[Sean_A]

It seems to me an inordinate amount of discussion has taken place around template holes these recent months.  Was/is this concept much more influential than I thought it was?  I don't believe that concept is much more than blip on the architecture timeline.  Are we making mountains out of molehills?  It seems quite obvious to me that liberal, no very liberal license was taken in recreating many of these template design concepts, to the point where some are not remotely similar to the originals.  Do we spend too much time trying to pigeon hole holes?  

Ciao  

[wsmorrison]

Has Template Hole Design Been Blown Way Out Of Proportion Lately?

While there has been an inordinate amount of focus on templates, I think it is a very interesting subject, especially when compared and contrasted to other design styles that existed prior to and beyond
the time period the templates were originally constructed.  Out of these many threads have come some really good responses and thought provoking leads.  Overall it is worthwhile and those that want to tune out can at any time.

The proponents of templates seem to be overplaying the importance in the grander scheme of architectural design in America.  What about its complete or near complete absence of the MacRayBanks template model in the rest of the world?  Or did template designs take hold, however briefly, in other regions, such as the UK, European continent, Australia, Africa?  The whole idea of designing by polls and competitions is a bit odd.  While it was originally used to push design in a better direction away from steeplechase designs, it quickly lost its influence and was confined to a handful of architects.  Not lost on us is how highly regarded the courses these men built were to the members and relatively small group of golfers that had opportunities to play these mostly very exclusive courses.

Sorry if I am overblowing it some more  

[TEPaul]

I think the fact of template holes and the idea of them is really important and probably can't be overblown.

The reason is not that they had that much of an impact and lasting effect on the designs of most other architects but the fact is they were one of the primary design tools of a guy who really made an impact and a real splash in American architecture at a most important and significant time of its early development.

The significance of the template hole issue is just as much that other architects came to disagree with templates and the reasons WHY they disagreed with them and perhaps what the directions were that emanated from a disagreement with them.

If templates never happened over here via NGLA some of those departures and new directions away from the idea of copying existing holes may not have happened or happened when and why they did.

[Sean_A]

I agree, the subject is interesting to a point and that point has probably been reached.  It seems either one accepts these design concepts for what they are and enjoys them or one embraces these design concepts and enjoys them.  I don't know, but I would have thought that a major reason for the existence of templates is that MCD didn't feel a need to reinvent the wheel when there were perfectly fine wheels already in existence.  The goal was to create a top notch course(s) fairly quickly and what better way for a novice to so then to use what already exists?  If this is the measure of success then MCD was very successful.  However, once the design ball is rolling, the need for templates diminishes.  If this idea of limited long lasting influence doesn't exist, why all the hoopla lord knows how many years later?  I can understand the curiosity from a historical perspective as an interesting branch of architecture, but perhaps the importance is the this branch somewhat overblown in the big scheme of things.  Especially when we consider the architecture being created almost simultaneously.  

The most important question to me where all this is concerned is why MCD didn't embrace the heathland style of architecture - which strikes me as being the most model for all inland.      

Ciao

 

[TEPaul]

"The most important question to me where all this is concerned is why MCD didn't embrace the heathland style of architecture which strikes me as being the most model for all inland architecture."

Because Macdonald was at first fixated on seaside golf not inland golf. It was to seaside golf in America (NGLA) that he brought his template models from linksland Scotland.

Furthermore, when Macdonald first conceived of NGLA and its template models, the healthland architecture had not yet gotten the recognition it got later and the recognition we now rightly give it as an inland architectural model.  

Not to mention the fact that from his past Macdonald was truly wedded to St Andrews in a number of ways regarding golf. That is where he found, learned and fell completely in love with golf.

But Macdonald lived until 1939 and it certainly seems true to say that he never seemed to give the inland heathland model anywhere near as much notice or credit as many other architects even coming out of the teens did.

Perhaps that was just something of a competitive reaction on his part. After-all the highly naturalized heathland or inland model was to become one of the biggest and most successful competitors to his type and style of architecture.

However, Macdonald did give credit to two inland American courses that preceded his NGLA for their excellence. Those were Myopia and Garden City GC.

Were either of those influenced by the inland heathland model? I'm not sure about GCGC, but I doubt it. Myopia, on the other hand, probably was. I think I can document Herbert Leeds presence in the heathlands on and around the turn of the century. I certainly know we can document the presence of the likes of Crump and Hugh Wilson in the heathlands studying that architecture around ten years later. At least one of those guys basically got his GB study itinerary from Macdonald. Did he include the heathlands on that itinerary. I've never seen anything to indicate he did.

[Paul_Turner]

One of the templates was from Sunningdale (The Bottle) so Macdonald saw some of the early heath courses: Sunn Old, Walton Heath Old,  Woking

Fowler tried to talk him out of building templates.

[TEPaul]

"Fowler tried to talk him out of building templates."


It'd be interesting to see evidence of that dialogue. Do you have any of it?

[Mike Sweeney]

The most important question to me where all this is concerned is why MCD didn't embrace the heathland style of architecture - which strikes me as being the most model for all inland.  
 

I can't answer that but I believe the combination of a bunch of these styles come together at the fourth hole at Hidden Creek:

* template hole
* heathland course
* natural looking hole that obviously had to be built



I think Templates are one of the pieces in the evolution of design, and it is a reason that I find Old Macdonald to be of great interest. Young, Moran, Doak, C&C all use template holes or features. I doubt that (and I think Tom Doak has mentioned) that there won't be any "copy" holes at Old Mac. I will guess that there will be many pieces and elements tied together, and yes I think you will and should see some Tom Doak there.

[TEPaul]

It has always seemed to me that it can never be stressed enough that Macdonald in his so-called template or model modus operandi was probably most often not trying to necessarily create "look-alikes" over here from the other side. The following remarks from him should show he often found and reused ideas from formations from the other side that may not have had any strategic or conceptual significance over there.

"I labored four years to that end. In 1904 I again made a study of foreign courses, reflecting the "whys" and "wherefores". In 1906, after four months in Europe, I completed my research studies and brought home with me surveyors' maps of the more famous holes; the Alps, Redan, Eden, and the Road Hole, also some twenty or thirty sketches, personally drawn, of holes embodying distinctive features, which in themselves seemed misplaced, but could be utilized to harmonize with a certain character of undulating ground and lay the foundation for an ideal hole."

It seems to me the latter is basically his observations of forms or landforms not necessarily significant to the holes where he observed them but that could be man-made over here to supplement some natural landform over here to create ideal concepts and strategies and ideal holes.

On the other hand, what he said in that latter part could perhaps be interpreted to mean that those certain distinctive features over there that in themselves may seem misplaced WERE many of the rudimentary man-made features that the linksland also possessed at that time!

For instance, something like the board supported and rather geometric shape of North Berwick's Redan bunker at that time.

Macdonald certainly could not help but notice something like that really did look remarkably artificial, but the point is, despite that glaringly artificial look, it did work well to complete and sustain the concept and strategies of that hole, and so he copied the engineered and artificial look of it too.

[Eric_Terhorst]

Sean,

Isn't virtually everything around here overdone?  It's one of the charms of the discussion group for me, but I can understand how it might become tedious to the veterans.

Re:  template holes, if you're tired of discussing them now, I guess you'll want to take an extended vacation from the DG after Old Macdonald opens!  

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I agree that it's been blown out of proportion and I'm sorry for my contribution to that.  The funny thing is that I'm usually one of the ones arguing AGAINST templates.

However, I don't think the discussion is out of context here, because the truth is that for 20 years or more, modern designers have been using template holes quite regularly in their work.  The question is whether it's been done because the architect reveres a particular type of hole, or because it seems like a good p.r. strategy to build a Redan and talk about its history as a way to give a new course some prestige.

I built a Redan on my very first course twenty years ago, and I've built about four or five since out of 25 courses.  Have also built a couple of Eden-type holes, a couple of Road hole type greens, and various other more obscure homages such as an ode to the third green at Woking.  I've also built a fair number of bunkers in the middle of fairways, though I don't think you have to cite the 16th at St. Andrews or the 4th at Woking whenever you do so, there are plenty of examples of this in the U.K.

In the past 10 to 12 years it seems like lots more architects have suddenly started building these holes, too.  Perhaps it's just a new generation trying out the old concepts after getting to Scotland to see them first hand; a similar trip certainly boosted Pete Dye's career to a new level.  However, with the influence of marketing being so important on new courses, one wonders what % of the idea is design oriented and what % is for p.r. purposes.

It would be fair to wonder the same for Old Macdonald and I cannot tell you what % of Mr. Keiser's idea was the latter.  I do know he was uncomfortable with the idea that the new course would have to be more "created" than its neighbors, and he found comfort in the fact that he loved Macdonald's courses even though they were created; I think that was truly the genesis of the idea.  But I do wish people would stop talking about the templates so much and just start judging the golf holes we build.

[Paul_Turner]

"Fowler tried to talk him out of building templates."


It'd be interesting to see evidence of that dialogue. Do you have any of it?

Tom

It's from a 1920 article by Fowler,  but I don't have it.  You'd have to contact one Thomas Macwood of Ohio for further details.

[RJ_Daley]

Well, maybe folks are getting bored or annoyed with using the term, "templates".  I think that is perfectly understandable.  

But, the 'concept' of those named holes, the basic structure of the manufactured features are still quite useful to understand in terms of the strategy and playability qualities those structures present to the golfer.  We can say, 'template double plateau' hole' and have a common point of understanding of a basic design and construction concept.  Yet, everything about a hole named 'double plateau' doesn't have to be a carbon copy.  There are a multitude of FW configurations, array of FW bunkering, mounding, grading, etc., that lead to a certain style of green with distinctive raised levels, divided by a valley through the putting surface.  The concept of plateaus that have distinct strategies as to approach is the issue, not the template term.  It just seems easier to use the term to generally describe a certain construction-design flair rather than a long description.  

I think that when archies have a varied terrain, they are less likely to think in conceptual terms of 'templates'.  The land provides conceptual ideas more readily than an unremarkable, flattish piece of ground, where the designer has to think in terms of creating structure, earthworks, cut and fills, digging out areas and using spoils to shape features, etc.  Then, one might have a 'go-to' concept of what sort of greens and surrounds structure that is within a range of ideas that we recognise.  Thus, we might get a redanish, or knollish, or punchibowlish sort of structure, and so we end up calling it that known term of a template.  Yet, the FWs bunkering array, grading may all vary greatly.  

And, let's not forget many modern designers who tend to have their own 'templates' that aren't really of the "National School's" lineage, yet are 'go-to' templates for these modern archies. I've seen various holes repeated by particular  designers, pounded into multiple sites, repeatedly.  Call them what you will... double dog leg, ponds right or left, or both sides alternating,  or certain shaped greens with bunker off a kidney shape right or left,  always the same look over and over.  On non variable terrain, there are just so many playing strategies and structure that can be utilized effectively.  So, template, 'go-to' designs are in most archies repertoires... I think.  Yes or no?

[Sean_A]

Dick

I spose part of my disdain is that I think so many so called examples of a template are not close enough to the original to claim its name.  In effect, people try to pigeon hole the labelling of design concepts when they really don't fit at all.  The Redan and Alps strike me as the worst examples of such.  The odd thing is that whether or not these holes are good templates has no bearing on the quality of the hole - its like we are being thrown red herrings all the while.  

You also raise a good point in terms of archie blueprints.  I haven't experienced this personally because this tends to be modern archie deal with the exception of a chap like Ross who most certainly used some concepts over and over.  Ironically, I think his popularity is also an aspect which many count against him these days.  If you see 25 Ross courses you are bound to see repeated concepts.  The thing is, if you see 25 courses of anybody I will bet a fair amount that repeated concepts will occur.  The thing with Ross is that more people have a chance to see 25 of his courses because he was more prolific then just about anybody out there and several well known archies can combine their works and still not equal the output of Ross. I think this helps to put the Mac/Raynor/Banks school into perpspective.  

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Tom
It's from a 1920 article by Fowler,  but I don't have it.  You'd have to contact one Thomas Macwood of Ohio for further details."

Paul:

Thanks for the info. I'm interested but not that interested.

[Bradley Anderson]

Mr. Doak,

When you do build a template hole, I have to think that you might spend more time making sure it is just right. By that I do not mean to say that you would take an original hole less seriously, but rather that you are conscious of the fact that the template hole will be scrutinized in another way; that it will be compared to other template holes for accuracy.

For instance, a golfer might walk off of a really great golf hole that you have built, muttering to himself that "that isn't a very good Redan." But he could play that same hole without the expectation of it being a Redan, and walk off of it saying "what a cool golf hole!"  

Perhaps you can comment on that.

[Jim Thompson]

I think there exists a great need for people in general to dismiss the creative method others use.  Those who really aren't very creative just don't get the process and how it works.  I know folks who are great with a blank piece of paper and can create from nothing, but don't ask them to improve an existing item.  On the other hand I know folks who could stare at nothing for hours and at the end have no ideas at all, but give them something to start from and they make things better than anyone could have imagined.  Kind of like the old BASF line; "We don't make a lot of the products we make, we make a lot of the products we make better."

What troubles me at times is how some make automatic assumptions abut end results when the inspiration for the idea is revealed.  In my experience, many folks struggle to understand how someone gets from something they saw once to making something better.  I know we struggled with that a lot throughout a past project.  I’d come on here and use the word Biarritz in a post and everyone assumed parallel complimenting slopes or I’d make reference to where some other idea came from and most assumed the end product was only microns different than the original.  I think the general public is ill prepared to deal with the realm of idea and concept development and would now go so far as to state that sharing those type of ideas or impetus items is a disservice to most projects.  They just confuse the majority of the customer base and cause more trouble than they are worth.

Cheers!

JT

[Tom_Doak]

Bradley:

I honestly don't think that when I've used a template hole I spent more or less time on it than on other holes.  Sometimes it's an easy fit and sometimes it's not, no matter which approach you are trying.  It would be just as easy to make the case that LESS thought may go into a Redan because once you've decided that's what it is, you just build it the way you think it needs to be, but that's not necessarily so, either.

I do appreciate Jim Thompson's point, too, and I think I'm going to appreciate it more in the next year or two.  Whatever we do at Old Macdonald, there are going to be a bunch of experts telling me I built the Biarritz wrong, or whatever.

[Jim Thompson]

Tom,

Without restarting the argument of if the original Biarritz was an interpretation of the valley of sin or a restatement of the original shot over the bay, I have to say that to build it right you absolutely must build it wrong!  The textbook version that most attribute to Raynor, the one that is little more than a series of three dimensional parallel and perpendicular lines is pretty boring given today’s equipment.  If I were painted into that type of corner I’d make the thing so long that you had to hit a perfect 2 wood, knowing full well that nobody carries one anymore.  What we did on the Angels project with ours was the result of some very creative vision improved by perfectly timed erosion.    The rain storm extended the width of the lows, took out the perpendicular green lines, and dramatically improved the middle section.  To nitpick, we should have swapped its location with number twelve, the 250yd Redan.  I think the both would have been better, although it would have taken a lot more earth moving.  With the amount of press Old Mac will get, you guys might just be in the perfect position to bring back some of the lost elements of the game while helping a general population open their minds to a, dare I say, renaissance of classic shot values.


Cheers!

JT

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()