Tom MacWood,

With all of the land that CBM had at his disposal at Yale, why do you feel that the routing he chose was adventursome ?

Pat,

I've tried a few times to get Tom MacWood to offer some specifics about his statements about naturalism and adventurous routings.  I hope you have better luck getting an answer  

"I've tried a few times to get Tom MacWood to offer some specifics about his statements about naturalism and adventurous routings.  I hope you have better luck getting an answer."

Wayne,
When was that?

Wayne-

#5
Folks that don't like blind shots and also don't like punchbowls probably won't like #5. Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion.

After going through the tough 2-4 stretch this is a nice breather hole. Long hitters that go for the green in two can take a big number if not accurate.

Close attention to this green reveals shots hit left don't feed to the middle very much. Shots hit right do much more so.

There is a handle on the punchbowl-as you may recall-that is on the right. The punchbowl effect is detrimental here as ball feed away. I'll try to post some pics later to emphasize the point.

#16
I suggest you look at the course profile and see Ran's pics of the reverse redan more closely. This shot plays anywhere from 160 to 195 with a crosswind prevailing. The cant is about three feet from front left to back right. (Note that the stairs were pulled a year ago and the bunkering was restored).

To my point made earlier-the cant was not designed as severely as others as CB Mac felt this was to be for the club player. I would personally like to see the cant more severe but is still a very tough par when the greens are rolling at a 9.

When did you play here? Your pics indicate late fall or winter.

#18
Short par 4 of 410 but plays much larger. Counter to your orginal argument, this hole uses the natural terrain very well.

A tee shot of 240 carry is required to get up the hill otherwise you are staring a 190-200 yard approach shot to this green with that large bunker guarding it.

It's a great finishing hole IMO.

Hunt

Wayne,

January greens at SLCC are a lot like putting on a wet sponge. Because of the course's age, poa is all over the place and does not leave until the weather heats up.

Playing it firm and faster may have left you with a different opinion. Who knows?

You are correct about the bunker on 18-I was refering to the natural terrain used from tee to the green complex.

SLCC is one of my favorites. I never get bored playing it. The series of options, lies and green contours make it a great experience each and every round.

Yes, you and I disagree on this one but TEP's Big World Theory allows for that .

If in Philly, I'll look you up!

Hunt

“It seems there would be plenty at Yale but how about other places?  You used the term "exceedingly" that sure seems like a stretch.”

Wayne

I’m sorry that my response wasn’t up to par. Without boring everyone with a hole-by-hole description of Yale, Shoreacres, Camargo and Fishers Island I’ll try to give my impression of why these routings work so well.

Each is blessed with an interesting site. Yale a rugged hilly site with low swampy areas (converted into lakes), Shoreacres deep ravines and meandering stream, Camargo rolling hills combined with ravines, Fishers Island rolling coastline and lagoons.

IMO the reason Raynor’s courses are so natural is due to his ability to meld and bring out the naturalness of the site. When the opportunity presented itself, he utilized natural green sites, like the 2nd Yale or the 4th at Fishers Island. But the key to why his courses are so natural in my view, is due to his manufactured greens, the one feature many of his detractors point to. He was able to place greens near, or sometimes in, the most interesting natural features of the given site—taking full advantage of the sites natural attributes, which is the main ingredient of well-routed course IMO.

Another reason his courses are exceedingly natural IMO, is because he moved very little dirt tee to green. When I look out over a course like The Creek or Chicago, I don’t see the manufactured features but the beautiful natural land, which was left largely intact.

“Now, Tom.  Please tell me again why you are not considering the site before Flynn got to the Cascades and the result after his design and construction efforts when you say that Yale or Cape Breton was a more rugged site.”

I didn’t say that Yale was a more rugged site than Cascades. What I said was finished product was more rugged, Cascades more graceful. Yale reflects the ruggedness of the natural site better than Cascades in my opinion.

Raw vs. Refined.

SPDB
I agree with you. The 8th is one of the more unique holes you'll find, most likely because it maximizes Mother Nature in the form of the bending creek as you described.

"Another reason his courses are exceedingly natural IMO, is because he moved very little dirt tee to green."

Tom MacWood:

Back in the teens and early 1920s who the hell did move much dirt between tee and green unless they absolutely had to to overcome some major problem to a decent hole and make something work? Tell me which architects back in that era regularly moved lots of dirt between tee and green as they do today. And then find me some greens that look more engineered and manufactured than the three consecutive ones I just mentioned at Fishers Island including the 4th that you said was one of the most natural green sites you know or something equally ridiculous.

TE
One man's natural green site is another man's six foot berm.

Wayne
Yes. I've been to Cascades. Have you been to Yale or Cape Breton?

Tom MacWood,

But, with all of the thousands of acres he had to choose from, why did he choose that site ?

A site that would require spending a fortune.
A site that would require extensive blasting, drilling and carting.

It's not like that site was an ideal site for a golf course, he had to litterally carve those holes out of the rock.

George Bahto,

Do you know ?

Westhampton: Wayne, that crazy shape was the property. There may have been a few homes they needed (?)

Here is the routing (from an very early aerial)

George Bahto,

What can you tell us about the 13th, 14th and 15th holes at Westhampton ?

Westhampton is one of the most underrated golf courses in the country.

McConk:

You know it occurs to me that of all those in the business and those without I know who I feel know golf architecture really well, I don't think I've ever heard one of them actually say someone "just doesn't get it". Most of them seem to be a little bit farther along than to say just that!    

"Wayne
Yes. I've been to Cascades. Have you been to Yale or Cape Breton?"

Please read my posts a little more carefully then you won't have to ask this question--unless it was retorical for emphasis.  You'll find multiple references that I had not been to either.


"The architects used some natural features well. But according to you the real construction architecture is in the greens because they moved very little dirt in the  midbodies."

Your response was "Uh?"

Think about it,  all of it.  Including my next sentence:

"Well, from the little of what I've seen (and admittedly that ain't a lot) they don't resemble the natural settings very well."

The greens are where Raynor did most of the design work while utilizing the existing landforms in the midbodies.  This is consistant with your statements.  Are the greens, in general, natural in their settings or not?  You think so and I think not.
Despite this, the courses are very good and a thrill to play!  It is the description of the type of course that I disagree with.

Pat,

I think very highly of Westhampton; it is terrific as is The Creek and it would seem Fishers Island.  Yeaman's Hall in its original form was probably brilliant as well.  If Westhampton is not one of Raynor's most low profile golf course, I'd like to see the ones that are.

I think highly of most of the Macdonald/Raynor courses I've seen.  But I don't think of them in the exceedingly natural way that Tom MacWood does.

McConkey III,

"for those that don't particularly care for Raynor/CBM courses/clubs, well, you don't have to worry about being a member much less being invited to join to begin with "

What are you talking about?  Do you speak for all membership committees of all Raynor/Macdonald clubs?  That was a completely pointless comment and as dumb as I've seen in a long time.  Just because a person disagrees that there is an abundance of naturalism on courses by an architect, you get so offended that you want to take your ball and go home?  And we can't play with it anymore.  Give me a break.  

Raynor and Macdonald courses are a joy to play.  Their clubs are some of the best in the country.  But outside of National, Fishers Island and a few others, the sense of naturalism being expressed here seems to me misplaced.

"Raynor and Macdonald (and lest not forget Banks either) had the stuff to become what legends are made of as evidenced by their respective places in golf and golf architecture history"

Very inspirational.