[Kelly Blake Moran]

I recently toured a MacDonald/Raynor course and found it interesting that I have become somewhat indifferent to the replica holes, and I was much more excited about the other greens.  My host would identify each green that was a replica, Redan, Biarritz, Eden, etc.  The greens he did not identify by name I am assuming were original creations, or at least were not imported ideas and those greens were much more interesting in my view.  To some degree it is a shame that this duo gave away opportunities for original creations by replicating holes instead.  

[Tom_Doak]

Kelly:

I agree with the sentiment at the end of your post.

As you play more and more Raynor courses, though, you'll find that even the greens without names were more or less templates that he used other places as well.

Which raises the question of whether those are really better, or whether you like them because they're new to you, or whether you are biased against the others because they are recognized types.

Some of Macdonald's green contouring was done using the "randomly dropped pebbles" method, but he had a lot of features and ideas from the UK he planned to use, and those are the genesis for many of the less well recognized holes on his courses.

[Gary Daughters]

Kelly,

Without having played a MacDonald/Raynor course, I wonder sometimes at the reverie they (Raynor especially) are held in, given the way they imposed their holes on landscapes.

I don't doubt they are wonderful golf holes, but it seems to go against the grain of letting the land speak for itself.

Is there any way that Raynor could get away with that today?

[Ryan Crago]

Gary brings up a good point.  I haven't played a Raynor or Macdonald either, but as i was reading Kelly and Tom's posts, i was wondering to myself if this is a (another?) case of romanticizing the "old dead guys"??

[ForkaB]

Kelly

IMHO, none of the MacRaynor holes on NGLA (for example) are replicas.  The "Redan" is not a Redan, the "Road" is not a Road, the "Eden" is not an Eden, etc.

I think if one were able to view the holes above without any sort of preconception, one would say something like:

Redan--great, Road--not bad, Eden--just okay.

However, it is impossible to play a MacRaynor without being prejudiced by the nomenclature, unless you try to blank out the history/party line.  Alas.....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly,

Without having played a MacDonald/Raynor course, I wonder sometimes at the reverie they (Raynor especially) are held in, given the way they imposed their holes on landscapes.

If you NEVER played a CBM/SR course, how do you know that thet imposed their holes on the landscapes ?

Perhaps, if you read, "Scotland's Gift" you'd change your opinion.  Especially the part relating to the discovery of land where a template hole fit in perfectly, like the Alps and Redan at NGLA.[/color]

I don't doubt they are wonderful golf holes, but it seems to go against the grain of letting the land speak for itself.

Again, how can you make that judgement without ever having seen one of their holes ?[/color]

Is there any way that Raynor could get away with that today?


Absolutely.

Producing great golf courses was his talent, and that talent didn't have an expiry date on it other than his DOD.[/color]

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Tom:

He did identify one green as having been used at another course, so I suspected that those that were not identified specifically as replica greens could still be templates or replicas, but were not labeled as such by the architects.  Regardless, it is a tremendous accomplishment to replicate some of those intricate grading features on some of the unidentified holes.  There was much more intricate shaping on the non-identified greens than there were on the replica greens, not in every case.  

It is interesting that Hunter makes the same point that imposing replica holes onto a foreign landscape is not always a good thing because it might require tremendous earth movement to make the replica hole fit onto the new landscape.  I would think he made this point based upon having seen such exercises.  I don't know, maybe he was just supposing without actual knowledge of the situation as Pat is implying about some here on this thread.

Gary, I think there are modern day Raynors who have been received very favorably.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly Blake Moran & Tom Doak,

I would disagree with both of you.

I don't think you can view a hole solely in the isolated context of its green.

Imagine the Redan at NGLA with the 1st, 3rd, 6th, 12th, 13th, 15th or 16th green.   It wouldn't work.  

For example, The "Redan" inherently requires a unique green configuration.  Anything less or more would disqualify it as a Redan hole.

In addition, the features of a template hole are all interrelated, they function in harmony with one another.

The slopes of the greens, the contours, the surrounds, the bunkering, the elevations, the distances are all interwoven to form a unique template hole.

If you alter one of those features you diminish the hole's pedigree.

The "Short" hole demands an intricate green to offset the minimal distance on the hole.

The "Biarritz" demands a large green due to distance and other unique aspects of the hole.

Having a green like # 1 or # 6 at NGLA where the approach would require a long iron or a wood wouldn't work either.

CBM-SR-CB template holes are what they are, template holes, and not holes to be mutated through creative design.

I would imagine that there are a number of examples where modifications or innovative approaches were taken on what may have been the foundation for a template hole, which resulted in a hybrid or new hole.

Some of the holes at Westhampton appear to be hybrids and I'd imagine that other holes on other courses are successful hybrids as well.

I would also imagine that the owner/developer/client wanted the template holes that they saw at other highly regarded CBM-SR-CB courses.

How would a client react if he asked for a specific product and received what he didn't ask for ?

Template holes are what they are, and to modify them would disqualify them from their intended design category, which was probably just what the client wanted.

P.S.

Kelly,

Most of the earthmoving was at the green end, which isn't too different from most of the work today.

Yale and Lido being unusual exceptions

Are Shadow Creek and the Rawls course today's Lidos ?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich
When you say: "However, it is impossible to play a MacRaynor without being prejudiced by the nomenclature...." of whom do you speak?
I've had instances at Hotchkiss where visiting parents who belong to other MacRaynor courses don't even realize what they just played, and they are not blind to the origins of their home course.

Gary,
I you looked at the Alps hole here, the one at Yale and the one at FI, you will see 3 different versions of the same basic concept. None look 'imposed' upon the landscape, but the least natural-looking greensite is here at Hotchkiss, where Raynor had to push up soil to create a level surface.

[George Pazin]

Further to Patrick's point(s), I'd say you really need to get out and at least see a MacRaynor course before even asking the question. There are very few holes at Fox Chapel, for instance, that look forced in any way, and the only one that really looks "constructed" is probably the Redan (to my ignorant eye, anyway).

I've participated in several armchair architect contests where you're given a topo, and it's almost surprising how often the topo appears to scream out redan and road, but it isn't really surprising when you understand that they were implementing strategic principals, not simply imposing general land structures.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Pat,

I have no idea what you are disagreeing with.  I did state that I found the unidentified greens as being much more interesting than the same old Redan, Eden, etc.  I think Tom is correct that it might be it was nice to see something fresh, at least to my untrained eye, as compared to seeing the smae old tried and true replicas.

Jim,

The replicas were pretty obvious even to me and I would not claim to be a student of the 2 architects.  I think some people thoroughly enjoy studying the differences between the replica holes from project to project, I think what I was trying to say originally was that seeing one more version was less interesting, but seeing greens I had not seen before was a tremendous treat.  However, as I go back to MacD Raynor courses I have seen originally maybe I will start to see these other unknown gems pop up.  

It seems to me the Eden is the most difficult to capture.  

[Andy Hughes]

For example, The "Redan" inherently requires a unique green configuration.  Anything less or more would disqualify it as a Redan hole.

In addition, the features of a template hole are all interrelated, they function in harmony with one another.

Pat, my understanding is that the Redan at NGLA does not play uphill as the original does (I am confident you'll set me straight if I have that wrong).  That would alter the unique configuration, the harmony, that you speak of--would you still consider it a template Redan, or rather a fine, fun hole that plays beautifully that is based on the Redan?

[Gary Daughters]

Jim K --

Thanks for the observations on Hotchkiss/Yale/FI.  
It goes without saying I'd love to see all.

And I can appreciate how a person with a broad knowledge of and respect for Raynor's canon would find fascination in the ways he adapted his template holes to differing landscapes.

Pat --

Thanks for reminding me of "Scotland's Gift."  It's on my to-do list and perhaps I'll move it up higher.

Maybe "impose" is not the right word.  That's an assumption on my part given that the same "template" as you say was used repeatedly.  Lookout Mtn. is the closest Raynor to my address.  Who's getting me on so I can see for myself?

The reason I don't doubt (don't "know," but don't doubt) that Raynor designed wonderful golf holes is that I've taken a look at the course reviews and recognize the esteem in which MacDonald/Raynor are held by knowledgeable contributors to this board, yourself included.  That's enough for me since this isn't court.  Or is it?

And thanks for your answer to my question as to whether Raynor could get away his methods today.  I do still wonder.

[ForkaB]

Rich
When you say: "However, it is impossible to play a MacRaynor without being prejudiced by the nomenclature...." of whom do you speak?
I've had instances at Hotchkiss where visiting parents who belong to other MacRaynor courses don't even realize what they just played, and they are not blind to the origins of their home course.

Jim

Not sure of your point.

Mine was that if you read some books (or spend a lot of time on a certain website....) telling you that the 4th is a "Redan" (or whatever), you'll come to that hole and go "Ooooh!!!  The Redan!" (or whatever).  Rather than, let's say, saying, "Oooohh, what a great golf hole!" (or whatever).

Rich

[Geoffrey Childs]

I'm firmly with Pat and Jim on this issue.

I have not seen a MacDonald/Raynor/Banks course that was remotely imposed on the land.  In fact I believe their routing skills maximized the inherent qualities of barrancas, lakes, streams and undulations of a given property.  When the superintendent in the 50's decided the alps at Yale was a bit unfair and changed it one only had to walk the hole to see that the area that wasthe alps hill was artifical looking and flat where the surrounding areas were not.

The greensites are built up to a great degree but that is very common and was done by Tillinghast, Emmet, Flynn and probably every architect.

Gary - get out if you can and play a Mac or Raynor course. You will be hooked.

[Kelly Blake Moran]

Rich
When you say: "However, it is impossible to play a MacRaynor without being prejudiced by the nomenclature...." of whom do you speak?
I've had instances at Hotchkiss where visiting parents who belong to other MacRaynor courses don't even realize what they just played, and they are not blind to the origins of their home course.

Jim

Not sure of your point.

Mine was that if you read some books (or spend a lot of time on a certain website....) telling you that the 4th is a "Redan" (or whatever), you'll come to that hole and go "Ooooh!!!  The Redan!" (or whatever).  Rather than, let's say, saying, "Oooohh, what a great golf hole!" (or whatever).

Rich

I did not comment on this Rich because I was uncertain if that is what you meant, now that you have clarified you point I want to add that I wholeheartedly agree with you.  In some ways having seen several of these replications it has diminished my enthusiasm, ignorance is bliss in this case, maybe!  However, my appreciation for the "other greens" has been elevated to a very high degree.

[john_stiles]

As someone pointed out above, there is often a lot of earth work at the green sites.  This is best noticed if you back at the green from the next tee or look back along the landscape.
Even better if you walk the course backwards.

All in all,  I find the courses very enjoyable and look forward to seeing yet one more.

Sometimes I think what might have been when I play a more modern 'name brand' course, where millions are spent, and you can literally sculpt the earth.  You may end up somehow with 4 or more dull holes and your green fee was  $$$.

Many of the Mac/Raynors were very expensive in their day, but the present knowledge of how much was spent on modern courses leads to a biased view on my part of modern dull holes.

[Tom_Doak]

Kelly:

I agree with you that there are too many people for whom "a redan [oooh!]" is automatically great just because it is patterned after a famous hole, whether it is well done or not.

However, I have learned a bunch over the years by comparing the Redan holes at North Berwick, National, Shoreacres, and the many lesser versions, and trying to figure out what really makes them tick.

This is one reason I'm down on the Biarritz.  Nearly all of those are exactly the same because they are symmetrical, so there's nothing more to learn.  Not to mention, I've only ever played one of them where you could chase the tee shot through the swale to the hole.

[Gary Daughters]

Tom,

Your remark on the Biarritz..

You mean.. they went around copying a BAD hole?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly Blake Moran,

There's a reason that these holes were duplicated.

The were well received architecturally and fun to play.

Their popularity, their appeal, caused them to be replicated.

That's why men date attractive and appealing women more than once.

[Patrick_Mucci]

For example, The "Redan" inherently requires a unique green configuration.  Anything less or more would disqualify it as a Redan hole.

In addition, the features of a template hole are all interrelated, they function in harmony with one another.

Pat, my understanding is that the Redan at NGLA does not play uphill as the original does (I am confident you'll set me straight if I have that wrong).  That would alter the unique configuration, the harmony, that you speak of--would you still consider it a template Redan, or rather a fine, fun hole that plays beautifully that is based on the Redan?

The 3rd hole at Piping Rock provides a closer resemblance to the Redan at North Berwick then the 4th at NGLA, but that doesn't mean that the basic principles don't work exceptionally well with some variations.

Noone has stated that a template hole is a pretender unless it exactly duplicates the original.

As in geometry, "similar" but not "congruent" configurations are acceptable.

The 4th at NGLA effectively plays uphill because the carry is over a deep depression and the green sits well above that depression, in front, and to the rear.  And, the green presents the same blind dilema.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kelly Blake Moran,

In the context of your post, examine the 3rd green at NGLA.

An "Alps" hole with a wildly configured green which isn't a duplicate of the original.

A green so large that it qualifies as a greens withing a green category.

It is so wildly different then the green at # 17 at Prestwick.

So, CBM took a concept, modified and improved on it while retaining the major theme and characteristics of the original.

Template holes are not exact replicas.
There is room for fine tuning, but, the overall theme is clear.

One won't mistake an Eden for a short or a Biarritz, A Cape for a Bottle, a Long for a Short.

Within the general categories of template holes there is room for variation as long as the general principles remain intact.

And, those variations are largely dependent upon the landscape upon which those holes are layed.

A "short" with a bland, flat green, doesn't work.
A "short" with a multi-tiered contoured green works marvelously.

So there is room for variation as long as that variation doesn't disqualify the template hole from its category.

[wsmorrison]

"In the context of your post, examine the 3rd green at NGLA.

An "Alps" hole with a wildly configured green which isn't a duplicate of the original.

A green so large that it qualifies as a greens withing a green category.

It is so wildly different then the green at # 17 at Prestwick.

So, CBM took a concept, modified and improved on it while retaining the major theme and characteristics of the original."

Pat,

I'm not questioning you but would you please explain how the 3rd at NGLA is an improvement over the 17th at Prestwick (irrespective of the 35 yard difference)?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayne,

There are so many areas of difference.

The topography for one.

The prevailing wind.

The multiple elevation changes, which are dramatic.

The size of the intervening "Alps" feature.

The location of the intervening "Alps" feature.

The composition of the intervening "Alps"

The configuration of the green, with it's multiple tiers, slopes and contours.

The length of the hole, especially the approach shot.

The slope of the fairways.

The alternate routes of play.

Need I go on ?

[wsmorrison]

Noting the differences does not explain the improvements.  I guess all the differences you list are in your mind improvements.  Is the Alps feature an improvement in and of itself?  It is a lot bigger, I'll grant you that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()