[Patrick_Mucci]

Template holes seemed very popular and seemed to work very well at the golf courses that CBM, SR and CB designed.

The golf courses on which they were built earned great reputations and the members and guests seemed to enjoy playing these holes from inception to current date.

Why then is the concept of Template holes largely rejected on courses built today ?

Is it the owner/developer that rejects them ?
Is it the architect that rejects them ?

Do todays golfers embrace or reject them ?

[paul cowley]

pat ...i think that templates were 'new' then and appreciated more as such , and they were a more recognized connection to the classic holes of yore across the pond.

i think they are more easily accepted today if disguised so that most do not know they are playing an obvious throwback....

[Bill_McBride]

It's still fun to recognize a decent Redan when you play a new course!  Most courses these days have a Cape (at least diagonal hazard off the tee Cape), and occasionally you'll spot a Principal's Nose bunker (see Talking Stick North) or Biarritz green (see Southern Dunes #16 par 5).  Perhaps the template holes are just reflections of great strategic value in designs that aren't just naturally found.

[TEPaul]

Paul Cowley makes a good point in his post. Golf architecture just went in an entirely different direction from the time Macdonald/Raynor did their thing. Eventually a whole new look and style came about---what we sometimes broadly call the age of "Modern" architecture.

However, the older classic style which in some ways includes Macdonald/Raynor and their "National School" of architecture is being rerecogonized, restored and becoming more generally noticed again, more than it has been in many decades. This will probably bring about popularity in doing template holes again, to some degree.

[James Edwards]

Golfers will always stand and say that certain holes look like other holes and historically important holes even if they dont.  My example being the classic Redan at NB.  What constitutes a Redan, 1. Blind? 2.Slightly Uphill? 3. 2 bunkers short right? 4.  1 large bunker greenside left on a diagonal?  5.  Green which slopes front to back on the angle 6.  Green which feeds the ball from front right to back left? 7.  Strategy - At the pin or feed it in?

Yes, these are all right, but how many of the so called Redans are Redans and which of the above criteria do they satisfy?

To answer Patricks question, I accept Template holes in the broad sense of the essence of the design and not in copying every detail..  Like my favourite template of NB 15 is at Riviera #4..  There are many similarities but they are not the same.  

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Cowley & TEPaul,

What I don't understand is the esteem and the popluarity that some couirses enjoy today, an almost reverence like admiration for golf courses like Fishers Island, NGLA, The Creek, Piping Rock, Yale, etc., etc..
Courses that are both challenging and fun to play.
Yet these courses are abundant with template holes.

If these golf courses are thought so highly of, and they contain a large number of template holes, why wouldn't that translate into designing and building their counterparts today ?

If you built a Piping Rock, a Creek, Yale or NGLA today, wouldn't the golf course be very well received ?

You can't say that the natural topography doesn't exist because we know of the highly manufactured nature of these holes.  These holes and features didn't appear naturally, they were built, so why aren't they being built today, other then rarely.  Why don't they appear en masse ?

Is it because the architect may fear loss of identity ?

[Chris_Clouser]

I'm sure if Tommy N sees this he will chime in, but I think you see template holes often on courses that are built today.  But they try to conceal it as well as they can so it doesn't seem to be so.  Do you think it is a coincidence that so many people comment on how Fazio, Nicklaus and (insert architect's name here) courses all seem similar?  

For that matter why would someone that is successful not want to go back and create something similar to what is acclaimed earlier.  Unless Fazio runs into a unique landform, like the quarry at Black Diamond, why go from your standard formula for success?  

I think the high irony is that, especially on this site, that Fazio and Nicklaus and others get panned for doing this, but Raynor, Macdonald and others get high regard for the same thing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Clouser,

Perhaps you have to examine the quality and strategic merits of the holes that the respective architects designed, before making the statement that one group gets panned and the other group  praised.

CBM, SR and CB's designs have stood the test of time.

[Chris_Clouser]

Patrick Mucci,

Actually, those that do the panning or praising should examine the quality and the strategic merits of the holes that the respective architects design.  The statement that one group gets panned and the others get praised is all too evident when you read almost any thread that goes down that path.

Yes, those designs have stood the test of time, but have the designs of today's architects even had the chance to make that claim.  

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Maybe most of us nowadays have seen another 90 years of golf architecture, and are not so willing as C.B. Macdonald to declare that we have seen the best holes worth emulating and so here they are!

To dissect the courses you listed:

National Golf Links - original masterpiece

Yale - masterpiece in tough shape

Fishers Island and The Creek - beautiful properties which are rated highly with Macdonald/Raynor holes, but would also be rated highly (maybe even higher!) if any one of a dozen other architects had worked there

Piping Rock - rated highly only by Raynorphiles who are convinced of the magic of template holes by their use in better settings (above)

[Patrick_Mucci]

Chris Clouser,

That's a question that only time can answer.

Tom Doak,

Probably noone is as familiar with Pete Dye's work as you are, but doesn't he replicate a template hole, or at least the features on it, in his reproduction of his version of the 17th at Prestwick ?

In the play of Pacific Dunes I think one could conclude that
# 17 is a Redan like hole.

In addition, I can see you replicating several holes at Pacific Dunes without compromising your creativity or being labeled stale.

I see nothing wrong with duplicating a hole that provides challenge and enjoyment to all levels of golfers.

It doesn't have to be an exact duplicate, but certainly the theme or concept can be the same.

[DMoriarty]

I agree that many modern architects use templates.  Southern California is bursting at the seams with the modern cape hole (diagonal carry over water from tee), often to finish one or both of the nines.  

I think the high irony is that, especially on this site, that Fazio and Nicklaus and others get panned for doing this, but Raynor, Macdonald and others get high regard for the same thing.

It is not irony, much less high irony, unless Fazio and Nicklaus and others do not deserve to get panned for their templates, or if Raynor MacDonald and others should not get high regard for theirs.

Are there Fazio and Nicklaus hole templates that are worthy of praise and copy?

Are there Raynor and MacDonald hole templates that do not deserve praise and copy?

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty & Chris Clouser,

Dave, you asked the critical question of Chris,

What Fazio and Nicklaus holes are worthy of duplication on a grand scale ?

Chris, can you name some ?

[Chris_Clouser]

I don't know of any Fazio because I haven't played a single course done by him.  

I have only played at a couple of Nicklaus courses and maybe walked one other one.  I have seen a couple of nice long par fours that look similar to the 17th at Muirfield Village.  Aside from that I would have to really delve into his designs.  

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.  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.  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.

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.      

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I don't know that many Fazio courses either but I can name a couple of holes by him that may be worthy of duplication (loosely or otherwise). I can even name a couple of them on one golf course!!

[TEPaul]

There may even be a sort of reverse phenomenon to this template hole thing.

It seems to me there're quite a number of golf analysts who do their level best to fit even original hole designs into some template category somehow.

Why do they try to do that? Probably because they subscribe to the theory mentioned by C.B. Macdonald that if an architect really thinks he can come up with a truly original design or design concept it's bound to be a bad one and will not be accepted (or in other words everything has already been done before somewhere).

Gib Papazian played PVGC the other day and mentioned that PV's #3 had to be a redan somehow. I basically said it's not redan unless a redan is everything where a ball kicks left on the green! And that's exactly the kind of loose interpretation and categorizing we don't really need in golf architecture, in my opinion.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I've never heard anyone classify # 3 at PV as a Redan.
But, I  have heard golfer's classify # 6 as a cape

[DMoriarty]

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?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

I don't believe that playing the template holes of CBM, SR and CB ever gets tiresome.

The strategy, challenge and fun have remained intact for 80 or so years, and for the forseeable future.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I'd love to hear about these Fazio holes . . . What is it about each of them that make them worth copying?"

David:

The same thing that makes any hole worth copying if someone wants to do it---they're interesting and challenging holes. The ones I'm thinking of are on Galloway National in New Jersey, one of the best efforts I've seen from Fazio.

[TEPaul]

The Macdonald Raynor redan holes are a good case in point---although the same basic concept they all have their own distinct little wrinkles and characteristics that makes them all play differently.

We did a close study of Shinnecock's #7 (redan) the other day in some attempt to tell whether the entire green was reused by Flynn from the previous Macdonald/Raynor course (#14) in its entirety. Certainly the bunkering was somewhat changed by Flynn from the original hole but the green may have been completely reused.

In my opinion, the way that green slopes and is oriented it's too one dimensional from the present tee in what even a pro can do sort of strategically. This year if the greens are firm they'll probably just try to play to the back and come back at the pin.

I noticed something interesting about that hole though. The old tee is still there (although grown over). It's just a mere 7-8 steps to the left of the present tee but on a hole that slopes and orients like that one does a mere 7-8 steps to the left makes a remarkable difference in how the green sets up and consequently how a golf ball would perform and react on it.

For some reason they weren't allowed to restore that old tee for the Open--don't know whether that was the USGA, the club or what. There's plenty of room to the left so I can't imagine what the problem was.

Now, if they were to put a tee about 15 or so yards to the left of the present back tee that green and that hole would play very differently. It's just amazing with a green like that how just a little bit of repositioning on one end (tee) can make a huge difference on the other end (green).

[DMoriarty]

Tom,  Interesting description of Shinnecock's redan.  I really look forward to seeing it on television.  

Perhaps you can identify the Galloway National Holes to which you refer and explain their basic concepts as well as their little wrinkles.  Preferably in similar detail as you describe Shinnecock's redan.  

I don't believe that playing the template holes of CBM, SR and CB ever gets tiresome.

The strategy, challenge and fun have remained intact for 80 or so years, and for the forseeable future.

I would love to agree, but I dont have experience enought to voice an opinion either way.  Of course I dont disagree either.  

But I can think of a few modern holes which attempt to follow the CBM SR concept.  I dont think they are well done and would not enjoy them again and again.   Probably in part caused by high expectations based on holes that do work.  

Surely not all of Raynor's template holes work perfectly?

[Patrick_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

I was trying to think of a template hole, any template hole by CBM, SR and CB that I didn't like, or that I wouldn't like to play on a steady diet, and......... I can't think of one.

Perhaps not getting any sleep last night has fogged my brain, but, in my brief recollection of the courses I've played, I can't think of one template hole that wasn't both a challenge and fun to play.

TEPaul,

Can you ?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,  Interesting description of Shinnecock's redan.  I really look forward to seeing it on television."

David:

I have a funny feeling this is the type of thing you could not possibly pick up on TV. There's something about TV golf that can massively hide this type of thing. You have to actually go out there and start stepping to the left at the tee end and in only a few steps you start to see how much things change on a hole like that one.

This is definitely not the case when you change tee placement angles on all holes. Matter of fact the other end of the spectrum in this vein may be NGLA's #18. Pat and I had been talking a lot about what would happen if the tee on NGLA's #18 dropped back behind the present tees by moving Macdonald's Gate and the driveway about 50 yards north. So last fall we were out there together and I just started walking North to see what would happen if they actually placed a tee over there and back. I told Pat I thought if the angle was moved even slightly it would compromise the effect of that great bunker out there on the tee shot. I went pretty far north of the gate and to my amazement it really didn't do much at all to the effectiveness and position of that bunker. But on the other hand a few steps left on Shinnecock's redan and everything changes quickly.

I'm not too certain what it is that causes this sort of phenomenon in angle on some holes and not much at all on others but I was thinking of starting a thread on it when I noticed that at Shinneock's redan and then thought back about NGLA's #18.  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

Can you?"

Pat:

Not really, I wouldn't say I didn't like any of the template holes I've seen of theirs. The ones I'd say are probably the weakest or the least appealing to me would be Mountain Lake's Biarritz (before Silva put a swale in it recently) and Piping Rock's "short" (#17). That hole never impressed me that much but I wouldn't say I didn't like it. I guess to be honest I was never all that impressed with Piping Rock's "Road Hole" (#8). But of course in those days the hole wasn't any longer than about 350 yards or so--you hit a very short iron in there. That's the way Macdonald/Raynor originally designed it. However, it very well could be that the reason it couldn't be any longer than that is if it had been any longer it would've gotten right into Piping Rock's active polo fields in those days and we all know the Battle Royal Macdonald and the polo players had over that at Piping Rock!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()