Trying...Trying..to understand Seth Raynor

[Brian_Gracely]

OK, I'm really trying to have an open mind about this.  I'd like to understand why there is such a fascination and admiration for Raynor.  But I struggle with a number of things, especially when compared to other architects that are held in such high esteem.

Raynor was not a noted writer, nor did he publish any memoirs of his courses (ie. McK, CBM, Ross, Doak).  

Raynor was not known to be a good golfer (ie. Ross, CBM, Colt, Old Tom, etc.).  While it isn't a requirement to build good courses, it does question how he knew the best way to challenge the better players mentality.

Raynor never travelled to the UK to understand links golf and the great courses before his time.

Raynor rarely, if ever, built public courses.  I can only find three courses; Greenbrier (resort), Hotchkiss (private school), N.Palm Beach CC (was it ever private?) that are not listed as private.  Considering that golf originated as a game of the common man, and almost every other great architect (except maybe CBM) designed several public courses, I find this to be a lacking characteristic.    

But the area that I really struggle to understand is the fascination with the replica holes.  
a) Raynor never saw the originals
b) He uses almost the same ones (Redan, Short, Road, Eden, Biarritz, Cape) on every course.  
c) You rarely every hear anyone talk about the non-replica holes on Raynor courses
d) You almost never heard anyone talk about original Raynor holes.  Even the Raynor Prized-Dogleg wasn't his design.  
e) You rarely ever heard people praise the greatness of Raynor routing.

I can understand that people believe the replica holes are great representations of architecture and challenge.  And I can even understand that members of a specific club might like that their club has those holes.  But does he really desire such lofty status when his overall portfolio is so similar?  Is any other architect given such leeway for repetitiveness?  

So I'm looking for some help.  Enlighten me on what I'm missing.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian,

OK, I'm really trying to have an open mind about this.  I'd like to understand why there is such a fascination and admiration for Raynor.  But I struggle with a number of things, especially when compared to other architects that are held in such high esteem.

How much of his work have you seen and played ?[/color]

Raynor was not a noted writer, nor did he publish any memoirs of his courses (ie. McK, CBM, Ross, Doak).

And that leads you to conclude ..... what ?[/color]

Raynor was not known to be a good golfer (ie. Ross, CBM, Colt, Old Tom, etc.).  While it isn't a requirement to build good courses, it does question how he knew the best way to challenge the better players mentality.

Therefore, you would assign Nicklaus with the experience and wisdom to to this best ?

And, you would also question George Thomas's ability to challenge the better players mentality ?

How about Tom Doak ?  Bill Coore ? [/color]

Raynor never travelled to the UK to understand links golf and the great courses before his time.

And, that leads you to conclude..... what ?[/color]

Raynor rarely, if ever, built public courses.  I can only find three courses; Greenbrier (resort), Hotchkiss (private school), N.Palm Beach CC (was it ever private?) that are not listed as private.  Considering that golf originated as a game of the common man, and almost every other great architect (except maybe CBM) designed several public courses, I find this to be a lacking characteristic.    

How many public golf courses were built in his time ?
As a percentage of their work how many public courses did his peer group design ?  How many public courses have Coore & Crenshaw designed ?

Your conclusion is absurd.

How can you judge the architectural quality of his work by the type of golfer who trod his fairways and greens ?[/color]

But the area that I really struggle to understand is the fascination with the replica holes.

How many of his replica holes have you played ?[/color]
 
a) Raynor never saw the originals

Does that detract from the quality of the holes he designed and built ? If you think so, tell us how.[/color]

b) He uses almost the same ones (Redan, Short, Road, Eden, Biarritz, Cape) on every course.

Are they good or bad holes and do they work well within the context of the entire golf course ?

Could you cite the specific courses and holes you're referencing ?[/color]

c) You rarely every hear anyone talk about the non-replica holes on Raynor courses

You must not be conversing with an astute group
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Have you played # 18 at Yale ?[/color]

d) You almost never heard anyone talk about original Raynor holes.  Even the Raynor Prized-Dogleg wasn't his design.
Perhaps you're not having conversations with the right people ?  [/color]

I can understand that people believe the replica holes are great representations of architecture and challenge.  And I can even understand that members of a specific club might like that their club has those holes.  But does he really desire such lofty status when his overall portfolio is so similar?  Is any other architect given such leeway for repetitiveness?  

Have you ever heard of Charles Banks or Charles Blair MacDonald ?[/color]

So I'm looking for some help.  Enlighten me on what I'm missing.  

I would suggest a call to Dr. Katz or St. Jude[/color]

[BCrosby]

Somewhere in the archtives here is an interview with Pete Dye.

Ran asked Dye what he liked most about Raynor's designs.

With, I assume, his tongue planted firmly in his cheek, Dye responded: "Variety".

Laugh out loud moments in an interview with a golf architect are rare indeed. But that was certainly one.

Bob

[Dan_Callahan]

I wouldn't hold out Yale #18 as an example of a quality non-replica hole. That's by far my least favorite hole on the course. Give me the Redan, Biarritz, etc., any day.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I was curious, so I looked up how many C&C original designs were public, not counting 9 hole additions to existing clubs and the course they did in Indonesia (don't know of it's status).

Accessible to Public:

Kapalua (Plantation)
Barton Creek
Cuscowilla
Talking Stick (N)
Talking Stick (S)
Warren Course


Private:

Sand Hills
East Hampton
Austin GC
Chechessee Creek
Friar's Head
Hidden Creek
Old Sandwich

That's 6 of 13, or 46%.

When Bandon Trails opens 3 months from today, it will be 50%.

They have done mostly private clubs in the last few years.

[Brian_Gracely]

Pat,

I've only played one Raynor course (MPCC Dunes), which has since been modified by R.Jones so I don't know if that really counts.  It does have a Biarritz (#4), but the damp conditions don't really allow it to be played with a running shot.  I don't believe it has any of the other replica holes.

When you ask how many courses I've played, are you asking from a Mucci-generic aspect, or is there really alot of difference between Raynor Redan's or Edens?

When I talk about the lack of public golf, I ask from the perspective of people being able to learn about his courses.  If they are all private, and you don't know a member, how can you learn?  I can learn about Mozart or Van Gogh or Hemmingway if I want through public means.  Maybe I should just accept that some architects are private-only.  

Regarding routing and non-replica holes, can you explain to me examples of where he is great?  You offered up #18 at Yale (did he do this or CBM?), but what else is out there?  

Regarding playing skills, the Nicklaus example is apples to oranges.  Compare him to players/architects of his time, that were acting as full-time architects vs. the concept of a signature course was invented later in time.  Guys like Ross, Colt, Braid, Park all had much greater variety in their games because they understood that better players enjoy the game more with variety.  

[Craig Van Egmond]

Scott,

     You left Hidden Creek off your Coore/Crenshaw list.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Scott,

     You left Hidden Creek off your Coore/Crenshaw list.

You are correct, sir!  I will modify it.

[wsmorrison]

Pat, I may not agree with everything that Brian wrote, but I too am trying to figure out the works of Raynor and Banks in comparison to their contemporaries.  I think they fail mightily in some ways.  Their work is very good from a player perspective--the shots are fun to play, but the lack of overall variety in their work is  problematic to me.  Their use of man-made features, for the most part in templates, rather than original designs using the land is a serious shortcoming to me despite the playability.  They could have at least developed a sense of making man-made look more natural.  To my eye, the hand of man is far too evident.

If I'm not mistaken, over the years, they did not seem to grow more sophisticated in their designs, sticking to a narrowly defined model.  I haven't seen the number of courses by this school of architecture that many have on this site, but I have seen an awful lot that is systematic.  

As Doak has said, maybe he was quoting Dye, in golf architecture imitation is not the sincerest form of flattery.  It shows definite limitations even if that's what the clients wanted or thought they wanted.  While their courses certainly do have differences; it isn't like they were assembly line building Model Ts, but there is way too much repetition to consider them great, in my opinion.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was curious, so I looked up how many C&C original designs were public, not counting 9 hole additions to existing clubs and the course they did in Indonesia (don't know of it's status).

Accessible to Public:

Kapalua (Plantation)
Barton Creek
Cuscowilla
Talking Stick (N)
Talking Stick (S)
Warren Course


You're stating that at any of these courses, a golfer can just show up, pay a green fee and get immediate access, without any restrictions, caveats or conditions.

Do you want to amend your definition of public access ? [/color]

[Kyle Harris]

I would question whether or not Raynor had the chance to mature. Through much of his early career he was working in the shadows of CBMac and then his independent career was cut short by his death from pnuemonia at the age of 51 in 1927.

To me his work is just an extension of the CBMac/Raynor/Banks model of copying classic holes for courses. I don't think they attempted to misrepresent themselves as original in any sense of the word at least.  

[Jimmy Muratt]

Brian,

One does not have to be able to hit all of the shots to envision them and the strategy that makes a great golf hole.  

Seth Raynor's playing ability has no bearing on his architectural talent.  Would it make any of his courses better if you discovered that he was a scratch player?

Whether or not a club is private or public is determined by the client, not the architect.  Raynor built the course, he didn't structure the membership plan or determine the green fees.

Everyone seems to get hung up on the fact that Macdonald and Raynor used the same template of holes from course to course.  But, I personally, look forward to seeing the unique qualities of the different Redan or Biarritz holes.  None are exactly the same yet share similar strategy.

Macdonald and Raynor's courses possess the unique qualities of being incredibly strategic yet a complete joy to play.  That is a rare quality that describes the work of few other architects.

[Scott_Burroughs]

I was curious, so I looked up how many C&C original designs were public, not counting 9 hole additions to existing clubs and the course they did in Indonesia (don't know of it's status).

Accessible to Public:

Kapalua (Plantation)
Barton Creek
Cuscowilla
Talking Stick (N)
Talking Stick (S)
Warren Course


You're stating that at any of these courses, a golfer can just show up, pay a green fee and get immediate access, without any restrictions, caveats or conditions.

Do you want to amend your definition of public access ? [/color]

Come one, Pat, when you reach, you really reach.  And you've done your fair share of reaching before.

I said "accessible to public", of which all of those course fit that description.  I never said anything about "a golfer can just show up, pay a green fee and get immediate access, without any restrictions, caveats or conditions", and that is absolutely not the defintion of public that is used in, well, just about every public course list out there.   Resort courses, semi-private courses, daily fees, and munis all fall under the common public definition.  Only to you in your argumentative defense does in not fall there.

Bethpage Black is a municipal and you can't just walk up and play there.   At most courses that fall under the public umbrella, even munis, you must have a tee time unless there is an open spot available on the tee sheet for one to play.  However, the converse is true at most courses that fall under the public umbrella, if there is an open spot available, even on most resort courses, you can walk up and play. You can even walk up to Pebble the day of and get on if there's an opening available.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I've only played one Raynor course (MPCC Dunes), which has since been modified by R.Jones so I don't know if that really counts.  It does have a Biarritz (#4), but the damp conditions don't really allow it to be played with a running shot.  I don't believe it has any of the other replica holes.

When you ask how many courses I've played, are you asking from a Mucci-generic aspect, or is there really alot of difference between Raynor Redan's or Edens?

Understanding the context of the discussion, replica holes, there are differences in them despite them having the same general concept[/color]

When I talk about the lack of public golf, I ask from the perspective of people being able to learn about his courses.  If they are all private, and you don't know a member, how can you learn?  I can learn about Mozart or Van Gogh or Hemmingway if I want through public means.  Maybe I should just accept that some architects are private-only.

What does the medium have to do with the quality of the architecture ?

Do you think he, and others, designed golf courses for their clients or for the policy of open access to the public 80 years down the road ?

Who the client was/is has nothing to do with his work.

If Van Goghs reside in a private home, does that entitle you to view them at your whim ?[/color]

Regarding routing and non-replica holes, can you explain to me examples of where he is great?  You offered up #18 at Yale (did he do this or CBM?), but what else is out there?
Play Westhampton then tell me what you think.

How can you, having played only one of his courses, make general criticisms of his routing, his designs, his holes, replica and non-replica, when you've seen practically nothing ?

You have virtually no personal experience with his work, yet, you claim you don't get it.

Get some experience, see his work, play his work, then comment on your views of his work.  But, to comment and express you're views on his entire body of work when you''ve played but one golf course is foolish at best.[/color]

Regarding playing skills, the Nicklaus example is apples to oranges.  

Baloney.
You said the Raynor's lack of playing skills prevented him from challenging the better player.

I also asked you how did George Thomas do in that department and you avoided that question.
Are Riviera and LACC North challenging to the better player ?
[/color]

Compare him to players/architects of his time, that were acting as full-time architects vs. the concept of a signature course was invented later in time.  

Raynors window of design is very narrow, less then ten years.
How can you compare that thin sliver to those of others whose careers spanned 30,40 or 50 years ?[/color]

Guys like Ross, Colt, Braid, Park all had much greater variety in their games because they understood that better players enjoy the game more with variety.  

How do you know that ?

And, how do you know that Seth Raynor didn't know that based on his long association and tutorage under one of the greatest golfers of his time, Charles Blair MacDonald ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Scott,

You missed the boat, Brian wanted access to courses, not access with strings attached, like having to stay at a resort that costs a fortune.

Open to the public means just that to me.
You walk up, pay your green fees and play.

It doesn't mean that I have to stay at a hotel, gamble at a casino or make a reservation 8 months in advance.

It's not a question of being argumentative, it's a question of intellectual honesty

[Mike_Young]

He had a design formula.
He had affluent clients.
His clubs could afford to maintain at the highest level.
Personally I enjoy his works but I have to agree more with Wayne.

[Brian_Gracely]

You missed the boat, Brian wanted access to courses, not access with strings attached, like having to stay at a resort that costs a fortune.

Pat,

Please don't put words in my mouth when you don't know what you're talking about.  I'm not looking for access.  And my definition of public matches what Scott has listed.  

And I'm dropping this thread as it appears that it has turned into another thread where people want to defend rather than educate.  I stated up front that I wasn't trying to bash Raynor, but trying to understand.  Since I hasn't seen enough work to be Mucci-qualified, I won't bother with anymore discussion.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

Their work is very good from a player perspective--the shots are fun to play, but the lack of overall variety in their work is  problematic to me.  

Which of his courses fail to offer variety in the golfing experience ?[/color]

Their use of man-made features, for the most part in templates, rather than original designs using the land is a serious shortcoming to me despite the playability.
How does this differ from MacDonald's work at NGLA[/color]  

They could have at least developed a sense of making man-made look more natural.  To my eye, the hand of man is far too evident.

Could you give me some examples ?

Let's start at Westhampton[/color]

If I'm not mistaken, over the years, they did not seem to grow more sophisticated in their designs, sticking to a narrowly defined model.[n]

Raynor's career was probably less then 10 years.
Given travel time in his day, what kinds of growth would you expect between 1916 and 1926 ?

Likewise Bank's career only spanned ten years, from 1921 to 1931[/b]

I haven't seen the number of courses by this school of architecture that many have on this site, but I have seen an awful lot that is systematic.

But, of what you have seen, what strikes you as systemic ?
Which of his courses have you played ? [/color]

As Doak has said, maybe he was quoting Dye, in golf architecture imitation is not the sincerest form of flattery.  It shows definite limitations even if that's what the clients wanted or thought they wanted.  While their courses certainly do have differences; it isn't like they were assembly line building Model Ts, but there is way too much repetition to consider them great, in my opinion.

Dye has done some wonderful work, but, he isn't the oracle of golf course architecture, and neither is Doak.

Which courses does Dye and/or his disciple, Doak, feel lacking due to the use of templates ?

Are there not certain design principles, certain strategic configurations that bear repeating ?[/color]
 

[Bill Gayne]

Brian,

You could always join and attend the Seth Raynor Society meeting in May in Cattanooga.

http://www.sethraynorsociety.org/

[George Pazin]

One of my all time favorite posts on Raynor was by Tom Paul. I have it saved somewhere, I'll try to dig it up, but the general gist of it was that he too seemed perplexed by the fact that he loved Raynor & CBM courses so much, while they seemed to violate so of the momre cherished principles of GCA, such as variety and naturalness. I think his conclusion was that they just play so damn well the other stuff doesn't matter. I'll try to find it - it's from several years ago.

The only Raynor course I've seen in person is Fox Chapel and I can tell you that I would be shocked if I ever got bored playing it. Heck, I'd be shocked if I didn't get a huge charge out of playing it. There are other well regarded courses I've played where I'm not sure I could make the same assertion.

P.S. They changed the Raynor Society rules to keep out the riffraff.  (I AM OBVIOUSLY KIDDING HERE ABOUT THE REASON. Heck, JakaB is a member, how selective can they be? )

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian,

When I talk about the lack of public golf, I ask from the perspective of people being able to learn about his courses.
 
If they are all private, and you don't know a member, how can you learn?  

I can learn about Mozart or Van Gogh or Hemmingway if I want through public means.  Maybe I should just accept that some architects are private-only.  

You did say this, didn't you ?[/color]

[Brian_Gracely]

Bill,

Doesn't the Raynor Society require membership at a Raynor club?  It doesn't explicitly state that on the membership form, although Club Affiliation is listed, but Geoffrey Childs mentioned that on a previous thread.

[George Pazin]

You're correct Brian, you must be a member of a Raynor course to join.

[Scott_Burroughs]

Scott,

You missed the boat, Brian wanted access to courses, not access with strings attached, like having to stay at a resort that costs a fortune.

I'm sure Brian is happy that you are speaking for him and that you know his intent.  

Open to the public means just that to me.
You walk up, pay your green fees and play.

It doesn't mean that I have to stay at a hotel, gamble at a casino or make a reservation 8 months in advance.

There is only one course on that public C&C list that fits this description (Barton Creek).  One does not need to stay at a hotel (even Cuscowilla), gamble at a casino, nor make a reservation 8 months in advance to play the other 6 courses.

I've played dozens of resort courses in my life, and only three times was I staying at the resort while I played it, and one of those 3 was pure coincidence, as I was going to play the course regardless of where we stayed.  I also rarely make tee times at these places far in advance, say more than a couple of weeks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian,

Raynor rarely, if ever, built public courses.  I can only find three courses; Greenbrier (resort), Hotchkiss (private school), N.Palm Beach CC (was it ever private?) that are not listed as private.  

Considering that golf originated as a game of the common man, and almost every other great architect (except maybe CBM) designed several public courses, I find this to be a lacking characteristic.

You reference the "common man"

Is this the same one who has to stay at expensive hotels, gamble or sign up 8 months in advance in order to get in his round ?

It seems to me that you conveniently changed definitions when Scott chimed in with his view of public access.

Be honest, you weren't talking about the "common man" in the context of expensive hotels, casinos, resorts or restricted play courses, were you ?[/color]

Reread your original post.
If you were interested in learning about Seth Raynor, and you only played one of his golf courses, why would you spew forth with a laundry list of his alleged shortcomings ?

You were bashing Raynor, despite having extremely limited experience with his work.

Read about his work, play his courses, sign up with the Raynor Society, and go to their meetings, that's how you'll learn about Raynor, instead of telling us what's wrong with his work based on your extremely limited experience with his golf courses