Given the new developments in Bandon, it made me think of other courses that could be characterized as architectural "tributes." The Architects club in New Jersey is an example. The Tribute in Texas is another.

Generally speaking, how successful have these courses been? Will Old Macdonald be a different kettle of fish entirely?

I don't know if Arthur Hills really tried to emulate certain architects, but at Cross Creek in Temecula, Ca. on each tee there is a plaque that quotes great architects of the past and these quotes aply to the hole you are about to play. Macdonald, Ross, Mackenzie, Flynn, Tillinghast and others are all quoted.

So Ryan, how to you classify The Tribute?

Speaking of Architects GC, they certainly didn't set the bar very high with their versions of Macdonald/Raynor/Banks golf holes.   All three are among the very least impressive holes on the course, probably leading the uninitiated who play there into believing that the trio were some brainless troglydytes of ancient past, or worse yet, some boring, fey Victorian sophisticates whose designs challenged the player by putting them into a stultifying haze of disinterested apathy and instant narcolepsy.    

Coupla others...

Golden Ocala in Florida, where Ron Garl designed one original nine and did all replica holes on the back if memory serves.

Renditions GC near DC, although I've heard very little feedback on this one good or bad.  I believe it was designed by the same group who did all of the "Tour 18" courses.

Interesting about Golden Ocala ... Ron Garl did Wooden Sticks as well.

Upon reading further about the Tribute and the Architect's club, I do find that those are probably more accurately characterized as "Replica Course", much like Tour 18, Royal Links, etc.

And I think these are entirely different from what it sounds like Old Macdonald will be.

So, to respond to the initial thread, if Old Macdoland was to be the same type of "tribute" as you've cited with "The Tribute" or "The Architect's Club" then you'd find copies of the better holes at NGLA on the Oregon coast.

Why even hire a GC architect for this exercise?  All you need is some sort of skilled engineer and construction team to replicate.  

Tribute, in this case, is meant to channel the decison-making powers of someone long gone, and from my understanding of the project, should in NO way be compared to the creative blight that are these replica layouts.



(Not that they don't have value or don't appeal to the public at large...but from a GCA perspective they are essentially useless)

Martin - I think some benefit can be had when golfers go to these courses and, for perhaps the first time, really think about hole design. I can imagine a pretty significant percentage of players on these courses may not know more than a course or two (if they even know that) designed by the likes of Macdonald, Raynor, Banks or even Ross. Incrased awareness is, perhaps, the first step to greater appreciation. - Dan

All architects, unless they've never set foot on another course or laid eyes on a photo, are inspired by the work of others, and many features, holes, or entire courses could be considered a "tribute" if you wanted to so argue.  

Choosing to emulate a redan is a positive - artificially constructing a gravel road behind a green, and intentionally placing a scoreboard or other obstruction in the line of sight off the tee to replicate the Road hole is a negative.

"All three are among the very least impressive holes on the course, probably leading the uninitiated who play there into believing that the trio were some brainless troglydytes of ancient past, or worse yet, some boring, fey Victorian sophisticates whose designs challenged the player by putting them into a stultifying haze of disinterested apathy and instant narcolepsy."    

Mike Cirba,

With a little cleaning up, that has the potential to easily be the most outstanding paragraph posted on this board in years. Let's try it again.

All three are the least impressive offerings on the course, misleading uninitiated neophytes an impression the trio were brainless troglydytes of ancient past, or worse yet, boring, fey Victorian sophisticates whose designs induced a stultifying haze of disinterested apathy and instant narcolepsy.    

Gib,

Glad you enjoyed and thanks for the cleanup!  

Sometimes while trying for quick bursts of words while at work, my grammar gets so tortured it needs a Congressional Oversight Committee.  

The Tribute in TX was done by Tripp Davis and it is very good for many reasons.

Ryan:

"Why even hire a GC architect for this exercise?  All you need is some sort of skilled engineer and construction team to replicate."

I know of a 100 engineers I have worked with over the years and not one of them could come close, or begin to understand what it would take to 'replicate' and develop a course like the Tribute.  They wouldn't even know where to get the inspiration to attempt it.  Perhaps, you know something the rest of us architects don't    

"Not that they don't have value or don't appeal to the public at large...but from a GCA perspective they are essentially useless."

I know that the Tribute is doing quite well, so it seems by some standards that they are in fact useful.  Maybe you should play it and then state your opinion?

Gee wiz, I sure hope Tom Doak and company don't consider anything like a tribute to Mr. MacDonald at Bandon...it too could turn out useless!

The Tribute in TX was done by Tripp Davis and it is very good for many reasons.

Ryan:

"Why even hire a GC architect for this exercise?  All you need is some sort of skilled engineer and construction team to replicate."

I know of a 100 engineers I have worked with over the years and not one of them could come close, or begin to understand what it would take to 'replicate' and develop a course like the Tribute.  They wouldn't even know where to get the inspiration to attempt it.  Perhaps, you know something the rest of us architects don't    

Scott,

From a design perspective, if one was able to take the grounds at the old course, and replicate the slopes, angles, distances, etc, you'd do a pretty good job of replicating the playability of the hole.  I don't see how it's absolutely necessary that a GC architect complete this exercise.  With topographical mapping technologies, all you'd need is an accurate map and a construction crew to make it happen.  If the stated purpose of a course like Royal Links is as follows:

"Missed your invitation to play in the British Open? Not to worry. You can still play 18 of the best holes from 11 different British Open rotation courses."

Wouldn't it then be the ultimate aspiration of the course to replicate as precisely as possible the course designs it is emulating?  

To this end, if given a choice between a skilled mapper and construction crew, or a skilled Golf Course Architect who would take a hole like 17 at TOC and render it to the best of his/her belief, why wouldn't the former be the more attractive option for maximum authenticity/accuracy?

"Not that they don't have value or don't appeal to the public at large...but from a GCA perspective they are essentially useless."

I know that the Tribute is doing quite well, so it seems by some standards that they are in fact useful.  Maybe you should play it and then state your opinion?

You've misread my statement - I said not that they don't have value or appeal to the public at large.  Clearly, they DO hold value - people love this stuff...they eat it up.  Just not the GCA crowd.  In my earlier post I offered an honest statement that I have no opinion of the Tribute as I've not played it, but as an outsider looking in and from an architectural standpoint, what, really, does a replica of 1 at TOC bring to the table?

Gee wiz, I sure hope Tom Doak and company don't consider anything like a tribute to Mr. MacDonald at Bandon...it too could turn out useless!

I am reserving judgment on what team Macdonald come up with in Bandon - the thing I want to be clear, though, and the central reason for my posting here at all is that there is a huge difference between the definitions of "tribute" that people have - Seems that there is either "replica" or "creative process decisions inspired by".

Tour 18, Tribute, and Royal Links appear to be "Replica" courses

Old MacD seems to be in the latter.  As I said, I don't expect, nor do I want to find replicas of the 3 best holes at NGLA on the Oregon cliffs.

oops...I'm wrong.  I just did a google search and see the error of my ways.

Ryan:

"Clearly, they DO hold value - people love this stuff...they eat it up.  Just not the GCA crowd."

Okay, I guess we agree here, or so based at least on this site.

"the thing I want to be clear, though, and the central reason for my posting here at all is that there is a huge difference between the definitions of "tribute" that people have - Seems that there is either "replica" or "creative process decisions inspired by"."

Your right, and depending on who you speak to the interpretation/definition can get very hazy and herein lies some of the dispute between the GCA types and those who love golf, but may never have a chance to experience the real thing.  The latter do love it!

When speaking and playing with Tripp at the Tribute and from reading their marketing material, it was clear that it was not Tripp's intent to replicate holes, but to pay respectful homage to these great experiences.  You also have to remember, we WORK for clients who often have a clear objective in mind and a business plan that in all of their wisdom, most times don't include input from the architect during the very early idea conception stage.  In this instance, I don't know where the 'idea' for the Tribute may have originated, Tripp or the client, but I do know the client sought out Tripp as a talented golf architect who has a good understanding and respect for this type of golf design.

"As I said, I don't expect, nor do I want to find replicas of the 3 best holes at NGLA on the Oregon cliffs."

I don't think there is much risk of that happening!