[Kevin_D]

I have been reading through Golf Has Never Failed Me, and was struck by this passage:

"Courses have become famous merely because they have one or two holes which stand out in the memory of the players as supreme tests for the golfer. But don't let famed holes like those or many others, such as the "Alps" of Prestwick and "Redan" of North Berwick, lead you into attempting to reproduce them.  In trying to make your course fit certain famous hole treatments, you are certain to be doomed to disappointment."

Is Ross taking a potshot at Macdonald and Raynor's use of the template holes here?  Anyone care to voice agreement or disagreement with this statement?

Another thing about the book that struck me was how similar many statements Ross made were to things said by MacKenzie in The Spirit of St. Andrews (and sentiments echoed by many here on this site). Both expressed admiration for natural links golf, thought a longer course was not necessarily better, cautioned not to overuse trees or water as hazards, thought courses should have options for both the low and high handicapper, and overall emphasized that golf should be fun and enjoyable (what a novel concept!).

I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on either of these points.

Kevin

[Tom_Doak]

Kevin:

I don't know if there was actually bad blood between Donald Ross and either Macdonald or Raynor, but they were competitors of a sort, and I am sure that sometimes Ross was frustrated over what he must have thought was their "paint by numbers" approach.

Ross and MacKenzie were very different men, too, but they shared an ethos of golf that came over with them on the boat.

[Mark Steffey]

think it just goes to show there is more than one way to build a great golf course.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Kevin,
The last sentence, "In trying to make your course fit certain famous hole treatments, you are certain to be doomed to disappointment"
doesn't seem to apply to many, or most, of the courses built by CBM/SR. They still remain highly ranked, and well liked to this day, and I've never heard of a club that was disappointed in their CBM or SR course. 
   
Even The Original Donald used known templates in some of his work: 

[Ronald Montesano]

Jim,

Do you mean the "bunker guarding the tee" template?

Seriously, though, which course and hole is that "short"?

[Mark Steffey]

Jim,

Do you mean the "bunker guarding the tee" template?

Seriously, though, which course and hole is that "short"?

i thought it was the horseshoe

[Kevin_D]

Kevin,
The last sentence, "In trying to make your course fit certain famous hole treatments, you are certain to be doomed to disappointment"
doesn't seem to apply to many, or most, of the courses built by CBM/SR. They still remain highly ranked, and well liked to this day, and I've never heard of a club that was disappointed in their CBM or SR course. 
 

Jim,

I am well aware of how highly ranked/widely loved so many MacRaynor courses are!  Which is exactly why I was struck by the statement, which I figure had to be aimed at CBM/SR.  From what I have read the beauty of NGLA is that the template holes *did* fit the landscape extremely well (haven't seen for myself yet - but looking forward to the Walker Cup this year!).

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kevin,

Hard to know Ross's intent, but perhaps he was advocating creativity rather than replication as the key to the future of quality architecture.

And as Tom Doak indicated, they were rivals and perhaps it was a potshot

[Ronald Montesano]

Let's also remember that we are looking rearwards from quite a few score off. I suspect that if a Doak or a Brauer were to utilize the same holes, over and over in the current era, a backlash similar to Ross's (if a forum for said backlash existed) would inevitably be written...

[Joe_Tucholski]

Have to admit I haven't read the book (it's on the reading list) but when I read the isolated quote I think he could be saying make the hole fit the land, not the other way around.

If a club wanted a course they might demand a famous template even if it didn't fit in with the land, which could be what he was trying to discourage with the given quote?  I figure a failed attempt at a template is deeply disapointing because you are familiar with how good it can be.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
If it was a pot shot it was probably because Ross and the other archies were more upset about CBM working for free, not merely his methods.  



"When modern architects repeat their own work (and they do, all too often), I despise it, wondering why they can't think up a fresh idea for a hole. But when I play another of Raynor's versions of the Redan, I confess a fondness for it. Am I a hypocrite? Perhaps, but I believe there is a difference. Macdonald and Raynor were paying homage to a classic form, and at the same time, trying to devise improvements to it based on the local situation. Their 4th at National is better than the 15th at North Berwick because the slightly downhill shot and lower intervening ridge afford a better view of the strategy of the hole, leading your eye to the target, while it cradles the layup shot just as well as the original. I have learned much about the Redan, and about golf design in general, by comparing Raynor's different versions and analyzing their strengths and weaknesses." - Tom Doak, from the foreword to The Evangelist of Golf by George Bahto

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()