My point was that any architect that gets panned as doing the same work from course to course, whether accurate or not, gets labeled as being unimaginative and just mailing in the design by this group. But no one seems willing to discuss the architectural merits of the holes.
I am more than willing to discuss the architectural merits of these holes and I think others would as well. But I am not in a position to lead such a discussion because I have not played that much by either of the two you mention.
But it seems that Raynor, Banks and Macdonald just get labeled as geniuses without any real consideration of whether the holes they repeatedly used were really good or not.
Well this might be two distinquishable questions. Are the templates momentous enough to be worth repeating? And are the copies quality golf holes?
As for the first question, I think of MacDonald templates as conceptual guides highlighting certain strategic principles, not blueprints providing exacting measures and conditions. Hasn't there been quite a lot of discussion regarding the strategic principles underlying the redan, road hole, cape, alps, etc.?
As for the second, one would have to look at the specific holes, wouldn't he? I would guess that not all redans are good, and that there is pretty stiff competition as to which are the best. I've only played a few redans, and they varied widely in quality.
In many cases the modern guys use similar concepts. Cape, Redan, Knoll holes abound many of the course that have been built in the last 50 years. Its just that the National boys are labeled as geniuses for using them, but modern guys don't get the same respect if they use a concept from one course to another.
As to the first sentence, I disagree that many capes, redans, etc. have been built over the past 50 yrs. But I could be wrong and I would love to hear about these holes (other than those done recently by neo-classisists.
As for the rest of the post, you lose me. Who are the national boys? Raynor and MacDonald? If so they didnt build any courses in the past 50 yrs., did they? As for the modern guys, shouldn't the level of respect they receive be based on what they deserve. In other words . . . Are their templates of such quality so as to be worth repeating? Are their copies quality golf holes?
Your mistake is equating the copies of "the National Boys" with the copies of the Moderns (namely, Nicklaus and Fazio.) The expectation of equal treatment is only justified if the templates and copies are equal. Otherwise, there is no hypocracy when unequals are treated unequally.
I would think the repetitive nature of their designs would get old. Aside from seeing how they might put a hole into a certain site, I would think playing a road hole on course after course would lose appeal. As for whether the concepts or templates may not deserve praise or copy. I would say they perhaps should be used if given the chance, but I would find it hard to believe that Macdonald, Raynor and Banks found that many sites that really lended themselves to use the same 18 holes over and over again.
I see these as fair questions which are worth exploring. I have similar questions. For example, I often wonder whether the Raynor copies have the same strategic merit as the MacDonald copies, and whether all the copies actually fit with the land on which they sit.
But these questions/critiques really have nothing to do with whether the Moderns get treated fairly. Or whether the Moderns' copies deserve the same level of praise and/or criticism as the National Boys'.
What is it about the long Muirfield par four which is worth copying?
___________________________
TEPaul,
I'd love to hear about these Fazio holes . . . What is it about each of them that make them worth copying?