Why do we go easy on MacDonald and Raynor?

[Anthony Fowler]

If a modern architect copied the same holes on every course we would tear him/her apart.

I don't even know what to say about all the MacDonald/Raynor replica holes and courses.  At this point, the copies of the copies should probably be acceptable due to the humor.  Maybe the template holes have become the way by which architects compare themselves.  Everyone try to make a Redan and then we can all debate whose is better. 

[wsmorrison]

I've been hard on those guys for years now, for several reasons.  On this site it is like pissing into
 the wind for the most part 

[Anthony Fowler]

Wayne, I'm glad to hear it.  I'll keep pissing until the GCA gods strike me down.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Wayne,
Your pants must be getting wet by now.

Anthony,
See above. 


p.s. A quick look at what are considered to be the 100 or so best classic venues* in America always includes a dozen or so CBM/Raynor courses. Go figure.


*by the way, these clubs could afford to blow up and replace what they have, and they don't.

[Sean Leary]

What would be interesting is if a modern architect copied a bunch of modern great holes, and kept doing that over and over.

Imagine a course with great holes like those found at the great moderns.

What modern holes would you like to see copied ala CBM and Raynor?

[Anthony Fowler]

p.s. A quick look at what are considered to be the 100 or so best classic venues* in America always includes a dozen or so CBM/Raynor courses. Go figure.

Jim, in a sense, I asked why M&R are so highly regarded and you responded by pointing out that they are highly regarded.  No Argument.

For the most part, I'm sure these courses deserve their place on the lists.  I am not saying the MacDonald and Raynor built bad courses, but could they have been better with more unique holes and concepts?  The aesthetics and conditioning alone of some of these courses will jump them onto top 100 lists.  Could they be more fun, more interesting, more unique, and more revolutionary with some more uniqueness?

If I built the undeniably greatest course ever, and then made copies of it in 12 different places around the world, would I deserve to fill the entire top 10 with my courses?  Would the presence of all of them in the top 10 vindicate them from criticism that they lack uniqueness? I'll even come up with original and unpretentious names to call the courses like American Golf Club of the United States, Country Club of North America, and Best Golf Links of the Universe.

these clubs could afford to blow up and replace what they have, and they don't.

Shinnecock blew up their MacDonald.  Worked out well for them.

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Good pressure means only my shoes are getting wet  

Anthony,

Good response regarding Shinnecock Hills.  HUGE improvement there and I defy anyone to argue the contrary.

[BCrosby]

Anthony - A vocal minority of us are with you on this.

Certainly the template holes capture a lot of wonderful ideas. But enough with the mechanical replications already.

Copyright law makes a distinction that is helpful here. Copyright doesn't protect the idea, it protects a particular expression of an idea.

Raynor replicated CBM's particular expression of several design ideas. Raynor made little attempt to express his own interpretation of those ideas. So I've never quite gotten why Raynor is in the Pantheon of great architects.  

Bob  

[Phil Benedict]

Claude Monet did lots of pictures of lilies on a pond and of the Houses of Parliament.  They're all great.  Same with Raynor and MacDonald.

[Anthony Fowler]

Sean,  I was actually thinking along these lines to myself.  Since CBM & SR copy European holes, I was also thinking of American golf holes (modern and classic) would make for good template holes.  I still reject the idea of template holes, but I think it would be a fun exercise.

My nominations:

16 at Merion
4 at Bethpage
10 at Riviera
1 or 10 at Oakmont
7 at Pebble
Green complex at 8 at Pacific Dunes or 13 at Rustic Canyon

[Andy Hughes]

If I built the undeniably greatest course ever, and then made copies of it in 12 different places around the world, would I deserve to fill the entire top 10 with my courses?

Yes, of course you would.  If there were no courses better than yours, how could they be ranked as better than yours?

[Rick Shefchik]

Here's a theory: in CBM's day (100 years ago), it might have been perceived as desirable that golf have a generally uniform playing field, like baseball or basketball. The field (or gym) could be bigger or smaller, but the bases and lines should be in the same place. The closer to the great holes of Scotland you could keep your new course, the closer you could come to what self-appointed arbiters like CBM thought of as a "regulation" course.

I know there were many different kinds of courses in Scotland even then, but perhaps MacDonald wasn't a big fan of most of them, and thought international golf should be (and was going to be) played on more conventional grounds.

[Jim Nugent]

For the most part, I'm sure these courses deserve their place on the lists.  I am not saying the MacDonald and Raynor built bad courses, but could they have been better with more unique holes and concepts?  The aesthetics and conditioning alone of some of these courses will jump them onto top 100 lists.  Could they be more fun, more interesting, more unique, and more revolutionary with some more uniqueness?

How do you answer those questions?  Do you think the Mac/Raynor courses could have been better, more fun, more unique, etc?

My sense is that if the courses deserve their elite status, it's hard to second-guess them.  I'd like to know how Raynor and Macdonald could have improved them. 

[Thomas MacWood]

We go easy on Macdonald and Raynor because they built fun and challenging golf courses that are also aesthetically pleasing. And as a bonus many of those courses are built on wonderful sites. The Creek, Fishers Island, NGLA, Chicago, Shoreacres, St. Louis, Yeamans Hall, Lookout Mountain, Camargo and Yale. M & R were blessed with some unbelievable sites; those I just listed are all very different natural envirnoments, which makes each course unique. Their style travelled well.

[Mike Sweeney]

these clubs could afford to blow up and replace what they have, and they don't.

Shinnecock blew up their MacDonald.  Worked out well for them.

Ok, lets get the historians here to correct me, but the highway department split Shinnecock into two, and CB Mac was fighting with Shinnecock, so the changes were made by Flynn.

There is a reason that Mike Keiser is building a CB Mac tribute course at Bandon.

[BCrosby]

Mike -

I understand why you might build a CBM tribute course. I have a harder time imagining a Seth Raynor tribute course.

Bob

[Mike Sweeney]

I have a harder time imagining a Seth Raynor tribute course.

Bob

Bob,

Somewhere in the archives I remember you drinking the Yale juice when your wife had a Yale reunion. 

Please review the Fishers review!

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/fishers1.html

I think "greatness" stops there for Raynor solo courses, but "fun" jumps in pretty quickly at Mountain Lake, The Knoll and a bunch of others.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Wayne,
I wouldn't argue w/Flynn's work at Shinnecock, as we can see, it too stands the test of time, not unlike CBM/SR.

Anthony,
Context.

Bob,
Of the 3 Alps holes of Raynor's that I've played I cannot say that any is like the other, past the initial concept.

[Phil Benedict]

Raynor and Macdonald weren't trying to fool anybody by claiming originality.   And their courses are really fun to play.

[David Stewart]

If they were capable of putting the template holes into the flow of a particular course, then what is wrong with using them?  Shouldn't one just look at a particular course and say, "Damn, that tested my game, provided playing many types of shots, had variety from hole to hole, was a beautiful walk, and was a heck of a good time."  Who cares if there is another course somewhere else that has similar holes?  It's about the experience for the few hours you have at one course and if the holes work then why complain.

[BCrosby]

Mike -

My problem with Raynor is not that his courses aren't good. They are very good. The issue is how much credit Raynor ought to get as a designer. I think he gets ranked too high because I think people tend to forget that the template holes he built weren't his idea.  

Bob

[Lloyd_Cole]

What would be interesting is if a modern architect copied a bunch of modern great holes, and kept doing that over and over.

Somebody has been doing it, based on what I've see on the PGA Tour telecasts over the last 10 years.

[TEPaul]

AnthonyF:

I have something of a response for you but I'm gonna think about it awhile before posting it so as to hopefully not start another barroom brawl on here like a Friday night in Dodge City right after the cowboys got paid.

As I'm sure you're aware there are a few guys on here who become downright hysterical if someone even mentions Macdonald's name without genuflecting first.

[Chip Gaskins]

people tend to forget that the template holes he built weren't his idea. 

Were MacDonald's template holes his original idea?

[David Stewart]

Mike -

My problem with Raynor is not that his courses aren't good. They are very good. The issue is how much credit Raynor ought to get as a designer. I think he gets ranked too high because I think people tend to forget that the template holes he built weren't his idea.  

Bob

But this is what Phil was saying about Claude Monet.  Even if you know you are going to paint lillies on a pond, you still have to spread it beautifully on the canvas.