I recently played "The Short" hole at The Knoll, a Charles Banks design that remains basically intact.

However, on this hole, originally designed to play at about 142 yards, new tees had been constructed which increased the yardage to 171 yards.   Hardly a "short" hole.

Banks and Raynor included a "Short" hole on most, if not all of their designs.

MacDonald's short, which presently plays from about 135 yards, downhill, was originally shorter.

Should certain template holes stay true to their origins ?

The "Eden" at The Knoll plays to about 170 yards, as does the Eden at NGLA.  GCGC's Eden has been lengthened to about
193 yards.  I believe that the Eden at TOC plays to about 176 yards.

Again, should these holes be kept to their original yardage ?

The Biarritz at The Knoll is now 248 yards, up from its 235 yards.

And, the psedo redan (that's for you, Mike Cirba) plays at 206, up from its original 188.  The Redan at NGLA plays to 195, up from its original 185.

The ultimate question is, should all of these template holes have a yardage marker/s that indicate the length of the holes as intended by CBM, SR and CB, wherein the golfer can elect to play from those markers during the normal course of their round, as an option ?

It would be better if there were no template holes at all.  I cannot understand, no matter how interesting and fun the shot values turn out, that such standardization is not only accepted but praised on high.  In my mind, such a method of operation is more engineering than it is architecture in its highest art form.  Pat, your post regarding standardized distances underscores my feelings and touched a nerve.  Sorry to get off the subject.

Wayne,

The problem with your view is that it's isolated solely on YOUR game, and not the game of all of those who play golf.
You have to view this in the context of the broad and wide variety of golfers who play a hole.

Did Flynn have any basic or template holes ?

RJ Daley,

I was thinking about that, but, it's really different shots for different players, and since one can't dictate the style or intended shot, fixing the distance seem reasonable.

* Short was to test a short iron - Yesterday, I hit a punch 8 iron into a breeze, 10 feet short
* Eden testing the middle iron - 6 iron in the dark, couldn't find it but was probably right
* Redan, long iron or wood - hardly reachable on the fly under normal conditions - hybrid 3 iron pin high left of the green
* Biarritz could not be reached on the fly unless (strong) downwind - Driver pin high left of the bunker

Wayne,

Was Tom Paul kidding or did you really take a wee in Southampton.

Wayne,
You seem to dislike template holes just becasue they are a template hole. But each one is different. How the architect placed each one on the land fascinates me.

Take the template par threes: Short, Redan, Biarritz and Eden. From what I've been able to read (and see with my own eyes) I've come to believe that Macdonald, Raynor and Banks looked for the best locations for these holes first and  then routed around them.

To dislike a template because its a template makes no sense.  You dont hate all par  3's because they are par 3's, do you? A Redan is simply a subset of par 3's. You can then compare one Redan against other Redans, just as you can use the broader term "Par 3" to compare par  3's.

I know I touch a raw nerve on this board when I mention my dislike for template holes.  The work by the men who created them are held in extremely high regard, I think much of that is warranted.  That has always puzzled me.  I do not like standardization in golf.  Period.  Standardized hole distances, templates and anything that subordinates creativity and the use of natural features is a problem for me.  I'm not trying to sway anybody nor do I think opposite opinions from mine are not valid.  They are and I fully believe that there is room for all kinds of opinions.  There is no universal right and wrong.  But I also cannot see why others feel there cannot be a difference of opinion when it comes to templates in golf course architecture.  

For the most part they do not use the land in a natural fashion to create the templates.  Have you been to Fox Chapel?  CC Charleston?  The shot values there and elsewhere are terrific.  The clubs are populated with outstanding members.  It is of a style that many love.  But come on, where is the use of natural features?  These things are erupting out of the ground with no tie ins at all to the surroundings.  They look man-made to such an extent that it is hard to feel like nature is a part of the process at all.

Bill,

Of course no template hole is exactly the same.  But the fact is they are awfully similar. Every golf course had template holes,  many courses had most of them.  You mean to tell me they couldn't come up with original concepts based on the natural site?  That shows a lack of development and creative process.  To me, the Short hole is a bad template and the use of contrived contours on the greens are not at all interesting.  Do they leave you with challenging puts?  Yes, but that is not a criterion for great architecture.

I think it is a myth that these guys looked for the best site for the template holes and used them.  How the heck can that be when you've seen their work pop completely unnatural out of the ground in so many places.  Maybe they come at a good time in the routing progression of par and shot values, but hardly ever are they sympathetic to the surrounds.  However, it is obvious that they are more so when Macdonald was involved.  He was a genius (although somewhat compartmentalized) but were his followers?  That would be a tough sell to me.

Pat,

Please stop bringing Flynn into any of this.  He had templates of a sort; I've mentioned this many times.  But there was very little standardization.  Many wouldn't even notice there was a theme at all.  He used them very rarely and on a small percentage of his courses.  He had modified Redan holes (Shinnecock Hills #7, Philadelphia Country #7 and Huntingdon Valley #3 for example) but also made Redan-like holes that looked like Redans but didn't play like them  (Philadelphia Country #11) and he had holes similar to the 12th at Pine Valley (which he probably built) like the 1st at Philadelphia Country and the 4th at HVCC.  But Flynn tied these green sites into the natural surrounds--they fit and were not forced.  The bunkering was not replicated and unnatural in apprearance.  Where Macdonald was involved these issues were less noticeable but still present.  The work with Macdonald heavily involved is superior to those of his protoges.  There are exceptions.  Fishers Island and Westhampton to a lesser extent do not have the high degree of replication seen elsewhere.  The site of FI probably has a lot to do with the outcome.

The downside of templates is exactly what Pat is getting at.  They demand to be frozen in time.  They aren't natural looking so they tend not to be treated in the same way as other holes.  What's wrong with lengthening them?  I honestly think there is a bit too much emotional investment in some of work of these guys.  

Mike Sweeney,

Tom was kidding.  I would never pee on a gravestone.  By the way, I do admire CB Macdonald.  His effort at National remains a treasure in American golf.  The replication of that effort is what I dislike.  They were giving the golfing public what they wanted and did not lead an evolutionary product.  While others were going in a more natural direction with various strategic features, Raynor and Banks kept giving them slight variations on a theme; granted on some fantastic sites.

Pat mentions sporty and fun.  The courses are that.  But they did not stand the test of time as championship tests (probably what Macdonald had in mind) because elasticity was not designed in.  They retained a manufactured look even after 80 years because they are engineered rather than artfully crafted.  They are great and important clubs but of a style I do not like.  I guess I am in a vast minority and I cannot seem to understand why.  Some of it has to do with myths that under objective analysis do not hold up.


"There's a unique challenge to hitting a short (100-140) shot into a green raised up to look like the flattened top of a volcano, surrounded by sand with a highly interesting and challenging putting surface, especially with a breeze in the air."

It is hardly a unique challenge because these holes exist on so many courses.  It may be a fun challenge on some short holes, but it doesn't have an aesthetic appeal to me.  I think Shivas on another thread said he likes that look (I apologize in advance if it was someone else) and he has an affinity for that style.  I am glad he enjoys the look and play on such courses.  But it is possilbe to feel differently, right?

Bill,

Sorry to contradict, but I didn't miss any point.  Are you telling me the tempates at FI or the short you site at your Banks course cry out for template holes and specific ones on those specific sites?  Maybe the Redan.  I'll give you the sites are tremendous, but why a template green and why the ones chosen?  If your Banks course had a replica of any great green site, say the 11th at Shinnecock Hills just as one of a multitude of examples, that wouldn't have been great or greater?  The need to have replicated designs demonstrates a compartmentalizing of creativity and a lack of evolution.  What about the overuse of straight fairway contour lines, lack of offsets (with some notable exceptions) and other narrowly defined tendencies?  Your Biarritz drops straight down a hill.  Ok, that means it is situated in a very interesting spot.  But tell me why a Biarritz style green complex is called for on that site?  I have seen natural Redans and am glad the one at your course uses the natural grade to perfection.  The old Macdonald Redan at Shinnecock Hills on the present site of Flynn's 7th green did as well.  By the way, that green used to be 4 feet below the Macdonald tee which is still in use.  Tom and I discovered that on a recent tour of the Shinnecock Hills archive.  This proves, along with other archival materials we've cited in the past that the current 7th green at SHGC is Flynn.

I'm not saying these template holes, especially the greens don't work.  They are often (there are exceptions) highly manufactured.  Where they aren't please explain why the template green complexes on par 3s are best for the particular sites.  Why are template par 4s ideal on the sites chosen?

Why doesn't someone design a Macdonal/Raynor/Banks short course with all the template greens used as a fun and sporty layout.  That, to me, is the best use of templates.  

Thankfully they didn't use 18 template holes on all their courses.  Please tell me of the non-template holes on Raynor and Banks courses, how do they stack up against the templates?  The 6th at the Creek (Macdonald) is far better than any template hole on the course---and there are some excellent holes.  It is, for me, one of the great holes in golf.

The shot values of golf are what define the nature of design in architecture. Essentially, the application of these shot values create the templates by which holes and courses are designed.

How is an elastic term like shot values, definition for anything?

Wayne Morrison,

The statement that CBM's courses did not stand the test of time in the context of "championships" is misguided at best.

You have to understand the clientele for whom he designed these courses.

Piping Rock, The Creek, Yale, Mid Ocean, St Louis were never meant to be "Championship" courses, and, the critical factor is: that members never saw the need to convert them to "Championship" courses.  They were retained in their original form for the primary, if not sole purpose of pleasing the members.

Had they had a different perspective, the "Baltusrol" syndrome, some of those courses could have been converted to "Championship" courses, just like Merion has done.

A perfect example would be The Knoll, a par 70 golf course.

Over the years that I've played there I could easily have added substantive distance, allowing the course to keep up, or even ahead of the advances in play and technology.

But, I've always favored WIDE fairways, not the narrowed fairways necessary to host PGA Tour events.  Even ANGC has succumbed to the need to narrow to achieve "championship" status.  And, even Pine Valley has succumbed to the fixation and obsession with length, an ingredient necessary to achieve
"Championship" status.

So, your "championship" test is a bogus test, and merely a product of the direction that the membership wanted to go, and not reflection on the quality of the design, routing and feature and hole specific architecture.

See you at the Zoo  

Bill,

I'm not trying to convince you that I am right.  There is no right or wrong.  I am trying to convince you that there may be a legitimate different perspective on the subject.  

I think you need to see some courses where Banks and Raynor used an amazing amount of engineering and earth moving.  I don't see many examples of naturalism in their work.  Admittedly, Westhampton is rather low profile and better for it.  Take a good look at Fox Chapel, CC Charleston, Forsgate and others.  That's a lot of earth movement.

Pat,

Interesting that your list includes all courses with Macdonald overseeing the project.  Even still, I think when Yale was opened  it was intended to be a championship course for a championship team that dominated collegiate golf.  Devereaux Emmet wrote about it being the second best course in the country in 1913 and an outstanding test of golf.

Piping Rock was touted as one of the great courses in the country when it opened.

As for St. Louis CC and Mid-Ocean, for non-championship courses they sure held a lot of championships.

I'm not sure about the mandate for Creek Club.  Tom Paul would have a good idea though since he's working on their course history as I type.

Tony,

These are the lofts of our clubs (Hogan Apex forged blades) from the Hogan website:  http://www.benhogan.com/legacy/irontour.html

1 iron  17*
2  19
3  22
4  25.5
5  29
6  32.5
7  36
8  40
9  44
E  48

I think these are traditional lofts.  Modern  

Tony,

These are the lofts of our clubs (Hogan Apex forged blades) from the Hogan website:  http://www.benhogan.com/legacy/irontour.html

1 iron  17*
2  19
3  22
4  25.5
5  29
6  32.5
7  36
8  40
9  44
E  48

I think these are traditional lofts.  Modern  

Wayne,

Your quoted lofts are spot on. And all a heck of a lot stronger than years ago.

In the early 80s when I worked in a golf shop, there were no wedges (E) on the racks under 52 degrees. 48 meant you had a nine iron in your hand. Thus, there was no use back then for the term "gap" wedge to describe the 48-56 void, because it didn't exist.

Tony,

If you continue to look through the different design eras on that Hogan website, you'll see the differences aren't as great as you imply.

             1972 Apex       1988 Apex      2006 Mizuno MX25
2 iron      19.5               19.5              
3            23                  23                21
4            26.5               26.5              24
5            30                  30                27
6            33.5               33.5              30
7            36.5               37                 34
8            41                  41                38
9            45                  45                42
E            51.5               49                46