When you stand behind many of the greens at our Raynor/Banks course (Hotchkiss School G.C. in Ct.) you are impressed with the amount of material brought in to construct them and their surrounds. The part that always amazes me when approaching these holes from the fairway is that one never has the sense that all the fill/features weren't always there to begin with. Engineered? -yes, boring? -never.

Interesting to look at some of our opinions that long ago, including mine.

Given the reflection of time and study and consideration I would say what some of the others seem to imply back then that the most engineered "looking" Raynor course was his first---Westhampton for the reasons given above.

And I'm not talking about the most visible earth moved, just the most engineered LOOKING. One must understand much of it might have to do with Westhampton's extremely flat site.

When i first saw Camargo i was struck by what i see as the "Banks" look.  I think that Rock Spring is akin (only seen pics)  The look is one of big flexing muscles, popping out of wonderful Raynor routings.  Am I way off target here?  There just seems to me to be big differences in look to course(s) that Banks was given more a free hand to build after Raynor did the routing.

Do we need differentiate between engineered "look" and engineered? I would say that without a doubt, Yale is the most engineered considering how much rock was moved to create the course. As far as "the look" I would go with Fishers especially when you view holes, not from the line of play. Think about the 11th green as viewed from the 13th fairway or the 12th green viewed from the 14th fairway; those greens look engineered.

Anthony

P.S. Man, this discussion is like Old Home Day. Welcome back boys. All we are missing is the anonymous posters I so dearly miss. Somebody should forward this to many of the recent idiots who have been posting crap all too frequently.

"Do we need to differentiate between engineered "look" and engineered?"

Anthony:

Of course we do. That is just about one of the greatest fundamentals of all.

One can make a golf course by doing almost nothing to the land (literal minimalism).

Or one can make a golf course doing a great deal to the land which looks like a great deal of earth moving and engineering was done.

Or one can do a great deal to the land and somehow make it look like almost nothing was done or engineered (hiding the hand of man----eg the appearance of minimalism).

Ask Doug Stein if Brian Silva felt constrained routing Black Creek, Doug's homage to Raynor.

Anthony

"You wrote this about Raynor:

"His design methods were bound to constrain his routings.  That is a point nobody seems to grant me or agree with. "


Wayne:

Dont include me. I know exactly what you mean and I certainly grant you that point. It's a good point and a fundamental one and I've never been able to figure out why so many on here can't seem to understand it somehow.

I guess it's just that they must think you're being critical of Raynor and they simply can't abide by that. In a particular way you are being critical of Raynor. Nevertheless they should grant you your point about an overly engineered look because it should be obvious to anyone with eyes that that is what it is.

However, apparently a lot of golfers over the years just like that engineered look.

"There are many on this website that are devoted fans of Raynor.  I think that is admirable and understandable.  But let's not fool ourselves into thinking we know that his routings ended up being the most interesting use of the land.  His design methods were bound to constrain his routings.  That is a point nobody seems to grant me or agree with. "

Wayne,

Gee, you wonder why fans of Macdonald, Raynor and Banks don't agree with your view? Here is the defintion of constrain:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This con·strain       (kən-strân')  Pronunciation Key  
tr.v.   con·strained, con·strain·ing, con·strains

To compel by physical, moral, or circumstantial force; oblige: felt constrained to object. See Synonyms at force.
To keep within close bounds; confine: a life that had been constrained by habit to the same few activities and friends.
To inhibit or restrain; hold back: "Failing to control the growth of international debt will also constrain living standards" (Ronald Brownstein).
To produce in a forced or inhibited manner.
 

I know I'm in for a battle on this, but I think it is one worth waging.  I think it is fascinating to consider why Raynor and Banks stuck with their tried and true and failed to be impacted on the naturalism movement.  I think it is fascinating to chart the evolution of design practices by various golf course architects just like it is interesting to study the progression of a Michaelangelo or Eakins or Picasso.  What progression is there in the artistry and presentation of Raynor and Banks?  Why did they stay with overly manufactured looking golf courses?  Were they cheaper to build?  Were they cheaper to maintain?  Did they like the contrast between the manufactured look of the course and the natural settings?

Then there are some fundamental failings.  They didn't plan elasticity into their courses so quite a fair percentage were not able to keep pace with technology and better athletes.  The Biarritz shot and the Redan shot have been compromised by increased carry distance combined with better stopping power due to ball construction.  The Biarritz concept had to be altered to allow green space where it never was before.  That is a significant change in design?  Why?  Because the design became outdated.

I don't fall into the category of highly regarding the courses of Raynor and Banks.  Why you think it should be universal acclaim is really beyond my understanding.  However, I am more partial to the courses of Macdonald and the ones Macdonald had a hand in.  Yet, I see them of a certain kind that I am not entirely fond of.  How this is a surprise to anyone is beyond me and beyond Tom Paul (who embraces the work of Raynor a lot more than I do).  

I do knock Raynor and Banks for doing things that have been done before and doing them over and over again.  If anyone comes on here and says that their template holes are always naturally situated and his routings found the perfect spot for these holes, I would say that is not fact.  I've seen enough to know that more than a few were heavily manufactured, popped out of the ground with no connectivity to the routing progression and certainly not the surrounding land.  The templates, symmetry and flat bunkers yield predictability and I think that is one of the worst features in golf course design.  Where is the use of perspective, offset fairways and greens (except Redan and Road Hole)?  The lines of play off the tee are rarely of interest because angles aren't in play as much on their courses as Colt, MacKenzie, Thomas, Flynn, Wilson, Crump, Fownes (on some holes) and others.

It is a fact, their courses, especially at the green end, are heavily manufactured looking.  An overwhelming majority of golfers don't consider these factors, they just play.  How many go out and really study the green sites and look where the fill came from and what is natural and what is man-made?  How many look at a depression or a bunker and consider what its relationship to the hole is?  If there is none, how many realize that the pit was dug precisely there merely to obtain fill?  I'd say precious few.  Those of us that do, find a facet of their work that didn't evolve but rather churned out what the client wanted; and that was a replicated experience.  They delivered this quite well.  

Of course most of the template holes were different in some ways.  The sites themselves were very different so it would seem obvious that differences would exist.

This brings me to one of Bill's points.  "Now I happen to think that the Redan is THE BEST par 3 ever created."

What exactly is the Redan that is THE BEST par 3 ever created?  Which one are you talking about?  The original at North Berwick, the one at NGLA, at Fox Chapel, at St. Louis CC, Westhampton, Yeaman's Hall, at CC Charleston?  There isn't one Redan.   Or are they all the BEST par 3s ever created?  OK, you like the concept.  You think it is the greatest par 3 concept in golf.  But it was manifested in many  different ways and some of them are downright lousy.  Are there some Redans that you don't like?  If so, why?  My personal opinion, which you seem to have an inability to grant me is that it is an excellent concept but I can think of one hundred par 3s that I think are as good and many better.

Bill was going to ask Tom Doak if there are any constraints when building an homage course or building templates.  Bill, what do you think?  Do you think it allows freedom of routing or does it limit routing possibilities?

Jim,

Of course routings require constraint and often compromise, especially today with more land use restrictions.  If an architect was expected to build 4 template par 3s and several other template holes, don't you think that impacts his decision making in many areas?  If Flynn, Tillinghast or other architects demonstrated a repeated concept copy (Flynn had 3 or 4 Redan-like concepts and 10 or more short par 4s where the direct line from tee to green was filled with undulating sandy waste or bunkers.  He didn't do them everywhere, he did them where they fit.  He wasn't bound by a convention that was expected or demanded.  The use of the concepts, how they were tied to their surrounds and fit into the routing progression is much more interesting.  However, we look at routings after the fact.  However, architects must do so without the benefit of hindsite unless they are involved in redesign.  I don't give us enough credit to fully understand the routing process to say that a site is maximized.  It helps to see different routing plans for the same ground.  However, that's rare.  I do think it should be easy to see that if 4-6 holes have been predetermined because of a template model, that is bound to impact or constrain the resulting routing.  That's my opinion.  You haven't proved it to be wrong.  Frankly, it takes people with more understanding than you or I have to help us with this issue.  Routings are difficult to comprehend.

You don't have to agree or disagree with me.  I don't see why I must agree with you.  A lot of this is subjective.  Where it is objective is what I fail to grasp.  I understand your points of view and recognize that it is shared by many.  My own differs.  So what?  How can you possibly expect everyone to feel about Raynor as you do?  I don't.

Golf Courses aren't natural. Period. I find it easy to accept both if you accept that simple premise.

Or am I missing the random pits of sand strewn about the Philadelphia countryside?

What he said!

Golf Courses aren't natural. Period. I find it easy to accept both if you accept that simple premise.

Or am I missing the random pits of sand strewn about the Philadelphia countryside?

Kyle

Naturalism isn't an either/or proposition.  Of course building any course is like creating a garden, we are trying to bend the will of nature to suit our purposes.  However, many do attempt to blend nature with the man-made and some are more successful at it then others.  

I know many look at the pic below and see marvelous things.  I look at the pic and am immediately drawn to the green/bunker as something that distracts from the surrounds.  Little attempt was made to harmonize with nature.  It may well be that the hole is great, but a hole can be great and fit in a bit better with its surrounds.  For some reason, and it could be because Raynor builds great courses, I don't know, Raynor is given a pass on his sometimes abissssmal aesthetics.  I suspect that if modern archies tried to pull a stunt like this they would get slapped around on this site.  


For me, the look of a course greatly effects how I feel about the course.  I would really like to play a Raynor.  The only course I have seen like a Raynor was Annapolis CC by Banks.  I liked it a lot, but of course, many of the bunkers were missing and the greens shrunk becasue there were no bunkers wrap around as it were.  I wasn't a big deal to me because I detest the look of the flat bottom bunker like the one above.  

Ciao

Tom,

I did mention the Redan and Road Hole greens as exceptions in a previous post on this thread.  However, I did not include your fine examples of a Cape Holes and other Macdonald holes you mention at NGLA, Mid-Ocean, St. Louis CC, Piping Rock, Creek, etc.  That is because this thread is about Seth Raynor and I am mostly critical of Raynor and Banks.  

Raynor's use of angles does not seem as sophisticated as Macdonald and even more so other architects such as Flynn, Thomas, Tillinghast, MacKenzie, etc.  Many of their fairway lines are straight and as engineered looking as their green sites.  I don't know why they didn't show signs of an evolution of style nor get into flowing lines, natural slopes and other components of naturalism.  This factor is either overlooked or embraced by their fans and other students of golf course architecture.  

Their courses, while interesting and enjoyable to play are in stark contrast to their surrounds.  A pastoral feeling is completely lacking and wonderful overlooks such as at Sleepy Hollow are dramatically altered with the juxtaposition of the machined look of their designs, especially the green complexes and the geometric shapes and flat bottoms of the bunkers.  This is a style they stuck to and didn't evolve from.  It is fascinating to consider why that is.  I guess you're right, many liked that look back then and today.  Though I think fewer than we think experience it today because of the private nature of the clubs and the fact that the portfolio of their courses is very small and their courses are rarely competed on let alone televised.  The enduring nature of their courses and the fact that the school of design was not perpetuated relies solely on the continuation of the private clubs themselves.  The test of time was narrowly applied.