[Zack Molnar]

Pat's thread got me thinking about the opposite point: Are there any templates/features out there that people see grossly overused and wish would go away for awhile? The island green was mentioned in the thread. Anything else?

[Jason Topp]

Cape type green jutting into water on a long par four.  Perhaps such holes are interesting for professionals, for most of us we hit it to the safe side and hope for the best if we care about our score and hit at the pin if we are sick of hitting it to the safe side.

"Driveable" par fours used to be new and interesting but now it seems almost all new courses have them and they tend to be boring either because (1) the smart play is the layup all of the time or (2) you just take your best shot at the green without any real thinking involved.

Super wide fairways with little to reward or encourage playing to a particular spot in that fairway.  Accurate driving should carry an advantage, even on wide fairways.

Split fairways - it is so difficult to get these right that I believe they are overused.  Most of the time, one of the options is a stupid option, making the split fairway meaningless.

[Sean_A]

Jason

I wonder if driveable par 4 seems overused because the name has changed?  In the old days, they were called drive n' pitch holes.  Very few could reach these off the tee.  Now, with added length, a ton of drive n' pitch holes are within reach of far more golfers. 

I rarely encounter fairways which I consider too wide - can count them on one hand.  Where are all these holes which are too wide?

I was thinking the general use of bunkering is overused.  I spose the green surrounded by several bunkers (creating an island or near island effect) is more specific. 

I was also thinking drop shot 3s. Maybe I think the idea is overused because I don't much care for it.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Zack and Jason,

Could you cite the actual courses where the features you mention are overused ?

[Grant Saunders]

Pat's thread got me thinking about the opposite point: Are there any templates/features out there that people see grossly overused and wish would go away for awhile? The island green was mentioned in the thread. Anything else?

I think templates in general are overused.

Approaching a design by looking to see where ideas can be imparted vs finding new ideas or solutions based on what is presented seems a bit of a cop out to me.

How many times must a hole or concept be replicated to achieve "template" status?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Grant,

On what CBM/SR/CB courses do you find them objectionable ?

[Steve Salmen]

I can't say that the Redan is overused, however, the runoff area long and left of the green is tremendously underused by every copy I've played.  I think it is a very important feature of the original that has either been ignored or omitted for different reasons.

[Ian Mackenzie]

Well, for starters...all things Fazio. It seems that many, not all, of his courses use previously designed holes that are worked into new routings when called for.

Then, if we roll the clock back just 20-30 years, it's the Pete Dye 9th/18th combo around a pond/lake. (9th hole is on one side of the lake and the 18th is on the other side.)

Just maybe...the "new" minimalist bunkers made famous at Pacific Dunes. They work there, but now populate too many inland courses and some of the best in the business seem to want that "Bandon look" for their clients. (or vice versa)

We are done with the "Signature hole", right?

[BCrosby]

I don't think a good template hole can be overused. There's nothing wrong with thousands of good Redans. We should have such problems.

A template, however, can be (and sometimes is) mindlessly used.

Bob

[Jason Topp]

Zack and Jason,

Could you cite the actual courses where the features you mention are overused ?

Patrick - I would rarely argue that such templates are overused on a single course but rather that you see them a lot on new courses and that they therefore become more of a standard experience that, unless executed very well, have lost their originality.

We Ko Pa Saguaro is an example where I believe there are too many short par fours and the ones that exist are not all that interesting.  It is also an incredibly wide course with inadequate interest associated with placing a drive in a particular spot.  Finally it has a split fairway hole that I do not believe works very well.  Thus, I do not think the course is up to the standard of other Coore/Crenshaw efforts in terms of the specific golf holes.  I actually like the other course on the property a little better. In terms of the weather, setting, and walkability it is about as good as it gets in Arizona and for that reason I will gladly return any chance I get.

As to the cape green - the hole that immediately comes to mind is the 3rd at Edinburgh USA, a public course in a Minneapolis suburb.  However, I have played that type of hole all over the place.  Other examples are the typical finishing holes on Pete Dye courses such as TPC Sawgrass, ASU Karsten, PGA West Stadium that wrap around a pond.  Those holes might provide for interesting tournament finishes but I am not a big fan of them for the rest of us. 

I agree that templates cannot be overused if they are very good golf holes.       

[Kevin_D]

How about the middle of green bunker?  One is enough of those.

[Tom_Doak]

I don't think a good template hole can be overused. There's nothing wrong with thousands of good Redans. We should have such problems.

Thousands?

I was going to vote for the Redan as one of the templates that's overused.  I'm sick of it because I think many young architects use it to show street cred as lovers of classic design, instead of because it fits a certain location on their site.  For me, it's a bit of a fallback when I can't think of something better to do ... it's lazy.  Although, I do agree with Steve Salmen, if there were a few where the option to play over the back of the green was encouraged, I would not find those lazy.

Patrick, who loves the Raynor templates so much, must think there should only be four different par-3 holes on earth.

As for other lazy ideas, I'll agree with many of those already raised: 

Island greens, obviously.
Par-3 holes that skirt water hazards, especially when the hazard is manmade.
Split fairway holes.
Drop-shot par-3's.

[Eric Smith]

For me, it's a bit of a fallback when I can't think of something better to do

Tom,

All told, how many redans have you built?

[Dave McCollum]

I think there is some sort of local zoning ordinance in Palm Springs/Coachella Valley that the finish must have a lake with a cape or island green.  I know, no water, no golf.  It’s just amusing how common these features are.

I disagree with Jason about Sagauro's short par 4's being overused.  I only played it once, but it seemed to me that they were there to move golfers up hills and good solutions for dealing with the elevation changes.                         

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't think a good template hole can be overused. There's nothing wrong with thousands of good Redans. We should have such problems.

Thousands?

I was going to vote for the Redan as one of the templates that's overused.  I'm sick of it because I think many young architects use it to show street cred as lovers of classic design, instead of because it fits a certain location on their site.  For me, it's a bit of a fallback when I can't think of something better to do ... it's lazy.  Although, I do agree with Steve Salmen, if there were a few where the option to play over the back of the green was encouraged, I would not find those lazy.

Patrick, who loves the Raynor templates so much, must think there should only be four different par-3 holes on earth.

Tom, once you accept that par 3 holes are the epitome of target golf, I don't see anything wrong with introducing a template if it fits the general terrain and the overall tactical challenge.
# 17 at Sleepy Hollow is a neat "short".  Could another par 3 have been crafted ?  Certainly, but I don't think the introduction of that "short "automatically implies laziness on the part of the architect.
If one feels that par 3's are "connector" holes, I don't see an objection to that connection being one of the "templates" providing it integrates with the general terrain and overall tactical challenge.

Your assertion that I think every par three on earth should be a template is a blatant exaggeration and failure to understand my thoughts/theories on GCA

And, if that was the case why would I have advocated and lobbied to restore the original 12th at GCGC for a decade, versus the introduction of a "template" ?

Let's face it, how original and memorable are most par 3's ?

Remove water from par 3 holes and repeat the question.

As to target golf and target golf as it applies to a par 3, I don't think there's a negative associated with the architect defining the examination of a golfer's game, vis a vis a shot or shots on demand.  A "Short", "Redan", "Eden", "Biarritz" provide that examination.

As for other lazy ideas, I'll agree with many of those already raised: 

Island greens, obviously.
Par-3 holes that skirt water hazards, especially when the hazard is manmade.
Split fairway holes.
Drop-shot par-3's.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't consider a short par 4 as a template.

Many Short par 4's came into existence when hi tech balls and equipment came into play

[Michael Tamburrini]

This is very true (4th at Pebble being so easily driveable at the 2010 US Open being a good example) but I am certainly fed up with watching pro events with a reachable par 4 or - worse still - when the tees have been moved forward to tempt players because it apparently makes it more exciting.

[Keith Grande]

I'll take a CBmacRaynor par 3 over any par three that has bunkers pinched left and right of an elevated green.

[Tom_Doak]

For me, it's a bit of a fallback when I can't think of something better to do

Tom,

All told, how many redans have you built?

8:  High Pointe, Charlotte, Apache Stronghold, St. Andrews Beach, Pacific Dunes, Stonewall North, Old Macdonald, and Simapo Island (China).

I was going to take a break from all templates after Old Macdonald, but we thought they were so rare in China that it was ok to include a Redan. 

[Alex Miller]

I think the attempts at road hole templates are overused.

The Road Hole itself is actually very weird and so unique that the attempts to copy it are often neutered less charming versions. As a short par 5 it makes a bit more sense, but even then chances are the hole is being forced when something else/better should have been built.

[Ian Andrew]

Alex,

I've mainly seen them as fives, but not all are short.
I've enjoyed every one of them.
I found many to be excellent holes to play because of the decision of how to approach them.

The best being at Huntington Country Club by Emmet.


The only four I can think of is at Old Mac and I really liked that one a lot.

[Ian Andrew]

Overused is relative to where you are....

If I take Canadian Golf, I'm hard pressed to find more than two dozen template holes in the country.
A "new" Template Course would be a welcome addition to a country full of decidedly average architecture.


I had a site near Quebec City that had zero elevation change and was peat bog over sand (deeper down).
The plan was to dewater the site by creating ravines - think Shoreacres - and build a course based on Templates.
It would have been fun to see if something from nothing was possible.

While they are sometimes knocked as an idea, templates can provide you with an interesting place to start when nothing is there.

[Steve Salmen]

Alex,

Funny you bring up the Road Hole.  Along with #12 at Elie and #13 at North Berwick, #10 at Shoreacres (Road Hole) is my favorite par 4.  The hole is similar in length and shape.  The green has a mild false front and a shallow road bunker.  Getting up and down is much easier than at the original from pretty much anywhere.  I think it's a lot more fair primarily because you're coming into both greens with a longish club and the green and surrounds are not rock hard.

The really fair part of the hole is this: if you hit a really good drive, you can actually stop your ball on the left hand portion of the green with a long iron.  I have sat with my wife on the bench near the green of the Road Hole for many hours and never seen a player hit a shot over the bunker and hold the green from outside of 180 yds.  I know that that is not the way to approach the green.  You have to stay right.  To me, I like this copy better than the original.

[Tim Martin]

I don't think a good template hole can be overused. There's nothing wrong with thousands of good Redans. We should have such problems.

Thousands?

I was going to vote for the Redan as one of the templates that's overused.  I'm sick of it because I think many young architects use it to show street cred as lovers of classic design, instead of because it fits a certain location on their site.  For me, it's a bit of a fallback when I can't think of something better to do ... it's lazy.  Although, I do agree with Steve Salmen, if there were a few where the option to play over the back of the green was encouraged, I would not find those lazy.

Patrick, who loves the Raynor templates so much, must think there should only be four different par-3 holes on earth.

Tom, once you accept that par 3 holes are the epitome of target golf, I don't see anything wrong with introducing a template if it fits the general terrain and the overall tactical challenge.
# 17 at Sleepy Hollow is a neat "short".  Could another par 3 have been crafted ?  Certainly, but I don't think the introduction of that "short "automatically implies laziness on the part of the architect.
If one feels that par 3's are "connector" holes, I don't see an objection to that connection being one of the "templates" providing it integrates with the general terrain and overall tactical challenge.

Your assertion that I think every par three on earth should be a template is a blatant exaggeration and failure to understand my thoughts/theories on GCA

And, if that was the case why would I have advocated and lobbied to restore the original 12th at GCGC for a decade, versus the introduction of a "template" ?

Let's face it, how original and memorable are most par 3's ?

Remove water from par 3 holes and repeat the question.

As to target golf and target golf as it applies to a par 3, I don't think there's a negative associated with the architect defining the examination of a golfer's game, vis a vis a shot or shots on demand.  A "Short", "Redan", "Eden", "Biarritz" provide that examination.

As for other lazy ideas, I'll agree with many of those already raised: 

Island greens, obviously.
Par-3 holes that skirt water hazards, especially when the hazard is manmade.
Split fairway holes.
Drop-shot par-3's.

+1
I don't see what possibly could be lazy about trying to emulate some of the finest par threes ever built providing the land allows for it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tim,

One would have to ask, was C.B. Macdonald being lazy when he crafted and copied the great holes he admired ?

I think it goes back to inherent enduring values.

Some holes are so architecturally worthy that they demand replication.

My neck of the woods has an abundant number of CBM/SR/CB courses and I've never tired of playing them over the 60 years I've been playing them.   They are just as enjoyable today as they were 60 years ago.

So, why would I object to their existence ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()