Why is there no modern day Seth Raynor?

[Michael Whitaker]

Seth Raynor's courses are revered for the use of template holes & greens. Architecture enthusiasts praise Raynor's repeated creation of Short, Redan, Double Plateau and Cape holes, for example, and take joy in comparing the quality of these holes featured among his courses. It is his signature identity... creating basically the same holes over and over.

Could a modern architect get away with such a design philosophy?

Why are modern architects criticized if they are not completely original with every design when Raynor is given such praise for creating so many similar holes?

[David Mulle]

While it is less extreme than Raynor's design philosophy, Pete Dye has tended to use holes with very similar design attributes on many of his courses. 
I am a huge Pete Dye fan so I'm not saying that as a knock on him.

[jeffwarne]

there are, they just don't know it, and don't get work anymore

[Bill_McBride]

Is Old MacDonald the only exception?   Actually, I think Brian Silva has built the famous template holes on at least one course, Black Mountain in Chattanooga.   I would love to play it and Lookout Mountain one day.  

[Mark Pritchett]

Is Old MacDonald the only exception?   Actually, I think Brian Silva has built the famous template holes on at least one course, Black Mountain in Chattanooga.   I would to play it and Lookout Mountsin one day.  

Lookout Mountain and Black Creek make for a nice day or two of golf, well worth playing.  

[Tom_Doak]

Could a modern architect get away with such a design philosophy?

Why are modern architects criticized if they are not completely original with every design when Raynor is given such praise for creating so many similar holes?

I don't know if a template philosophy would sell in today's market.  You could argue that someone like Jim Engh was doing template design -- he has used many of the same concepts from one course to the next, and his style of construction is certainly not intended to blend with nature -- and his work was very popular for a while, but less so as it became familiar.

But I don't think that's how he sold his designs.  Golf course design now has so much more of a marketing component than it used to, and having a guy talk about the same holes over and over again would quickly exceed its "sell by" date.  Seth Raynor, by contrast, never had to market himself much at all -- I've never seen so much as a brochure about his company.  He had the right connections to the right people, who had the money and were caught up in the fever of building a course, and never questioned him much about his designs.  If they had tried to engage him about the golf, he might not have been so busy.  

As to the second point, architects today are criticized for repeating themselves because they don't admit that's what they are doing.  I could show you ten Jack Nicklaus par-5's from 1985-95 with island greens ... a hole that wasn't even a very good template ... but he never let on that's what he was doing.

[Austin Wade]

He's not famous for it, but Ron Garl seems to have hole he likes to use frequently. 

[RJ_Daley]

Mike if we speak of MacDonald-Raynor-Banks going to the same general playing characteristics of template holes, we should consider that golf was almost new in terms of spreading across our USA.  Sure, the game was around long before on the old sod.  But, that is the whole issue of templates, isn't it.  MacDonald went to make a study of those holes with attributes that seemed to stimulate and work.  So, he and his followers began the template formula.  But, let's face it, the general strategic concepts of where the slopes are, where the bunkers or hazards are placed, and how the hole corridor unfolds on the templates are basically the foundational principles of golf hole design.  A few other archies came along with a few new arrangement of placement of hazards and use of slopes and mounds, etc.  But for the most part, all the variations are out there.  How can we have some other archie of the modern era come up with a variation that isn't already out there, and then start replicating it over and over.  

As David says, guys like Dye have some go-to formula or arrangement of design/construction that they replicate in slightly varied forms according to the land they are working on.  But, I've seen Dye interviews where he reflects back on Raynor and those templates and then when we see Dye courses repeating a theme, isn't it really repeating themes that have been tried and true over many decades?

I know an archie (who shall remain unnamed) who has built the same par 5 on numerous projects.  I once teased him that he has a block drawing on a CAD program and he pushes a button and there pops up his go-to par 7 same old thing.  It doesn't matter which project, just that he has some relatively flat terrain to route the repetitive design hole, bunker here, dig pond there, place green thus and surround it with a few mounds.  

In my view, even at a naturally routed course like Dismal River or Sand Hills, etc, if we dissect the hole concepts and corridors, they are all variations on themes previously presented somewhere.  It seems to me that if an archie were to come up with an original design and playing concept in this era, it would probably have to be so extreme and out of the box deviation from what has gone before, that it would likely be ridiculed if place once, let alone repeated as a template.  

Mac-Raynor-Banks already get some negative comments for following the formula and even the repetoire of that includes a Biarritz isn't universally loved.  Like Sheehy says, if I have to play another modern Redan, I'm going to puke.    

[Terry Lavin]

Because his sort of client doesn't love the game any more. There are very few Keisers, Pascuccis and Trumps around these days. And fewer members to draw from. It's not about the architect; it's about the owner/developer.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael,

Probably because there's not an architect with a unique style that's produced unique holes that are readily replicated.

I've played an inordinate number of good holes and often wondered why I didn't see them replicated on another course.

I think there was a time in architecture when certain features, like landing strip tees, were duplicated.

But, then again, I think there was and maybe still is a time when each architect wants to produce a unique or new hole, rather than mirror an existing hole.

I can understand that in the creative context.

One of my favorite holes in golf is the 10th hole at Seminole.

With all the water holes created in the last 60 years, why haven't we seen that hole duplicated, especially on a site prone to wind ?

Is it the owner/developer, insisting on a unique product ?

Or, is it the architect, shying away from a recognized theme ?

Or both ?

[Michael Whitaker]

Raynor built courses with such a unique look... very manufactured. Before you visit a Raynor you pretty much know what you are going to find. In spite of that, every one of his courses are highly regarded. It seems he basically had one course design and fit it onto whatever property he was working with, employing whatever modifications the local terrain required.

I thought about this today when Gil Hanse was asked on the Golf Channel if he had a signature design style. Gil said he certainly hoped not. Which made me think, "why not?" I guess Dye is as close as we've got to a Raynoresque architect today... or he used to be. Early on if you visited a Dye course you knew what it was going to look like before you got there. Not so much these days, however.

[Michael Whitaker]

I guess what I'm asking here is why is it a bad thing to build the same golf holes over and over if they are great holes? Raynor did it and it worked so well that his courses still outrank most modern ones.

I'm wondering if this constant quest for originality is really worth the effort... and expense.

[Ross Tuddenham]

Is it possible that attitudes towards copying holes has changed over the years.  For the golden age guys it must have seemed unique to implement the features of the classic UK courses in the beginning.  Over time this may have began to feel like a cliched thing to do and its popularity declined.

To put a fresh twist on coping/using templates now an architect would have to admit in a pitch to a client that they are thinking of using a doak/C&C/dye...etc template*.  Is there a stigma to using the ideas of more recent works compared to the attitudes towards using the templates of the UK courses back in the golden age?


*or at least risk being outed for it afterwards.

[RJ_Daley]

I guess what I'm asking here is why is it a bad thing to build the same golf holes over and over if they are great holes? Raynor did it and it worked so well that his courses still outrank most modern ones.

I'm wondering if this constant quest for originality is really worth the effort... and expense.

It seems to me that it is a matter of where the same hole corridor and greensites are located, and how.  If for instance, if a top name architect/designer today got a good piece of property to work with, having ideal or very good terrain contour variety and good soils, etc, and then went about creating an tribute course to the Mac-Raynor-Banks tradition, requiring the altering significantly of all the good terrain that existed naturally in order to create the tribute template holes; what would we say?  Conversely, if an architect created excellent tribute holes from the classic templates, on unremarkable and otherwise boring flat terrain, would we be more enthused because the course plays "classically' for lack of better description?

Have I waded into controversy if we take my first example and apply it to "Old Macdonald"?    Or do we recognise that the team used the land given without significant alteration of natural terrain, but found corridors to design holes that suggest template ideals?  

I'll go with the notion that it is a bad thing to construct template holes if it ruins natural good terrain, and cost to much to do the extra earth work.  

[Sean_A]

I guess what I'm asking here is why is it a bad thing to build the same golf holes over and over if they are great holes? Raynor did it and it worked so well that his courses still outrank most modern ones.

I'm wondering if this constant quest for originality is really worth the effort... and expense.

Whitty

Raynor built very few courses.  Almost without exception these courses are ultra private so the vast majority of golfers would not have heard let along get the opportunity to play the courses.  Your questions are being raised only because a lucky few who are into architecture had the opportunity to play some Raynors.  Raynor also got away with building the same holes over and over because the world was a much bigger place back then.  Keen golfers get on their bikes these days and see whats what.  I am not convinced an archie can get away with building obviously the same hole over and over these days - even if one wanted to.  Finally, there is a big push these days to use or nature better or mimic it better.  If a guy is cranking out the same holes for every course it will become obvious they are built.  Who would want to give a guy like that a great property to work with?  

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Is it possible that attitudes towards copying holes has changed over the years.  For the golden age guys it must have seemed unique to implement the features of the classic UK courses in the beginning.  Over time this may have began to feel like a cliched thing to do and its popularity declined.

This is actually the best answer.  In Raynor's day, he was building courses for the members to play, in a day when the members at Camargo did not easily or often travel to see his other courses.  Today, courses are marketed by the architect's name, and our clients want us to build something different so that everyone will come to see it.  If I built the same holes in Florida that I'd built at Medinah and in Oregon, why would you travel to Florida to play Streamsong?

[David Harshbarger]

There well could have been no Golden Age Seth Raynor, either.

Raynor took MacDonald's gimmicky idea for NGLA, which MacDonald proved could be duplicated, and made it work for a larger number of customers.  That he made the specific holes work so well in so many places goes to his credit.  But it's not like Raynor had some grand architectural theory he developed and sold to world.  No, he was in a good place, saw an opportunity, and ran with it.

If any of the parts of the Raynor story were missing, Mac, Mac's general disinterest in being a mass market architect, Raynor's talent as a builder and problem solver, the success of NGLA, Mac's stature, or the building boom, the Raynor courses wouldn't have happened.

Raynor and his templates were a fluke in the history of GCA and there's no reason to think that approach to GCA would fly now.

[Dan_Callahan]

Brain Silva is pretty well known for incorporating Raynor's template holes into his designs. He even wrote about it in Links:

http://www.linksmagazine.com/best_of_golf/common-golf-hole-designs-golf-architecture-seth-raynor

[Josh Tarble]

Raynor also got away with building the same holes over and over because the world was a much bigger place back then.  Keen golfers get on their bikes these days and see whats what.  I am not convinced an archie can get away with building obviously the same hole over and over these days - even if one wanted to.  

I was just randomly thinking about this topic and wanted to pose a question that relates to this concept.

Would Raynor and Macdonald's courses be held in the same regards if they had built let's say 500 courses rather than ~50?

Seems to me that part of the fascination with these courses is that there are so relatively few of them.

[BHoover]

I was just randomly thinking about this topic and wanted to pose a question that relates to this concept.

Would Raynor and Macdonald's courses be held in the same regards if they had built let's say 500 courses rather than ~50?

Seems to me that part of the fascination with these courses is that there are so relatively few of them.

I think this is a great point, Josh.  Speaking for myself, it is absolutely true.  Of any architect, Raynor (and I suppose Macdonald) is the architect whose work I have not played but most look forward to playing.  I think the reason for that is that there are so few options out there for playing one of Raynor's courses, particularly here in Ohio, where I think his only course is Camargo (which also may be one of the if not the, most "exclusive" club in terms of access in the state).  Given the things I've heard about Raynor's work, and the relatively few number of courses out there, that makes Raynor my most-desired architect to play.

I'll also say the same thing about Doak, although to a lesser extent as there are available Doak courses out there that I can play but just haven't.  However, I will point out that there aren't that any Doak courses in Ohio, so I wonder why he hates us so much?  Is he a UofM guy?    

[Peter Pallotta]

I was thinking about this question for a bit, and here's the answer that came to me:

"Because no one is humble enough anymore to be today's Seth Raynor".

I don't know if that's true, or that it's a bad thing even if it were true. But that conscious service to something other than himself and his own ideas that Raynor seemed determined to provide seems to be something from another time.

[BCrosby]

I was thinking about this question for a bit, and here's the answer that came to me:

"Because no one is humble enough anymore to be today's Seth Raynor".

I don't know if that's true, or that it's a bad thing even if it were true. But that conscious service to something other than himself and his own ideas that Raynor seemed determined to provide seems to be something from another time.

Good stuff Peter. I'd like to try to expand your insight. It relates to the "something from another time" bit.

A thought experiment might help clarify what I'm want to get at. Imagine Tom Doak (or some other modern archie) decides that he is tired of the travel and the hassle. So he enters into a license agreement with a self-effacing young architect to design holes that replicate seven or eight of Tom's most famous. Part of their deal is that Tom's young licensee can advertise the holes he designs as being based on Doak originals.

Even assuming a healthy market for new courses, I don't think there is a chance in hell Tom's licensee would be successful today. How would his advertising slogan go? "You will love my courses because they replicate holes that Tom Doak first built"?

So why was Raynor, in much the same position, so much in demand in the late teens and twenties?

I think it has to do with the old adage about no one ever got fired for buying from IBM (Boy, have the times changed.). Raynor's connection with CBM made him the safe choice. (There were other safe choices at the time, but Raynor's pedigree made him the safest.) Clubs with connections to older money (usually from the NE) and ties to the social circles CBM frequented tended to be the ones that hired Raynor. Having a CBM/Raynor course affirmed a club's social status.

The game is very different today. It's once insular social networks have broken down. Which is why there is no architect alive today able to confer to a younger minion the market appeal that CBM conferred on Raynor. Even if you could find a minion humble enough to play the role of a modern Raynor, that business plan doesn't work any more.

In short, I think Raynor's success had as much to do with a certain kind of American tribalism in the 1920's as it did with the inherent quality of the CBM template holes.

BTW, I disagree that Raynor got away with repeating holes because nobody traveled back in the day and thus nobody noticed the similarities. Members of Raynor's courses tended to be well off and traveled often. They knew they were getting holes that looked an awful lot like holes at many other clubs. But they were fine with that. Why? I suspect for the reasons given above. They had hired Raynor for reasons that were as much non-architectural as they were architectural.

Bob      

[Patrick_Mucci]

Is it possible that attitudes towards copying holes has changed over the years.  For the golden age guys it must have seemed unique to implement the features of the classic UK courses in the beginning.  Over time this may have began to feel like a cliched thing to do and its popularity declined.

This is actually the best answer.  In Raynor's day, he was building courses for the members to play, in a day when the members at Camargo did not easily or often travel to see his other courses.  Today, courses are marketed by the architect's name, and our clients want us to build something different so that everyone will come to see it.

If I built the same holes in Florida that I'd built at Medinah and in Oregon, why would you travel to Florida to play Streamsong?

Because it's a hell of a lot warmer and sunnier in the winter  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I guess what I'm asking here is why is it a bad thing to build the same golf holes over and over if they are great holes?
Raynor did it and it worked so well that his courses still outrank most modern ones.

I'm wondering if this constant quest for originality is really worth the effort... and expense.

Whitty

Raynor built very few courses.  


I count 45, how is that "very few" courses ?


Almost without exception these courses are ultra private so the vast majority of golfers would not have heard let along get the opportunity to play the courses.  


Nothing could be further from the truth.
His courses were popular throughout golf and not just in a narrow sector.

As an aside, what's the difference between an "ultra private" club and a "private" club ?

How are Hackensack, Westhampton, Roselle, Southampton, Mid Ocean and The Greenbriar "ultra private"

Didn't Raynor build resort courses, courses where the resort guests had open access to his courses ?


Your questions are being raised only because a lucky few who are into architecture had the opportunity to play some Raynors.

That's also sheer nonsense 


Raynor also got away with building the same holes over and over because the world was a much bigger place back then.

Raynor didn't get away from anything.
Raynor built QUALITY holes that had universal appeal.

Which Raynor courses have you played ? 


Keen golfers get on their bikes these days and see whats what.

What are "keen" golfers, and what differentiates them from ardent golfers ?  


I am not convinced an archie can get away with building obviously the same hole over and over these days - even if one wanted to.


Why not, is it not the merits of the individual hole that determine it's worth ?
If C&C, Pete Dye or Tom Doak built the same fabulous hole on 12 or 24 courses, all with a common theme, would they be brought to task for the crime of repetition ?  And if so, by whom ?


Finally, there is a big push these days to use or nature better or mimic it better.


Again, which Raynor courses have you played ?
And, how did he NOT use "nature better" ? 


If a guy is cranking out the same holes for every course it will become obvious they are built.

But, that's NOT what Raynor did.

Which courses of his have you played ? 


Who would want to give a guy like that a great property to work with?


I would !  

[Dan Kelly]

Is it possible that attitudes towards copying holes has changed over the years.  For the golden age guys it must have seemed unique to implement the features of the classic UK courses in the beginning.  Over time this may have began to feel like a cliched thing to do and its popularity declined.

This is actually the best answer.  In Raynor's day, he was building courses for the members to play, in a day when the members at Camargo did not easily or often travel to see his other courses.  Today, courses are marketed by the architect's name, and our clients want us to build something different so that everyone will come to see it.  If I built the same holes in Florida that I'd built at Medinah and in Oregon, why would you travel to Florida to play Streamsong?

Tom,

Why do you talk about "the same holes"?

I am no Raynor expert, but the holes on the Raynor courses I have played are "the same holes" in name only.

Patrick nailed the answer to your question, in any event.

Dan