See "The Bear's Best," 18-hole "best-of-Nicklaus" courses being developed in multiple venues by Club Corporation of America.

Or see Ran's write-ups on Seth Raynor.

Or see "The Architects Golf Club" by Stephen Kay and Ron Whitten.

I think this is a terrible trend, but leave it to Perry Dye to take it to its ultimate conclusion.

Don Herfort is still around, still designing. Matter of fact, I keep my handicap at one of his courses: Oak Glen -- home of one of the best public holes in the TC (No. 10) and unquestionably the worst (No. 18 -- apparently designed with the sole aim of getting the developer's house just to the left of the green).

I've heard more than a few people bash Joel Goldstrand.  He never really aspired to competing with "name" firms like Palmer, Nicklaus, or Fazio.  He grew up in a small town in MN and wanted to take quality golf to other small towns.  He succeeded.

Hard to even compare his work to others today with budgets of 10X.

To those developers who think you can't make money with this type of course... you may find out you can't make money with the upscale courses either!!

Except for the new Architects Course, I find these replica courses a attempt at something that cannot be done. You cannot tell me that atmosphere doe snot contribute a lot to a certain famed course. So you played a replica of the 17th, do you think the Vegas shrubs create the same senses as The Old Course Hotel?

Aaron

One thing we have to keep in mind is not everyone gets to travel as much as many of us here (to play different golf courses).  I alluded to this in an earlier post about a S. Smyers course I had just seen.  They are starting to look very similar to me but if you didn't travel and seek out his courses you would never know that.  99% of all golfers probably have never played more than one of his designs.  

The Kay and Whitten course has NO replica holes.  Each is built in the style of one of the old architects and for the most part the idea worked well.

Was the MacDonald’s vs. Macdonald thing intended?
It is nice to reflect on the fact that C.B. never accepted a fee and that old Tom’s fee was one pound, and both welcomed the next generation of architects into their inner circle.
Are their any stewards like that around today?

Will there be cart paths identical to what's at TOC? With mandatory complimentary carts?
Will winds be copied?
Hard and fast fields?
Affordable?
Kelpies to haunt?

 Peter Keating lives.

I think CB Mac had grander visions than just copying greatness.  He wanted to educate and expose the ignorant to higher possibilites.  This Big Mac attack that is planned just reeks of corporate slogan hunting.

Who is behind the idea?  The obligatory airport art committee?  

BTW.  It doesn't sound very respectful to the Scottish to call it "The British 18"

Arron,  GPS technology is frighteningly accurate. They can digitize a worm cast. (I may be exagerating)

Just to confirm Slag's comment on technology and accuracy.  It's my job to create these systems that allow construction equipment to copy holes.

The technology stems from a desire to copy a designer's plans to the earth with minimal error - several millimeters.  (fortunately) this type of accuracy requires processes not suitable for golf course construction (IMHO).  The technology does not discriminate between the origins of the data: survey or design.  Just that it has a valid 3D model of its project.  Therefore, one can copy "exactly" the design from the office, or the surveyed course from good old Scotland (minus those features Slag has noted).

But exactly duplicating a hole or holes is not good either, in my opinion. I don't really see the enduring interest in playing NGLA's redan if it was duplicated in California.

MacDonald and Raynor had an interesting modus operandi of duplicating a number of their holes, particularly par 3s and I don't think that's a trend that should be aspired to. Actually the interest to me with MacDonald and Raynor's dupication is not in how similar their holes are but in their subtle and sometimes not so subtle differences and what that means to the golf on them!

I do though very much see the benefit and interest in doing what's called "conceptual copies" of various holes. That to me is when many of the shot concepts, shot demands and maybe the shot values are similar but that the holes are unrecognizable as similar. That may include things like using similar slope for the same shot requirement and maybe using a quarry in place of a creek for the same requirement or option. The shot demands may be very similar but similarity in look is unrecognizable.

I also don't really think that it's necessary to try to come up with something that is wholy new in golf architecture just for the sake of coming up with something new! There's enough in golf architecture (features) that's usable to come up with a multipicity of combinations that can go far enough to be considered unique anyway. In this way it probably isn't much different from chess that once past the first few moves the possibilities are endless (although sometimes questionable).

I see nothing wrong with MacDonaldization either if you happen upon natural landforms that are very similar. For instance, to date, I've seen about 4-5 natural landforms (raw land not golf holes) that are incredibly similar to Merion's #5. Some may have the creeks or the slope on the other side but still they are basically the same or certainly would create the same basic demands and shot values for the golfer. And if these natural landforms are ever used for golf I think they should be used as is, just like Merion's #5 was!

The golfer himself and what he can and can't do with a golf ball is probably far more limiting to golf architecture than architecture itself anyway!

I'm sort of interested too in the basic starting points of various architects and how they go about creating or producing things. Some clearly look very carefully at the site and different areas of the land and are able to imagine the natural possibilities on it to get the golfer to think and do various interesting things.

Other architects may not even notice the natural possibilities or certainly nowhere near as much as others and just decide that they need to make the golfer do this or that here or there and if they can't or don't find it they just make it, sometimes from scratch.

I think that certain formulaics of architecture do that to them too, like a 7000yd par 70 or any other various formulaic need.

But anyway attempting to copy is a bad idea, particularly if it looks similar.

I still don't like copying holes but yours is an interesting reason to do it.

Mark:

I was trying to find you yesterday but couldn't. They said you went out with your wife to play about 8:30 but I couldn't get out on the course at that time and when they said you were probably somewhere in the clubhouse around lunch I couldn't find you either. All they told me is you were sort of blond, so who knows, maybe I walked right by you.

One of our GAP guys that I played with, Roc Irey, shot a 67 yesterday in a very unusual round of 37-30 and he actually bogied #13!! He'd never played Lehigh.

Sorry I missed you too. We played the blue tees not the black but believe me for Roc Irey the difference would be totally small potatoes. The guy hits it about as far as anyone I've ever seen not just with the driver but with everything (a former long driving competitor). He's geared his game back up this year and has really done well in the district.

He didn't birdie either of the par 5s. I told him it would be hard for him to hit driver on #6 but he did anyway and actually cut it but still was almost deep in the woods. He hit something low from there and was on the right side of the green just in front of the bunker and totally dead if you remember where that pin was. On #11 he snap hooked his drive and had to lay up and made par. By the way he absolutely loved #11 green and surrounds and #13 for the same reason with the shaddowy grass bunkers.

He bogied #2,#3 and #13. His back nine went 2,5,3,4,3,4,3,3,3! Basically he drives it so far he was hitting SW into almost every hole and the impressive thing was he was hitting them with no spin (playing a V1) and hitting it right at every flag. Hitting SW continuously with no spin on those greens yesterday (they were very spinnable) takes a lot of talent. Most of his birdies were just kick-ins. This isn't saying anything negative about Lehigh--it was just a very impressive performance. He hits a 2 iron off the tee about 50yds past my best driver and his driver length is ridiculous!! He had about 90yds to that front flag on #9 and into about a 10mph wind, I might add. The course wasn't exactly firm and fast either with all the recent rain we've had.