Raynor - Banks ... Do any lesser efforts exist? Do the templates always fit?

[Carl Rogers]

From a series of other threads over the years, the MacDonald - Raynor - Banks works always seem to get high marks here.

Are there examples where they could not or did not make the various templates work very well and what are they?

[JNC Lyon]

Carl,

Fantastic question, and it's hard to believe nobody's responded to this thread yet.  I asked a similar question a couple years back.  Here's the thread:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,36865.0.html

The MRB trio is well known for their use of template holes.  If you play a course like Fox Chapel or Hackensack, you'll see that these template holes, particularly the par threes, are a blast to play every time.  There is a reason why MacDonald selected the holes that he did: they are great golf holes that remain timeless after multiple plays.  I've played several versions of the Redan from Raynor and others, including the original at North Berwick.  Each time, the Redan is a thrill to play, and I find myself hitting different shots from the tee and around the green each time.  These template holes are bold and stand the test of time.

However, I argue the template holes are not what made MRB great.  Each of these architects, particularly Raynor, was an excellent router of the golf course.  Like Colt, Raynor and Banks appear to find the par threes first and then build the golf course around them.  Check out the 3rd at Yeamans Hall, where Raynor builds up a beautiful "Short" green against the backdrop of the tidal marsh.  Or see the 3rd at Fox Chapel, where Raynor cut a steep Eden green into the natural hillside.  At Hackensack, the 3rd, 6th, and 12th are all in ideal locations for a Biarritz, Short, and Redan respectively.  MRB found the right land for the template holes and worked them in accordingly.

The question still remains: did MRB ever force template holes into a site that was ill-suited to them?  It's possible, but I think they were consistently successful with the templates because of their routing abilities.

[PCCraig]

While Blue Mound has some very good holes, there are quite a few "templates" on the back nine that don't work as well.

[JNC Lyon]

Pat,

Would you describe Blue Mound as being a lesser effort by Raynor?  Why don't the templates work as well as at other Raynor courses?

[Lester George]

Cavalier Golf and Yacht Club (1929) is not necessarily a lesser Banks effort but on such a compact site it was really difficult to make many of the longer holes work.

Lester 

[PCCraig]

Pat,

Would you describe Blue Mound as being a lesser effort by Raynor?  Why don't the templates work as well as at other Raynor courses?

JNC...no, I wouldn't say that. Only that the templates that don't work as well on the less interesting land (IE flat) there. The club's best holes IMO are those from 5-9 which use the most rolling and interesting land on the property.

Then again...CGC is pretty flat and MacRaynor did pretty well there

[Phil McDade]

Pat,

Would you describe Blue Mound as being a lesser effort by Raynor?  Why don't the templates work as well as at other Raynor courses?

Thread on Blue Mound:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,45401.0.html

My own views:

What makes BM interesting is the green sites, far and away. Virtually every green there has some interest, and some are among the best in Wisconsin. But Raynor had less-than-compelling land to work with, so some of the templates hold interest mostly from the greens, and less so the land traveresed to get to the greens.

Hole #1 has a very good Redan-esque green, but it's a straightaway par 4.

The green at #2 is terrific, and the drive has some interest because its outcome is blind. But it's a pretty straight-forward hole.

#3 is the Biarritz, and the fronting half is cut at close fairway height, not as green. I'm not sure it plays with the ability to use the running shot there, due to course conditioning.

#4 is the Alps, a fairly ho-hum hole, but a very good green.

#5 is a very good version of a Road Hole; #7 is a very good Short; and #8 is a terrific Punchbowl green moving over the most interesting terrain on the course.

#10 green is probably the best on the course -- but again, a fairly bland hole until one reaches a wonderful green. I think #11 is a very good Cape, in part because there is trouble surrounding the green as a Cape hole calls for.

#13 is a great Redan, in my view. But I'm not sure the Eden (#17) is a very good version of that template; solid hole, but not classicly tilted as the Eden seems to call for.

[Carl Rogers]

Ok, so it was not only a matter of undestanding the templates, Raynor - Banks could understand topography and route well.

To conclude, they did do consistently good quality work.

[Phil McDade]

Carl:

Well, to play devil's advocate here, there are some (you can find a few here on GCA) who suggest that a slavish devotion to templates ignores the lay of the land, and "forces" a particular kind of hole onto a piece of land that might otherwise yield a more interesting, or at least varied, hole or set of holes.

To my eyes, the best template holes at Blue Mound are those that work in concert with the land; the ones that are a bit more bland are simply laid out over less-than-compelling terrrain.

[Mike Hendren]

I have become a huge fan of their work.  Perhaps their work was so bold that an indifferent effort simply wasn't possible.  While I've only played a half-dozen of their courses, it seems they succeeded equally well in deploying templates on flat sites such as Blue Mound and portions of Knoll West and hilly sites such as Forsgate and Lookout Mountain to cite only courses I have played.

I wonder if as engineers they simply didn't have the ability to wing it?

Mike

[Phil McDade]

Bogey:

I think the other thing that often gets unsaid in these debates about template holes is the cost to build them, way back when. Langford didn't use templates per se (although that's probably a thread of its own right), but he did employ a certain "look" to his courses, and where it's most fully realized -- at Lawsonia in Wisconsin -- he and Moreau had a ton of money (at the time -- 1930) to engineer that course and build it to its original bold specs. Less so at another of their courses -- Ozaukee CC, near Milwaukee -- where the original bold plans were never fully realized. It's a fine course, routed over very good rolling land, with some terrific greens, but less compelling than Lawsonia, and I've always wondered if money played a (the?) factor in the plans not being fully carried out.

Templates generally seem to cost more money to build -- bigger greens, generally, and significant bunkerage on many -- and perhaps Raynor and Co. thought that's where they could best use their money, instead of "re-engineering" a course or moving lots of earth to produce interest in land that held little to begin with. Just a thought.