Mark,

To kick things off, why don't you share more of the story about this 80 year old?

Whom did he know? What were his impressions? How familiar was he of this architect's work? How serious a student of golf architecture is this fellow?

Tim,
Wayne Morrison, Craig Disher and I were over at Lancaster CC the other day and ran into Bill Mehler.  Bill happens to be the Club Historian who co-authored the book, "Lancaster CC, The First Hundred Years".  We talked with him awhile about his book and about Flynn.  He found it interesting that people are so enamored with these old architects such as Flynn.  He went on to describe Flynn as how should I say, "something less than a genius".  It's funny though that the club kept Flynn on the payroll well into the 40's to consult on the golf course.  Maybe he was smarter than Mr. Mehler thought he was  

But anyway, I've run into other gentlemen over the years who comment about an old green for example with wild undulations that guys like us come in and rave about.  They go on to say that the green was built as flat as a pancake but ended up sinking on the one side and now its viewed as shear brilliance.    

Personally I think all golf course architects are overrated!

Its a team effort. It was then, it is now. One guy might swing the baton but it is definately a team effort.

Regarding golden age architects I think the sands of time cover their sins and illuminate their moments of genius. But I do not think they are any smarter or more genius like than the current crop.

Perhaps the limitations on what they could do (machinery wise) led them to different and more restrained design solutions than today.

The most overrated is always the one that people view as the best. Therefore since most people view Mackenzie as possibly the greatest then he is the most overrated. To be viewed as the best means you have to be overrated in my opinion. Just as pine valley has to be viewed as overrated since it is considered the best. Just my belief on this subject

Eckstein,

Pretty much a bold blanket statement to say that Flynn's greens are "quiet."  I'm not sure what you mean exactly.  Granted as a general rule he didn't advocate the use of dramatic internal contours, but he used slope and miscues on the surrounds to make reading putts extremely difficult.  He blended in mounding around greeens (some 8-12 feet high with natural slopes) that integrate with the greens.  I disagree with you there and feel it is an error to think the look of Flynn greens means that they play benignly.
 
Even more so to say that Flynn and Ross never pushed the envelope.  I have to disagree with you on this count as well.  As to not pushing the envelope, I would say you don't understand routing very well or you wouldn't be saying so about Flynn.  There are many other areas of golf architecture where Flynn was an innovator and creative force that pushed the envelope.  We can get into this later, but as you initiated the comment, I'd like to know of examples that you feel support your statements.  

Please tell me the Flynn courses you have played.  Maybe there is something to your sampling method that leads you to your conclusions.

It is easy to make statements such as yours, in this case much more difficult to support them.  Please keep in mind that 10 of Flynn's 18-hole courses and one 9-hole course no longer exist as well as some of his redesign work.  Doubtful you have a proper appreciation of these courses to make such a statement.

I will second (or third) the nomination of Raynor.  He was mooching off Macdonald's genius.

Brett, I agree wholeheartedly that the creation of a great course is a team effort ... the best architects then put together great teams just like we do today.  And I'll also agree that today's architects are no less smart than the past masters, though more of today's guys apply their brains to business development than to greens detailing.

I think the key difference between the 1920's and today is the motivations of clients.  So many clients today are in it to develop the surrounding land, or to make money, rather than to play the golf courses they are building; and that has an inevitable effect on what the golf architect is empowered to do (and, over time, on his motivation to work at it).

Especially in the modern era, the best architects are the ones who get to take the best clients.

Ross is definitely the most overrated. Many of his courses are not of top-notch caliber. There is such a great variety in Ross courses, it is difficult to judge. A pure Ross course like Oak Hill West, Orchards or Teugega is so different from any of his mediocre layouts. To his credit, many of these courses were not built by Ross, but by one of his associates.

I agree with bob and Tom.  It would be Raynor.  However I do like his courses.
And yes Architecture is a team effort but ther better be just one coach.
While Ross did have some dogs...I think his percentage would still be up there.

Tom-

Just so I have this straight:

Anyone who uses any feature or method learned from a mentor, teacher or peer is mooching?  

 ;)I know the truly great architects of today aren’t using Redan, Biarritz, Short, or Eden green complexes.  Would never think of creating an Alps, a Sahara, or a Leven hole.  Bottleneck, Cross, Pot, Principal’s Nose, Strath, Road Hole, and Cardinal bunkers must be considered out of bounds as well.  False fronts, run ups, and hillocks are of the table. Let’s take outer mounding, tall turf type fescues (psuedo-heather), and water hazards out too.  I wonder what “self respecting modern genius” would design without these features?

I thought using the best means and methods where possible was a sign of wisdom rather than weakness.  I’m hoping the Raynor critique is more a shot at Wigler’s Wolverines; otherwise I’d have to assume you contributed very little to the work done by Pete during your tenure.  I don’t think you’d say that.

Was Perry Maxwell a Mackenzie mooch?  Was Donald Ross a Morris mooch?  How about Gil and Bruce?

Bob-

I think you’ve made the case for Raynor without knowing it.  The wisdom to use the best of the MacDonald styling while formulating his own material and solutions was genius.  I agree the non-templates are great.  The Raynor double dogleg comes to mind.  If anything he probably suffers from James Dean syndrome.  Dieing at in his early fifties cost us the great ideas that were stifled by clients in his younger days.  Imagine what we would have had, if he had been the old venerated architect to whom clients gave blind faith?  Maybe now that his finally getting some examination, we can conclude that for years he has been the most underrated?

As to the question…  we can’t possibly answer.  The criterion of “how has the course survived the test of time?” is ridiculous.  If a course were a true test today and unaltered, then its fairway bunkering would have originally been ornamental and cosmetic with minimal strategic value.  The corollary would also hold.  A course that was designed to be strategic and functionally bunkered in its day would now be but a shadow of its former self.  I’d also say that the surviving great old courses have been lucky enough to have room for expansion and respectful traditionalists who maintained the credibility of its features during renovation over the years.

I can only assume I’m about to be labeled a “Raynor Head” and if that means I think traditional golf design is romantic and nostalgic, so be it.

Jim,

Well if you ever get to Japan there's a course for you to go see now.

All the examples you cited are "mooching."  Every architect does it, and there's nothing wrong with doing so once in a while, when the shoe fits.  But mooching was Seth Raynor's entire act, no?

And, to the contrary, I would be the first to tell you that I contributed very little to Pete Dye's work during my tenure.  I did a lot more for Perry Dye, because he didn't care about doing the design part so much ... but Pete doesn't really need any help.

If mooching was Raynor's act, what does that say about Silva, Forse and Prichard?

Jim -

My beef with Raynor is not that his template holes don't embody terrific strategy. They do.

(Though I would argue that a couple of his templates - the Biarritz and the Short holes in particular -are merely quirky and do not deserve iconic status. We'll save that discussion for another thread.)

The strategic principles embodied by those holes have been used by good architects before, during and after Raynor.

My problem with Raynor is his nearly literal transciption of those concepts course after course.

He didn't just use the concepts again and again. That would be ok. He used a specific expression of those concepts again and again. Repeating those specific expressions is what I find repetitive.

I recall Pete Dye's interview with Ran on this site. It is still there. The following deserves an award for one of the most suble put-downs in gca history. It went something like this:

Ran: What do you like most about Raynor's work?

Dye: Variety.

Bob

Bob C,
  You mention some of the non-template holes at Yale showing Raynor's genius. Which holes are you referring to. I've been to Yale and there are some very cool holes there, so I am curious which ones you are referring to.