"Wayne,
How can you write, with a straight face, this line about Macdonald: "Rather than leading by example"?"
Jim,
While you cannot know if I had a straight face or not when I typed the post, I am sincere in my belief. While their courses are fun to play and influencial, there are portions of their courses that lack true artistic creativity, especially with the protoges Raynor and Banks.
You mention in your response that I wrote only about Macdonald. In fact, I referred to Macdonald and his protoges, not just Macdonald. That should have been clear with the use of "they" in my post:
"I don't know if Macdonald and proteges had to use templates, but they sure did on every golf course. Why did they stick to such a systematic design style? Clearly there was a market for it, but it indicates to me a reliance that was likely based upon a lack of conceptual range, a lack of naturalism and a lack of artistic independence. Rather than leading by example, they were adept at giving the people what they want. What does that mean? It is clearly open to interpretation."
I did not mean to imply that they did not design original holes. In Macdonald's case, and with his collaboration with Raynor, they are very interesting. The polling to determine great holes in UK golf and replicating them conceptually or more exactly, in America is a lesser creative effort. To systematically pop them out of the ground without tie ins or any sense of naturalism is an artifice that plays well but is not aesthetically appealing. A reliance on template greens and green features that are so overtly contrived is not something I see genius in. It is copying someone else's work. It may be great marketing, but it is not great architecture because it lacks originality. As I stated in my post, that's what it means to me. It is open to interpretation. I perfectly understand that others disagree.