A superb Short

« **Reply #25 on:** December 03, 2007, 07:46:54 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on December 03, 2007, 07:19:56 PM

Pat,

I don't ignore the fact that Raynor and Banks were in demand.

Yet, I don't draw any quality conclusions from that sort of analysis. [size=8x]?[/color][/size]

I get that they had a brand and they gave their clients what they wanted. It is clear to me that clients eventually chose to go in another direction and that was towards naturalism.

That's not true.

Raynor's style didn't go out of favor, replaced by naturalism, his work was ended by his death. However, the demand for his style and product remained, as evidenced by Banks's continuation of the "Brand", which only ended with Banks's death a short while later.

The "Grim Reaper" put an end to their style, not the demand.[/color]

That to me was a great improvement in the aesthetics and led to the use of perception cues and miscues in design.

That "THEIR" (CBM-SR-CB) product not only endured for close to a century, but, has been elevated in the eyes of the beholders, vis a vis ratings and popularity with members and golfers alike, is a tribute to that "Style"

I find nothing wrong with the aesthetic a presented in the above photo. Nor do I find anything wrong with the Aesthetic found in many of their works, from The Knoll to Morris County to Westhampton and others. And, each one of those courses, and almost all of their courses, Universally, remain as sporty challenges that are enjoyable to play.

If the proof be in the tasting, then those three cooks cooked up spectacular dishes.[/color]

I suggested that Raynor and Banks should have gone to concentric donuts. If anyone would have the nerve to do that, it would have to be one of them. Given that you like one donut, I thought you'd like more than one far better

I like the concept of a large horseshoe, with a smaller, inverted one at the opening of the larger one. I think that would present a unique challenge, one that even you might like [/color]

« **Reply #26 on:** December 03, 2007, 07:50:36 PM »

Damnit, Pat.....ask the IT guy at the old folks home to tone down the large print edition of GCA.com, wouldja?

Hope your diced ham and mashed potatoes dinner in the cafeteria was as delicious this evening as it was last Monday evening.

« **Reply #27 on:** December 03, 2007, 07:53:31 PM »

Joe,

I'm a creature of habit, thus, both meals were very enjoyable, as will next Monday's serving of the same.

« **Reply #28 on:** December 03, 2007, 09:45:41 PM »

Pat,

Points in your original post are well taken. I happened to play on a day with little wind, a short tee and a benign pin placement.

« **Reply #29 on:** December 03, 2007, 10:46:59 PM »

This tee looks worse than the 18th tee at Pebble, where the faux rocks just about make me puke.

« **Reply #30 on:** December 03, 2007, 11:08:56 PM »

Wayne,

I used to be proud to say I came from the Scranton area...then I saw that tee you posted.

JMorgan,

Where is that...why do I feel I've played there?

« **Reply #31 on:** December 04, 2007, 12:57:19 AM »

i would not consider it one of raynor's best short holes - but did manage to make a 6 there last time i played there and ruin an otherwise good front 9

« **Reply #32 on:** December 04, 2007, 05:32:06 AM »

I really like that tee. It enables me to save the picture so that I can illustrate a tee that is a) impossible to maintain, b) down right dangerous to play and c) just looks plain stupid.

Now here's a proper tee.

« **Reply #33 on:** December 04, 2007, 06:41:41 AM »

Marc- Is that the nine holer @ the fort? If so where did you get the pic? I've tried to retrace that course with borers to find greens and tee bases, and have some cool pictures of people playing it, circa 1902.

« **Reply #34 on:** December 04, 2007, 07:36:41 AM »

"Wayne,

Give the Devil his due.

That's pretty intimidating looking hole when the cup is cut is near the back or flanks of that green."

That is true of a lot of greens that aren't so manufactured in appearance. I think you have to stop focusing on the interesting pin positions that result of the contrived surface appearance. Can you not recognize the greater interest and longer learning curve that exists on subtle greens with features that are in harmony with nature rather than slapping it in the face with the overly contrived man-made appearance? I fully realize that many like the enjoyment of playing a Raynor or Banks course. However, your complete lack of recognition that a natural style of design offers the same challenge with the enhanced (in my view) enjoyment of a more natural setting tied into the surrounds with natural lines that last longer and require less maintenance. Subtle interplays of slopes take longer to figure out (an excellent factor in private course designs) and require closer scrutiny on each putt.

Honestly, Pat, do you really think the Short hole is so unique to golf in terms of interest of periphery pins and central pins? You must think it is somewhat exclusive to this overtly man-made look because you constantly bring it up. There are many interesting designs that have challenging recoveries if there is an aggressive approach shot that is missed. It doesn't have to have symmetrical slopes and flat featureless bunkers. Again, consider the 11th at Shinnecock Hills as an example. It sits on a natural ridge with falloffs and bunkers. The integration of slopes on the green creates the interest not a goofy looking horseshoe or donut.

How in the world could Raynor and Banks graduate from the National School when all they had to do was consider how much better the Short Hole at NGLA was than the stamped out replicas they made subsequently? I would have kept them behind at least another year

« **Reply #35 on:** December 04, 2007, 09:29:08 AM »

Quote from: Tom Roewer on December 04, 2007, 06:41:41 AM

Marc- Is that the nine holer @ the fort? If so where did you get the pic? I've tried to retrace that course with borers to find greens and tee bases, and have some cool pictures of people playing it, circa 1902.

Sorry Tom. Like many pictures I've got, I just mug them from this site. I'm not even from these parts.

« **Reply #36 on:** December 04, 2007, 10:50:11 AM »

Quote from: MPCirba on December 03, 2007, 11:08:56 PM

JMorgan,

Where is that...why do I feel I've played there?

Mike, I was hoping someone could tell me. It's from Golf Has Never Failed Me (Ross) - example of how not to build a tee.

« **Reply #37 on:** December 04, 2007, 02:20:46 PM »

Wayne:

Can you provide me with or point me to some of Flynn's writings concerning his design theories and his efforts to harmonize is architecture to the natural surrounds.

Thanks

« **Reply #38 on:** December 04, 2007, 05:58:18 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on December 04, 2007, 07:36:41 AM

That is true of a lot of greens that aren't so manufactured in appearance.

Wayne,

That's largely a site dependent issue.

Take a look at the picture of the hole we're referencing.
If the green was built to grade, you couldn't see it.

Do you think it had to be constructed or should it have been built at grade ?[/color]

I think you have to stop focusing on the interesting pin positions that result of the contrived surface appearance.

I don't find anything in this photo that reveals a contrived surface anymore than any other par 3 surface, with rare exception.[/color]

Can you not recognize the greater interest and longer learning curve that exists on subtle greens with features that are in harmony with nature rather than slapping it in the face with the overly contrived man-made appearance?

Wayne, again I direct you to the photo, the object of the thread. If the putting surface wasn't elevated, you wouldn't see it.

Is this anymore contrived than the 7th at Shinnecock ?

And, the 7th at Shinnecock DIDN'T need to be elevated.
You could see any green from that tee.[/color]

I fully realize that many like the enjoyment of playing a Raynor or Banks course.

However, your complete lack of recognition that a natural style of design offers the same challenge with the enhanced (in my view) enjoyment of a more natural setting tied into the surrounds with natural lines that last longer and require less maintenance. Subtle interplays of slopes take longer to figure out (an excellent factor in private course designs) and require closer scrutiny on each putt.

It's just the opposite.
I recognize that the natural terrain would have presented a blind shot, something that they obviously wanted to avoid.

Again, you ignore the realities of the topography of the site/green pictured.

At the natural grade you'd have a blind green.
Subtlety would be useless. [/color]

Honestly, Pat, do you really think the Short hole is so unique to golf in terms of interest of periphery pins and central pins?

Yes.
I think it presents a clear and specific examination of the players skills, including his mind, short irons, recovery clubs and putter.[/color]

You must think it is somewhat exclusive to this overtly man-made look because you constantly bring it up. There are many interesting designs that have challenging recoveries if there is an aggressive approach shot that is missed.

Cite 5 holes in the 110-130 range that accomplish this while providing great diversity within all of the shots required for the "short" hole.

Then cite 5 holes that do it as well as CBM-SR-CB did it with their shorts.[/color]

It doesn't have to have symmetrical slopes and flat featureless bunkers.

That depends on the site.[/color]

Again, consider the 11th at Shinnecock Hills as an example. It sits on a natural ridge with falloffs and bunkers. The integration of slopes on the green creates the interest not a goofy looking horseshoe or donut.

Wayne, you're taking an unusual site, with a tee below the green, which sits on a ridge. Do you think that green and its foot pad are natural ?

Do you think the 7th at Shinnecock is "natural" ?
It's not by any definition.[/color]

How in the world could Raynor and Banks graduate from the National School when all they had to do was consider how much better the Short Hole at NGLA was than the stamped out replicas they made subsequently? I would have kept them behind at least another year

They built a lot of terrific short holes.

The 7th on the 4th nine at Montclair.
The 11th at Westhampton.
The 5th at Yale
The 6th at The Knoll

And, many others, and, they've all withstood the ultimate test, the test of time.[/color]

« **Reply #39 on:** December 04, 2007, 06:54:59 PM »

Wayne,

The 9th at Huntingdon Valley is more constructed looking than this short at Lookout Mountain, IMO.

Flynn built stuff up, too - just in different applications and situations. Also more original, but when he did it - he did it.

« **Reply #40 on:** December 04, 2007, 06:58:28 PM »

Quote from: Kyle Harris on December 04, 2007, 06:54:59 PM

Wayne,

The 9th at Huntingdon Valley is more constructed looking than this short at Lookout Mountain, IMO.

Flynn built stuff up, too - just in different applications and situations. Also more original, but when he did it - he did it.

My guess is that Wayne will have no response to this...

« **Reply #41 on:** December 04, 2007, 07:05:26 PM »

Quote from: Bill Brightly on December 04, 2007, 06:58:28 PM

Quote from: Kyle Harris on December 04, 2007, 06:54:59 PM
Wayne,

The 9th at Huntingdon Valley is more constructed looking than this short at Lookout Mountain, IMO.

Flynn built stuff up, too - just in different applications and situations. Also more original, but when he did it - he did it.

My guess is that Wayne will have no response to this...

Bill,

He will.

The problem is that a shades of gray issue is being made into a black and white issue.

Did Flynn expend more effort into blending slopes and integrating his features with the land? Yes, there is definitive proof of this. He even would match the horizon line of greens and bunkers with the horizon in the distance, the 4th (?) at the Cascades course is an example as the horizon edge of the green matches the mountain the distance.

He even did so on the hole I cited at HVCC. The green is essentially cut and filled into a steep hillside. Flynn went to the trouble to make sure the slope of the hill above the green and the slope of the fill below it matched the original grade. The effect is that the green appears to just hang off the cliff from the fairway and the cut into the hill isn't apparent until you see it from either side.

I don't believe most other architects would have gone to this effort, and perhaps that is one of many reasons that the greenography of Flynn is so small compared to many of his contemporaries. There WAS an attention to detail.

That attention to detail is something that Wayne and I both appreciate about William Flynn. The man definitely made his art a craft.

However, that is not to say that Raynor's methods at Lookout Mountain were any more or less effective than Flynn would have employed. It could even stand to reason that there are sites for golf courses were the Flynn method would yield an inferior result to the Raynor method. In fact, I believe that flatter sites may be more suited to Raynor's templates.

« **Reply #42 on:** December 04, 2007, 11:45:56 PM »

Sean,

I will be happy to email you the information when I have time to do so. I have posted them in the past, especially the quote from Flynn regarding using more fill to tie in his features with natural slopes such as Pocantico Hills. He did this because it looked more natural and because it was simpler and more cost effective to maintain over time. I promise to send it to you. He wrote specifically on this subject, I assure you.

Pat,

I don't feel like having such a distorted conversation with you. We know that the 7th at Shinnecock is an artificial green. What you fail to understand is that this is a one of a kind. He didn't build this green at every course. Come on, you're better than this.

As for the green at Lookout Mtn, I never said it should be built on grade. I said it could be lower profiled and closer to grade. Not on grade. That's a big difference you missed because of your mindset. You make me not want to discuss this any further. Your conclusions based on this error are thus incorrect.

Honestly, Pat, do you really think the Short hole is so unique to golf in terms of interest of periphery pins and central pins?

Yes.
I think it presents a clear and specific examination of the players skills, including his mind, short irons, recovery clubs and putter.

You are wrong. It is not unique in terms of offering interesting periphery and central pins. Plenty of other greens do as well. You didn't answer my question. As far as being a clear and specific examination. I will give you that but it is too clear and too specific resulting in a fun and challenging hole that has been seen and done elsewhere. There is nothing unique about a template, by definition. Sorry.

They built a lot of terrific short holes.

The 7th on the 4th nine at Montclair.
The 11th at Westhampton.
The 5th at Yale
The 6th at The Knoll

That is partly my point, Pat, except for the terrific part. Who needs a lot of the same artificial holes? They are not terrific to me. You think they are and I am very happy that you do.

Kyle,

The 9th at Huntingdon Valley is benched into a hillside. Flynn did this a lot. The Short hole is artificial on all sides. The 9th at HVCC is artificial in the area benched into the hillside. You could have picked a better example. Pat did. That green is in no way more manufactured looking than a Short hole with its redundant flat bunkers and unnatural steep grass faces. The steep grass face leading up to the 9th green is natural. The benching in of the green is not.

If you think I am saying that Flynn did not construct features and that it is impossible to determine that because of his sense of naturalism, you are missing the point and are arguing a fool's case. Of course he did, but as you said, he went to great lengths to tie those greens in to immediate and distant surrounds. So then how is your argument valid?

It could even stand to reason that there are sites for golf courses were the Flynn method would yield an inferior result to the Raynor method. In fact, I believe that flatter sites may be more suited to Raynor's templates.

You have no idea what you are talking about. You haven't even seen enough Flynn courses to know what a Flynn method is. Have you seen any Flynn plans for flat sites? How would you know what he would do? What he wouldn't do was stamp out familiar versions of holes seen at everyone of his golf courses, like Raynor. By the way, how much Raynor are you familiar with? You pose as an expert to say that Flynn's methods could yield inferior results to Raynor's methods. I don't see how you can support such an ignorant statement especially since your experience and knowledge is so far from complete. Perhaps I underestimate you. Please explain your conclusions. They are really just unsupported speculations, aren't they?

Bill B,

You don't know me at all so your guess that I wouldn't respond was uniformed and incorrect. Just like Kyle is incorrect that the 9th at HVCC looks more man-made than the Short at LM. Do you know what the hole at HVCC looks like? How familiar are you with Flynn? His methods are not as easily compartmentalized or generalized as Kyle is wont to do and which works better for Raynor.

« **Reply #43 on:** December 05, 2007, 11:36:11 AM »

Quote from: Kyle Harris on December 04, 2007, 06:54:59 PM

Wayne,

The 9th at Huntingdon Valley is more constructed looking than this short at Lookout Mountain, IMO.

Flynn built stuff up, too - just in different applications and situations. Also more original, but when he did it - he did it.

Interesting combination of quotes...I'd venture to say that there is not a single perspective that would make the 9th green at Huntingdon Valley look more constructed than this green at Lookout Mountain...

As far as the second point...didn't everyone "build stuff up"? Doesn't everyone "build stuff up"?

Hidden Creek is as low profile a course as I have played, and there is plenty of 'building up' out there...and don't tell me Tom Doak doesn't 'build up' either...

I think the argument is interesting because it is quite clear that both Wayne and Pat are correct...Natural design appears better, but the templates those guys used were/are very good holes. My experience is pretty limited, but that hole looks like it would be really fun and potentially very difficult to play...and there are probably very few opportunities to make that hole function as it does in a very natural setting...

What's wrong with flat bottom bunkers?

« **Reply #44 on:** December 05, 2007, 01:02:53 PM »

Quote from: Robert Mercer Deruntz on December 03, 2007, 03:00:05 AM

I knew I'd seen some tees like that before. Here are a couple -- from Loyal Chapman's "Machu Picchu G & CC":

And from Mr. Chapman's "Mount Rushmore GC":

« **Reply #45 on:** December 05, 2007, 01:43:39 PM »

I'll come right out and say it: I think the "rocky top" tee box is really cool. And not only do I find it interesting, it also seems to be consistent with the general Macdonald/Raynor/Banks architecture style as I understand it. That is to say, the line "it looks like it's been there forever" never seems to apply to any hole or course designed by those men. To me, the genius of their golf courses lies in the decidedly "manufactured" look to them. The tee box atop the boulder at Lookout Mountain seems to align with what they seemed to be all about.

« **Reply #46 on:** December 05, 2007, 03:23:31 PM »

Bill B,

You don't know me at all so your guess that I wouldn't respond was uniformed and incorrect.

Quote

Wayne,

Of course, I was kidding! I know you well enough to know that there is no way in hell you could let Kyle's anti-Flynn heresy go unanswered!

To anyone:

Can you please tell me who built that tee and when?

« **Reply #47 on:** December 05, 2007, 03:29:11 PM »

Oops. Sorry, Bill. Kyle's post got me going. He must be hanging out with Mike Malone to come up with such nonsense

« **Reply #48 on:** December 05, 2007, 03:38:00 PM »

Wayne and Bill,

Did they ever teach you reading comprehension? How was my post Anti-Flynn?

I said he was a master and made his art into a craft. I said I appreciated the time he spent on his designs...

Please gents, don't let my words and feelings get in the way of your assumptions.

And Wayne, you know full well I've seen plans of Flynn's work on flat property. You showed them to me.

« **Reply #49 on:** December 05, 2007, 03:47:30 PM »

Quote from: Kyle Harris on December 05, 2007, 03:38:00 PM

And Wayne, you know full well I've seen plans of Flynn's work on flat property. You showed them to me.

But Kyle...were you looking at them at ground level or from above? Please!

News:

Patrick_Mucci

Joe Hancock

Patrick_Mucci

Gary Daughters

Voytek Wilczak

Mike_Cirba

Gerry B

Marc Haring

Tom Roewer

wsmorrison

Marc Haring

JMorgan

SPDB

Patrick_Mucci

Kyle Harris

Bill Brightly

Kyle Harris

wsmorrison

JESII

Dan Kelly

Tim Gavrich

Bill Brightly

wsmorrison

Kyle Harris

JESII