-

If an architect follows another architect into a project and picks some of the same landforms for golf holes the previous architect did without knowing what the previous architect did should it be considered the previous architect routed the couse or some part of it? I, for one, sure don't think so.

At Cypress apparently Marion Hollins may've brought Raynor to the Cypress project. If he did a routing on it, it seems like no one today has seen it. So I guess that could beg the quesiton---did Raynor actually do a complete CPC routing?

However, if he did, and Marion Hollins and Sam Morse were aware of it, which of course it would be logical to assume they would be if they basically hired Raynor before he died suddenly, perhaps they were able to collaborate with MacKenzie and Hunter et al on the routing of CPC which may've included some of Raynor's routing ideas when MacKenzie (Hunter) did it with Morse and Hollins right there and part of the project.

I think it's always important to completely understand and keep in mind what's might be meant by a "routing" and what may not be.

Essentially a complete routing can be a particular sequence of distance and direction related "pieces" (holes). Sometimes called a "stick routing" (which certainly can be a complete routing) it can be nothing more than a dot (tee) with a line connecting another dot (green site) and on and on in a series of connected pieces.

In my mind it's certainly possible for two architect to use the exact same "stick routing" and come up with two golf courses that can be quite different. The reason for that, in my opinion, is the vast difference in actually "designing" an exactly similar "stick routing" can just make it so. Green sizes, shapes, orientation, bunker schemes, fairway sizes and lines, not to mention various earth-moving schemes on the same landform can simply make two identical routings into two courses that may almost be unrecognizable from the other.

A routing has been called the "bones" of a golf course and I think that's so. Probably more appropriately a routing should be called the "skeletion" of a golf course.

But we know that all human beings basically have fairly similar skeletal structures but are the similar people, similar looking, similar acting etc? Of course not.

The same is true for a routing as opposed to the "designing" of that routing---the "designing up" phase can make identical routings appear to be almost completely separate courses, in my opinion.

Such is the nature of the eternal "jigsaw puzzle" of golf course architecture!

NAF:

In my opinion, that really isn't the point. Wouldn't you say it sure sounds like Tony Cashmore has looked at a CPC routing by Raynor? Otherwise how could he possibly have said the things he did in that article?

Cashmore's contentions are pure malarky. If he has the proof, he needs to show it. I doubt he can. I doubt it very much.

From what research I've done, I always gathered that Mackenzie worked from the routing that Raynor already came up with.

Not without some tweaking, however, such as making #6 a par five, instead of a par 3.  I also think he reworked between 12 and 14, adjusting those holes.    

I thought that the routing in the back of Mac's little green Golf Archtitecture showed this different arrangement of holes?  I'll have to check when I get home.

Has anyone ever noticed that the routing of Cypress is basically a cork screw?  Take the juncture between #10 green and #11 tee, hold it up, and the whole course unravels like a fly strip.  

Since Raynor apparently routed CPC, did he have in mind which holes would be his stereotypical holes?  Since I can't speak from experience, can anyone out there tell which CPC hole would've been the alps, punchbowl, redan, etc, or did Raynor decide this aspect of his designs completely separate from his routings?

Cheers,
Brad Swanson

Tom Paul,
EXACTLY.

Allegedly as the story goes -when Raynor in his original routing suggested 16 as a par 4 as he thought the carry was too long to be played as a par 3 - Ms. Hollins took out some lumber -hit a ball towrads the eventual green site -and said it will be a par 3.

I once heard a rumour that Ms. Hollins was very "close" friends with a certain Dr. Mackenzie -fact / fiction / folklore / grassy knoll?

Sounds possible as she was also involved in Pasatiempo.

Tom MacWood,

My guess is it is a MacKenzie routing. We know Raynor identified the 16th and MacKenzie wisely kept it, but that's about all we know.

In light of the topography, the lay of the land, wouldn't it make sense that if Raynor identified the 16th, that he also had to identify the 17th ?  After all, where would one go upon leaving the 16th green.  And, if he identified the 17th, wouldn't he have, by default, have to have identified the 18th in the necessary return to the clubhouse ?

And, if Raynor identified the 16th, wouldn't he have necessarily had to have identified the 15th hole and 14th green ?[/color]

When MacKenzie and Hunter were brought in by Morse to finish Monterey Pens (a Raynor design), they commented that they would have liked to have redesigned/rerouted that course, but it was too late...it was in the final stages.
Does anyone know if Raynor is undeniably credited with identifying or routing # 16 ?[/color]

Pat
It is difficult to say without knowing where Raynor intended the clubhouse to be located.

MacKenzie described how Raynor and Hollins discovered the 16th hole.

TE
Keeping within the theme of this thread...the point MacKenzie was making in his book...he did not discover or design the hole...he inherited it from Raynor and Hollins or Hollins and Raynor, which ever you prefer. MacKenzie describes the exchange between the two, and how they arrived at the final version of the hole. He gives credit where credit is due, which is refreshing IMO.

Pat
If Raynor placed the clubhouse in the present 17th fairway or near the present 17th green/18th tee, it would definitely alter his routing. It wouldn't be the first time, at Fishers Island he chose to locate the clubhouse on a precious headlands.