News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Patrick_Mucci

Topography and Templates
« on: January 31, 2008, 11:44:30 AM »
The 11th hole at Mountain Lake is a terrific par 3, playing at 105, 143, 160 and 181.

The hole has a high tee and plays down to a green cut into a hollow.

The name of the hole is "Redan" and while it has some redan like qualities, I think it may be a liberal interpretation.

One of the things I liked about the hole was how the green fit into the shelf/bowl.

It's a template, but a template in perfect harmony with surrounding terrain.

In other words the template had been modified to fit/blend into the topography.

The visual and playing concepts were retained to a degree, but, the hole itself was quite unique.  

While the general "theme" of the Redan was presented, it was an interesting variation in harmony with the topography.

Is that the key to the popularity and endurance of templates, the ability to insert them into the appropriate terrain, preserving the general concept in a different setting ?

I also thought that putting surface on # 3 had more of a "redan" character than the putting surface on # 11, and that the approach on # 3 was more typical than that on # 11.


David Druzisky

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #1 on: January 31, 2008, 11:58:41 AM »
I think it is.  The theme and intent is what is key to me and I like to employ those aspects into different situations.  There are so many vaiable that have to come together to create a facsimile of the actual template and they rarely ever come together. The playing experience of the original is what is most important to re-create in my mind.  It may be that you don't call it a template but it has the values of the original.

That is what I was trying to get to in the Short shot value thread the other day.  Get to the root of the playability of the original template considering how it was originally played or the intent of the original design vs. the way it is played today.  Maintaining the original intent seems more interesting to me than what it looks like in its various original forms.

DbD

TEPaul

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #2 on: January 31, 2008, 03:15:02 PM »
Pat:

To be honest with you, you would most certainly notice a rather startling difference in look with that redan green today and what it looked like before. Everything is basically in the same place but what's there now is a distinct exaggeration of the green there previously, particularly the right side of that green.

Maybe Brian Silva, not Seth Raynor, should be considered the best golf architect to happen to flat south to central Florida!  ;)

I think I might call Brian again to tell him how much you liked his architecture and ask him to respond to this thread but chances are he will say to me again:

"No, no, NO, NO, NOOOO!!! That site drives me crazy, Crazy, CRAZY!!! Do you hear me----CRAAAZY!!!!"

TEP:

"Well, other than that how're you doing?"

Brian:

"I'm doing great. How're you doing?"

TEP:

"Well, to tell you the truth I've been feeling a little odd lately."
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 03:20:35 PM by TEPaul »

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #3 on: January 31, 2008, 04:59:44 PM »
Patrick,

From time-to-time I've considered a thread "Why Do We Love the MacDonald/Raynor Style So Much" but I didn't want to incur the wrath of the Philadelphia contingent (which doesn't seem to phase you at all).  So I held my tongue or typing finger or whatever.  But ask yourself, would the excitement amongst the cognescenti be as great if Bandon IV was an homage to an architect other than CBM?  I doubt it, because we wouldn't know what to expect.  CBM is very defined, and that's appealing to many (although not everyone).

There's something appealing about knowing what you're in for, recognizing the familiar, making comparisons - not always but some times.  Why do we go to the same restaurants all the time and order the same dishes?

I think the holes themselves are great and, when executed properly, look wonderful to my eye.  I like modern art, even someone like Mondrian whose work is basically geometry so the engineered look doesn't bother me at all.  It's pretty abstract looking but I enjoy that.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 05:13:27 PM by Phil Benedict »

Marty Bonnar

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #4 on: January 31, 2008, 05:08:23 PM »
Sorry to be a RRPITA*, but a template can only ever be the original. Anything else is a COPY or a MODIFICATION or an ADAPTATION or a REALISATION or some other ATION.

Thus, the 15th at North Berwick is THE template and ALL THE OTHERS are COPIES or DERIVATIVES.

Ejumacashun - what GCA is all about.

FBD

*- Right Royal...
« Last Edit: January 31, 2008, 05:09:06 PM by Martin Glynn Bonnar »
The White River runs dark through the heart of the Town,
Washed the people coal-black from the hole in the ground.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #5 on: January 31, 2008, 08:18:53 PM »
Pat:

To be honest with you, you would most certainly notice a rather startling difference in look with that redan green today and what it looked like before. Everything is basically in the same place but what's there now is a distinct exaggeration of the green there previously, particularly the right side of that green.

TE,

That green was shelfed into that hollow long before Brian showed up.

The terrain from tee to green was also there long before Brian showed up.

The issue isn't about the high back right shoulder that doesn't function quite like a typical redan green, (which hole # 3 seems to have).  It's about finding a good to optimal location for introducing a template (with variation).

I've never been a fan of downhill redans, LACC, Sleepy Hollows, The Creeks or others.  In fact, I prefer the putting surface on # 1 at The Creek and its playability far more than I do # 8.

Raynor's reverse redan at Morris County fits the terrain and so does # 11 at Mountain Lake.

It's a very good golf hole, challenging and fun to play.

It's a case of a template working well in a unique setting, fitting in, harmoniously, with the surrounding topography.
[/color]

Maybe Brian Silva, not Seth Raynor, should be considered the best golf architect to happen to flat south to central Florida!  ;)

What courses has Brian designed in South/Central Florida ?
[/color]

I think I might call Brian again to tell him how much you liked his architecture and ask him to respond to this thread but chances are he will say to me again:

I did like the hole.

I especially liked the recovery shot that Mike Sweeney was faced with in the fronting/flanking bunker, which was nice and deep, depriving his tallness of the ability to see the putting surface.

I liked what shots hit short would face, shots hit long, shots hit left and shots hit right.

I though the hole was fairly intimidating from the tee.
I thought the view from the tee caused uncertainty in what club and what type of shot to hit.  I took an unusually long time in deciding how I wanted to play the hole, due to the many choices available to the golfer.
[/color]

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/ML17.jpg



Jay Cox

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #6 on: January 31, 2008, 11:00:11 PM »
Sorry to be a RRPITA*, but a template can only ever be the original. Anything else is a COPY or a MODIFICATION or an ADAPTATION or a REALISATION or some other ATION.

Thus, the 15th at North Berwick is THE template and ALL THE OTHERS are COPIES or DERIVATIVES.


That's true, unless one thinks of "template hole" as shorthand for "hole that is based on a template."  I think that's where it comes from and how it's meant.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #7 on: February 01, 2008, 11:09:40 AM »
Phil Benedict,

You bring up a good point.

How would one offer a tribute course to Flynn or some of the other architects who don't seem to have a general theme in their architecture.

It would appear that the appeal for CBM-SR-CB is so great that Mike Keiser is making a commercial investment to attract the retail golfer to that product.

Does he feel that the retail golfer has a general awareness of that style, or, is he hoping that the retail golfer will be introduced to the style and fall in love with it ?

You used the word "appealing" in the context of the lure of the courses.

There's a certain "user friendly" appeal about the architecture, sporty, challenging, but above all, FUN.

And that is what I believe is at the core of the template holes.

They are visually attractive, sporty, challenging and FUN.

Many template holes present a variety of ways to play them, which heightens the appeal for the broad spectrum of golfers.

wsmorrison

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #8 on: February 01, 2008, 11:53:43 AM »
Since land for golf doesn't have a general theme, it stands to reason that architects that use the land available in a more natural way or even tying man-made features in more naturally (the nature fakers) will not have a general theme either.  

One of the points I am trying to make has always been that it is easy to compartmentalize the designs of Raynor and Banks and to a lesser extent, Macdonald.  Are the highest forms of art and architecture in golf design "familiar" (you can substitute other characterizations such as predictable and repetitive) and "user friendly?"  Despite their sportiness, challenge and fun, I personally do not think so.  Further, I do not find them visually attractive but that sort of subjectivity should never be impressed upon others.  So fear not, Phil  ;)

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2008, 12:08:37 PM »
Patrick,

I like downhill Redans because you can see the ball roll.  A few years ago a friend, quite by accident, hit the perfect approach to the 13th at Yale - a low draw that landed just to the right of the green, caught the slope and ended up maybe 10 feet away.  My friend knew nothing of Redan strategy until I informed him after he hit the shot.

What made it cool was that you could see the ground action.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 12:09:15 PM by Phil Benedict »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2008, 03:35:20 PM »

Since land for golf doesn't have a general theme, it stands to reason that architects that use the land available in a more natural way or even tying man-made features in more naturally (the nature fakers) will not have a general theme either.  

Wayno,

I think I see where we disconnect in our view of architects.
[/color]

One of the points I am trying to make has always been that it is easy to compartmentalize the designs of Raynor and Banks and to a lesser extent, Macdonald.  

Agreed, although you could say that about MacKenzie, Ross and Tillinghast as well.
[/color]

Are the highest forms of art and architecture in golf design "familiar" (you can substitute other characterizations such as predictable and repetitive) and "user friendly?"

Despite their sportiness, challenge and fun, I personally do not think so.  Further, I do not find them visually attractive but that sort of subjectivity should never be impressed upon others.  So fear not, Phil  ;)

Wayno, here's where I think the disconnect takes place.

1   "Golf" is a game conducted upon a field of play.
2   The object of the game is to get the ball from Point A to
     Point B in as few strokes as possible.
3   The architect's mission is to forge an enjoyable challenge
     from Point A to Point B by utilizing forms and features
     found naturally or created.

You seem to focus on the "artsy" side of the ledger whereas I seem to focus on the "game" side of the ledger.

CBM-SR-CB created wonderful challenges.
They achieved this through natural/normal holes and template and variations of template holes.

In the PLAY of the game, the values, challenge and enjoyment as they relates to the PLAY of these holes has endured, virtually intact for 80 years.

That endurance has to be evidence of a high level of satisfaction with the configuration of the features as they relate to the play of the hole.

In the intervening years, very few of those holes have been altered, yet, an enormous number of NON-Template holes have been altered.  Why ?  Is it because the values of those holes, as they relate to the PLAY of the game, have been recognized/appreciated as extra special over all of these years ?

I would say, "YES"

I would say that the value/s of the component features and the confluence of those features has been and continues to be recognized as extra special, by golfers of every level.  And that the appearance, form and play of those holes presents an enjoyable challenge to every level of golfer.

Take the 5th hole at Mountain Lake, their Biarritz.
Playing that hole repetively is fun.
It's at least three holes in one.
The diversity in look and play when the hole is cut in the front tier, swale and back tier is fabulous.

No matter how many times you play the hole, you're never bored and the challenge never diminishes, especially with some dicey pin placements.

So why fault, dismiss or diminish the architecture on that template hole ?

It's brilliant in the context of "playing the game of golf"
[/color]

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2008, 03:38:47 PM »
Phil,

Downhill Redan's have a character of their own, I just prefer Redans that present more of the "storming the castle" feel.

I really liked the downhill Redan at Mountain Lake.

But, I didn't view it as offering that much of a "run-in" opportunity.

Perhaps that was due to the hole location that day, wind direction and the lush conditions.  Had some of those been different I might have attempted a shot that would land and run.

TEPaul

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2008, 05:04:55 PM »
"From time-to-time I've considered a thread "Why Do We Love the MacDonald/Raynor Style So Much" but I didn't want to incur the wrath of the Philadelphia contingent (which doesn't seem to phase you at all)."


PhilB:

Don't include me in that Philadelphia contingent whose wrath you don't want to incur.

You most certainly should do a thread entitled "Why Do We Love the Macdonald/Raynor Style So Much?"

Apparently juxtaposed to those courses of the architects who seemed to be into extreme naturalism later not everyone seems to love the National School look or style but certainly enough do and apparently always have, and the reasons why should be asked and discussed.

On a thread like that, though, I know I'd disagree with those who claim the National School look and style actually looks really natural to them. I just don't see how anyone can say that but even for those, like me, who do think it looks engineered, I should ask myself why I like it and like it a lot, because I do.  

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2008, 05:14:29 PM »
TEPaul,

NGLA doesn't look engineered from the golfers eye.

It looks engineered if you start behind the 18th green and walk the course backward.

But, that's not how golfers play the course.

So, while CBM-SR-CB constructed their green sites, they don't appear constructed as you view them from the golfer's eye.

Knowing that they're constructed, without appearing constructed prejudices some, but not you, Phil or me.

wsmorrison

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2008, 05:37:59 PM »
Oh boy.  Well, here goes:

One of the points I am trying to make has always been that it is easy to compartmentalize the designs of Raynor and Banks and to a lesser extent, Macdonald.

Agreed, although you could say that about MacKenzie, Ross and Tillinghast as well.

I disagree for different reasons.  MacKenzie's design style seemed to vary by geographical location.  His courses have a different look depending upon the time spent on site and the work crews involved.The California courses differ from the UK courses and differ from the Australian courses.  Ross's design style varied over time as his designs evolved.  It is especially evident at the green end.  However, Tillinghast is a bit easier to compartmentalize relative to Ross and MacKenzie and certainly more so than Flynn.

You seem to focus on the "artsy" side of the ledger whereas I seem to focus on the "game" side of the ledger.

No, not at all.  I focus on both the artistry and the playability.  In discussing the best of the best architects, I expect both to be prominently on display.  You subordinate almost to ignoring artistry in favor of the "game side."

CBM-SR-CB created wonderful challenges.
They achieved this through natural/normal holes and template and variations of template holes.


CBM much more so than SR and CB.  However, they used templates on every course.  Their designs relied on it to varying degrees.  Their fairways and greens were offset far less frequently.  The tee shot and approach demands have less line and distance requirements than others that used angles more often.

In the PLAY of the game, the values, challenge and enjoyment as they relates to the PLAY of these holes has endured, virtually intact for 80 years.

Endured for whom?  Are you saying that the challenges of their courses remain intact after 80 years.  To all classes of players?  I disagree.  One of the reasons for this is they generally did not plan vertical elasticity into their routings.

In the intervening years, very few of those holes have been altered, yet, an enormous number of NON-Template holes have been altered.  Why ?  Is it because the values of those holes, as they relate to the PLAY of the game, have been recognized/appreciated as extra special over all of these years ?

That is too simplistic an analysis based upon your predisposition to see things that way.

Take the 5th hole at Mountain Lake, their Biarritz.
Playing that hole repetively is fun.
It's at least three holes in one.
The diversity in look and play when the hole is cut in the front tier, swale and back tier is fabulous.


Please understand that I never stated that the design isn't fun to play.  I criticize the Biarritz and other template designs when they do not fit into the surrounds and looks overly man-made (that includes many of their courses) but also the use of this and other templates on every golf course they did.  If you like the concept, why have it on a rectangular green with a perfectly perpendicular swale of consistent depth across the green?  Why have flanking bunkers that are perfectly flat?  I think the concept has merit.  It is the repetitive use of it and the way it is presented that I criticize.

No matter how many times you play the hole, you're never bored and the challenge never diminishes, especially with some dicey pin placements.

In my case, this is not true.

So why fault, dismiss or diminish the architecture on that template hole?

It's brilliant in the context of "playing the game of golf"


The original use of them may be brilliant.  The copying (conceptually or otherwise) is not brilliant by my definition.  This is one area where we disconnect.  That is why I find fault or diminish the architecture of template holes, in addition to geometric features and flat bunkers.

Downhill Redan's have a character of their own, I just prefer Redans that present more of the "storming the castle" feel.

Then you should consider Flynn's Redan concept at Shinnecock Hills superior to Macdonald's version.  Macdonald's was below the tee elevation, while Flynn's is clearly above it.

Kyle Harris

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2008, 06:27:30 PM »


View from the 12th tee.

The hole is so well blended with the surrounds that Raynor needed to construct a 6+ feet high conically shaped kicker mound on the front right of the green, and Silva restored a near vertical 8 feet high face to the front bunker.

Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2008, 06:30:55 PM »
Tom,

I think I'll start a thread "will the public embrace Old MacDonald." Kind of an interesting question since most of the CBM courses are private, so thje style will be new to many if not most.  Won't have the benefit of coastal views either so the architecture will have to stand on its own.

wsmorrison

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2008, 06:44:14 PM »
"The hole is so well blended with the surrounds that Raynor needed to construct a 6+ feet high conically shaped kicker mound on the front right of the green, and Silva restored a near vertical 8 feet high face to the front bunker."

Sorry, but I cannot tell if you are serious or joking.  It reads like you are being facetious.

Did Silva restore an 8' near vertical face or was that his modern interpretation?

Is the green naturally integrated into the surrounds given the presence of a man-made 6' conical kicker mound?  

Kyle Harris

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #18 on: February 01, 2008, 06:48:03 PM »
"The hole is so well blended with the surrounds that Raynor needed to construct a 6+ feet high conically shaped kicker mound on the front right of the green, and Silva restored a near vertical 8 feet high face to the front bunker."

Sorry, but I cannot tell if you are serious or joking.  It reads like you are being facetious.

Did Silva restore an 8' near vertical face or was that his modern interpretation?

Is the green naturally integrated into the surrounds given the presence of a man-made 6' conical kicker mound?  

Facetious.

The general slope is definitely suited for a gentle Redan, but the key Redan features are augmented. I'm not sure if the vertical face is a restoration or a modern interpretation.

My picture is from the back left of the green. The kicker mound is on the opposite side of the green from where I was standing and it hides a flat bottomed bunker that runs the entire back length of the green.

I'll let the picture dictate your judgment as to if the hole fits the surroundings but there is definitely man-made augmentation of key features.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 06:48:17 PM by Kyle Harris »

Kyle Harris

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #19 on: February 01, 2008, 06:57:05 PM »
I'm not sure if Pat's standard for a fitting site for a Redan is one that is completely natural or one where some construction is merited.

It should be noted that the location of Mountain Lake's Redan contains a gentle and natural slope from the short and high right side to the long and left low side. In my mind, this is perfect Redan territory but I believe the slope is much too gentle to provide the needed gravity boost crucial to the Redan "strategy."

The hole can be played with a putter, by the way.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #20 on: February 01, 2008, 08:54:23 PM »
If someone can convert the code below to the picture it would help

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/ML17.jpg

The hole fits marvelously into the terrain, and while some may object to the geometric bunkering, it functions fabulously.

Kyle's photo is taken from the back left of the green
« Last Edit: February 01, 2008, 08:55:08 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Kyle Harris

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #21 on: February 01, 2008, 08:57:52 PM »
If someone can convert the code below to the picture it would help

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/ML17.jpg

The hole fits marvelously into the terrain, and while some may object to the geometric bunkering, it functions fabulously.

Kyle's photo is taken from the back left of the green



The bunkering is quite functional and good.

Neither photo shows the bunker behind the green that follows the natural contour because it is masked by a man-made feature in the kicker mound.

I'd say the terrain inspired the Redan.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #22 on: February 01, 2008, 09:26:54 PM »
Oh boy.  Well, here goes:

One of the points I am trying to make has always been that it is easy to compartmentalize the designs of Raynor and Banks and to a lesser extent, Macdonald.

Agreed, although you could say that about MacKenzie, Ross and Tillinghast as well.

I disagree for different reasons.  MacKenzie's design style seemed to vary by geographical location.  His courses have a different look depending upon the time spent on site and the work crews involved.The California courses differ from the UK courses and differ from the Australian courses.  Ross's design style varied over time as his designs evolved.  It is especially evident at the green end.  However, Tillinghast is a bit easier to compartmentalize relative to Ross and MacKenzie and certainly more so than Flynn.

Wayno,

There's no denying that Dr M, DR and AWT had a style that was recognizable/compartmentalized, irrespective of the site.
[/color]

You seem to focus on the "artsy" side of the ledger whereas I seem to focus on the "game" side of the ledger.

No, not at all.  I focus on both the artistry and the playability.  In discussing the best of the best architects, I expect both to be prominently on display.  You subordinate almost to ignoring artistry in favor of the "game side."

That's not true, I don't "ignore" artistry, but, it isn't the primary factor in structuring the field of play.
[/color]

CBM-SR-CB created wonderful challenges.
They achieved this through natural/normal holes and template and variations of template holes.


CBM much more so than SR and CB.  However, they used templates on every course.  

So what ?
If the field of play they created is superior, what difference does it make if their course included templates ?
[/color]

Their designs relied on it to varying degrees.  

How did their designs RELY on templates ?

Use Westhampton as an example.
[/color]

Their fairways and greens were offset far less frequently.  


On what basis, in terms of the number of their courses that you've played, do you make that claim.

How many of each of those three, CBM's, SR's and CB's
courses have you played ?
[/color]

The tee shot and approach demands have less line and distance requirements than others that used angles more often.

Again, upon what data base do you draw that conclusion ?
[/color]

In the PLAY of the game, the values, challenge and enjoyment as they relates to the PLAY of these holes has endured, virtually intact for 80 years.

Endured for whom?  

For golfers.
Those courses remain popular in the golfing world and many are highly ranked.
[/color]

Are you saying that the challenges of their courses remain intact after 80 years.  To all classes of players?  

Absolutely.
[/color]

I disagree.  One of the reasons for this is they generally did not plan vertical elasticity into their routings.[/b][/color=green]

That's absurd.
Upon what basis do you make that claim ?[/b][/color]

In the intervening years, very few of those holes have been altered, yet, an enormous number of NON-Template holes have been altered.  Why ?  Is it because the values of those holes, as they relate to the PLAY of the game, have been recognized/appreciated as extra special over all of these years ?

That is too simplistic an analysis based upon your predisposition to see things that way.

I think it is a simple statement.
Template holes have survived over the last 100 years when many other holes have been altered, disfigured and destroyed.
That's a testament to their inherent values.
[/color]

Take the 5th hole at Mountain Lake, their Biarritz.
Playing that hole repetively is fun.
It's at least three holes in one.
The diversity in look and play when the hole is cut in the front tier, swale and back tier is fabulous.


Please understand that I never stated that the design isn't fun to play.  I criticize the Biarritz and other template designs when they do not fit into the surrounds and looks overly man-made (that includes many of their courses) but also the use of this and other templates on every golf course they did.  


Wayno, the Biarritz at Mountain Lake fits into the surrounds exceptionally well.  You couldn't tell it was a Biarritz from the tee unless you're extra-Sweeney like.  The hole does not look man made until you reach the green.  Likewise the Biarritz at The Knoll is great.  Could you identify exactly which Biarritz's and other templates look overly man made ?
[/color]

If you like the concept, why have it on a rectangular green with a perfectly perpendicular swale of consistent depth across the green?  

What hole are you talking about ?

It can't be the 13th at The Knoll or the 5th at Mountain Lake.
What rectangular green are you talking about ?
Please be specific because I can't address vague references.
[/color]

Why have flanking bunkers that are perfectly flat?  


Because the surrounding land is FLAT.

And, you're always insisting that a green and its surrounds blend, harmoniously with the land.  So here, the bunkers blend with the land, and you're critical of that feature.

You can't have it both ways.
[/color]

I think the concept has merit.  It is the repetitive use of it and the way it is presented that I criticize.

Then why is it so popular ?
Why is it so much fun to play ?
Why do golfers like it so much that they haven't altered it in 100 years ?
[/color]

No matter how many times you play the hole, you're never bored and the challenge never diminishes, especially with some dicey pin placements.

In my case, this is not true.

Then you haven't played enough CBM-SR-CB courses.
Have you ever played Mountain Lake ?

I can tell you that you could play an entire season and not see all of the diverse hole locations that make each hole "new" each day that you play them.
[/color]

So why fault, dismiss or diminish the architecture on that template hole?

It's brilliant in the context of "playing the game of golf"


The original use of them may be brilliant.  The copying (conceptually or otherwise) is not brilliant by my definition.

Why ?

Do the copies mysteriously lose those values that you found to be brilliant the first time around ?
[/color]

This is one area where we disconnect.  That is why I find fault or diminish the architecture of template holes, in addition to geometric features and flat bunkers.

Surely you can't object to flat bunkers on flat terrain.

To create non-flat bunkers would be to create that overly man made look you abhor. ;D
[/color]

Downhill Redan's have a character of their own, I just prefer Redans that present more of the "storming the castle" feel.

Then you should consider Flynn's Redan concept at Shinnecock Hills superior to Macdonald's version.  Macdonald's was below the tee elevation, while Flynn's is clearly above it.

I'm not that enthralled with Flynn's redan at Shinnecock.
While I like the elevated nature of the hole, I far prefer the elevated Redan at Piping Rock.

And, CBM's redan at NGLA doesn't have a material elevation change between tee and green.  The great majority of the green is invisible from the tee.
[/color]


Patrick_Mucci

Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #23 on: February 01, 2008, 09:30:04 PM »



Phil Benedict

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Topography and Templates
« Reply #24 on: February 01, 2008, 09:36:27 PM »
This is purely an aesthetic reaction but for me that green and bunkers look marvelous, as Fernando used to say.  It just resonates with me, and I don't think I'm alone.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back