[Chris_Clouser]

In Geoff Shackelford’s book he puts 4 people in what he terms the “National School” of design.  I understand the basic premise of the affiliation, but I’m wondering if someone can present some cogent arguments as to the differences from those included in the “School.”  

I have limited exposure, except through this site to any of the “National School” designs in the usual sense (Macdonald, Raynor and Banks).  So I am wondering what is the difference between them.  

Did Raynor use different hole designs than Macdonald?  
Were their bunkering styles similar?  
Does the bunkering today reflect what it looked like during original design?
Were the green designs different?  
Did Raynor come up with any original hole designs that Macdonald did not use?
If not, why is Raynor so revered when the same concept today is so easily dismissed?  
How does Banks differentiate from the two of them?

How does Devereaux Emmet fit into this whole scheme?

I know he was a friend of Macdonald’s and was a member at the National, but did he employ similar concepts in his designs?  

Also, beyond these four, does the school really extend out to others, as it appears to me?  People like Langford and Maxwell?  Do they belong in this group or perhaps in a sub-grouping with Emmet if you looked at it from a family tree perspective?

What courses by Emmet would lend credence to him being in this group?

[TEPaul]

I think the best way to understand as well as one would need to and get an accurate representaton of the so-called "National School" and who practiced it is to read Geoff Shackelford's chapter on it in "The Golden Age of Golf Design" very carefully (the book you refer to Chris).

This sentence says as much as most need to know;

"Though many of the other design schools in this book may have taken architecture to more sophisticated levels, it was Macdonald's work that initiated the Golden Age with his combination of strategy and replicas of the great holes of Britain."

Of course the rest of the details in his brief chapter on the "National School" are very much to the point of defining exactly who was part of the "National School" style and look as well.

To me the three architects who were essentially the practioners of the "National School" were Macdonald, Raynor and Banks. Basically all their courses have that very distinct and identifiable look and style of "National School" architecture.

It may be said that Devereux Emmet was a practioner of that school but if so only infrequently and one cannot overlook that some of his designs preceded Macdonald's "National School" and definitely show real differences in look and style from the "National School".

However, one can't help but notice that the photo of the 16th at Marion Hollins's "Women's National" (Emmet) has the look and style of the work of Macdonald, Raynor or Banks. To me those last three are the real "National School" practioners, though, and probably the only ones. The look and style of all three of them is both similar and identifiable and very different from other styles and types---at least it is to me.

[Chris_Clouser]

Tom,

I agree that I can usually recognize the style of design, but have you found any differences between the three primary contributors?  In all the items I've looked at the only thing I can see between Raynor and Macdonald is the bunker design.  CB appears to be a little more freeform.

[TEPaul]

Chris:

I'd say your bunker observation between Macdonald and Raynor is a very good one. As to Banks, personally I'm not that familiar with him---but some of the holes I've seen of his are similar to that same style except occasionally Bank's appeared to even overdo it!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()