If you were designing your own course,

[Patrick_Mucci]

what templates would you include ?

For me, the short (# 6) and Bottle (# at NGLA would be on my list.

[Greg Tallman]

6800 yards, minimal bunkering, no rough, a few deth or glory shots(with sensible alternate route options), large undulating greens with a variety of false fronts and edges... a hybrid of the original designes at #2 and Augusta.

[Bill_McBride]

I love the three shot par 5, "Long."   St Andrews #14 is my favorite hole on the planet.

[Jim Johnson]

Redan.

[Peter Pallotta]

Greg - nice one!

The original Augusta, up and down those hills, with classic principles/strategies hole after hole (as if a kind if mirror image to CBM's conception of the "Ideal Golf Course"), done with special care by a great architect and a wise great champion --- yup, repeating that would be a-okay with me too

Peter

[Adrian_Stiff]

Ability to be up to 7600 yards, plenty of forward tees so it can play sub 6000 yards, plenty of water, intereting greens, two loops of nine, good practice facility. Room to expand into a second, third course. Good enough quality to stage a tour event, green fee in the $50-$70 region. Great location essential. No obvious templates.

[Matthew Rose]

I'd do a Biarritz.

And at least two par-fives that I could reach in two, and a par-four I could drive.

[Tom_Doak]

I would only choose to include templates after I'd looked over the land pretty carefully to see how the routing worked and where they might fit.  I would never start out a project saying I had to build a Redan, or any other particular hole.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

If I were designing my own course, I wouldn't do it in a day!  As Tom Doak mentioned a few weeks back, I also have close to 100 "concepts" for tee shots, approach shots, etc. that I think make up a good test of golf.  Even so, I never found that they just routed themselves into place......

I outlined about 20 of my tee shot concepts - Cape, Bottle, RTJ pinch, no hazard, sloped fw, etc. etc. etc. in one of Paul Daley's books a few years back.  I have not really written down too many green concepts, but I have a few - the Gull Wing Green (a la Riv 14) the A frame green - not unlike SH 5, Ultra Long or Wide (a la Strantz, who liked them so well he did them multiple times per course), a "T" shaped green like Harbor Town 14, a small green, a large green (Indianwood Old, 18), etc.

For me, it seems easier to think in terms of tee shot concepts/templates because you control the starting point, and only need to find the land to support the general idea, and be ready to make substitutes - like sand instead of water on a cape hole.  The approach shots are so dependent on tee shot results, that they are harder to be specific with, and even more often work out that I tweak the original concept I had envisioned to make it "just right."  But some things tend to make sense with certain tee shots, like any green with two distinct angles of approach (A frame or Gull Wing) with a wide or double fw.

As to greens, certainly, the short hole type green is one of those "desired concepts" on my ideal course, maybe once or even twice on my ideal course.  However, I don't think that green needs to necessarily be on a par 3, although I tend to agree that par 3 holes are good places for templates, especially "concept shots" like Redan, Biaritz, Punch Bowl, etc.

[Carl Rogers]

The issue for most of you would not be what you would include in, but what you would leave out ...... ?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Carl,

Yeah, I suppose my ideal course would actually be 54 holes or so. I wouldn't have too leave out too many good ideas there.

[Mike Hendren]

I would only choose to include templates after I'd looked over the land pretty carefully to see how the routing worked and where they might fit.  I would never start out a project saying I had to build a Redan, or any other particular hole.

Tom, isn't that exactly what Raynor/Banks did?  And with surprisingly solid results?

Mike

[Melvyn Morrow]

Templates,   while they are considered an act of reverence, they also still seem to reflect a sterile mind when relating to modern golf course architecture.

In our modern times these holes are best left alone to slowly fade away on their home courses basking in memories of times well passed as our golfing equipment today makes light work of these once renowned holes . The time when they where needed to explain the glories of golf from the home country are now gone thanks mainly to TV and magazine coverage of said original Holes. Another cost thanks to the constant onward surge of technology, alas it’s a loss we can’t afford as templates are used to ease the plight of our designers. Why bust a gut when a template will fill that missing gap(s) that eludes the architect.

Pat, templates define the modern game of golf in that they are trying to cling to a challenge that the new equipment has already pronounced redundant. We, the golfers come out worst for having lost the equivalent of the Mona Lisa, worst still plus much of the works of golf’s Great Past Masters.

We can of course contemplate 18 island Greens, however I can see the first 24 hour round due to lost balls, making 5-6 hours look like a picnic in the park. There you are progress without looking back, perhaps we should get back to the future and design virgin Holes.

Melvyn 

[George Pazin]

I'd try to find a version of Mountain Ridge's 11th hole. Drive over a ridge, bent fairway with lots of contour, slightly angled fantastic green complex - what's not to love?

[Rob Bice]

I would only choose to include templates after I'd looked over the land pretty carefully to see how the routing worked and where they might fit.  I would never start out a project saying I had to build a Redan, or any other particular hole.

Brings a question to mind.  Let's assume you survey the land for a project and there are several opportunities for template holes within the context of what you deem to be the best routing.  What is the thought process of whether or not you choose to use templates?