Trying...Trying..to understand Seth Raynor

[Scott_Burroughs]

Pat,

Read my post above, one does not need to "stay at expensive hotels, gamble or sign up 8 months in advance" to play 6 of the 7 courses above.

[Bill Gayne]

Brian,

I didn't realize that the formal membership guidelines were restrictive to members of Raynor clubs. When asked, exceptions in organizations such as these are often granted. Go ahead and ask and they may be very accomodating.

[Brian_Gracely]

Pat,

Read about his work - in what books?  did he write any?  I've read George Bahto's book about CBM, but am I to assume that since they both built the same replica holes that the book covers both?

Play his courses - again, I'm dropping that as you want to make this into a "begging for access" issue, which it's not.    

Join the Raynor Society - you got me there.  I don't care that much about his work that I'd want to get on a waiting list in an out of state club and then drop $25k+.  

I appreciate your efforts.  This wasn't intended to be a bash, but you've chosen to make it into one.  I'll simply stick to learning about architects that are accessible.

[Carlyle Rood]

Brian:

Your observations about Raynor's absence of writing, his presumably modest playing skills, his limited travel beyond the U.S., his repitition of design, and his modest portfolio of public courses are all valid and reasonable questions to explore.  So are your remarks about the limited critical praise for Raynor's routing and originality.

You qualified your statements by saying you had an open mind and were seeking education rather than constructing an argument.

It's an excellent post.  I certainly hope a reply will eventually be posted in the same thoughtful and intelligent manner that your original post was presented.  

C

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

Read my post above, one does not need to "stay at expensive hotels, gamble or sign up 8 months in advance" to play 6 of the 7 courses above.

Kapalua Plantation.

Greens fees are $ 200 if you're not staying at their hotels and tee times and booking dates are limited.  Travel costs are rather high for the "common man"

Talking Stick,

Green Fees are $ 170, without tax.
Hardly a "common man" experience.
Travel costs vary

Warren Course,

Tee times are limited to not available, depending on the time of year you play and in most cases must be booked in advance during the fall.

Cuscowilla

Private, unless you stay at the resort where the greens fees will be $ 110

Barton Creek

You must stay at the Resort/Spa to play and you must book tee times 90 days in advance.

Perhaps you may want to revise your list or rethink your definition of public access. [/color]

Carlyle Rood,

Why don't you give it a try.

[Jeff Goldman]

Ok, I'll try.  

Brian, although he does use the "template" holes again and again, the way he used the land he got (or manufactures sometimes) is what makes his courses that I have seen so good.  For example, his ingenious use of the ravines at Shoreacres makes for a bunch of great holes, most of them quite unique (esp. the stretch from 10-14).  He built the short from the tee at teh top of a ravine down to a green at the bottom, and then you tee off on the next hole from the bottom of the raving back up.    

He does that a lot.  The use of the land at Yale is likewise terrific though it must be said he also used a lot of dynamite I guess (though I've only played it once).  And Al Sharpton or the write-ups on this site can in far greater detail how good the course is as well as the great green contouring, with one green at Yale allowing the use of contours to have the ball wind its way all over the green on the way to the hole.

Seeing the template holes, and how he used the land to fit them in, is really fun to see, but, like the great classic archies, it is his use of land forms, whether natural or not, that makes me want to see more of his courses.

Jeff Goldman

[Mike_Sweeney]

BG,

I think people get too caught up in the template hole concept of MacRaynor and Banks. The only holes that really are template holes are the Par 3's, and I often can't see the compaison to St Andrew's Eden. The 4's and 5's have "template features" such as the Punchbowl greens, Alps bunkers. Even the Punchbowl greens themselves are very different. The Punchbowl holes at National, Fishers, The Creek and Mountain Lake all play very different even though people will sort of say, "Oh, here is the Punchbowl hole."

Take for example the 2nd at Yale. It is a "Cape" green according to Uncle George, but there is no way that you can compare it to National or Mid-Ocean's Capes which play as very strategic doglegs (right and left) around bodies of water. Yale's is a straight hole through the trees.

In terms of the writing, Doak was a writer, Strantz was an artist, Crenshaw and Nicklaus were/are Pro golfers, so there is more than one way to build a golf course. Raynor was too busy working, it appears, to do much writing. He was an engineer, and they like to build.

Now before I get labeled as a Raynorphile, I doubt he would be in my Top 5 working on his own without Macdonald at his side, and yes I credit Yale and The Creek as MacRaynor courses rather than a Raynor course that seems to be the perception here sometimes. However, the courses he clearly built on his own such as Fishers, Mountain Lake and Southampton are incredibly consistent, but they do not have the creativity of National or the wild terrain of Yale.

By the way, Fishers has the greatest site in the US, so don't take my comment as a knock on Fishers. It may be my favorite place, if not course, to play.

[Mike_Sweeney]

In reference to some of your other questions, MPCC feels like a Raynor for the first couple of holes, but I felT the dune/ocean holes there were very different.

a) Raynor never saw the originals

NEITHER HAVE I.  


e) You rarely ever heard people praise the greatness of Raynor routing.

FOR WHAT I HAVE SEEN, YALE IS THE SECOND GREATEST INLAND ROUTING IN THE US BEHIND ONLY MERION. HOWEVER, SAND HILLS IS NOT INLAND TO ME.

[Kyle Harris]

Is there really anything wrong with spreading a bunch of stylistically similar courses around if people want them and play them and enjoy them?

That's all there really is to understand.

"Say, I like this Redan hole, and I hear this fellow Raynor is good at building them... I have this 300 acre site, lets see if he can make a Redan similar to this one and give me and my friends something of our own to enjoy."

Yeah, not very deep, but it's worth out study.

[Sam Sikes]

I have pondered this question many times.  How could a virtual non-golfer be such a successful architect?  Personally I love the feel of a Raynor golf courses.  To me, they are totally unique.  I really look foward to the Rubber Stamp holes.  Also, the push up greens in conjunction with the sensibly placed bunkers allow for many excellent hole locations.  Furthermore, greenside bunkers are typically flat which makes a recovery to a push-up green even more difficult.  

Is there any indication that Raynor spent more time on-site than other archies, which would ultimately make them turn out better?

[mark chalfant]

Brian,  I have studied Raynor extensively. i believe his lofty
stature is deserved per:

1 Splendid routings
2 great greens
3 astute bunkering

Mike sweeney is right. If you yanked the templates at Camargo, Shoreacres, and westhampton they wuold still be great designs.

[Evan_Green]

Camargo has some terrific non prototype holes

The best is probably #12 at Camargo which a steller non-protype par 4 (rated one of the top 500 holes in the Golf Magazine Top 500 Holes book)- what a great driving hole.

One of my favorite holes at Yeamans Hall was #14- another great original par 4

Furthermore, his adaptations of the "prototype" holes at Yeamans are unique in their own right.

For example the "Alps" on #5 cant be more than 3 feet high.

Furthermore the "Short" has a horseshoe in the middle of the green, increasing the demands of placement on the tee shot.

[RJ_Daley]

I'd say Mark Chalfant, Jeff Goldman and Mike Sweeney say it best for me.  To boil it down to a word, I think of "craftsmanship".

I've played a few Raynors, and thus I've played multiple presentations of his template holes.  They are all different to the extent of the routings to winds prevailing, distances, elevations; just as no two pieces of ground can be exactly the same.  They all have a recognisable signature design profile, but the devil is in the details of actually playing them.  Yet, their strategies and shot varieties are timeless.

In playing the game, some aspects of the strategy or techniqes are timeless, are they not?  A well executed screen play or misdirection in football, have a repeating theme, but the executions of the players, and intangibles make each unfold differently, which provides excitement to see each unfold with varying results.

You may love to drive a certain world class motor car, say a Jaguar "E".  They have made many.  They are all readily identiable.  Yet, they all have their unique individual presentations, even if nuanced to some degree.  If you love to drive such, would you get bored driving more than one?

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

If we really think about it, there is difficulty in understanding many architect, modern or classic. When Dye said he liked Raynor's variety, I'm not so sure he was kidding, (although I would never claim to understand what he was thinking. All architects are repetative, there are only so many golf holes out there. Too say, however, Raynor was redundant is a misrepresentation. Sure he repeated holes, but the Redans at Yale, Fishers, and Mountain Lake all have their own variation on the themes, which is what I think Dye was referring too in his comment. Ross has his repetative styles. How many times did he build a raised green with a series of bunkers carved into the platform? I can think of three examples right off the top of my head.

To understand Raynor you need to understand - I think - playing options and angles, that's it. Look at the drawings of National in George Bahto's book and I think that is all you need to know about Raynor.

I didn't punch this up, did I?

[Michael Whitaker]

Thank you, Mike and Jeff, for getting this thread back on track! Brian asks good questions and this subject strikes to the core of what this site is all about... discussion of architecture... not ridiculous rabbit trails that add nothing positive to the process.

Keep after it, Brian.

[gookin]

Brian,

Thanks for sparking this discussion about Raynor.  Your points are all very good ones and mirror some of your comments back on the post about Par 3's and srategy.  I encourage you to take your questions with you and play a few Raynor courses challenging each hypothisis as you go.  I predict that as you walk off the 18 green at each course you will begin to understand. I volunteer Fox Chapel Golf Club for your first challenge.  My only condition will be that you post your conclusions on GCA.

[George_Bahto]

Brain Gracely: Regarding Raynor's writings ..........

3 or 4 letters were left at clubs in which he described (very briefly) what he was building.

I think this was one of the things that intrigued me about the guy - that lack of available information and the fact his work was hardly known at the time (certainly not now).

Like all the good original works of great architects, you do not ever seem to tire playing his courses (even with those nasty template holes).

Play Chicago, Shoreacres, Fishers Island, NGLA, Yale, Camargo, Creek, Piping Rock etc where much of his original work remains .......... pretty good stuff.

His routings: I have always stated that I thought his routings were his real strength!!

Repetitions: In those days Macdonald's friends were "asking" Raynor to build Macdonald-style courses!!

The Holes, those terrible templates: IT IS THE STRATEGIES that are the strength of these designs, especially if the clubs allowed him build exactly what he proposed.

gb