Is it much easier to build a Raynor course than a Doak or C&C course?

[Andy Hughes]

Looking at the Black Creek pictures, the course looks like a lot of fun to play.  But there is no sense, judging from the pics, that there is any attempt to make things look natural or that the holes blend in. The Biarritz looks to be as far from a 'found' hole as possible.  I say that never having played a Raynor (or Brian Silva) course, so grains of salt and all that.
Does that make it much, much easier* to build a good Raynor-style course than a Pacific Dunes or Cuscowilla or any of the other courses frequently lauded here?  



* easier only relatively, not meant to imply lack of talent or work or that it is anything I could remotely do

[paul cowley]

Andy....if dollars spent are an indication of ease, then I would say that if given the same site, the cost to construct would be similar.......

[Tom_Doak]

Andy:

Well there are a lot more Raynor courses than mine or Bill's, and a lot more Raynoresque courses as well, so I would say it's easier.

[Jim Thompson]

I think it would depend on how far one is trying to take the Raynor concept.  The challenge during construction moves from sub grade in a natural course to finish grade / topsoiling in an angular Raynor course.  By that I mean it is harder to make a curved object with a straight blade in sub grade than to make the linear objects of the Raynoresque features.  However getting the final lines to be right is very hard to prep ang grow-in in my book.  For me, I'd much rather make greens then tees, because level is tough to make and get fully grown in given weather and the elements.

Cheers!

JT

[Jim Nugent]

Andy:

Well there are a lot more Raynor courses than mine or Bill's, and a lot more Raynoresque courses as well, so I would say it's easier.

Isn't that a function of time?

[Joe Hancock]

 By that I mean it is harder to make a curved object with a straight blade in sub grade than to make the linear objects of the Raynoresque features.

Jim,

While I generally agree with that statement, I think most would be surprised at how good some operators are at at only using small sections of the blade when do doing the finish grade.

Joe

[paul cowley]

...well, on further reflection and having built courses that are considered Raynoresque [I am much too young to have been able to participate in building a course for Mr Raynor, i.e. Raynor course], and some that are in the Coore/Doakesqueish tableu, I can say that with the former a blade becomes most practical when shaping features that are big enough....while with the latter I depend more on excavators [trackhoes and the like] to create more natural features....one of the biggest differences between the two styles is that with the first you are generally pushing things up while with the second you are looking for features to excavate when creating [and sometimes pushing things up to excavate].....once again with all things being equal, [site and budget], I don't feel one style is any more difficult to build than the other.

...with that said, talent then becomes the deciding factor when trying to decide whether one is any better than the other.

[Ian Andrew]

Paul,

I am much too young to have been able to participate in building a course for Mr Raynor

He probably called you "mister" at some point in his young life


I'm a little suprised at Tom Doaks response, I'm not saying his or Bill's work is easy to do, but what's so complicated about the building compared to other projects.

To do it right, I think a Raynor course would be quite complicated to get the course to fit into the land as well as he did - while creating those wonderful concept holes. I couldn't say for certain Brian's does because I think the contrast of the grasses overwhelmed what you saw from the photos.

[paul cowley]

Ian.....I think TomD's talent is much beyond executing a plebian Raynor but I do think he could rise to the challenge on a good site to create a course using only Raynor features and  concepts....but not for awhile.

[Tom_Doak]

Paul:  Do you know something I don't know?

Ian:  I just think it's harder to try to make the construction work go away than it is to just go build yourself a plateau green.  I'm not dismissing Macdonald or Raynor's ability to fit their ideas onto the ground, they were very good at that, and you are right it's not that easy.  But couldn't anybody build a Biarritz if you showed them where?

[Ian Andrew]

I'll take on this arguement for fun.

Right now you work with the land and a lot of holes are......well there for the using. You still have to do all thise wonderful little things that make a course drain properly and grow, but many of the holes are mostly done.

Yes you do have a feww areas where you are going to work your damnest to make them blend and the holes at Pacific Dunes (you provided me with that list eons ago) do exactly that.

Now to build a template (Raynor) course you need to find the natural template holes in the land. You also have to avoid the duplication of ideas.

Yes the plateau and Biaritz will be easy, but many of the concepts are going to have to be found in locations that they "want" to work. You can't force the hole thing in. I would be facinated to see an Alps for example built in a modern context. Now that would take guts. The location of a punchbowl will have to be a very particular place to survive, particularly if this is not a sandy site.

Tom, I think this will be harder to do well than what you already do. I also think its time you take on this challenge.


I have always wanted to see George Bhato's work to see how that worked out. I would also like to see George offer an opinion on how hard was it to do.

[Forrest Richardson]

During the past few months I have noticed several mentions of courses being "Doak or C&C" -like.

This is interesting. Does it signal that we have entered a "season" in modern golf course development? As when a song or movie becomes "like" something old or new, are we boxing up the work of these two firms and packaging it so everyone in golf will be able to define it when they see it?

More important, does this signal a fad?

[Tom_Doak]

Ian:  When you are routing a course in the Raynor style you are looking to fit certain holes to the land.  You know what you are looking for.  Some of them will fit and some will not and you'll have to move earth to make the latter ones work, but you know what you are doing.

When you are routing a course for the minimalist style there are an infinitely greater number of potential outcomes that you have to sort through, because you don't have a clear definition of what type of holes you need to wind up with.  Having more options would make it easy if quality wasn't a concern, but it has to make finding the BEST solution tougher, doesn't it?

[I guess it's a matter of perspective there.  I do believe I am looking for the one true best solution for a routing plan; others believe there is no such thing.]

[wsmorrison]

What evidence is there, my personal experience is not great when it comes to Raynor, that demonstrates Raynor used natural sites for template holes to the best advantage?  The Redan and Biarritz at Fox Chapel seem arbitrarily situated and are built up and completely man-made.  He could have put them almost anywhere.  The Redan at Westhampton is the same though not so built up.  Is the Biarritz at Yale or Yeaman's Hall the ideal location begging for that template?  Are the template holes at Forsegate naturally situated?  I'm sorry, I just don't get the natural sites credited to Raynor and Banks.  Maybe I am just so used to natural or natural looking courses that I fail to grasp the overtly man-made look as integrated naturally in the surroundings.  It seems most of their work is forced.  I haven't been to Fisher's Island so I cannot say how well that is integrated to the natural settings.  Other courses seem to me more arbitrary use of nature.

I think I get Tom Doak's point about it being harder to design a natural and minimalist course because of the greater need to maximize what is there on the ground and the greater number of options making determining the BEST outcome a tougher endeavor.  

Does anyone really think that Raynor and Banks went around finding natural sites for template holes and then routing a golf course around that?  That would be a difficult exercise.  What evidence is there that this was their method of operation?  I would think they moved dirt to do what they wanted where they wanted and did not rely heavily on the natural ground for golf.

[T_MacWood]

Does anyone really think that Raynor and Banks went around finding natural sites for template holes and then routing a golf course around that?  That would be a difficult exercise.  What evidence is there that this was their method of operation?  I would think they moved dirt to do what they wanted where they wanted and did not rely heavily on the natural ground for golf.

The most prominent of Macdonald, Raynor and Banks template holes are par-3s - they could (and did) build them just about any where. In fact one of the advantages of their style was the way in which they often manufactured their green complexes - it gave them the ultimate freedom and flexability to maximize the best natural features of a given site when routing the holes.

[Michael_Stachowicz]

It would depend on the site.  Yeamans Hall doesn't rely on the natural site characteristics much, but Yale does.  Yale was an unfriendly site with lots of ledge and tough terrain (many holes at Fishers could be the considered the same) and Yeamans was a relatively benign plot of land.

Okay...so say you don't have a great site full of natural characteristics that C&C, Doak, and now Nicklaus are getting with holes "just waiting to be discovered".  Would the manufactured holes that Raynor and Banks make a more dynamic course than one who relies on natural features for cues?  Say you have a flat park in the middle of a city to build on  how do you engage the quality of golfer that we see on this GCA?  

I don't think Black Creek was a great piece of land, but a good design and good conditioning (the ground game is awesome) lead to a great experience.  Other wise it would just be another course in a development.

[wsmorrison]

Michael,

Like the proposed redesign of the 14th at Cascades.  Built on the flat area of this mountain valley course, the use of angles, mounds and bunkers had a more natural appeal with drawn out lines rather than abrupt man-made slopes.  The Cascades was one of the largest engineering feats in golf course architecture.  It didn't look that way on opening day and it doesn't today.  Great efforts were made to hide the manufacturing and it is a much more appealing aesthetic to me.

[Tom_Doak]

Forrest:

The definition of a fad is a style which is briefly popular and then passes.  With all due respect, "minimalism" hasn't passed yet.  Maybe it will, if other architects start trying to imitate it without buying the philosophy behind it.

Wayne:

Macdonald wrote of his routing for the National Golf Links that he found a good site for the Redan and the Alps, and then a site for the Eden where you had to hit across a bit of water so you couldn't get away with a topped shot.  So I think he did indeed look for natural sites for his template holes first and then fit in the rest based on what he couldn't find on the ground.

 

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

That would account for Macdonald's courses having a somewhat natural appearance, especially in contrast to Raynor and Banks.  Macdonald's Redan at Shinnecock was on a natural right to left ridge as well though that green was lower than the current one and rectangular.  Funny, the Macdonald greenside bunkering was more reminiscent of a Biarritz green than a Redan.

It would seem from my limited experience that Raynor and Banks were not as naturalistic in their approaches.  Is it possible that their templates were more engineered rather than found?  I may be wrong due to sampling error but there seems to be evidence of this though exceptions are likely.  Perhaps at Fisher's Island.

[Tom_Doak]

Wayne:  Macdonald had the advantage of knowing everything about the original golf holes and what made them great -- including knowing that the greens weren't all rectangular in shape.  Raynor and Banks only knew what Macdonald told them and drew for them, which was more simplistic.  But I think Raynor looked for natural sites for the Redan, too.

[Forrest Richardson]

Tom D. — Of course, "briefly popular" to golf is what — 50 years? I wasn't terming "minimalist" a fad...but rather, asking the question of whether referring to a look and solution as being like "Doak and C&C Courses" might somehow be aiming in that direction.