Classical features that should die, Vol 2..The Redan

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm not saying greens shouldn't tilt from east to west..but read this critique from Ran about the 17th at Pacific Dunes and ask yourself if Doak made a mistake in not more accurately duplicating The Redan.

17th hole, 210 yards; Located in a sea of gorse, this one shotter is visually impressive. The four degree right to left slope in the 8,500 square foot green coupled with the ten foot deep left front bunker create much of a classic Redan dilemma. Considering that the vast majority of modern courses that are built in windy environs put too much of a strain on the average golfer, Doak cleared a wide area to the right of the green so that the hole remains playable in even the summer winds. However, for those who like to see the screws tightened on the penultimate hole, some will lament the absence of the back right bunkering normally associated with a classic Redan.

I'm saying to let this and all future holes stand and just let The Redan go its merry way...

[JESII]

Why?

[John Kavanaugh]

I'm thinking that if the 17th hole at Pacific Dunes was a Redan it would be a worse hole than it is...and that would be a bad thing.

[John Kavanaugh]

One thing I have thought of in the last few days is how embarrassed I would be if Victoria National had either a Redan or Biarritz hole.  I would have to restrain myself from telling non-believers what they are and would quickly tire of defending the merits with the others.  I much prefer the holes to be the holes..

I believe Tom has had this exact problem with the 17th..

[Tom Huckaby]

I believe I am following something, for once.

Re 17 PD, the fact is it's a GREAT GOLF HOLE as it is right now, and an attempt to try to force it into being a Redan just out of an attempt to meet the rules for that concept is silly.  One can debate endlessly whether that would make it better or worse; the point is more that it DOESN'T MATTER one way or the other.  Can a golf hole not be great on its own merits whether or not it fits some pre-determined definition?

I'm not sure it this means creation of new Redans ought to stop; rather, I'd say if people just focus on creation of great golf holes, without care of meeting definitions, then the golf world is better for it.

And I believe that's exactly what Doak did at PD.  So what if Ran and a bunch of other knuckleheads in here complain?  They're always going to be a tiny minority.

I'm also just wondering if there are any examples of real-world "forcing" of new Redans... or restorations of such that were un-needed if the holes were fine as is.... I really don't know.

TH

[JESII]

I haven't played the hole John, but why does the fact that this hole differs from most Redan's (and is better than them) that make the immediate next step to never build another Redan?

Is the 17th at Pacific Dunes better, and more tranferrable, than the Redan concept?

Is it simply the lack of a back right bunker complex that makes this hole better? Does that make it easier? Is easier better?

Or is it just that if the 17th were a Redan it would be, in essence, a copy and therefore less original and therefore less good?

[Michael Moore]

John Kavanaugh -

I have to agree with you that these templates are more valuable as symbols and commodities than golf holes.

"The handicraftsmen of democratic ages endeavor not only to bring their useful productions within the reach of the whole community, but they strive to give to all their commodities attractive qualities which they do not in reality possess. In the confusion of all ranks everyone hopes to appear what he is not, and makes great exertions to succeed in this object. This sentiment indeed, which is but too natural to the heart of man, does not originate in the democratic principle; but that principle applies it to material objects. To mimic virtue is of every age; but the hypocrisy of luxury belongs more particularly to the ages of democracy."

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Volume II

[Brent Hutto]

Doesn't the discussion of the seventeenth at Pacific Dunes double back to what Tom D said in the other thread? He uses all manner of swales through greens, which is inspired by the Biarritz. That's a far cry from building Biarritz greens.

Heck there's a lot of greens built up steeply on the right with a bunker to catch balls on the left. That's one of the 100 or so basic idioms of golf architecture. Nobody wants to see all those holes converted into Redan-clones, do they?

Same thing with swales through a green. I wouldn't mind playing a hole with an actual Biarritz green, in fact sounds kind of fun. But I certainly don't look at every green with a swale of some kind running through it and think to myself "Alas, this hole would be much better if they went ahead and built a Biarritz".

BTW, is there a special name for greens that are tilted away from the approach shot?

[Tommy_Naccarato]

John,
Have you played the 17th at Pacific Dunes to make this/these ascertation(s)?

Personally, I'm a lot like Huck, and I think its a pretty strong hole, but in actuality, the 14th at Apache Stronghold is the better of the Doak Redan's. Redanman will back me up on this as we played the hole several times one beautiful night.

I think the major problem today is not enough designers are doing good enough versions of the Redan, although Ben Crenshaw & Bill Coore's Redan at Hidden Creek might be my favorite of the modern version of that great hole.

So, no. The Redan is a classical feature that should never die.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tommy:

But here's my question (and maybe John's - but predicting him is never a good idea):  why does it matter which "redan" is better?  Or to put it more correctly, are we evaluating quality of golf holes, or quality of "redans"?

I guess this is all a matter of semantics.  Personally I'd say "the concept of building great par threes with different options as to how to play them" should never die, way before I'd say anything about "redans."

Maybe it's the same thing - but maybe not.

TH

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Tom,
I say, never lose the character of what the site is giving you, and with both sites, its a perfect place for a Redan where they occur. Now, to better phrase it, what makes one better then the other, well, its all a mater of prefered taste. There is nothing wrong with that. (the prefered taste thing)

This is why I'm sure Redanman will disagree with me regarding Hidden Creek's Redan--prefered taste.

[John_Cullum]

Heck there's a lot of greens built up steeply on the right with a bunker to catch balls on the left. That's one of the 100 or so basic idioms of golf architecture. Nobody wants to see all those holes converted into Redan-clones, do they?

Exactly! How many times have I seen a photograph of a hole like this posted on this site with  an ensuing discussion of whether or not it should be considered a redan hole. But that is not as silly as the discussions about the "reverse redan." There is no such thing as a reverse redan, it is merely a "vision of the anointed."

[Tommy_Naccarato]

One other thing, JK, if you post a Classical Features That Should Die, Vol. 3...The Eden, well, I will really disagree with you because I still think that there hasn't been a version of the hole that is better then the original, including NGLA's. So the door is open for any designer, ANY DESIGNER IN THE CURRENT WORLD OF GCA that needs to build a PERFECT Eden.

I dare them!

[Mike Hendren]

A related question:   Why aren't any of the redans anything like The Redan?

Are CB and Seth the BASF of architects:  We don't make The Redan - we make it better.

Mike

[Tom Huckaby]

Tommy:  gotcha.

But the question then becomes is Ran's critique of 17 PD valid?

Because as I see that, it's more of a critique that Doak didn't meet the "redan" definition than it is that the golf hole is somehow lesser without the back bunkers.

Or maybe I'm reading too much into Ran's thoughts.  So instead, let's assume that someone does critique 17 PD as lesser because it isn't PERFECTLY a "redan" as that concept is defined.

I just find that to be a silly critique.  If the golf hole is great to play and fits the land, what else matters?

TH

[wsmorrison]

"I'm saying to let this and all future holes stand and just let The Redan go its merry way..."

I do not have any sense at all what this statement means.  Nor do I follow the line of thinking on this concept of classical features that should die.

The fact is these hole concepts have stood the test of time in classical era courses.  If John K is advocating that designers steer clear of these concepts (not duplicates) then I don't see any merit to his position.

Flynn used redan concepts, not imitations, in ways that made great holes.  How many people playing his courses would recognize the differences between these conceptual variations and the originals?  Obviously very few.  How many that do recognize the conceptual link would find fault in the deviations and not consider the merits of the hole in and of itself?  Even fewer.  So what is the point?

I've never been to Pacific Dunes, have you John?  If not, what value do you add to this sort of analysis?  If you have, what is wrong with the hole as it is?  Why call it anything at all?  Just let it be what it is and that's what should go on its merry way.  Compartmentalizing holes into rigid constructs makes no sense for designers that use the land to dictate forms.  

Now I am one of the few that seems to have issues with the use of templates practiced by Raynor and Banks.  These tended to be artificial in look and forced on the ground.  In my experience I find less of this sensation on courses where Macdonald had a lot to do with the work.  But standing the test of time is the most important criteria and these features have become embraced by many that consider golf architecture and enjoyed by many more that could give a crap about anything other than the playability and shot value.

[JohnV]

John,  Maybe your problem is that you (we) know too much.  If you didn't know what a Redan was, you might just say, "This is a cool hole" instead of "Oh, here comes another Redan clone, I wonder if it will be faithful to the original."

I think we all are guilty of looking at things and trying to assess whether they come up to the norms and not just evaluating them on their own merits.  Of course, it can be argued that one of their merits is how they do measure up to the "gold standard".

[George_Bahto]

stupid, just plain stupid

[Tom Huckaby]

John,  Maybe your problem is that you (we) know too much.  If you didn't know what a Redan was, you might just say, "This is a cool hole" instead of "Oh, here comes another Redan clone, I wonder if it will be faithful to the original."

I think we all are guilty of looking at things and trying to assess whether they come up to the norms and not just evaluating them on their own merits.  Of course, it can be argued that one of their merits is how they do measure up to the "gold standard".

JV - exceedingly well said.  And that last part is food for thought.  There does have to be a certain merit to meeting the gold standard, or not.  But if the golf hole is great as it is - a la 17 PD - then isn't this the last of the considerations, if it matters at all?

Here's what it comes down to:  17 PD is a better golf hole[/b] than 15 North Berwick (the redan - I hope I have the number correct - it's been awhile).

Of course that's arguable.  But isn't that a more valid thing to discuss than which is the better redan[/b]?

[Tom Huckaby]

stupid, just plain stupid

Yes, stupid, if one just takes the very face value of the statement "redans must die."

But is it stupid to want great golf holes more than one wants "redans"?

Maybe I am taking this semantic thing way too far.  Because again, I still can't think of an example where a redan was forced at the expense of a great golf hole - and that would obviously be the negative here.  So this is really a discussion of the focus of critiques.

Or is it?

Quick example:  13 Sand Hills.  Fantastic golf hole.  Not even close to being a redan.  But if C&C were so inclined, they sure as hell could have forced a redan onto that hilltop.  Wouldn't that have made for a worse golf hole?

Silly hypo, I know.  But I can't think of a real-life example.

TH

[John_Cullum]

Assume there are about 25,000,000 people in the world who play golf and 24,975,000 who don't know what a redan hole is. When one of those great unwashed steps up on the Redan tee at North Berwick, how many say "I've seen this before?"

[Tom_Doak]

Okay.

First of all, the 17th hole at Pacific Dunes is NOT a better golf hole than the 15th at North Berwick.  It may be prettier but it's not better.  This has nothing to do with the bunkers Ran felt I left out, it has to do with the shots required and the line of the prevailing wind, which are absolutely perfectly oriented at North Berwick; the bigger topo of Pacific Dunes did not allow for that.

I believe I have mentioned before that Jim Urbina and I saw right away the possibility of building the finished 17th at Pacific Dunes on that site, but we resisted the thought, not even mentioning it by name [we agreed that we did not want to build one of those "R holes"].  However the steep slope to the left of the green and the line of the prevailing wind were at odds, and eventually we stuck the green out and let the natural tilt hold the shot up which was blowing in from left to right, in the manner of the Redan.  

I would call the result a Redan hole, if pressed.  But I certainly didn't want to carbon-copy it as Ran suggested so I looked to make some aspect of it different, and we decided that the nature of the wind asked for a different treatment of the back right side.

The discussion of modern Redan holes is interesting in terms of who has figured out what.  I have of course seen many of them in my travels and in our consulting work, and it took me a long time to learn all the nuances, and why I liked the Redan at National so much better than some others.  I tried to build one at High Pointe, but didn't get the approach right, and after playing National a few more times realized what I had done wrong so that I could do a better version down the line.  [It is interesting to note that Seth Raynor didn't always get them to play right, either, despite having helped build The National's Redan at the start of his involvement with golf architecture.]

So I did learn a lot about the craft of golf architecture by comparing and contrasting Redans and why some were better than others.  But I also respect the craft enough not to pull the Redan out of the drawer often.

Hopefully people like the fourth at Sebonack for what it is.  Like Mr. Huckaby's example, it could have been a Redan if we had wanted to try it, but neither Jack Nicklaus nor I thought that would be appropriate with the Redan at National about 400 yards away.
 

[Tom Huckaby]

TD:

Many thanks, and well-said.  That is also a very valid reason NOT to create a "redan" at Sebonack - there are indeed two very nice examples mere yards away.

And your reasoning for why 17 PD is what it is seems rock-solid to me.  Again, I applaud you for resisting the temptation to create a more perfect "redan" copy.  The bottom-line has to remain creation of the best golf hole, not the best redan...

I'm just not sure if anyone ever fails to do that!  So all my conjecture here could well be hypothetical/mental masturbation/whatever.  Still it is interesting.... And yes, to me the danger would be if more focus is put on replicating redans over creation of great golf holes.

As for the comparison of 17PD to 15NB, well I did say it was arguable.    No need to get into that too deeply - your reasoning there is sound also, although I might put more value on prettiness than most, and do consider the blindness of 15MB NOT to be a strength.  In any case the point there remains that a comparison of golf holes remains more valid to me than a comparison of redans.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

John,

Have you played the 17th at Pacific Dunes to make this/these assertions ?

John,

Tommy asks a valid question.

Have you played # 17 at Pacific Dunes ?
[/color]

[John Kavanaugh]

John,

Have you played the 17th at Pacific Dunes to make this/these assertions ?

John,

Tommy asks a valid question.

Have you played # 17 at Pacific Dunes ?
[/color]

No, I have not played the hole...I don't see how considering that I have never played a Redan worth a dan that actually playing the hole would influence my opinion one way or another.   Funny thing...turns out I am right to boot.