About the 7th hole pictured above, Dan, the main similarity in that photo is the built up green. What is missing (if that is the original design of the green) is the lack of surround bunkering or hazarding of some sort.
This is a hole meant to test the short iron play.
What better way than to define the target, leaving little chance for error and if in error, the recovery should be difficult. If the target is successfully hit, the putting surface usually does not leave you easy birdie attempt.
George:
Thanks for the thoughtful and informative reply. As for the 7th at Lawsonia, my guess (strictly a guess, but semi-educated) is that Langford viewed the severity of the drop-off as providing enough difficulty with the recovery as to not warrant the bunker surrounds usually associated with Shorts. I've been down there (short-right, at the very base of the green platform), and it's no fun -- a blind, steeply uphill pitch that's basically a pure guess. But, within the framework of how a Short ought to work (based on my readings), entirely appropriate -- I had a 7-iron in my hand, to a large (albiet deceptively large) target, and I missed it; I deserved the difficult shot that followed. I think Pat Mucci has described the shot value inherent in Shorts as one of precision, and I wasn't quite precise enough, and thus ended with a very tough recovery. (My own thought, looking at the Lookout Mtn. short designed by Raynor, which very much looks like Lawsonia's 7th, is that most golfers -- even an 18-handicapper like me -- would prefer to be short and bunkered at Lookout Mtn.'s Short than short at Lawsonia's 7th. But perhaps not; that's a judgement based just on the picture).
Wayne (and others) -- part of the interest from some of the Langford wingnuts about this issue (and templates in general) isn't so much their merit as golf holes, or their aesthetics. It's about the connection between Langford's highly stylized, engineered look, and that of the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks school.
For instance, one could look at the work of Flynn, and compare it to the work of Ross (speaking very broadly here, and I'm open to other arguments) and come to this conclusion: Both seemed to be "naturalists" as GCA's, and used the lay of the land, terrain movements, and "natural" hazards (creeks, ponds, ridges, even something like a quarry) to create challenge and variety in their holes. I don't know whether Ross and Flynn ever met and compared notes, but I can see those two architects taking a similar approach to their design of golf holes without having ever done so, or even being familiar with each other's work.
But with Langford and the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks style, the look is so similar, and so "engineered," that it seems to beg the question -- did Langford ever encounter their works, or discuss golf architecture with them? Both Langford and Raynor were civil enginers. Langford was a very good golfer, like Macdonald, was educated at Yale, and spent time on the East Coast. He arguably had ample opportunity, as Dan has suggested, to see notable works like the National, or Raynor's re-working of the Chicago Golf Club (Langford ran a golf course in Chicago). Whitten, rumored to be working on a major piece for GDigest on Langford, has suggested Langford never met Raynor. Yet one can't help but look at holes like Raynor's 3rd at Yeaman's Hall and Langford's 3rd at Spring Valley -- or the 7th at Lawsonia and its counterpoint at Raynor's Lookout Mtn. -- and not think there is some connection.
Richard Daley -- that is one neat-looking hole. Is their a more below-the-radar great course in Wisconsin than North Shore? I'm doubtful -- post more pics if you have them!