Why?

One thing I have thought of in the last few days is how embarrassed I would be if Victoria National had either a Redan or Biarritz hole.  I would have to restrain myself from telling non-believers what they are and would quickly tire of defending the merits with the others.  I much prefer the holes to be the holes..

I believe Tom has had this exact problem with the 17th..

I haven't played the hole John, but why does the fact that this hole differs from most Redan's (and is better than them) that make the immediate next step to never build another Redan?

Is the 17th at Pacific Dunes better, and more tranferrable, than the Redan concept?

Is it simply the lack of a back right bunker complex that makes this hole better? Does that make it easier? Is easier better?

Or is it just that if the 17th were a Redan it would be, in essence, a copy and therefore less original and therefore less good?

Doesn't the discussion of the seventeenth at Pacific Dunes double back to what Tom D said in the other thread? He uses all manner of swales through greens, which is inspired by the Biarritz. That's a far cry from building Biarritz greens.

Heck there's a lot of greens built up steeply on the right with a bunker to catch balls on the left. That's one of the 100 or so basic idioms of golf architecture. Nobody wants to see all those holes converted into Redan-clones, do they?

Same thing with swales through a green. I wouldn't mind playing a hole with an actual Biarritz green, in fact sounds kind of fun. But I certainly don't look at every green with a swale of some kind running through it and think to myself "Alas, this hole would be much better if they went ahead and built a Biarritz".

BTW, is there a special name for greens that are tilted away from the approach shot?

Tommy:

But here's my question (and maybe John's - but predicting him is never a good idea):  why does it matter which "redan" is better?  Or to put it more correctly, are we evaluating quality of golf holes, or quality of "redans"?

I guess this is all a matter of semantics.  Personally I'd say "the concept of building great par threes with different options as to how to play them" should never die, way before I'd say anything about "redans."

Maybe it's the same thing - but maybe not.

TH

Heck there's a lot of greens built up steeply on the right with a bunker to catch balls on the left. That's one of the 100 or so basic idioms of golf architecture. Nobody wants to see all those holes converted into Redan-clones, do they?

Exactly! How many times have I seen a photograph of a hole like this posted on this site with  an ensuing discussion of whether or not it should be considered a redan hole. But that is not as silly as the discussions about the "reverse redan." There is no such thing as a reverse redan, it is merely a "vision of the anointed."

A related question:   Why aren't any of the redans anything like The Redan?

Are CB and Seth the BASF of architects:  We don't make The Redan - we make it better.

Mike

"I'm saying to let this and all future holes stand and just let The Redan go its merry way..."

I do not have any sense at all what this statement means.  Nor do I follow the line of thinking on this concept of classical features that should die.

The fact is these hole concepts have stood the test of time in classical era courses.  If John K is advocating that designers steer clear of these concepts (not duplicates) then I don't see any merit to his position.

Flynn used redan concepts, not imitations, in ways that made great holes.  How many people playing his courses would recognize the differences between these conceptual variations and the originals?  Obviously very few.  How many that do recognize the conceptual link would find fault in the deviations and not consider the merits of the hole in and of itself?  Even fewer.  So what is the point?

I've never been to Pacific Dunes, have you John?  If not, what value do you add to this sort of analysis?  If you have, what is wrong with the hole as it is?  Why call it anything at all?  Just let it be what it is and that's what should go on its merry way.  Compartmentalizing holes into rigid constructs makes no sense for designers that use the land to dictate forms.  

Now I am one of the few that seems to have issues with the use of templates practiced by Raynor and Banks.  These tended to be artificial in look and forced on the ground.  In my experience I find less of this sensation on courses where Macdonald had a lot to do with the work.  But standing the test of time is the most important criteria and these features have become embraced by many that consider golf architecture and enjoyed by many more that could give a crap about anything other than the playability and shot value.

stupid, just plain stupid

stupid, just plain stupid

Yes, stupid, if one just takes the very face value of the statement "redans must die."

But is it stupid to want great golf holes more than one wants "redans"?

Maybe I am taking this semantic thing way too far.  Because again, I still can't think of an example where a redan was forced at the expense of a great golf hole - and that would obviously be the negative here.  So this is really a discussion of the focus of critiques.

Or is it?

Quick example:  13 Sand Hills.  Fantastic golf hole.  Not even close to being a redan.  But if C&C were so inclined, they sure as hell could have forced a redan onto that hilltop.  Wouldn't that have made for a worse golf hole?

Silly hypo, I know.  But I can't think of a real-life example.

TH

Okay.

First of all, the 17th hole at Pacific Dunes is NOT a better golf hole than the 15th at North Berwick.  It may be prettier but it's not better.  This has nothing to do with the bunkers Ran felt I left out, it has to do with the shots required and the line of the prevailing wind, which are absolutely perfectly oriented at North Berwick; the bigger topo of Pacific Dunes did not allow for that.

I believe I have mentioned before that Jim Urbina and I saw right away the possibility of building the finished 17th at Pacific Dunes on that site, but we resisted the thought, not even mentioning it by name [we agreed that we did not want to build one of those "R holes"].  However the steep slope to the left of the green and the line of the prevailing wind were at odds, and eventually we stuck the green out and let the natural tilt hold the shot up which was blowing in from left to right, in the manner of the Redan.  

I would call the result a Redan hole, if pressed.  But I certainly didn't want to carbon-copy it as Ran suggested so I looked to make some aspect of it different, and we decided that the nature of the wind asked for a different treatment of the back right side.

The discussion of modern Redan holes is interesting in terms of who has figured out what.  I have of course seen many of them in my travels and in our consulting work, and it took me a long time to learn all the nuances, and why I liked the Redan at National so much better than some others.  I tried to build one at High Pointe, but didn't get the approach right, and after playing National a few more times realized what I had done wrong so that I could do a better version down the line.  [It is interesting to note that Seth Raynor didn't always get them to play right, either, despite having helped build The National's Redan at the start of his involvement with golf architecture.]

So I did learn a lot about the craft of golf architecture by comparing and contrasting Redans and why some were better than others.  But I also respect the craft enough not to pull the Redan out of the drawer often.

Hopefully people like the fourth at Sebonack for what it is.  Like Mr. Huckaby's example, it could have been a Redan if we had wanted to try it, but neither Jack Nicklaus nor I thought that would be appropriate with the Redan at National about 400 yards away.