I never did feel it is sacriligeous to critically analyze an architect.  If I were to criticize Flynn, and I find little to criticize, it would be that his par 3s almost always seemed to have multiple bunkers on one side and a single one on the opposite side.  I don't think there's much else for me to criticize.  Some might not like the way he boldly routed into around and along dramatic topography and rarely shied away from those areas.  But I like that aggressive design approach.

As for Ross, I think his penchant for high tees low landing areas and high greens was too formulaic and he missed some good grounds for golf.  Maybe this was his MO on courses he didn't see or spend much time on.  A comparison of Flynn and Ross at CC York (Ross was awarded the design contract) illustrates this point very well.

Raynor and Banks were too engineered looking.  They didn't seem to get in step with other designers that used a more natural look to the engineered portions of the golf course nor offset their greens to the line of play for more interesting angles except for road or redan holes.

How's that for a start?  Nobody is sacred in my book, classic or modern.

Dr. MacKenzie's weakness was in trying too hard to use a natural feature more than once in his routings, to the point of making holes dangerously close together.  Either he didn't anticipate the ultimate success of a course like Pasatiempo, or he counted on golfers to be aware of others on the course and dismissed the potential danger.

Every time I have seen a MacKenzie course which had later problems, this is the root cause.  It caused later committees to plant trees to try and mitigate the safety issue, taking the natural features out of play on both of the holes in doubt.

Tom, Is it any wonder some on here are forced to over-emphasize what others think is minutiae? When intelligent design gets mutilated by those with the power but not the knowledge, it's hard not to appear radical.

I'll cite the example, on the tenth at an old Egan design, East Moreland. This short two shotter had a small green complete with radically steep faced back bunkers. The powers, in the Portland Dept of Recreation, in thier infinite wiisdom added over twice the green space to the front of the green. Removing all semblance to intelligence for the justification for the eye winking rear bunkers.

James:

It was MacKenzie's strength when it wasn't his weakness ... he managed to get a lot out of each feature, but sometimes he would try to squeeze in more than really worked because a property line was getting in the way or something.

It's interesting to me that Tom Doak mentioned MacKenzie trying too hard to utilize a natural feature multiple times leading to some cramping in his routing.

Last April was my first visit to ANGC, and although I was wowed by the greens and the beauty of the property, I recall writing here that I left unconvinced that the routing was as good as it could be, not that I could do a better job.

It seemed to me that in going straight up and down hills, rather than utilzing more side slopes, MacKenzie ended up leaving a big under-utilized area of the property near the center, and instead ended up working himself into the corners, and then trying to get out.  Of course, when it worked, as in "Amen Corner", it came off as brilliant.  However, I'm still unconvinced that other areas of the course just don't have way too much going on simultaneously in a tight area, especially for such a sprawling property.  You can get a sense for what I mean standing on the 6th tee, or the 7th tee and green (even the old one), and overall, I find it to be a course that is elevated by the wonderful set of greens and the creative, heroic use of water hazards as a feature.  

For instance, there is no better or more creative use of a creek in golf than 11, 12, and 13.  Still, those holes could have been found with any number of potential routings.

Mike:

Agreed, but you've gone so far that you have underscored how few natural features there were to work with at Augusta National, which apart from the area down by Rae's Creek is not full of interesting contours -- just big hills.  The Doc and Mr. Jones weren't really that weak.  Plus, the clusters of greens and tees are a main reason that the course is so exciting at Masters time.

Mark:

I'm not sure that all the things you've listed for various architects are necessarily "weaknesses" so much as they are "priorities".  Not many properties really have 18 great holes laying there with easy connections between them.  The thing which makes great designers different are their choices of how to use the features given to them ... the thing which makes them better than the rest is their ability to recognize the best features to begin with.  I don't really think MacKenzie missed much at Augusta, though it's possible he could have been swayed by landscape elements (plants) which are all different by now.

Mike:  Those hills are way too steep to go up or down on a diagonal, all the balls would roll out the low side of the fairway.

Mark:  Maybe each of your topics deserves its own separate thread.  (Just do the one about Coore & Crenshaw before the one on Fazio so we don't have to go back to the dictionary definition for BIAS again.)

However, many of your questions go back to the the basic issue of how much one man can do.  That any designer insisted on doing everything himself is a myth -- even the great one-man designs like Pine Valley and Merion and Pebble Beach had many others working behind the scenes in some key aspect of the job.  

The designers who had great careers were those smart enough to find good people to work with them, and who used those people's strengths to their advantage.  Their "consistency" is related to the contributions of others.  That doesn't mean that Maxwell was no good when the Wood brothers weren't around to build his greens -- in fact, he probably taught them much of what they knew, it's just that he couldn't do that and everything else by himself, so if they weren't around he didn't have as much time to devote to any other part of the craft.

Tom Doak,
I couldn't agree more about the importance of surrounding yourself with good people.  Did you know that Cherry Hills CC is believed to have been built for Flynn by a construction crew that just finished building a Tillinghast golf course.  Some feel that is in part how it turned out so well given Flynn's very limited time on site.  

I was going to mention that Tom Doak is heard to have multi-million dollar insurance policies on each of his design associates    I wouldn't call that a "weakness" just good business sense  

At the end of the day, however, you get judged on what has your name on it regardless of who did the work.  

"Is there a sameness to many of Flynn's courses?"  

Hardly.  I hope Bob Crosby sees this post.  He was visiting his daughter at UPenn and snuck away on two days to meet Tom Paul and I at Huntingdon Valley (where we met up with Linc Roden).  Bob played the A and B nines and then we walked around the C nine.  Yesterday we went over to Philadelphia Country Club where it was too miserable to play but we toured the course.  Bob has now seen Flynn's work at Merion, Rolling Green, Huntingdon Valley and Philadelphia Country Club.  That's a lot of Flynn in a small geographic area.  Bob remarked and I concur how different these four parkland courses are from one another.  Yes, there are distinctive features and routings that would indicate to a sharp eye that they were done by the same architect but there's enough substantial differrences in them to marvel at his range of designs.  

Mark, ask Bob if he thinks Flynn's bunkers are plain or boring    I'd also ask you, if Flynn stayed at Cherry Hills for 1-3 months which seems to be the range but more likely 2-3 months, why do you consider that a short period of time, especially in that era?  I think it plenty of time to get the work started right, especially if Tillinghast or another experienced crew was on the job.  Flynn usually spent a lot longer on site than his contemporaries.  I wonder if his 2 right-hand men, Lawrence and Gordon were on site for the construction of CHCC.  Any idea if Toomey was there?  Lawrence and Gordon were on construction sites almost everyday for most Flynn courses.  That isn't to say they would have been at Cherry Hills, but it is possible and to date not disproven.

Wayne,
You know how many Flynn course I've seen (close to as many as you have) and I have studied many old photos, aerials, his letters to the Green section, etc. to draw that opinion.   I love Flynn but there are others who know and love him as well and have the same opinion so it is not just me.  Don't take it as such a negative.  Please post some photos of the bunkers at the Cascades so we can see the dramatic and elaborate shaped bunkering that is being restored there.  I believe it is important to present a balanced view of any architect.  

Wasn't Flynn also designing Denver CC on that same Colorado trip?  He might have stopped in Chicago as well on the way out or back.  You can do the math as far as his own time on site.  I do believe the crews that were there had a lot to do with the course's success.  

"You know how many Flynn course I've seen (close to as many as you have) and I have studied many old photos, aerials, his letters to the Green section, etc. to draw that opinion.  I love Flynn but there are others who know and love him as well and have the same opinion so it is not just me.  Don't take it as such a negative.  Please post some photos of the bunkers at the Cascades so we can see the dramatic and elaborate shaped bunkering that is being restored there.  I believe it is important to present a balanced view of any architect.  "

I never said it was just you that thought that way.  However, I disagree with you and however many others regardless of the number of Flynn courses you've seen or studied.  

Just because I advocate his variety in design style doesn't mean it is out of any sort of love for his work.  I respect his work and hold it in high regard.  I don't get subjective due to emotions.  I don't take your statement about the plain and boring nature of his bunkers as a negative to Flynn.  I simply disagree with you.  Why does there have to be an emotional investment?

Flynn wasn't always designing his bunkers with a lot of flair but they were far from boring.  Especially if you consider undulating floors, grassing of surrounds, shapes and contours, etc.

Here's a Cascades bunker with some flair.  I don't know why you  ask.  There are hundreds of holes with highly aesthetic bunkering.  I don't know how you can say that the overwhelming style is plain and boring (which seems to be Brad Klein's term).  If you want to challenge me to post more, I on Cascades and other courses I will.  You would not be able to support your argument thereafter.  Maybe I will.



Here's a boring and plain bunker scheme on the 14th hole.  
Yawn!  No aesthetics there, huh?