[TEPaul]

Way to go Wayno!

What you need most along about this time is some crowning acheivements for your sensibities. If you're feeling desperate just hie on over to Merion, sit on the tee of #5 for awhile and your sensibilites will be crowned by one of the most natural landform holes in the universe and all will be right in Denmark again.

[Jeff_Brauer]

The "con" today is that they lead to stale designs.

One designer is rumored to have fifty template holes on their computer system which they just plug into every site ... the program ties in the grading to the surrounding contours.  Not a single natural contour is saved within the hole.

I think it's fine to get ideas from other golf holes, but the best part of the process is taking what you think are the salient features of that hole and adapting them to the ground you're on.  That's what Seth Raynor did.  To just stamp a template over the ground is another thing altogether, but the technology is there to do it now.  

Tom,

At least he/she has 50 of them, not just 18!  Should really go for 54, just in case they land that massive, three course resort deal, don't you think?

I can't disagree with Tom on this one - Raynor did a nice job of fitting concepts to different properties.  Even CBM at NGLA didn't exactly copy holes, but tried to replicate concepts.  In a way, anyone trying to copy Raynor is copying a copy of a conceptual copy.... why not eliminate the middle templates and copy St. Andrews, etc.

Overall, I do think template holes get a bad name, unnecessarily. To start with, to whom is the design stale?  The designer himself?  To the world traveler who might actually play several renditions of the same hole by a gca?  Overall, it would be a small segment of the golf population, albeit a larger one, given ease of travel than in Raynors day.

Ross did the same par 3 hole something like 73 times!  Why? How about this theory?  They work!  Why recreate the wheel, as it were, if you know you have a solid concept that golfers enjoy?  

Most designers develop a checklist of shots to play that comprise an ideal, or well balanced round of golf.  That may be fade, draw, power, layup, rolling putt, flat putt - you name it - and arrange the land to provide those mix of shots.  As the 50 concepts attest, there is certainly no 18 perfect combinations that should be repeated, but the idea of getting a general balance of shot types is as central to great gca as anything else.

We play golf, not land!

In that light "fitting the land" shouldn't be such a mantra, even if the idea of fitting the land is an attractive and pleasant way to arrange land for a specific human use - ie golf. Just as it is possible to badly fit a template hole on land in the name of followong the template exactly (when only its concept need be recreated) its just as possible to design a less than ideal golfing ground by sticking too strictly to the "follow the land" mantra.

In design, as in life, balance of all factors usually leads to the best success.  I have no problem starting with a "hip pocket" list of design ideas, based on shot concepts, and then looking for the right places to put them, that fit the land with the least work, provided I have more than 18 ideas, remain open to a few new ideas on every course as options present themselves, and am not too dogmatic one way or the other about a particular idea, sequence of holes or other factor.  

[BCrosby]

Seems to me that what we think about template holes is somewhat irrelevant. History has voted. The vote is that Redans, Edens and Capes are well loved. Holes using similar design concepts abound in courses built since the Golden Age.

The Biarritz, the Alps and the others haven't done so well.

The verdict of history lines up pretty well with my own feelings about template holes. Some of them embody remarkably interesting design concepts. Some don't.

Bob

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne Morrison,

You like the look and the degree of minimalism.
Jeff likes the playability.

I'm with Jeff, I favor playability.
I prefer the fun and the challenge of playing a hole, not looking at it in the primary context of it's surrounding terrain.
You cited # 17 at NGLA as unnatural, I feel it is more natural than # 8, one of my alltime favorite par 4's, and that neither hole loses its architectural merit because construction was involved in its creation.

It doesn't matter that the 6th hole at NGLA is 100 % artificial, it's a spectacular hole to play, once, or repeatedly.

There's no question that many of the holes at NGLA and other great holes on other great golf courses were constructed, but that doesn't diminish their architectural merit, and more importantly, their value in the play of the game.

As Jeff said, we play golf, not land.

With respect to your reference to C&C.
We applaud their style and now you want to change it ?

Would you have made the same request of Tillinghast, MacKenzie and Ross ?

MacDonald, Raynor and Banks ?

Why bastardize their styles ?

BCrosby,

I'd agree that we tend to see more of one type of template hole than others.

In order for the Biarritz and the Alps to work, the land has to be conducive to their introduction, and that may be difficult to find.

I think some architects may shy away from those proto-types because of the difficulty of the fit.

Perhaps it was the talent of those olde fellows to recognize the land where the presence of these holes would be in harmony with the land and the other holes.

Walking off of the green of a Road hole at Piping Rock to the  tee of a Biarritz is a pretty nice feeling and a pretty good fit with the land.

I get that same feeling walking off of # 8 green at Yale to the
9th tee.  And, again, the fit is there.

It would seem that an Alps hole is more difficult, more complicated to replicate than a Biarritz, which essentially confines its template to the green and immediate surrounds.

I think an Alps requires a unique landform.
I think an Alps is far more difficult to replicate.

And, I think both holes go against the grain of the trend toward fairness that has evolved over the years.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I did not and never have said that I subordinate playability to a look.  I do strongly believe that the highest art form in golf architecture should combine playability with naturalism.  It is primarily about playing golf but some of us also look at and consider the grounds we play upon from an aesthetic perspective.  When you have both you have the best.

If Macdonald, Raynor and Banks kept the playability but went a step further to draw out lines and use natural angles (of repose) to tie their architecture to the surroundings better do you think it would look and feel better--natural?  I'm not saying you're wrong for making playability your principle concern; to me there is more involved.

I too, like the Bottle Hole but it is far from one of my alltime favorite par 4s.  I can think of a few across the hedges that surpass that hole (6 is an alternate fairway par 4 that is far better, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 18) and quite a large number elsewhere in the US (a number at Merion 5, 11, 14, 16 and 18; Huntingdon Valley, Rolling Green, Kittansett, Riviera, Augusta, Pinehurst, Pebble, Indian Creek, 17 at the Country Club in Pepper Pike, etc) and UK (14 at Dornoch, 17 St. Andrews and many more) that I regard far higher.

The Short at NGLA is a wonderful hole, but what about other variations elsewhere?  We're talking about templates in general and not a single example of the finest one.

We differ, Pat.  In my mind golf holes/courses can play great as do many of the National School, particularly with Macdonald's direct involvement.  To me, the architectural merit is diminished by the template nature and the manufactured look.  

Would a second version, albeit a conceptual one, of the Chrysler building be as interesting?  Liberty Tower in Philadelphia is a modern variation  on the Chrysler Building (at least to me) and it is nice work, but a far cry from the genius of the original.  Part of genius to me is originality.

As to C and C, I do applaud their work and hold it in the highest regard.  I don't want to change anything.  But my reaction to their portfolio would be improved if there was greater variety in their recent architectural style.  They all play great and look great and I do think Hidden Creek is a nice departure though not a quantum step.  I'm not saying the Hawaii course looks exactly  like Friars Head or that Sand Hills looks like Notre Dame course.  Commonalities are apparent however.

I do have issues with Ross and Tillinghast.  I've mentioned these before.  I do think Ross's routings are systematic and he missed out on some interesting topography on some courses.  I don't know MacKenzie well.  I'm not advocating bastardizing anything, I am engaging in critical analysis.

Macdonald, Raynor and Banks?  Fine work.  It is not my ideal.  What do you think of their proclivity to design straight holes and have few greens that offset the line of play (save the Redan and Roadhole)?  

Compare and contrast the Flynn holes on the same portion of land at Shinnecock with the Macdonald-Raynor holes-even parts of Flynn's 2nd, 3rd, 7th. 8th (part of the cape hole fairway and roadhole green) and 9th that use a higher percentage of M-R land.  What conclusions do you draw regarding the routing (triangulation and other factors) and the sophistication of aesthetics, tree plans and naturalism?

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

For some reason for a few years now you've totally failed to understand Wayne's basic point, which is if an architect is going to build something that plays great why not build something that looks natural too? This is the difference between the Macdonald/Raynor style and the MacKenzie style, in my opinion.

Macdonald/Raynor didn't even seem interested in claiming that what they often made was natural looking. It seems like they didn't care all that much. It seems what they truly cared about was making golf holes that played well, not whether or not they looked almost completely natural.

But perhaps there's another more obvious reason for that with Macdonald and then Raynor and the others who used their basic engineered style. Where did Macdonald's template holes come from? Most all came from Scotland, and from the very early linksland courses. Were all those Scottish holes he used as templates completely natural looking? Of course not. Some of them had some of the most rudimentary early man-made architecture imaginable as parts of them.

Where did the Road Hole bunker and the instant push-up Road Hole green come from? Apparently from Alan Robertson who was the first golf architect to actually create man-made architecture. Do you think he was some big naturalist in architecture like MacKenzie would later be due to the influence on him of the ultra natual looking Boer military trenching? Of course not. Roberston probably just made something as effective as he could with the fifty dollars or whatever minimal amount they gave him. I doubt he was into tying dirt way out to make everything look naturally occuring.

Otherwise how would one explain the hilariously man-made looking early bunker sleepers of the early linksland, the unnatural looking little pits that were perhaps rudimentarily revetted? Where did even revetting come from in architecture? Probably simply from building architecture or military installation architecture. Did those things look like nature made them? Of course not. Militarily, in those days and with MacKenzie's first Boer observations around the turn of the century it wasn't just how natural the Boers made their trenches that fascinated him, it was how unnatural the British made theirs that shocked him and that they were wounded and lost their lives unnecessarly because of that. Don't forget MacKenzie was a medial doctor in South Africa's Boer War.

Look at even Pete Dye in his famous year trip to Scotland 60 years later with Alice to study early Scottish and linksland architecture. What fascinated him the most? The naturalism of it? Not really, the early rudimentary man-made architecture of it fascinated the hell out of him. Why do you think he became famous for his highly unnatual looking railroad tie bulkheads (a more modern version of the rudimentary unnatural looking bunker sleepers of the early linksland).

Wayne's point is some took the art to another level of always trying to build or find holes that both played well and looked highly natural too even if they were predominantly made by man.

Macdonald and particularly Raynor who worked until 1926 well into the era of "natural looking" golf architecture that was dedicatedly tied into the natural contours of the land never seemed to get into that much. Why would he? What he did was popular anyway because it played well.

It brings up the much larger question? Does it really matter to man, the golfer, in a general sense, if an architect makes something that looks unnatural if it plays really well?

Behr thought it did. Obviously Mackenzie thought it did and some of the other ultra naturalists thought it did, even the early Heathland men such as Colt, Abercromby, Fowler et al. Were they wrong that it should matter so much to man, the golfer, that architecture necessarily should look so natural even if man-made? The evolution of golf architecture and the ensuing history of golf architecture for the next 75 or so years might just tell us they may'e been wrong to some extent as it seems in many cases the gofler never really cared that much as long as it played OK. At the very least not as many golfers cared as it would seem some of those early naturalists thought it would or should.

But after all that time perhaps it's finally changing or perhaps it never will. Don't forget, it's a great big world out there and there probably always will be something for everyone in it with golf course architecture.      

[wsmorrison]

Well done, Tom.  Your post expressed my thoughts exactly and gave it the needed historical perspective.

I would certainly add Flynn to the naturalist movement of MacKenzie and some of the Heathland gents.  There is so much engineering of hazards and playing ground in the mid-bodies (most everyone's tees and greens look somewhat unnatural--though Flynn and others took great care to hide this) of the holes at the Atlantic City, Pocantico Hills, Cascades, Indian Creek, NLE Boca Raton South, Shinnecock Hills and elsewhere that look natural.  Flynn's tree plan for Shinnecock was a natural way to enhance the surroundings without large scale engineering.  It probably wasn't implemented, but it was very good none-the-less.  

It is easy to consider that the added expense wouldn't be worth the effect of naturalism.  Flynn felt that the expense would be recouped over time as natural angles and slopes would require less maintenance and upkeep over time.  He wrote about this extensively to the Rockefeller family when they were deciding about the design concept for their family course.

I like Behr's way of thinking about the feeling a golfer has on a natural style course and it just isn't an aesthetic sensibility but  a gestalt having to do with the use and acceptance of risk, reward, nature vs. man, etc.  To me a natural style is a significant improvement of an engineered look.  However, playability, shot testing and shot values are the foremost component in my analysis of a golf course.

[ForkaB]

In general, the less you feel wont to call a hole by its generic/template/concpet name and the more you want to talk about it as "The 11th" or whatever number it occupies on the scorecard, the more interesting it is likely to be as a golf hole.

When a host informs me proudly on the tee that.....

"This is our Redan hole!"

......I normally kneel down and touch my forehead to the ground, and then raise my head and my eyes reverentially.  This usually does the trick.

Templates are the last refuge of the lazy scoundrel and or shameless panderer to the infamous "GCA Crowd."

[TEPaul]

"Templates are the last refuge of the lazy scoundrel and or shameless panderer to the infamous "GCA Crowd."

Rich:

I hope you're not including Charlie Macdonald in that last refuge of the lazy scoundrel. Don't forget, that unique idea on his part was a long time ago. Back then there weren't many over here who'd ever seen an 18 hole golf course.

And what was he going to tell potential golfers and potential NGLA members? That he built the first 18 hole course in America in some field in Illinois before there were even any balls and implements in the midwest and that he was therefore some genius in golf course architecture? Do you blame him for not even going with template holes that he may've personally admired?

I don't. He did the only logical thing and what every clever hedger and half the politician do today. He took a poll (of the most popular holes in Europe) and just went with it.

[ForkaB]

Tom

I give Charlie a free pass, because he was the first to do it.  And, in any case, he was much closer to concept than template, which is good.

Rich

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If Pete Dye was so impressed with the naturalism of the UK courses, why did he choose to import railway ties as a signal feature in his golf courses when he returned ?

Wayne & TEPaul,

Much of NGLA looks natural to the golfers eye.
It is only when you go behind the greens and look back to the tee that you see the constructed nature of the holes.
 
Doesn't the 5th green transition seemlessly from the fairway and surrounds ?

How about the 11th and 12th greens ?   The 18th green ?

Both you and Wayne fail to recognize, or leave out a critical element.   MONEY.   Many courses were built with frugal budgets by frugal men.   I'm sure that there are instances where the surrounds could have been better prepared to blend with the features of a hole, but, at what expense ?
What additional bang for the buck would the owner get for the additional expenditure ?

I was looking at Golfweeks recent ratings of America's best.

#  8     NGLA
# 11     Fishers Island
# 14     Chicago Golf Club
# 26     Camargo
# 27     Shoreacres
# 41     Yeamans Hall
# 52     Piping Rock
# 59     Country Club of Fairfield
# 68     St Louis CC
# 69     Mountain Lake Club
# 70     Fox Chapel
# 83     The Creek

CBM's body of work wasn't that extensive, yet his courses seem to have fared well in comparison to others.
Raynor's work is also well regarded and Lido is gone, Yale, Westhampton and others not included.

Somebody out there likes their style which includes template holes.

After they've played Yale, NGLA, The Creek, Piping Rock, Westhampton, The Knoll and the other courses listed above, has someone ever said that they didn't like the experience, that they didn't like the architecture and any of the golf courses because they weren't natural ?

Have you ever heard a golfer claim that those courses were unnatural in their appearance and construction, and that diminished the playing experience, the fun, the challenge ?

TEPaul,

Did you, or anyone else you know, like # 4 at Sand Hills less because you knew it was heavily constructed when compared to the other green sites ?

And, I'll bet that very few golfers immediately recognized the unnatural nature of the green complex.

20-20 hindsight makes a lot of dullards...... geniuses.

I recall the shock that some GCA.comers received when they learned that Tom Doak had capped some of the fairways at Pacific Dunes.   Did that fact suddenly diminish the quality of the holes, the experience, the fun and the challenge ?

When a magician's tricks are revealed, the mystery of the magic is often diminished or eliminated, but, without knowing how the illusion was created one remains in awe of the presentation.   And, so it should be with golf course architecture.

The magic created by the 6th, 8th and 18th holes at NGLA is not diminished because I know how the holes were constructed.

Do you enjoy playing them less because you know of their constructed nature ?

Do they offer you less joy and challenge because you know they were built by MacDonald's and not Mother Nature's hand ?

You guys are too caught up in the source, rather than the substance of the architecture presented to the golfer.

But, that's just my opinion, you could be wrong.  

[wsmorrison]

"Both you and Wayne fail to recognize, or leave out a critical element.  MONEY.  Many courses were built with frugal budgets by frugal men.  I'm sure that there are instances where the surrounds could have been better prepared to blend with the features of a hole, but, at what expense ?
What additional bang for the buck would the owner get for the additional expenditure ?"

It seems to me that Macdonald was not impacted by frugal men nor frugal budgets.  Was he the type to tolerate those sorts of constraints?  Lido was the most expensive project built by many magnitudes.  Yale was close to that budget.  The Creek had some of the most prominent and richest men of their day as founders and members.  That place was expensive to build and expensive to fix the water holes.  I suspect Fishers Island, NGLA Fox Chapel, Piping Rock and others were also big budget projects.

By the way, I've never been to Fishers Island but the photos I've seen look amazing.  The proximity to the see and likely the construction techniques seem more appealing.

So you're saying that budgetary constraints should be considered when analyzing Macdonald. Raynor and Banks works?  My initial reaction is that this is counterproductive to your argument.

Hey, Pat.  Did you miss some of my questions?  It looks like all of them  

Gotta go--kids want me away from the computer.  The wife could care less  

[TEPaul]

Pat?

Money? Are you serious? Why don't you do us all a favor and stop and think before you post something that dumb, that illogical and that inaccurate? Money? You can't be serious. They had some of the biggest budgets in history to that time and never used any of all that money to try and tie in naturally. Face it, they just didn't do it because it was not part of their style. They just couldn't have cared much about that or they would've/could've done it as well as anyone of that time. Stop denying the obvious kimmosabe.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

I'm also being paged.
And, I didn't have time to address your questions.
Hopefully, I'll be able to do so later.

Just because Yale was costly to build due to the rock, doesn't mean they had oodles of cash to burn for window dressing.

TEPaul,

Just because Piping Rock and The Creek had wealthy members didn't mean that they were spendthrifts when it came to those projects.

You know that they were notoriously frugal, just like the members of GMCC.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

You wrote a long post above implying that I don't like Macdonald/Raynor's style or implying that I'm saying others shouldn't like it because it looks somewhat engineered and unnatural. Where did you see I said anything like that?

What I was saying is why I think he came up with a style like that (some of the prototype holes he used as templates had rudimentary and unnatural looking architecture features too).

What I'm saying is it's interesting to ponder why Macdonald and then Raynor never did get into the far more natual looking direction of architecture developed by some of the other heavyweights of that era such as MacKenzie.

You say it must have been due to lack of money??? Pat, that's crap and you have to know that. Macdonald and probably Raynor had more money available to them in most of their projects than probably any golf architects of their era.

Did you know it took as much or more money for the Creek to fix those "water holes" as it costs to build ANGC?

Don't you think facts like that sort of scotch your 'lack of money' argument as to why they never used a more natural architectural style?  I do.

Furthermore, there may be some misconception on this website, or generally speaking, that all the prototype holes from Europe he used as templates were in some way all totally natural looking. I don't believe they were. I believe there was a good deal about those early linksland holes, even TOC that had extremely unnatural looking rudimentary man-made features attached to them. That's why I mentioned the bunker sleeper features, revetting etc. And that's why I said Pete Dye became as fascinated by those types of features as he did about the inherent naturalism of the land that was used in Scotland for early golf.

Try to view these things in a clear, historically accurate framework of the evolution of golf course architcture and quit just fixating on trying to find some trivial error in what some say.

[T_MacWood]

I agree with TE, what Macdonald was doing was original. What he attempted had never been done before, and his efforts were questioned by many. They said it was a bad idea that would never work. They were wrong.

Raynor was there with him, I look at his as a continuation of the original radical departure, and Banks as well. Each with their own little twist on the idea.

IMO there were a few reasons the template hole format worked so well for these guys.

The holes they chose to replicate were obviously strategically sound and interesting. Some of them were also controversial, which is common trait with many great holes.

Macdonald & company were blessed with a number extraordinary sites, with many natural advantages.

Their method of creating greens allowed them to take full advantage of the sites natural advantages.

The majority of the holes they designed and built were non-template holes, original creations, and these holes were often the best holes on their respective courses.

You combine great sites with a style of architecture that allows the golf holes to utilize striking natural features...combined with sound and interesting architecture and you have formula for success.

I love naturalistic style of MacKenzie, Colt, Simpson and Thompson, but I also love the more angular work of Raynor, Langford and Alison, and those with their own unique styles somewhere in between...like Flynn, Ross and Fowler. Vive le difference.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

Do you really consider Yale a great site ?
Lido ?
Piping Rock ?
Westhampton ?

I think these fellows, while adept at designing on good sites, where equally adept at designing on less than ideal sites.

They were very talented at producing an excellent golf course irrespective of the site, and perhaps that was Raynor's doing, vis a vis his engineering backround.

[T_MacWood]

Pat
Yes. It is one the most rugged and dramatic inland sites I've run across.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood said;

"I agree with TE,......"

Tom MacW:

Have you totally lost your mind MAN----or was that a typo??

[T_MacWood]

TE
I was trashed when I wrote that...

Pat
Lido: A seaside dunescape. It doesn't get much better than that. Man-made or not, the architecture obviouly melded well with naturalistic dunescape.  

Piping Rock: Gently rolling country, not unlike Chicago. A very good site....a perfect site to plop down a country estate to take advantage of the open views over the lovely countryside.

Westhampton: I have not seen it. Is it near the water?

[Kelly Blake Moran]

If certain conceps work so well, why don't we see more of them ?

Is it due to the "been there, done that" mentality ?

Is it the desire of the architect not to be associated with duplicating previous works ?  

The need for him to provide original designs that manifest HIS style ?

After playing Yale and The Creek I wanted to play them again.
And, I wanted to play other courses similar to them, courses that contained and retained their own versions of these marvelous holes.

Is Yale a bland golf course because it contains an abundance of template holes ?   The Creek ?  Piping Rock ?  The Knoll ?
NGLA ? Westhampton ?

These are all great golf courses.

Yet, they're composed of the same holes in a slightly different setting.

Doesn't the inherent value of the architectural merit transcend repitition ?

Shouldn't these marvelous holes be duplicated more often ?

Patrick,

I thought about responding initially when you posted this but I did not have the mental capability to express my thoughts.  However, as often happens someone else gave an explanation on an unrelated topic, however the concept of what they were saying seemed to explain what I wnated to say in response.  

In the latest issue of Rolling Stone, Jagger said the following: "I don't want to be one of those bands that just does hits.  People say, I much prefer to hear Brown Sugar than the new song.  Well, I don't give a shit what you prefer... You have to create new songs.  If you don't, you are definately set in a time zone."

I think there is a need for some people to create.  Now that creativity can be heavily informed by the past, however I believe some people must create or they would just as soon move on and do something else.  It may be a selfish attitude, and it may not produce as good an architecture as the template holes, but deep down creativity must be released in some way, and the releasing of that creative energy can not always happen by duplicating the results of someone else's creative explosion.  

There is a great article in the recent New Yorker about a Jewish composer who had enormous creative powers in music once he freed himself from the Old Europe ties that often restrained Jewish families there, and allowed the freedom of the blues/jazz culture that was so entrenched in the American spirit to inform his music and his own creativity.  

[ForkaB]

Kelly

Does Mick think that " Brown Sugar" is iconic? If so, the geezer is REALLY getting old.......

[Kelly Blake Moran]

I think so Rich, but I'll have to get back with you as soon as I look up the word iconic.  I'll tell you one thing, after a night out, we retuired to the patio and built a fire, and I put on a bootleg disk from 1972 with Brown Sugar and it absolutely rocked the neighborhood.  My neighbors behind me really love me ,  but it sounds as good today, maybe better given some of the stuff that passes for music today.

You have to be careful though, because I turned my 11 year old on to them and he will not leave me alone about getting tickets to the show in Hershey on October 1.  Actually he is taking guitar lessons and his teacher told us he is bordering on being a child prodigy, he can pick up anything by ear and play it.  So I am quite proud, I think I finally see where my retirement nest egg will come from.

[Jeff_Brauer]

 


I think there is a need for some people to create.  Now that creativity can be heavily informed by the past, however I believe some people must create or they would just as soon move on and do something else.  It may be a selfish attitude, and it may not produce as good an architecture as the template holes, but deep down creativity must be released in some way, and the releasing of that creative energy can not always happen by duplicating the results of someone else's creative explosion.

I agree.  At least I need to keep creating something new, even if it is highly derivative of someone else or myself, it has to be at least slightly different, and hopefully better.  We do the excersize of asking ourselves, "If we did a green like this again, how could we improve it 5%?"  To date, I have never gotten to a situation where I thought a concept was perfectly executed and beyond critique.  So, the next time, even if it is a Redan, I do it differently.  

Of course, fitting the site always makes it a bit different.  And, for that matter, fitting the modern game should, too.  Who would do a Shinny Redan at 7% cross slope today?  It would have to be reduced to about 3% max.....

There are some gca's who view this as more of a business than a creative outlet. To some degree, we must all do that, but I still haven't lost the wonder of creating something new, and hope I never do.  If I do, there should be a retirement announcement like old athletes who say they knew when they weren't excited at training camp, it was time to retire.

One of my biggest fears is that it will be easy to pick out some future Brauer course, because it looks like another one you played 10 years ago.

[Patrick_Mucci]

KBM,

The thread wasn't meant to be viewed in the context of terminating creativity.

However, I see you point:
create a new hole or replicate some tried and true principles vis a vis a template hole.

I would imagine, that given the specific land form, a seperate question should be asked.  What would better fit the site and be a better hole, the "creation" or the "template"

It seemed to me that some holes, and especially the green complex for the road hole maintain incredible architectural values, values that can in some cases, be blended seemlessly into the surrounding terrain.   And, with that being the case, if a "more improved creation" can't be crafted, why not insert a "template" hole ?

I don't think that Pacific Dunes or Hidden Creek are comprimised architecturally because the 17lth and 4th could be deemed "Template" redans.

I've seen a number of new courses where I couldn't help but feel that the insertion of a "template" hole or two would improve those golf courses.

I'm sure you've seen what could be deemed a "bad" hole.
Where they exist, what would be the harm in replacing them with tried and true templates ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()