mucci latches onto a conclusion, he doesn't let go. If he was a Hip Hopper, he'd be Tenacious M.
-
Waynes writes:
"I know the photo is taken from the side. The view from the front of the green is not more natural in appearance, so I didn't bother to search for it. This photo was on the same page and suits my point very well."
Oh really Wayne, you might want to change that position real fast befor you scroll down and see what the hole looks like from the golfers perspectice:
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/02shcccroppednewLbunkerDSCN9806.jpg)
Hard to believe that the picture that Ran posted on the homepage of this website is the same hole!
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/SleepyHollowsshort.jpg)
As I said above, MacRaynor courses give you fantastic side views and back views. To me, it is one of the bonuses of playing the courses.
Now everyone can see why Wayne did not bother to search for the TRUE picture of the hole, because it disproves his point!
-
Bill,
First of all, I don't know the hole first hand. I've only seen photographs of it. I may have been mistaken about the nature of the hole, but it wasn't intentional. When others that have posted photos, I assumed of this very hole, it is always the same view with tees that line up very much the same as all Short Holes do. I concluded that it was from the playing perspective. Yet you accuse me that I was trying to mislead to prove a point. That is incorrect and in very poor taste. Would you criticize the ones that posted the following pictures for also attempting to misinform?
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/SleepyHollowrestoredversion.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/SleepyHollowReesversion.jpg)
(http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee169/wcb323/SleepyHollowShort.jpg)
Secondly, this one hole indicates Raynor's tendencies to not hide the engineering in any case.
-
Bill:
Take the photo just above (the bottom one on your post #101) as an example of what I'm talking about with the style of architecture that photo represents.
I'm not speaking for Wayne, just for me.
Look at the basic shapes of particularly the top lines on the farthest lanforms you can see just juxtaposed to the skyline. Now look at the top lines on the nearer landforms on the other side of the river. Now look at the top lines formed by the top of the treeline on the near side of the river.
All those gently and sometimes not so gently rolling top lines are what I call "natural lines". I think Wayne feels the same.
Those are the basic types of "lines" to emulate from Nature if an archiect is trying to emulate the natural lines of a particular site (in this case that one in the photo) with the lines of what he manufactures and builds.
I don't see that Macdonald, Raynor or Banks attempted to do that or certainly nowhere near as much as some of the other architects of their era.
Their lines were mostly so much straighter or flatter or even very consistently curving or however one describes the man-made architectural lines we're all looking at in that photo.
That type and style of architecture does not bother me as it apparently bothers Wayne. It used to bother me but I've come to have what I suppose I might call a fascination with it. To me it was the ultimate in a type of architecture of a particular and most interesting era in American architecture.
But I do recognize the huge distinction and difference in it from the look of the overall architectural 'lines" of other architects of the same era who were trying to dedicatedly make their architectural lines look so much more like they didn't make it at all---eg they were trying to emulate the natural "lines" of the sites and overall visible surrounding area they were working with.
For me to say this is in no way a criticism of Macdonald, Raynor or Banks. Again, I'm fascinated by their style despite how different I think it looks from the so-called "natural style" architects like Mackenzie.
I believe in the "Big World" theory and that means to me that the art form of golf architecture should have a very wide spectrum, and that includes in "look" and aesthetics. That doesn't mean I like the look of it all but I do like some that is and can be very different from others I also like.
And having said all that about the top lines of all the landforms that can be seen in the background, NOW take a look at the rather straight and flat line created by the shoreline on the other side of the river or even the lines formed by the ground beyond the green below the trees on near side of the river!!
Does that basic "line" match the manufactured top "lines" of that green, the "lines" created by the sand/grass line of the bunkering? Do those various lines emulate one another in the way they are generally straight or with very consistent gentle curves?
Of course they do, and that alone may be interesting too and perhaps something that could be considered something of a natural emulation except for the fact the top line of the shore on the other side of the river is essentially formed by water and not land.
Or is it??
See what I mean?
(As for the straight line of the land below the trees on the near side of the river I can not say).
This is all interesting stuff. Was Macdonald and Raynor aware of all those "lines" over there as far as the eye could see when they did what they did at Sleepy Hollow?
That's probably part of the question. And, if they didn't do that at all or didn't even notice or didn't even care, that's also probably part of the question! ;)
To me, none of this is negative and I don't intend it to be that way. I just think it's all very interesting, and particularly recognizing the vast differences in "LOOK" and aesthetics between that photo and other styles of architecture.
I guess the ultimate question always needs to be---Do you like it? Do golfers like that look? But I think the question for this board is do they recognize how different these styles and their "looks" and aesthetics can be or really are from the "look" and aesthetics of other types and styles of architecture?
-
Just so others are clear, Bill is showing the second hole a par 4 short uphill hole, and Wayne is talking/showing about the Short Par 3 16th hole.
The greens are next to one another, but other than being in the same state........ However, I am enjoying this!!
As a compromise of both positions, may I offer the 5th hole at Sleepy?
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/Sleep5.jpg)
-
Just so others are clear, Bill is showing the second hole a par 4 short uphill hole, and Wayne is talking/showing about the Short Par 3 16th hole.
The greens are next to one another, but other than being in the same state........ However, I am enjoying this!!
As a compromise of both positions, may I offer the 5th hole at Sleepy?
Now that's funny...
-
Tom,,
Geeze, just when I have Wayne on the run, you come to the rescue with a reasoned response! He got himself into this mess, let HIM get himself out!
I actually agree wholeheartedly with your "Big World" theory. I think it is fascinating where the other architects went after Macdonald invented the artform we now call golf course acrhitecture. He and Raynor (and later Banks) went one way, while Tilly, Ross, Flynn and Strong, etc. went in other directions. (I think Strong kept some Macdonald elements, such as the Biarritz he built a Saucon Valley.) I think its great that architecture evolved. I also think it is fascinating how well the MacRaynors have held up over time.
Banks is almost a sympathetic figure in my eyes. The guy was an Englis professor by training, had about two years experience working with Raynor before Raynor died, and then finished about 20 projects over the next 4 years on his own before the Depression comes along and he was out of business (in the Unites States.) So OF COURSE he building templates! It was his only shot at keeping the contracts with clubs that wanted Raynor, and of getting new business from clubs that wanted that style. Putting architecture aside, he HAD tremendous business reasons not to attempt a change in style. But he did try to put his stamp on the templates; I think he went a little deeper and wider with his bunkers. So while I think he went a little too far on some holes, rather than be critical of him, I am somewhat amazed at how many great holes he built given his limited experience.
-
Wayne,
JUst one question and then I'll duck back out...is your problem with this style the non-natural appearance? Is it that you feel an opportunity might have been lost due to a need to conform to the need to build an imitation (we might call it An Homage)? Or is it some of both?
-
Bill,
You are mistaken. I am not in any mess. Once again, this is only a matter of opinion. Why would my opinion of Raynor's style get me into a mess? OK, I look at it in a negative way and Tom Paul embraces it for what it is and you are very positive about it. Our reactions may differ but the cause of those reactions is in common and that is a highly manufactured style. If not on all sides on one or more at any rate. Pat Mucci won't even admit that it is manufactured in appearance. That makes one wonder.
I was mistaken until your previous post and thought one photograph was a side view of another. They are both engineered looking, one from all angles and another, from one side at least. This egregious error (in your view) doesn't change the fact that Raynor in general elected not to hide his handiwork and went with an engineered look using lines and planes that do not harmonize with nature. In fact, it demonstrates the repeated use of his of his highly engineered design practices that are overt from one angle or more.
-
Jim,
Just one reply and then I'll join you in the ducking out. I find his use of templates (many of which don't fit into the surrounds at all) a narrow form of expression which is more craft than art. However, it is outstanding in its craftsmanship. I find his lack of evolution curious and very unusual in an art form.
Pat asked me to answer whether there was design evolution by Flynn, Ross, Colt and others. I'm sure he knows the answer but disregards it to make his point that it is no concern that Raynor and Banks did not, certainly to the extent nearly everyone else did in any case. It is easy to figure out that other architects did evolve their styles and Raynor and Banks were unusual in that regard.
Ross started out with abrupt green pads with squared-off corners to his greens. He gradually evolved into lobed corners and then complex outlines. He also evolved into tying in his green sites with more fill with more natural angles. Flynn evolved by using offset fairways and greens that created diagonals which caused golfers to consider line and distance considerations on tee and approach shots. He began to develop a wider range of bunker styles, different grasses and construction techniques, used a terrific sense of perception and perspective to make diagonals seem perpendicular, to foreshorten distances and to hide landing areas behind raised bunker lines that tied in with other bunkers on the hole and elsewhere on the course. MacKenzie did this as well.
I also believe that templates limit artistic freedom and cannot in anyway be liberating to an artist. Intuitively, I think this affected routings. Did Macdonald choose the land he did for NGLA when better land was available, because the templates he used fit it better?
I also would like to hear from superintendents. Are the man-made features with abrupt angles, flat bottom bunkers and steep slopes that are not tied in using angles found in nature harder or more expensive to maintain than more natural looking features?
-
Bill,
An intetesting question for George Bahto would be how many Raynor routings or plans were left for Banks to use when Raynor died unexpectedly. And did he change much or anything ?
At Lookout Mountain (1925/1926), Banks was left with a Raynor routing and by inspection of the plan and course, Banks didn't deviate one bit from the Raynor plan in the routing or placement of the greens. Hence Lookout Mountain was the most expensive to build after Yale and Lido.
Raynor's routing on the rolling and hilly terrain left Banks to do nothing but create the large fill pads for several greens.
Raynor's use of templates wasn't limited by much, certainly not by the terrain, and in many cases, not even by money.
We will see how much Flynn evolved when Wayne's book is out. I wonder if he evolved an acceptable amount for you ? ;)
Wayne,
Get that book out soon as I don't want to pay for it in Euros or that Chinese currency.
-
John,
The guy who is editing the book is not returning my calls or emails. He's either too busy editing or since he isn't getting paid, simply gave up. I wish I knew :-\
Unfortunately, I suspect he hasn't started doing anything yet.
-
"Tom,,
Geeze, just when I have Wayne on the run, you come to the rescue with a reasoned response! He got himself into this mess, let HIM get himself out!"
Bill:
Is that what you're trying to do here---get Wayne Morrison on the run?
If so, don't bother. Since he's my Pissboy, I'm the one to get him running, not you.
Wayne, what in the hell is a Pissboy anyway? Does it have something to do with one of the movies of that crazy-cap Mel Brooks?
-
Yes, it is Mel Brooks at his funniest. You are Count de Money and I am the piss boy ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGAgu6zI9v0
-
John,
It is an interesting question. I know Banks finished Fishers Island after Raynor died in 1926.
I believe that my course, Hackensack, may have been Banks' first solo effort. (I just spent a day going through our old minutes.) Raynor died in January of 1926, and we made the decision to move from the City of Hackensack (9 hole Bendelow course) to Oradell in August of 1926. We interviewed architects to review the site of the Kiderkamack Club in Oradell, and hired Banks in November of "26.
I had a theory that perhaps Raynor routed our course in 1925, but it appears that was not the case. No mention of Raynor, other than a memo from the Grounds Chairman describing Banks' qualifications in his recommendation to the board.
There is no question that he relied heavily on the templates. But I really think he did a superb job of fitting the templates on our property, which is an excellent one for a golf course. The Redan is superb, and if the floor of the Redan bunker not been raised over the years, I'd rank this hole right with Piping Rock.
We found a scratchy old movie of the course being built. There is a picture of the Short Hole green being constructed, and behind the green is steep drop off (a natural one, Wayne ;D) and you can see the huge Oradell Reservoir in the distance. The view is amazingly similar to the view from Sleepy Hollow's Short which overlooks the Hudson. There are too many trees around the reservoir now, but I have to believe Banks was inspired by SH when he routed this hole at HGC.
-
Wayne,
I only have a second and then I have to run, but, I'll be back on Tues or Wed.
I can answer the maintainance question for you.
FLAT BOTTOM BUNKERS ARE EASIER TO MAINTAIN
Unless the bunkers are in a location with zero gravity and no rainfall.
I'll be bach !
P.S.
Sean Arble,
How many Raynor courses have you PLAYED ?
How many Bank's courses have you PLAYED ?
Tommy Naccarato,
Thanks,
I've already stated that the inherent nature of the "short" hole dictates that it be constructed.
It's essentially a skimmed off, steep volcano surounded by a moat of sand with interesting internal contours in the putting surface.
It was in 1911 and remains today, a wonderful test for a short iron, recovery and putting skills.
-
Pat,
Try to understand that nobody is challenging the fact that the Short hole design is not a test for a short iron, recovery and putting skills. Nor am I, as the harshest critic, saying the courses aren't enjoyable or tests of golf.
When you mention, "It's essentially a skimmed off, steep volcano surounded by a moat of sand with interesting internal contours in the putting surface." you use terms that are not found in nature like a "skimmed off steep volcano" and completely man-made: "moat." Can you admit that they are engineered looking and naturally do not tie into their surrounds naturally? Macdonald had interesting contours in his Short holes. Raynor and Banks used geometric forms that look utterly out of place on a golf course. Those horseshoes and bathtubs looks more at home on a miniature golf course.
Though they are interesting to play, they are engineered in appearance. If you can admit that, your state of denial will be at last be at an end ;)
-
Wayne, "
Can you admit that they are engineered looking and naturally do not tie into their surrounds naturally"-WMorrison
The world is filled with 'engineered' landscapes, some more abrupt than others:
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1207/1348094452_e0d6c1494b.jpg?v=0)
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1042/1308397631_96eec2ef36.jpg?v=0)
Do you really think that the 'short' hole at SH doesn't fit into its environs, up against Nature's very engineered Catskill plateau?
Again, why do we consistently see 10 or 11 or 12 or more MacRayBanks in the top 100 classic courses? Something about the architecture rings true, it may be it's relationship with the macro environment, it may be the sense of boldness that's implied, the routing, the extended challenge, etc.; its exclusivity has little, if any, bearing on the answer.
-
Jim: good point
Raynor and Banks were both masters of routing golf holes,regardless if property was mild or more bold terrain.
To be fixated of a few of their standard holes is tenuous at best. #3,6,and 9 at Camargo are not templates, yet excellent. The routings at Shoreacres, Whippoorwill and seldom heralded Rock Spring, NJ are all outstanding uses of terrain.
Same holds true for Fishers island, Tamarack and Essex County (10-18). I caddied at Shinnecock for 4 seasons and during my 250+ walks there #17 never appeared as an artisitic epiphany. The picture posted here is beautiful , but an objective analysis would include a side /profile view `
-
Try to understand that nobody is challenging the fact that the Short hole design is not a test for a short iron, recovery and putting skills. Nor am I, as the harshest critic, saying the courses aren't enjoyable or tests of golf.
When you mention, "It's essentially a skimmed off, steep volcano surounded by a moat of sand with interesting internal contours in the putting surface." you use terms that are not found in nature like a "skimmed off steep volcano" and completely man-made: "moat."
Wayne,
While the terms are not found in nature, the features are.
Instead of "moat" I could have used canal, rivulet, stream or a number of terms connoting features found in nature.
"Skimmed off steep volcanos" are found world wide and quite natural.[/color]
Can you admit that they are engineered looking and naturally do not tie into their surrounds naturally?
It depends upon the setting, their surrounds.
They look no less natural than # 7 at Shinnecock.[/color]
Macdonald had interesting contours in his Short holes. Raynor and Banks used geometric forms that look utterly out of place on a golf course. Those horseshoes and bathtubs looks more at home on a miniature golf course.
That's where we disagree.
The internal contouring is a critical design element in the putting surface, one that serves a critical function.
Based on the holes that I've personally experienced I haven't seen "geometric forms that look utterly out of place"
One of the things that you and others overlook in the context of style, and remaining within the confines of that style, is the DEMAND for that style.
Why would you want to alter or evolve a "style" that was in great demand ? Put another way, if it ain't broke, why fix it ?
The works of Raynor and Banks were in great demand.
The golfing world recognized the product, understood the product and wanted the product.
If a client wants your "Brand", your "Identity", "YOUR PRODUCT", why on earth would you give them what they DIDN'T want ?
Banks was involved with about 20 courses and Raynor about 45 courses. Raynor died at 51, having only been in the architecture business for less than 15 years. Banks died at 48, having only been in the architecture business for less than 10 years.
In those short cycles it's pretty difficult to have an evolving style, wouldn't you agree ?
Flynn was an architect for about 36 years, that's a far longer span, one that would lend itself to evolving, wouldn't you agree ?[/color]
Though they are interesting to play, they are engineered in appearance.
Only certain holes have an engineered appearance.
If you ever get a chance to play The Knoll or Essex County, do so, you'll be surprised at how natural those courses look.
The fact that they remain interesting, fun and challenging to play is a testament to their architectural merit.[/color]
If you can admit that, your state of denial will be at last be at an end ;)
Why would I want it to end ? ;D[/color]