[Patrick_Mucci]

I think one of the reasons for the successful use of template holes is that they form a near perfect integration of architecture with tactics and play.

Quite simply, they work well in the context of the game of golf.

The Redan, the Short, The Punchbowl, The Road, The Biarritz, The Eden, The Cape, The Valley, The Long, The Knoll, The Hog Back, The Plateau, The Double Plateau, The Bottle and The Alps are all wonderful concepts, wonderful holes.

If certain conceps work so well, why don't we see more of them ?

Is it due to the "been there, done that" mentality ?

Is it the desire of the architect not to be associated with duplicating previous works ?  

The need for him to provide original designs that manifest HIS style ?

After playing Yale and The Creek I wanted to play them again.
And, I wanted to play other courses similar to them, courses that contained and retained their own versions of these marvelous holes.

Is Yale a bland golf course because it contains an abundance of template holes ?   The Creek ?  Piping Rock ?  The Knoll ?
NGLA ? Westhampton ?

These are all great golf courses.

Yet, they're composed of the same holes in a slightly different setting.

Doesn't the inherent value of the architectural merit transcend repitition ?

Shouldn't these marvelous holes be duplicated more often ?

[T_MacWood]

Ralph Barton began under Macdonald & Raynor. I'm curious if he utilized the template holes.

[Brian_Gracely]

Pat,

Considering that all of those courses at private, and in the Northeast (for the most part...some in Chicago), don't you think it might also have amount of regional bias?  For example, down here in the Southeast, Ross' fingerprints are everywhere and newer courses seem to want to have a "Ross flavor".  

People ask for things that they are somewhat familiar with.  So if they haven't see a McRaynorShovel course (or even heard of The Creek), how would you expect them to be excited about an architect that tells they that he's going to build these template holes?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Pat,
I'd agree for the most part with your last sentence, as long as they aren't forced onto the site.

I wonder how many concepts there are that are worth repeating?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Considering that all of those courses at private, and in the Northeast (for the most part...some in Chicago), don't you think it might also have amount of regional bias?  
NO.

Regional Bias has nothing to do with it.

Golf simply followed population centers and population growth in America in the early 20th Century and beyond.

MacDonald produced work in Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New York, West Virginia and Bermuda.

Raynor produced work in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Bermuda.

Charles Banks produced work in most of those same states.

Golf in the early 20th Century was a wealthy man's game.
Public golf, if it was yet born, was in its infancy.

It's the architects and the men who played these courses who would go on to found their own courses who would be influenced by these works, not the general public.[/color]

For example, down here in the Southeast, Ross' fingerprints are everywhere and newer courses seem to want to have a "Ross flavor".  

We've often discussed the mystery of Ross's absence from Long Island, and that certain architects were prolific in a given area, but, the works of CBM, SR and CB weren't confined to the Northeast.

Madonald-Raynor-Banks golf courses in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, West Virginia, Georgia and Florida certainly provided ample exposure throughout the Southeast.[/color]

People ask for things that they are somewhat familiar with.  So if they haven't see a McRaynorShovel course (or even heard of The Creek), how would you expect them to be excited about an architect that tells they that he's going to build these template holes?

First, I don't believe that the architects told their clients what they were going to build in advance of their retention, and even after their retention.

Architects were sought and retained for their name, not for the micro details of what they were going to design in a new location.

And, things haven't changed much in the last 80 years.
Nicklaus and Fazio aren't retained on the basis of advance details regarding the holes they intend to design, when they get around to designing them.

To answer your other question,

because it wasn't people who understood design concepts and asked for the product, it was the architects, who were critical to the design process.  
Golf was relatively new to America.
Many architects came from or returned to the UK to learn more about archticture, they didn't learn about it in Wyoming.

These fellows communicated with one another, consulted with one another, observed and learned from one another.
If CBM, SR and CB were successful, it would seem reasonable that other aspiring architects would attempt to emulate their work, and, that golfers who were exposed to the genius of this work would want it replicated elsewhere.

MacKenzie is alleged to have stated that CBM was the 'FATHER OF GOLF ARCHITECTURE IN AMERICA"  
What does that tell you ?
It tells you that he was highly influencial, and so were his designs in their original form, and as continued by Raynor and Banks.  

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Template holes work so well that they remain challenging and popular today, 95 years after they made their debut in America.

Does # 17 at Pacific Dunes remind you of a Redan ?
How about the 4th at Hidden Creek ?[/color]

[Rick Shefchik]

Raynor also produced two courses in Minnesota: Midland Hills in St. Paul and Minnesota Valley in Bloomington.

[scott anderson]

Raynor did Somerset C.C. in Minnesota as well, #4 is a spectacular redan.

[David_Elvins]

Pat Mucci,

Do template holes and courses pander to a group of golf course "aficionados" that likes to think of themselves as "thinking golfers" but in reality are conservative and yearning for familiarity? Is the strategic challenge not reduced because the same questions are asked at every course?  Are they not like the worst standard of cryptic crossword? Although the clues in each crossword are different, the broad formulas for workng out the answers are so formulaic as to render them unchallenging for the experienced crossword player.  Of course these clues do pander to the ego of the experienced crossword player who likes to think of himself as an intelligent thinker yet is merely following basic learnt patterns.  

In the same way, do template holes pander to the ego of the player who likes to think of himself as a "thinking golfer" but in reality is merely answering strategic questions he already knows the answer to?

[Rick Shefchik]

Scott -- You are correct, sir. I can't believe I forgot Somerset. I'm lucky enough to have a tee time there in a couple of weeks.

[Tom_Doak]

The "con" today is that they lead to stale designs.

One designer is rumored to have fifty template holes on their computer system which they just plug into every site ... the program ties in the grading to the surrounding contours.  Not a single natural contour is saved within the hole.

I think it's fine to get ideas from other golf holes, but the best part of the process is taking what you think are the salient features of that hole and adapting them to the ground you're on.  That's what Seth Raynor did.  To just stamp a template over the ground is another thing altogether, but the technology is there to do it now.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci,

Do template holes and courses pander to a group of golf course "aficionados" that likes to think of themselves as "thinking golfers" but in reality are conservative and yearning for familiarity?

NO, they don't.

Your assinine implication that there is a group of "Afficionados" who seek and play holes for the single purpose of familiarity, is absurd.

Any golfer who frequents a golf club regularly, private or public, becomes familiar, over and over again with the holes on that golf course.

But, do those holes that are so familiar to them vis a vis repeat play contain the strategic elements to excite and challenge the golfer day in and day out, for decades ?

The holes I mentioned do.
They have passed the test of time.

There is more to golf than thinking.
Execution remains the critical factor, and these holes provide a great variety in challenging execution.

I brought foursomes to Yale and The Creek.
Their handicaps ranged from 12 to 16.

They fell in love with both golf courses, especially the template holes.

They have played NGLA and Shinnecock.

Were they the "afficionados" you refered to ?

Are they the ones whose egos are fed by their "intelligent thinking" ? [/color]

Is the strategic challenge not reduced because the same questions are asked at every course?  

NO, not at all.

Have you played the Redans at
NGLA
Shinnecock
The Creek
Piping Rock
The Knoll
Westhampton ?

Are they the same ?
Does the wind affect them equally ?
Or does each hole present its unique challenge ?[/color]

Are they not like the worst standard of cryptic crossword?

NO, because unlike a crossword puzzle they are different each day, with each play.

Are the Sahara's at Pine Valley, Ridgewood and Fenway "standard" ?  Or are they each unique despite the similar nature of their overall concept ?[/color]

Although the clues in each crossword are different, the broad formulas for workng out the answers are so formulaic as to render them unchallenging for the experienced crossword player.  

Let me know how formulaic the 7th hole at Pine Valley is.

Let me know how formulaic the 4th at NGLA, the 7th at Shinnecock, the 8th at The Creek and the 2nd at Somerset Hills are.[/color]

Of course these clues do pander to the ego of the experienced crossword player who likes to think of himself as an intelligent thinker yet is merely following basic learnt patterns.

One never knows what a golfer is thinking as he's about to pull the trigger, one can only evaluate the shot that's hit.

Execution, not thought propels the golf ball.

You can think all you want, but, if you can't execute, if you can't overcome the challenge presented by the architecture, maintainance and the elements, your thoughts count for naught.[/color]  

In the same way, do template holes pander to the ego of the player who likes to think of himself as a "thinking golfer" but in reality is merely answering strategic questions he already knows the answer to?

So you're saying that the golfer should just score par or better without playing the template hole and move on to the next tee, because he knows the ways to play the hole.

Your theory, taken to its natural conclusion would have all golers just walking and scoring on their home golf course after they've played it a dozen times or so.

Do you know the answer to the strategic questions posed by the 18th hole at TOC ?   Does it take much in the way of repeat play to become enlightened ?

Or, is your issue really a resentment of golfers who can manage their game, who understand what the architecture presents, who can make prudent choices accordingly.

Do you feel that golfers who "think" have an unfair advantage over you ?

And as such, do you believe that template holes are unduly weighted in their favor ?[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

I considered that, but, are The Creek, Yale, Piping Rock, Westhampton, The Knoll and Forsgate stale designs ?

Are Friar's Head, Hidden Creek and Sand Hills stale designs.

I don't know that similar style or template holes inerently creates stale design when each landform differs.

[David_Elvins]

Patt Mucci,

Ask 4 questions...get 12 asked back.  This could get tiring!  

I think you may have slightly missed the point of my questions.  I was genuinely interested as to why these "template holes" (not to be confused with the "concept holes" that you refer to in your latest post) hold such appeal for you.  To me, the holes that interest and intrigue me the most are the holes that are original.  The holes that contain something that i have never seen before.  To me, originality is very important in Golf Course Architecture, just as it is valued in other artistic and strategic pursuits.  When I see a hole that I can clearly see is based on another hole, it does not hold my thoughts as long as a hole that I have not seen before, no matter its individual merrits.   I would rather visit golf courses that broaden my mind with originality than visit a string of courses that are playing to a variation on a theme.  

I am suprised that other GCA enthusiasts would differ and was curious as to why.  Maybe I should just accept that they do!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patt Mucci,

Ask 4 questions...get 12 asked back.  This could get tiring!
They were legitimate questions.
None of which did you address.
Could you answer them,  I answered all of your questions.[/color]

I think you may have slightly missed the point of my questions.  I was genuinely interested as to why these "template holes" (not to be confused with the "concept holes" that you refer to in your latest post) hold such appeal for you.  

Then why did you categorize those who like template holes as a "group of afficionados", egos, and why depracate the "thinking golfer" if you were genuinely interested, which I doubt ?[/color]

To me, the holes that interest and intrigue me the most are the holes that are original.  The holes that contain something that i have never seen before.  To me, originality is very important in Golf Course Architecture,

So to your thinking, originality transcends architectural merit, strategy and tactical options.

It's the uniqueness of the hole that holds your interest, not it's underlying merits based on architecture and playability.

Desmond Muirhead created a golf course that would hold your interest.  Perhaps some could post some pictures.
Bunkers shaped like fish, jaws and the like seems to be your idea of interesting architecture.   To each his own.[/color]

just as it is valued in other artistic and strategic pursuits.  When I see a hole that I can clearly see is based on another hole, it does not hold my thoughts as long as a hole that I have not seen before, [size=x2]no matter its individual merrits.[/size]  

As I said, to each his own.
I prefer a hole with architectural merit rather than originality.[/color]

I would rather visit golf courses that broaden my mind with originality than visit a string of courses that are playing to a variation on a theme.

To each his own.

In reality, there aren't an inordinate amount of original ideas that manifest themselves in golf holes.

To help me better understand your theory of originality, perhaps you could identify 18 original holes you have played ?

According to your preferences there is no need for you to visit NGLA, Yale, The Creek, Piping Rock, Westhampton, Forsgate, The Knoll and others.

They have nothing to offer you, because, if you've seen one, you've seen them all.

But, aren't ALL golf holes mere variations of but a few themes ?[/color]  

I am suprised that other GCA enthusiasts would differ and was curious as to why.  Maybe I should just accept that they do!

I'd have to let other GCA enthusiasts speak for themselves.

However, your preferences seems to be at odds with those who critique and enjoy playing golf courses.

The courses I referenced seem to be very popular with GCA enthusiasts, raters, and the many golfers who love to play them, as members and guests.

It would seem that you just don't get it when it comes to template holes.[/color]

[David_Elvins]

Pat,

I have no real interest in debating you.  Your style really is tiring after all these years.  The last post of yours was the post that distorts the truth and puts words into my mouth which means the next one will be the one where you start misquoting and lieing and repeating the lie ad nauseum in the hope that people will believe it is the truth.  

If you are more interested in picking apart my post line by line to distort it's context and having an argument for the sake of an argument rather than taking my words in the context and entirety they were written and having a genuine fascinating discussion about a difference of opinions then I am really not interested.  

Because I do not like to be misquoted, here is a list of corrections from my last post.
1/ You are right, I did not answer any of your questions.  As I stated in another thread "The Pat Mucci Posting Theorem" states that the quality of a Pat Mucci post is inversely proportional to the number of question marks it contains.  

2/You misquoted me be claiiming that categorize those who like template holes as afficionados.  On this site we are all afficionados.  THose who like template holes were group of these.

3/You misquoted me by stating that I deprecated the "thinking golfer". I love the thinking golfer.  I was hypothysising that there could be a group of people that think they are thinking golfer but are not.  

4/I am dissapointed that you doubt my genuine interest and I am staggered that it has drawn such an angry response.

5/And now to clarify myself.  I did not write clearly enough and that is my fault.  My comments about orignal and non-original holes was based on the pretense that the strategic merit of both holes are equal.  ie.  I am  infinetly more amazed by and intersted in a hole that is great and original rather than a hole that is great and unoriginal.

6/To answer the last point in your last post, I realise that many gca enthusiasts enjoy playing these courses.  And I think it is fair to ask the question why?  Is it at all because they like to play a course that they know half the puzzle to?  Is it because they like to appear to be thinking golfers but have a crib sheet with some answers on it?  I don't know, I am just asking the questions because I am fascinated.  And it is a pity, that despite all your bluster, you have done nothing to help me with the answers.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I have no real interest in debating you.  Your style really is tiring after all these years.  The last post of yours was the post that distorts the truth and puts words into my mouth which means the next one will be the one where you start misquoting and lieing and repeating the lie ad nauseum in the hope that people will believe it is the truth.  

I haven't distorted the truth, lied, or misquoted you.
Are you trying to recant your words or change your position ?
[/color]

If you are more interested in picking apart my post line by line to distort it's context and having an argument for the sake of an argument rather than taking my words in the context and entirety they were written and having a genuine fascinating discussion about a difference of opinions then I am really not interested.

So we should just accept what you say and never question you ?

I didn't take anything you said out of context,
In fact, I QUOTED you.
Or, would you have us believe that someone else typed those words ?

If your words, which you typed, can't stand scrutiny, that's your problem [/color]

Because I do not like to be misquoted, here is a list of corrections from my last post.
1/ [size=x2]You are right, I did not answer any of your questions.[/size]

I guess that proves my point.
You can't stand scrutiny.[/color]

As I stated in another thread "The Pat Mucci Posting Theorem" states that the quality of a Pat Mucci post is inversely proportional to the number of question marks it contains.

And I addressed that in the other thread.
Try sticking to this thread or is that too challenging for you ?[/color]

2/You misquoted me be claiiming that categorize those who like template holes as afficionados.  On this site we are all afficionados.  THose who like template holes were group of these.

Bullshit, you tried to make a wiseguy reference and you got called on it.   Be a man, stand up and take your flogging.[/color]

3/You misquoted me by stating that I deprecated the "thinking golfer". I love the thinking golfer.  I was hypothysising that there could be a group of people that think they are thinking golfer but are not.

More BS.
Go back and reread what you wrote.
Try being honest.[/color]  

4/I am dissapointed that you doubt my genuine interest and I am staggered that it has drawn such an angry response.

I'm not angry in the least.
I doubted your genuine interest due to the snotty nature of your initial response.[/color]

5/[size=x4]And now to clarify myself.  I did not write clearly enough and that is my fault.[/size]

David, I can only be guided by what you write, not by what you intend.   That's one of the problems with the internet.[/color]  

My comments about orignal and non-original holes was based on the pretense that the strategic merit of both holes are equal.  ie.  I am  infinetly more amazed by and intersted in a hole that is great and original rather than a hole that is great and unoriginal.

I understand that, but that doesn't negate the architectural merits of each hole.

The 4th at NGLA, the 7th at Shinnecock, the 8th at The Creek, the 7th at Westhampton, the 3rd at The Knoll and the 3rd at Piping Rock are different, yet they have architectural merit despite the fact that they can trace their heritage back to North Berwick.[/color]

6/To answer the last point in your last post, I realise that many gca enthusiasts enjoy playing these courses.  And I think it is fair to ask the question why?  Is it at all because they like to play a course that they know half the puzzle to?


That's where I disagree with you.
Don't we all know half, to 3/4, to all of the puzzle when we stand on the tee and play the golf hole.

This isn't Chinese algebra, it's playing a golf hole, and there isn't that much mystery to it, if your eye can detect and differentiate the architectural signals that were meant for your brain to decipher.[/color]

Is it because they like to appear to be thinking golfers but have a crib sheet with some answers on it?  I don't know, I am just asking the questions because I am fascinated.  And it is a pity, that despite all your bluster, you have done nothing to help me with the answers.

The pity is yours.
If I haven't helped you that's your fault.
Remember, you stated that ORIGINALITY was more important than ARCHITECTURAL MERIT.

How can I help someone of that mindset, of that opinion ?

You and you alone presented a closed mind.
You and you alone stated that originality was more important than architectural merit.
I stated, "to each his own"
That's your view, you're entitled to it, but, I don't agree with it, and it's not my burden to brainwash and convince you otherwise.   If you don't get it, you don't get it and no amount of infusion of reasoning, architectural examples or theories were going to sway your opinion.

You clearly stated your opinion, now stick with it.
Don't tell me it's my fault that you still cling to it.[/color]  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci,

Do template holes and courses pander to a group of golf course "aficionados" that likes to think of themselves as "thinking golfers" but in reality are conservative and yearning for familiarity?

Is the strategic challenge not reduced because the same questions are asked at every course?  Are they not like the worst standard of cryptic crossword? Although the clues in each crossword are different, the broad formulas for workng out the answers are so formulaic as to render them unchallenging for the experienced crossword player.  

Of course these clues do pander to the ego of the experienced crossword player who likes to think of himself as an intelligent thinker yet is merely following basic learnt patterns.  

In the same way, do template holes pander to the ego of the player who likes to think of himself as a "thinking golfer" but in reality is merely answering strategic questions he already knows the answer to?

I didn't want to be accused of misquoting you so I thought I'd reprint your words, verbatim.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patt Mucci,

Ask 4 questions...get 12 asked back.  This could get tiring!  

I think you may have slightly missed the point of my questions.  I was genuinely interested as to why these "template holes" (not to be confused with the "concept holes" that you refer to in your latest post) hold such appeal for you.  

To me, the holes that interest and intrigue me the most are the holes that are original.  The holes that contain something that i have never seen before.  

To me, originality is very important in Golf Course Architecture, just as it is valued in other artistic and strategic pursuits.  

When I see a hole that I can clearly see is based on another hole, it does not hold my thoughts as long as a hole that I have not seen before, [size=x3]no matter its individual merrits.[/size]  

I would rather visit golf courses that broaden my mind with originality than visit a string of courses that are playing to a variation on a theme.  

I am suprised that other GCA enthusiasts would differ and was curious as to why.  Maybe I should just accept that they do!

Ditto.[/color]

[Mark_F]

Patrick,

You use the word 'template' in the first sentence, but then use the word 'concepts' several lines later.

I think there is a subtle distinction there.

Template would mean, at least to me, that a certain hole was patterned pretty much directly on another one.

Concept means using the underlying theory behind a hole.

I've not seen or played it, but from what pictures I have seen, the 7th at NGLA may be a template hole, in that it is a reasonable facsimile of the original?

Obviously, some adjustments have been made..., but the concept of a drive over or very close to an OB/unplayable, followed by an iron to a narrow shelf-type green angled to favour the bold line from the tee wouldn't necessarily make such a close approximation.

[Tom_Doak]

Pat:  Yes, some of those courses you mentioned seem stale to me.  I loved the 8th green at Sand Hills when I first saw it, but frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing it in other places.  I was happy to see that Friars Head did not have a version of it.

I am also tired of hearing people praise the work of young architects or less-known architects because they decide to include an ode to the Biarritz or to the Redan in their new work.  I think the Redan is a great hole and I've used it myself 4-5 times because I think it works, but I'm not resting on it.  It would bother me tremendously if people were fawning over High Pointe or Pacific Dunes because they contain a version of the Redan, but fortunately those courses have plenty of other original holes which attract more of the attention.  

I agree with David Elvins; I think some architects are starting to pander to the Golf Club Atlas crowd.  I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'm not going to debate you on it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark Ferguson,

Not all landforms are capable of producing identical holes.
While it's true that today's budgets and earthmoving capabilities can create almost anything, CBM, SR and CB seemed to have used the concept and applied it to the unique landform they were working with.

The distinction can clearly be viewed on the Redans I mentioned.

There's a big difference in the form of the 4th at NGLA and the 8th at The Creek.  The 2nd at Somerset Hills and the 7th at Westhampton, but, it's clear, they're Redans.  Perhaps it's a question of degree.

One could say that the 8th at The Creek or the 13th at Yale employ the "concept" of a Redan,  and that the 4th at NGLA, the 2nd at Somerset, the 3rd at Piping Rock and the 7th at Westhampton are template holes.  The 17th at Pacific Dunes and the 4th at Hidden Creek are closer to the template, but, others may feel that they're closer to the concept.
So perhaps there is a distinction or perhaps it's just a matter of degree.
 

[David_Elvins]

Pat,

I have no real interest in debating you.  Your style really is tiring after all these years.  The last post of yours was the post that distorts the truth and puts words into my mouth which means the next one will be the one where you start misquoting and lieing and repeating the lie ad nauseum in the hope that people will believe it is the truth.  

I haven't distorted the truth, lied, or misquoted you.
Are you trying to recant your words or change your position ?
[/color]

I really don't appreciate your style of debating on this site and I think it achieves nothing.  Your posts would be far more valuable to this site if you made a point and then backed it up with a supporting couple of paragraphs. I really dont see what it achieves to post a list of loaded rhetorical questions and then distort and dissect to the most miniscule of detail the argument of anyone who disagrees with you.  I suppose one thing your rhetorical question style of thread does do is hide the fact that most of your threads rely on little more than a simple premise from the first day of architecture 101.  But I fail to see what you learn from this style of debate.  Anyway, as much as I disagree with your style of debate, I am going to try it for this thread and see how I go.

If you are more interested in picking apart my post line by line to distort it's context and having an argument for the sake of an argument rather than taking my words in the context and entirety they were written and having a genuine fascinating discussion about a difference of opinions then I am really not interested.

So we should just accept what you say and never question you ?

I didn't take anything you said out of context,
In fact, I QUOTED you.
Or, would you have us believe that someone else typed those words ?

If your words, which you typed, can't stand scrutiny, that's your problem [/color]

You did misquote me, and when I picked you up on it, all you could so is swear.


Because I do not like to be misquoted, here is a list of corrections from my last post.
1/ [size=x2]You are right, I did not answer any of your questions.[/size]

I guess that proves my point.
You can't stand scrutiny.[/color]

No, I did not answer your questions because they are not questions at all, they simply a launching pad for your next attack.

As I stated in another thread "The Pat Mucci Posting Theorem" states that the quality of a Pat Mucci post is inversely proportional to the number of question marks it contains.

And I addressed that in the other thread.

with all the maturity of a 6th grad student too!

2/You misquoted me be claiiming that categorize those who like template holes as afficionados.  On this site we are all afficionados.  THose who like template holes were group of these.

Bullshit, you tried to make a wiseguy reference and you got called on it.   Be a man, stand up and take your flogging.[/color]

No, If I was trying to make a wiseguy reference I would probably have a history of it on this site.  You, on the othr hand have a history of flogging anyone who raises a point different to your narrow point of view.  This flogging is a blight on this site and manages to squash many intelligent, thoughtful discussions.  Who made you the king of flogging anyway.  As Jack would say "Go and flog youself"

3/You misquoted me by stating that I deprecated the "thinking golfer". I love the thinking golfer.  I was hypothysising that there could be a group of people that think they are thinking golfer but are not.

More BS.
Go back and reread what you wrote.
Try being honest.[/color]  

 You have some cheek questioning my honesty when you are the one who constantly repeats lies in the hope that people will start to believe them as truth.  It is funny on the Fox News Network but I would like to think that Golf Club Atlas is above this form of tabloid journalism.


4/I am dissapointed that you doubt my genuine interest and I am staggered that it has drawn such an angry response.

I'm not angry in the least.
I doubted your genuine interest due to the snotty nature of your initial response.[/color]

5/[size=x4]And now to clarify myself.  I did not write clearly enough and that is my fault.[/size]

David, I can only be guided by what you write, not by what you intend.   That's one of the problems with the internet.[/color]  

Yes, you are right, that is why I clarified myself.  I admitted that I made a mistake.  Maybe you should do it some time.  The fact that you continue to quote my post pre-qualification is not honorable.  But it does not suprise me that you would stoop this low.

My comments about orignal and non-original holes was based on the pretense that the strategic merit of both holes are equal.  ie.  I am  infinetly more amazed by and intersted in a hole that is great and original rather than a hole that is great and unoriginal.

I understand that, but that doesn't negate the architectural merits of each hole.
   Now you are playing semantics again.  You know that exactly what I meant whe I said "strategic merit" but rather than take my argument on board and debate that, you choose to split hairs between the terms "strategic merit" and "architectural merit".  What that does for the site, I do not know.  I could have spent paragraphs driving a hole through your loose use of the terms "template" and "concept" but I understood the general point you were making whe nconsidering the post in its entirety.  Some would call that honorable, you would probably call it weak.

The 4th at NGLA, the 7th at Shinnecock, the 8th at The Creek, the 7th at Westhampton, the 3rd at The Knoll and the 3rd at Piping Rock are different, yet they have architectural merit despite the fact that they can trace their heritage back to North Berwick.[/color]

6/To answer the last point in your last post, I realise that many gca enthusiasts enjoy playing these courses.  And I think it is fair to ask the question why?  Is it at all because they like to play a course that they know half the puzzle to?


That's where I disagree with you.
Don't we all know half, to 3/4, to all of the puzzle when we stand on the tee and play the golf hole.

 How the hell can you disagree with me?  All I have done is asked three genuinely speculative questions.  How can you disagree with a question!  I think I have worked out why you have been so agressive, you have been making up what I have said in your mind.

Is it because they like to appear to be thinking golfers but have a crib sheet with some answers on it?  I don't know, I am just asking the questions because I am fascinated.  And it is a pity, that despite all your bluster, you have done nothing to help me with the answers.

The pity is yours.
If I haven't helped you that's your fault.
Remember, you stated that ORIGINALITY was more important than ARCHITECTURAL MERIT.
THat is a LIE!!! Can you find a quote where I have said that?

That's your view, you're entitled to it, but, I don't agree with it, and it's not my burden to brainwash and convince you otherwise.   If you don't get it, you don't get it and no amount of infusion of reasoning, architectural examples or theories were going to sway your opinion.
I don't even understand that.  That is grade A giberish.  Please write more clearly so that we can understand.  Unfortunatly that is an unlikely option as your self centred view of the world means that every time you misunderstand someone it is their fault for not writing clearly and every time that some one misunderstands you, it is their fault for not having good comprehension.  (Sorry that's not an original, someone pointed it out to me some time back).
[/color]  

Anyway, thats enough for me, I agree with Tom Doak,

I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'm not going to debate you on it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:  Yes, some of those courses you mentioned seem stale to me.  I loved the 8th green at Sand Hills when I first saw it, but frankly, I'm getting tired of seeing it in other places.  I was happy to see that Friars Head did not have a version of it.

Some holes and features don't travel well.
Perhaps the 8th green at Sand Hills is one of them.

The beauty of the template holes is most of them travel well when blended with the related land form.[/color]

I am also tired of hearing people praise the work of young architects or less-known architects because they decide to include an ode to the Biarritz or to the Redan in their new work.  

That could be a function of misdirected focus.
The emphasis shouldn't be on the inclusion of a template hole.
The praise should be on the body of the work, all 18 holes.
However, if a young architect was to create a good golf course and it included a template hole that "fit" into the landform, they certainly shouldn't be taken to task for it.[/color]
[size=x2]
I think the Redan is a great hole and I've used it myself 4-5 times because I think it works, but I'm not resting on it.[/size]  
It would bother me tremendously if people were fawning over High Pointe or Pacific Dunes because they contain a version of the Redan, but fortunately those courses have plenty of other original holes which attract more of the attention.  
Again, that's a matter of the direction or degree of focus.

When I first played Pacific Dunes, and was enjoying it, the walk from # 16 green to # 17 green was neat because, other than the scorecard, I didn't know what lay ahead.

I enjoyed the vista and the scale presented to me on the 17th tee.   I recognized the inherent structure of the hole.

Was it my sole focus, no, of course not, but it was memorable.

I too would be disappointed if golfers who walked off the 18th green and in retrospect focused solely on the 17th hole, due to its lineage.[/color]

I agree with David Elvins; I think some architects are starting to pander to the Golf Club Atlas crowd.  I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'm not going to debate you on it.
In word or in product ?

There's a big difference.

Would you include yourself amongst those architects ?[/color]

[TEPaul]

Template holes, are they pro or con?

I think somewhat of both but I think they need to be looked at in the context of whence they came and why as well as where the idea might go.

A "template" hole I would define as one that's recognizable similar to some prototype somewhere.

A "conceptual copy" hole I would define as a hole that may have similar to very similar strategies and shot values (or a series of them) to some other prototype somewhere but is hardly recognizable to it in look. I think Perry Maxwell was very accomplished with this type. I think he actually tried to hide the similarlty of look but not the strategic and shot value similarity.

To me, Macdonald was the king or orginator of the "template" hole. One needs to not only look at why he did that but how he did it---eg how he came up with his "template" holes----and also why he and Raynor basically made a career style or business out of doing them virtually on every course they did.

Did Macdonald bring these "template" holes from Europe simply because he admired them? Apparently not. They were basically all identified in a formal magazine contest with appointed judges simply because they were found to be, through that contest, the most popular or respected holes in Europe at that time.

Furthermore, even if those holes are enduringly excellent in concept and in play taking the idea of "template" architecture to some extreme bothers me in that it's too much in the direction of "standardizaton" in golf architecture, in my opinion---a basic direction golf architecture, of all art forms, does not need to go.

"Template" holes had their time and place in my opinion, and the reason for them was probably a good one back then---eg basically NGLA and its Macdonald/Raynor spin-offs but I wouldn't want to see other architects build them thinking they are the only basic DNA of golf course architecture.

Macdonald's mission at NGLA was to create the first course in America that had 18 good holes---at least that's the way he floated his NGLA concept.

The irony is, the very last thing Macdonald believed in with golf's I&B was "standardization". One would think he would've felt the same about golf course architecture. His adage or virtual admonition that there was not and could not be anything new under the sun in golf architecture other than a few well-tried principles was probably a cop-out and an excuse for some of the criticism some offered for his use of "template" holes even at NGLA but certainly over and over again.

[wsmorrison]

"The beauty of the template holes is most of them travel well when blended with the related land form."

I  agree with this statement in general but don't feel a great majority blend with the related land form at all.  The beauty of the template holes to me is their playabilty.  Of the CBM, SR and CB courses I've seen I cannot recall very much outside some of the holes at NGLA, The Creek, Yeaman's Hall and Westhampton as tied into the natural land forms.

Even at NGLA the man-made green complexes are overtly evident to someone who knows how to see it. Of the Redans as at CC Charleston and Fox Chapel, they are not blended in at all with surrounding landforms--they are almost caricatures of the originals.  Are they fun to play?  Yes.  Are they appealing to my eye (granted I am disposed to natural use of landforms and natural looking man-made)?  No.  If you look at the Redan at CCC from the parallel fairways on the left, it is amazing how built up that green is and how unnatural looking it is.  Same with Fox Chapel.  Are the template Biarritz holes tied in naturally?  I don't see it at all.  The Short hole greens pop out of the ground with symmetrical slopes and that is a related landform?  The linearity of bunkers and mounds looks completely unnatural.  I love the playability of the 17th at NGLA, but what is natural looking about that hole?

Now, as to the  familiar strategies of these holes, I think that is a drawback.  They are fun to play, no doubt and some clubs like The Creek and NGLA have different appearances and slightly different playability but it is like comfort food.  We know what we like and we want it wherever we go.

The highest form of architecture to me is the use of the natural features of the land where possible.  Where man-made engineering must be employed, it should look natural.  Tom Doak made mention that he thinks Seth Raynor did tie into the natural surrounds pretty well adapting them to the ground.  I must be missing something.  Yes, I see some of that but not much of the courses I've seen.  I haven't seen as many as some.  Clearly I have a critical mind set of the National School but some of the things many on here praise I see as detractions.

The whole process of the National School is anti-artistic and more like copying.  From taking holes from a magazine competition (granted they are interesting holes) to relying on templates and using them throughout their careers...I think it is rather a weak method.  Interestingly, Macdonald's original holes are some of his best.  I know he got tired of practicing golf architecture but his protoges did not establish careers I hold as high as MacKenzie, Thomas, Colt, Flynn and others.

I am at a bit of a loss to understand everyone's acceptance of standardized design.  I even see that as begining to be a problem for Coore and Crenshaw.  I really would like to see them try something totally different.  Not because what they do isn't great--it is, some of my very favorite.  But the portfolio would seem greater if it had greater variety.

Now here I am sort of finding chinks in the armor of some beloved architects to all.  But I think this way and firmly believe concepts holes are far better than template holes.  How many original hole types are there?  I don't know.  If an architect uses the natural features well and disguises his hand in a natural way--I am likely to find this most appealing.  While I do enjoy the shot values of standardized holes and some overtly man-made designs, I don't hold them up to be crowning achievements to my sensibilities.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()