[Jim_Kennedy]

JC,
Not neccesary.

Chris,
The photos you chose were of Pine Valley and Lawsonia., All of them are listed below, from top to bottom.
I posted them in response to Mac Plumart's contention that templates leave us with holes where  "The shapes and features are so abrupt they seem to take away from some of the lands natural beauty/flow". I think the photos show that a hole from CBM or Raynor  flows easily across the landscape.  

Pine Valley- Crump, et al.
CC of Charleston- Raynor
Eastward Ho! -Fowler
Fenway –Tillie
Camargo –Raynor
Lawsonia –Langford and Moreau
Piping rock – CBM
Fishers Island – Raynor
Fishers Island  - Raynor


p.s. I really enjoyed the Overhills thread. Thanks

[Mac Plumart]

Hey Jim...

Here are some images that I think will highlight what I am refering to with Raynor's abrupt features on a golf course, which I don't think appear at all natural.  As you will see, they occur mainly around the green.

Camargo...



The top of this natural looking mound has been sliced right off in an almost perfect line.  Bunkers are geometric looking as well.


Shorecarces...




Geometric looking bunker with a hard edge on the green.


Contrast that with these holes from Sebonack and Ballyneal...





The last two look almost totally natural to me.



But here is my question and why I mentioned it (maybe not on this thread, but on another one going around right now);

Why in natural important?  If it is VERY important, why are many of the proponents of natural golf also proponents of Raynor?  This is confusing to me.  And like I mentioned (perhaps on this other thread I am referring to), this is why I still feel a bit lost on this.  I see where the natural look of Sebonack and Ballyneal are great for golf.  I get that.  But I also feel like the Raynor/CBM's that I've played...along with other more unnatural looking courses...were really good to great.  So, again why is natural important?

[Patrick_Mucci]

The following is an excerpt from the January 1923 issue of the USGA Green Section Record

One of the notable advances in golf architecture in America was made when the National Links were built by Mr. Charles R. Macdonald, each hole being a more or less exact replica of one in Europe whicb had become well known. Valuable as this plan may be, there are two obvious limitations.  First of all, if used generally there could be no progress but merely constant replications of the holes chosen as best. Second, there is wide divergence of opinion in regard to certain well-known holes, some architects insisting they are in reality not famous for their good qualities but, infamous for their bad traits.

Do you agree with the above limitations?    NO,

That's the author's biased opinion in 1923.

The 87 years that have passed have shown that the replica holes held up quite well, especially in terms of their playing values.

I'd like to know what "bad traits" he's refering to, and which specific architects made that claim.

The flaw in the auhtor's position is the use of the words "if used generally".
His lack of foresight in GCA is astounding, since he's apparently jealous of CBM and afraid that all future golf holes will be copies of those at NGLA.

He shows an incredible disdain for topograhphy, architects and their ability to creatively meld terrain to non-replica holes 

[Melvyn Morrow]

Templates are subject to contortions and conversions due to lack of proper ground preparation, therefore by definition the Hole is totally compromised by simply not truly reflecting the original.

In other words they are a cop out that does not convey the full spirit of the original. They follow the trend of Island Greens where the design intent is pushed to the background leaving it more or less in the hands of the course builders to develop.

With the Governing Bodies of Golf I would like to see the modern architects stepping forward and being noticed for their design – and yes that means defining who did what to were, who was actually responsible for the DESIGN or each phase if different Associates have been roped in to complete the project.

Like a painting, I feel the painter/designer owes not just the industry but the client, golfer and history the right to know who was responsible for the design(s). 

Melvyn

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mac,

In the photos I chose to post the more unnatural looking came at Pine Valley, Eastward Ho!, Fenway and Lawsonia, and all of those were at the greensites.

Jim Sullivan posted what's truly important about golf courses, challenge, fun and interest, that's what Raynor provided and probably why those who think natural is important also enjoy his work. They realize that Raynor made few architectural gaffes in his approach to the subject and they can also see what shows up in the photos I posted (and in many others) and on the gound(in many places) is that Raynor wasn't as 'unnatural' in his approach as purported.

In a most simple and limited definition, 'natural' harkens back to the first golf courses which were 'found', not built, or those that were gently massaged into shape by the minimal hand of man. It's also a reminder to the 'golf world' that it should move away from the vacuous and the uninteresting and get back to providing intelligent, challenging, fun and interesting places to play, much like Raynor did in his own way.          

[Tom_Doak]

Mac,

I don't know what it means, but personally I was amused to see that your four contrasting photos were ALL of work we have done ... We rebuilt the green and bunkers at Camargo and probably that bunkers at Shoreacres, too, though I can't tell for sure which hole you have pictured.

Melvyn,

Who were the greenskeepers and others who built all of Old Tom's courses?  Why don't they get recognized?  He certainly wasn't at Royak County Down long enough to see it finished, was he?  What you have asked for is just a very long list of people who were involved with each project, and if it was presented in full, you STILL would have no idea who really did what ... you'd just have more names to remember.

[Mac Plumart]

Tom D.

I don't really think it is too much of a coincidence.  In fact, I really liked and appreciated what you had to say on your website...

" We prefer that our design reputation be based on our original 18-hole designs and our approach to that work is rooted in a deep respect for the ground we are given.

     At the same time, it is informed by an abiding appreciation for the work of the old masters in the field.  For that reason, we believe we owe it to the game to help preserve and restore the great classic courses of the past, when given the chance.

     We have been sought out by many top clubs to help identify and restore their outstanding features.  An index of our consulting clients follows, but we do not list them to try and take credit.  Rather, we take great pride in the trust these clubs have placed in us and we relish the opportunity to gain a more intimate knowledge of their classic designs, preserving them in hope that we will draw inspiration for our original work down the road. 

I highlighted a couple of segments of the lines from your site.  This tells me that you respect the courses you are hired to work on and keep the courses defining features and/or try to restore them.  

And, Jim...with this, "what's truly important about golf courses (are), challenge, fun and interest"  I agree with that 100%.

Anyway, I feared answering Jim's question would derail this thread that JC started...I hope I haven't.  Sorry!

[Melvyn Morrow]

Tom when Old Tom designed a course he DESIGNED a course, when he was asked to Design and Project Manage he did so, but as a Designer he did not need to attend on a daily basis.  Many of his courses were attended once every two weeks sometimes with a team of men to work to lay turf on the locations of the Greens

I was talking about design, once all knew the intentions the work was done sometimes in house in Old Tom's time.

I am most surprised by you comment, seems like many, you do not bother to read my post.

The names of many who worked on Old Tom courses are known, example say The New Course Greens were constructed by the Coburn Brothers - George Coburn who later went to Portmarnock GC

The main problem Tom is that many still do not understand the design and build process of the 19th century designers. Much earth was moved, shapes and new hazards added, the design AM play PM is totally distorted by guys who should have known better.

I am talking about accrediting a design to an individual, my understanding is that you say individuals no long design a course alone these days so accreditation would be difficult. 

Melvyn

[Chris Buie]

Straying further afield from the original intent of J.C.'s thread, I'm not sure we can give a definitive answer to what is important about a course for everybody.  Different people look for different things in the game and the design of the playing fields.  The main reason I started playing again after a pretty long hiatus was simply to be outside and closer to nature.  It's a tonic, you know - and a healthy one at that.  The naturalistic element is of primary importance to me.  Holes that look like they were designed on graph paper with a protractor do not appeal to me a great deal.  They do appeal to many.  That is perfectly fine.  Different strokes.  Different people like different courses and different styles of play.  Some people always have to play competitively or for money - others like myself prefer a relaxed afternoon amongst friends.  That is what I just got finished doing and it was really great!  There is room for a pretty wide variety of styles in this game and the courses.   

[Sean_A]

The limitation of a template is what could possibly have been built instead.  I can understand the limitless variations on a theme, but it is still a theme which is necessarily more limited than two themes or three themes...Do folks really think its a good idea if all archies did what Raynor did, but with their own singular theme?  It worked for Raynor because his work is somewhat limited in terms of quantity and access and he was the only one to be so prescriptive.  Tom P wondered why MacD got out of design and I think boredom is a good a reason as any. 

Ciao   

[Jim_Kennedy]

Sean,
I don't think the question pertains to what an architect is or should be doing today.

You and TomD can believe Macdonald may have been bored, but I say that he was content in his accomplishments.

"The National has now fulfilled its mission, having caused the reconstruction of all the best known golf courses exisiting in the first decade of this century in the United States, and, further, has caused the study of golf architecture resulting in the building of numerous meritorius courses of great interest throughout the country". -C.B. Macdonald in Scotland's Gift, Golf

[Peter Pallotta]

A continually interesting thread, the directions it's moved in. The way I see it: Sean and Jim both know what they're talking about (on this subject and on gca in general); and I think in this case both of them are right.  And that's possible because they are coming at it from opposite places -- Sean from his playing and analyzing of dozens of Grade I and Grade II English courses (often relatively short, often under-rated, often lay of the land designs that at the same time don't wear their 'minimalism' on their sleeve)...and so naturally he has experienced -- in the playing -- dozens of wonderful and sound golf holes that yet don't adhere to the fundamental principles of good design as manifested in the classic template holes that CBM used as his model;  and Jim coming from the knowledge of the many great CBM and/or Raynor courses in America that in theory and in practice demonstrate that those same classic templates (and the principles underlying them) have been the basis for a very large number of great golf holes and great courses in an near endless (if sometimes subtle) variations. Anyway - not wanting to put words in either of their mouths. Just what struck me.

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()