There is no right or wrong here, Pat. It comes down to taste. You make it seem like there is a universal truth here that MacRayBanks reign supreme. Fine, I accept and admire you for feeling that way. But it is a subjective determination and not an absolute. I feel differently. You try to convince me of it when it is impossible to do so. You try to offer proofs when there can be no proofs.
There's no denying that Dr M, DR and AWT had a style that was recognizable/compartmentalized, irrespective of the site.Wll, not quite. While there are characteristics of these three that are recognizable, they all varied their work many magnitudes more than MacRayBanks. Yes, it is easy to see the unmistakable style of MacKenzie's bunkering and his use of mounds and flashed sand to frame greens. However, his work varied in appearance and style in different geographical regions. Again, I ask you. Would you prefer the Raynor style of design at Cypress Point? Are you telling me that MacKenzie's courses in the UK and Australia are similar to the California courses or Augusta? There is deniability in Ross having had a recognizable style. Unlike Raynor or Banks, Ross changed over the years evolving a more refined style. There are courses attributed to Ross that talented worldly architects thought were Ross but were not. There is a Tillinghast course near Phialdelphia that is part Flynn. I defy you to walk that course (without reading my notes or past posts) and point out what is Tillinghast and what is Flynn. While he is somewhat typecast, not nearly to the extent MacRayBanks are. Someone on day one of their golf architecture study can pick up on Raynor's style and recognize it easily. Some think that is a good thing. I am not one of them.
If the field of play they created is superior, what difference does it make if their course included templates ?Superior to what? Have you studied their courses so carefully that no other designs could surpass the templates? Are there instances where their routing progressions and hole design options have been compromised to allow for a template? I doubt any of us beyond the professional architects on this panel have come anywhere near close enough to understanding this. So your claims of superiority are not founded in exhaustive study. Have you been to Raynor or Banks courses where the surrounds had nothing at all to do with the templates? They pop out of the ground for no other reason than to allow the template to exist. Do you understand that or are you going to keep going back to Westhampton to support your claims?
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 ?Do you understand that there might be 1000x more non-template holes than template holes? So the number of non-template holes that have been altered in comparison to the template holes that were altered is bound to be skewed. For you to use this as evidence of anything shows a lack of basic understanding.
Template holes have survived over the last 100 years when many other holes have been altered, disfigured and destroyed.The template holes at Shinnecock Hills were eliminated in a COMPLETE redesign. The template holes at Yeaman's Hall are not exactly original. The template holes at Fisher's Island were not finished as the bunkering scheme was not completed. The template holes are fixed in time while the sport has changed dramatically. The CBM, Raynor and Banks courses rarely hold tournaments so there was less need to change the courses. Do you maintain that those courses are still challenging to the best amateurs and professional players? NGLA is the one exception. I've never played it set up for a tournament as you have, and it can be set up as well as any course on the planet because of the outstanding maintenance practices. However, even ignoring the par as 73, how would this course stand up to the best players in any circumstances? As much as I love Creek Club, the fairway bunkering is rarely in play anymore. The main defense of these courses are the large contoured greens, the steep falloffs and sometimes deep bunkers. The flat bunkers no matter what the terrain shows that they did not consider the tie ins to the surrounds carefully in many of their features. You and a lot of others like it like that. Fine. But isn't it OK that others don't?
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 ?But they are easy to tell at some point. The design concept itself doesn't fit in anywhere. It is completely manufactured looking. Maybe not from every angle, though more than most courses. Frankly, at the green end, if you look carefully enough, it is very easy to tell what is natural and what is man-made. And you are right, the rear of most of their greens are the give-away. They were systematic in that regard. They were also systematic in the flanking bunkers, perpendicular consistent depth swale and geometric outline of the greens. Are you telling me that a variation in any or all of these features would reduce the playability or interest of the hole? Geez, Pat. In my mind some variety and naturalness would have been more interesting. What if the swale didn't go all the way across? What if the swale was at a different angle? What if the green wasn't square or rectangular. What if it was offset to the line of play? There are many ways to have an interesting hole. While the bunkering varied a bit, they were all flat and linear. Come on, you mean you wouldn't get bored designing templates on every course?
Flynn had one concept he replicated on about a third of his courses. If you looked at them all, you'd understand what I mean about variety within a concept. While the overall hole concept can be detected, the bunkering, mounds and most importantly, the greens were vastly different and fit in with the different sites differently.
No matter how many times you play the hole, you're never bored and the challenge never diminishes, especially with some dicey pin placements.I denied this claim and you question my own determination? I think I know my mind better than yours even if I haven't played Mountain Lake. Would I enjoy playing Mountain Lake? I have no doubt I would. But I can think of dozens of courses without template holes that fulfill the characteristics you named. I am more fond of original hole designs. For some reason you cannot understand why. I'm not trying to convince you that templates are stupid. You get tremendous joy in playing them on various courses. Great. You are not alone. But you cannot understand for a moment why others may not feel the same way. That is a bit strange and indicates a strong bias.
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.Pat, they used flat bunker bottoms regardless of the land. That's what I have a problem with. Repetition regardless of the land. That is a very narrow approach showing little range and variety.
Do the copies mysteriously lose those values that you found to be brilliant the first time around ?To me they do. They don't have to for anyone else, but for me it is important. I value an original idea more than the replicas--conceptual or actual.
Surely you can't object to flat bunkers on flat terrain.Of course I can, and I do. I like angles of repose and a lack of linearity in the outlines. I like variety. There's nothing wrong with some flat bottom bunkers at times. But all the time? Come on. That shows a lack of something.
'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.I only referred to Flynn's 7th hole at SHGC versus the original Macdonald 14th on the same site. At no time did I imply you would like Flynn's 7th better than examples on other courses.
Now, I'm going to bed. Good night, Pat
