Haven't read the posts, but if people don't think modern architects duplicate their golf holes they are fooling themselves.   They are and they do it more often than you think.  Play enough of their courses and you will see that quite clearly.  Tom Fazio is quoted as saying he has never built the same hole twice.  Technically he is correct.  No architect ever has if taken literally.  Trust me, Fazio like many others, has built the same hole many times over.

DMoriarty,

I think one could say that # 17 is a hybrid redan on steroids.

Patrick.  I think that is an apt description of the PD 17.  

I am still curious, though.  Is PC 17 a duplicate, or does it just share some of the same strategic principles as the East Coast Redans with which you are familiar?   And could you please explain how you determine whether or not a hole like PC 17 is a duplicate?

Thanks in advance for your answers.    

Bob
From what I can gather your attitude was shared by most golf architects of that era too. Other than Macdonald (and his associates Raynor and Banks), the architects of that era didn't lean on a template of famous holes.

I know Tillie built a Redan at Somerset Hills (I wonder what the story is behind the creation of that hole), I am not aware of any other famous models in his portfolio. In fact he was outspoken--fairly early in his career--against the policy of copying or recreating famous holes, advocating unique natural holes.

Many of these guys had pet holes or pet concepts (Ross, MacKenzie, Tillie, etc.), but they were normally their own creations and adapted to the land. I suspect this is the case with many architects, past and present.

 Patrick:

It is hard to determine why more modern designs do not incorporate these design principles into their designs, however, I am not certain of the basis of your research into modern courses and their lack of these timeless features.  Is your basis an assumption, an informal survey, a scientific survey and analysis?  Have the modern designs received enough study to dismiss connections between them and classic designs, like the amount of research that has gone into the connections between the dead masters designs and the British Isles courses?  If so and based upon this research you have reached this conclusion that there has been an interruption in the connections between the British Isles, and modern courses then it is a sad conclusion.  Most strategic designs you have mentioned, and their recognition and use in course designs by the dead masters I think illustrate the brilliance of their expert analysis, contemplation, and execution in their new designs.  These principles are probably timeless, or maybe a better way to describe them is that no one originated them, the principles have always been there for those who were willingly to receive them.  You mention the 7th at NGLA, and I will say I have only walked the course twice, never played, and reviewed Bahto’s book regarding the hole, some of these principles of design are timeless, and in some way probably are included in the design of modern holes.  How this came about on a modern design is interesting to consider.  It could have been the original road hole or the NGLA design were direct inspirations, it also could have been that the modern architect stumbled upon these principles by just being on their land studying the terrain before them and through this face to face encounter and an active mind engaged in the moment the idea for a design came forth and it just so happens it is similar to the road hole or the 7th at NGLA, simply because they found inspiration from the land and because the strategic principle is timeless.  Jefferson and the Greeks did not necessarily invent freedom and democracy, it is a timeless principle, maybe a divine principle that has always been present, or at least the possibilities have always been present since the earliest man appeared.  It has always been present in the spirit of human kind, the spirit of the Earth, the holy spirit, however you want to term it, but it did take special, creative people to bring it forth for all to recognize, and people still come to under stand it more fully through their own introspection and experience and they may have never read a word about Jefferson or the Greeks.  So, some credit should be given to modern design even if it does not specifically cite the old masters or the British Isles as inspiration because the modern design could very well reflect the same design principles through its own way.  Some may be too quick to dismiss a modern design because it does not pay sufficient homage to the past.  I recall a discussion with some one about a specific bunker style on a modern course and their immediate response was to inquire if Ross influenced that style.  No, it just came to mind as the result of countless time spent contemplating land and strategy.   If you speak of inspiration from something other than the old masters or the Isles people just flat turn you off, they do not want to hear what drives you if you do not have a dead master sitting in the passenger side with you.  

This is all to say that your question is excellent and its implications are correct, more should be done in modern design to incorporate some of the principles you have cited to make golf more fun, but the architect must be allowed to discover these principles in their own way so that design comes more from internal inspiration and introspection.  I think people whom pull design from within themselves, whom allow these design principles to brew within them and allow it to boil out from within sometimes in surprising and inspiring ways are far more interesting as compared to those that talk about what old master inspired them and how this hole they designed was inspired by this old course by this old dead master.  Tell me what really grabbed your mind and your heart when you stood there on that raw land looking over the virgin terrain.  Some one told me the other day that while setting up a volleyball net in their back yard they suddenly discovered their yard was just like a Flynn green, and they took a couple of their associates over to show them this magnificent Flynn green in their back yard.  I did not know whether to laugh because it was a put on or to put my arm around them, hug them and tell them everything would be okay, they could beat this disease.   Some of the implications from your question have resulted in the most ridiculous idolatry and rubbish that sometimes stains this website, and it has led to down right misrepresentation by some practicing designers.  

Like "obscenity" one may not be able to define it, buy you'll know it when you see it.

You've said this a few times, but I dont think that MacDonald had as much trouble defining it:

"Take a narrow tableland, tilt it a little from right to left, dig a deep bunker on the front side, approach it diagonally, and you have a Redan."

--MacDonald and Whigham, again from George Bahto's terrific book, p. 92.

MacDonald also talked quite a bit about variation and varieties and differences between Redans.  Still doesnt sound like he is discussing "duplicates" to me.   Oh well, maybe just a difference of semantics between you and MacDonald.  

But again, is Pacific Dunes 17 at duplicate or an original hole applying some of the strategic principles of the Redan?  

Patrick.  Thanks for the response.

The following is what I've written about the 17th at Pacific Dunes for my "someday" book.

"   17th hole:  This is the one hole where the gorse covered nearly all of the golf hole, and clearing it so that the leftovers were not too unattractive was a big concern.  Like clearing through trees, cutting into the middle of the bushes left a lot of bare branches on the outside edge.  In spots, we would clear twenty feet less or thirty feet more than we might have, in order to find a natural break point where the gorse plant came low to the ground for an edge.

   Originally, the green site didn’t stick out so far to the left.  The ridge continued straight on to a high point at the back of the green, then crashed down to the bushes in the valley on the left.  We tried building a green like that, but it would have required a difficult straight shot against a left-to-right crosswind in the summer season.

   Eventually, we gave up that idea and went back to an obvious choice:  the tilt of the green site favored a “Redan” hole, similar to the famous 15th or “Redan” hole at North Berwick, Scotland, which was imitated countless times by the great architects of the Golden Age.  [The fourth hole at National Golf Links is probably the best of them all.]  All we had to do to make it was to extend the green to the left over the bunker, which we needed to do anyway to make it playable.  Few such holes have such an impressive setting, with the elevated tee and the large bowl of gorse-clad dunes surrounding the scene.

   There are two ways to play the hole -- hit a big, carrying shot with a bit of cut, so it will stop fast, or aim to the fairway on the right and hope for the slope to carry the ball down onto the green.  This is the basic strategy of the Redan.

   One twist to the Redan design here is that we gave much more cushion behind the green than normal because of the prevailing wind.  An overclubbed shot is not punished with bunkers, although the slope down to the left side of the green will make it difficult to get up and down for a par.  The right edge of the green actually drains off to the right and around the back of the green.

   The green itself is a much wider target than the approach, which is rather narrow between gorse bushes on the right bank and the steep fall down to the left.  The further back the tees used, the narrower the approach fairway plays. "


We really did try to build something besides a Redan there, because we had tried Redans on a few other courses, and I was never satisfied that we'd done very well with them.  The Pacific Dunes hole is the best interpretation I've done of it because the apron on the right is almost perfect.  But, we did design something more modest to handle the long-right ball, even though Ran M. took me to task for it.

Pat is right, that sometimes it's silly to resist a template hole when it would be an excellent solution.  But I'd rather err in trying to be original, than produce many lame copies.

P.S.  Those of you who like templates will love the 14th hole at Cape Kidnappers, a 320-yard par-4 to a Road green.  I'm curious to see whether people think it's too severe!

Tom Doak,

Thanks for the response and clarification.

One of the things I liked about the 17th was that it surprised me, and that it was on a grand scale.

It surprised me in that I had just played (downwind, a par 5 that I reached with and iron, and a short par 4 that I drove.
As I walked up to the 17th tee I wasn't expecting the grand view and huge hole that greeted me.  It was as if the hole was located in a hidden valley, invisible from the rest of the golf course, and that the hole was massive, on a grand scale.

I recogninzed the "redan" qualities of the hole and enjoyed playing it, into a good wind.  It was challenging and fun.