But what is the mystery about the Biarritz? The Short? The Redan? The Eden? The concepts are easily recognizable and the game plan a given. Of course you must execute the shot called for, but the template concept (not exact replication) clearly takes away the uncertainty about what is presented and the way to play it. Of course wind direction, distance and elevation are different so the shots are not exactly the same, but there are no strategic demands, merely execution demands.
These are all par threes. What par 3's give the golfer more to think about than NGLA’s redan? What par threes provide more strategic avenues?
_________________________________________________
Peter,
You start off by stating that
“the more important question is whether Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American architecture.” I agree that this is an important question. But it is not the one you attempt to answer. Catalyzing a change does not require inventing a principle or being the only one who knows about those ideas. It only requires bringing about change. One cannot compare the state of golf course design before NGLA and after, and not see the change that the course brought.
And I don’t know who else you think really understood and was advocating these principles in America. Leeds? Travis? Who? For argument, I take your word for it that there were others, but I have seen little evidence of it. But whoever they were, if they did understand and advocate for the incorporation of these fundamental principles into golf course design in America, they were not doing it on the worldwide stage like Macdonald. And they did not provoke a running discussion on two continents about their ideas and work. But most importantly, whoever these people were,
they did not design a golf course based entirely upon these fundamental principles; a course almost universally considered far and away better than anything else in the country, and one of the best in the world.
And Peter, I don't know if these fundamental principles are democratic and graspable by anyone, but if they are and this means we cannot credit someone like Macdonald with actually having an influence, then I have trouble seeing how anyone could ever be considered an influence, especially in the more artistic endeavors.
Macdonald did not invent the fundamental principles, but he told us where to find them, how to find them, and he showed us how to incorporate them into our golf courses. He didn't just give us fish, he also taught us how to fish.
I shocks me that we even question whether “Macdonald and NGLA were a necessary catalyst for a new kind of American Architecture.” This great age of golf design was not inevitable.
_______________________________________________________________________________
. . . It is also significant to realize that he was a fairly short window of influence. How could American golf architecture not become Americanized? The fact that it did infuriated Macdonald and he retreated. Perhaps he thought his model was in good hands with Raynor and he was getting a lot of work but the architectural influence was narrowing all the time and he was being criticized by a later cast of architects that did not like his model.
He was "a fairly short window of influence?" On what is this claim based? Is it because many architects quit building holes with names like "Redan" and "Road?" Is it because others preferred a different aesthetic style? His influence went well beyond these things, and was not nearly as superficial.
But even if we stick to your narrow understanding of Macdonald’s model . . . If his realm of influence was so short lived, then why do you suppose that the best architects going are still openly emulating him today? Do you mean “short window of influence” in a geological timescale?
How many cape greens did your man Flynn build?
You also claim that Macdonald became “infuriated” and “retreated” because “American golf architecture became Americanized.” On what basis do you make this claim? I know that Macdonald was not happy with how golf was being governed in the United States during the period of “Americanization” of golf in America. But what you are claiming is different. What is your basis?
And what of Raynor? He got great sites, built a range of courses from decent to solid and some undeniably excellent. Macdonald's influence on him is evident. Was he enough of an original creative force to grant him top-tier status in American golf architecture? Was he too much the apprentice that carried on his mentor's work in a narrowly defined way? What were some of his original contributions to golf architecture?
My understanding is that Raynor often applied the same fundamental concepts in similar ways on different sites. But he still had to work the holes into the site he was given. What designer did not apply the same fundamental hole concepts over and over again? They all have to fit their ideas onto the site, and most importantly they all have to make courses that are enjoyable to play. It sounds like Raynor was pretty good at this.