Tom MacWood said;
"Travis was not critical because Macdonald didn't make exact copies....just the opposite. He was critical that he imitated the holes in the first place...he said it showed a lack of imagination/creativity. He also thought the holes were disapointing in comparison to the original models from a playing sense...he claimed they lacked the "vital attributes of their prototypes" (Sahara, Alps, Redan,..)."
Tom MacW:
I think the whole subject of template holes is a fascinating one and ultimately good for golf architecture in some ways but maybe not all ways. It presents some fundamental questions about golf architecure—ie should reknowned, solid and/or famous holes be copied in the first place, how often should they be copied, how exactly should they be copied, how prevalent should they be, and finally how much potential originality should there or can there really be in golf architecture ultimately?
I doubt there ever was or ever could be any kind of consensus on this interesting subject and that alone is probably a good thing for golf architecture as it simply continues a facet of golf architecture that’s even more important---that being the inspiring of diverse and subjective opinion and even controversialism about the entire subject of golf architecture---something I feel is one of the most important aspects and essences of golf architecture—period.
Personally, I feel C.B. Macdonald was right to do approximately 4-5 “copy” or template holes at NGLA from Europe. However, one should understand better where Macdonald was coming from in that early era and what he was reacting to. One assumes that it’s primarily true that he was repulsed by the state of golf architecture in America (“the very soul of golf shrieks”) when he conceived of the idea of building a course like NGLA that was very purposefully to have 18 good holes (the “ideal” golf course)---something that apparently no one felt had been done at that point in America. One should also understand better just how much Macdonald had a stake, training and basically a spiritual connection to golf in Europe (Scotland).
I seriously doubt what led Macdonald to copy a number of holes from Scotland to whatever degree had anything to do with a lack of imagination for golf architecture on his part. It’s also important for us to realize better today just how central Macdonald was to the comprehensive transportation of golf to this country. He wasn’t just someone who became considered the “father of American golf architecture” because if one follows closely golf in those very early years one can see that Macdonald brought the game itself to America in a comprehensive way, its rules, its spirit, its organization and certainly the improvement of its architecture.
I think it’s a great thing that Macdonald did what he did at NGLA with his template holes from Europe. But one needs to understand better how he did that and why. I’m fairly certain that he never intended to exactly copy any of them in minute detail as some think he did or think he should have—or others should have. I think George Bahto is in complete agreement with that. I think Macdonald was only attempting to copy the basic strategic essences of those European holes and certainly recognized that landforms themselves put necessary limitations on exact duplication. Frankly it’s a good thing that he fully recognized that. I think Macdonald was merely into what I call “concept copies” which are basically the strategic recreation of a golf hole and not an exact duplication in minute detail.
To continue on doing those template holes at every course he did though, and certainly Raynor did after him and without him, is worthy of more question and perhaps even more critical analysis, in my book. The true answer to why they both did that obviously had much to do with the idea of “If you have a good thing going, continue to go with it”. This may’ve had as much to do with clubs and clients asking Macdonald and Raynor to do the basic hole production of NGLAs’ template holes simply because NGLA was considered the new hallmark of American architectural excellence.
The whole idea of template holes, though, combined with plasticine models quickly became a controversial subject and one can see that even those who originally did them such as MacKenzie and perhaps Tillinghast gave up on that modus operandi after a time apparently because it became obvious that some templates (or plasticine models) simply did not transpose or fit well on some landforms and some natural sites, particularly regarding the general or more distance surrounds.
It’s an interesting subject and continues to be. I feel that the whole subject continues the way it always has with some architects willing to do template holes and others very much resistant to it for fear of or because of the feeling it exhibits lack of imagination or originality.
Macdonald did have plenty to say, though, about the endless attempt at originality in golf architecture. In his chapter on architecture in “Scotland’s Gift Golf” he quoted Humphrey Repton;
“If it should appear that, instead of displaying new doctrines or furnishing novel ideas, this volume serves rather a new method to elucidate old established principles, and to confirm long received opinions, I can only plead in my excuse that true taste, in every art, consists more in adapting tried expedients to peculiar circumstances than in that inordinate thirst after novelty, the characteristic of uncultivated minds, which from the facility of inventing wild theories, without experience, are apt to suppose that taste is displayed by novelty, genius by innovation, and that every change must necessarily tend to improvement.”
And John La Farge;
….“if ‘an idea were an original one it is safe to say it would not be a good one’”.
And landscape architect Prince Puckler;
“Time is not able to bring forth new truths but only an unfolding of timeless truths.”
Lastly, it appears obvious that the whole idea of the template holes at NGLA was not at first the inspiration of Macdonald at all but the result of a London “Golf Illustrated” piece known as “Best Hole Discussion” about which holes from among hundreds of courses were the best. However, it’s obviously no coincidence that the holes that came out on top in that “discussion” were “Eden”, “Redan”, “Alps”, the “Road Hole” and the 14th at TOC!
Basically, Macdonald came up with the idea in 1897 to build an “ideal” golf course in America which necessarily included 18 excellent holes but not specifically including “template” holes---not at first anyway.