Why Did The Macdonald/Raynor/Langford/Moreau Style Of Design Disappear?

[Peter Pallotta]

It is a pretty good analogy, jazz -- and for me it's a good analogy because it brings to light the *subjective* aspect of personal taste/temperament, both in terms of the musicians and of the listeners (i.e. the architects and the golfers).  As I get older, I've found my tastes (in one sense) actually broadening instead of narrowing, i.e. more than ever, I listen only to jazz, but within that I'm more and more able to 'hear' and enjoy and seek out the 'non standards'.  It's not that I've 'moved beyond' the standards, played in the traditional keys and tempos and with the triads of swing or the triplets and flattened 5ths of bop -- but my listening spirit sometimes wants *more* than that. And from the musicians' standpoint: totally understandable is Mr. Armstrong's approach of staying true to himself by staying true to the foundational music he helped create; but also, totally defensible is Mr. Davis' approach of staying true to himself by constantly evolving. The bassist and composer Charles Mingus had a great answer once when asked by a writer why he seemed so angry all the time: "It's frustration. I want to write and play music that expresses my true self. That's hard enough, but it's even harder when that true self I'm trying to express keeps *changing*". I envy and admire those artists/creators who choose to struggle to express their ever-changing true selves; but I can also enjoy (when done particularly well), some jazz master's solo on 'All of Me'. Which is to say: I understand -- yes, try to honour the specific site every time out by creating brand new and interesting and unique golf holes; but, if you step back once in a while and take a little rest and play to the cheap seats by dropping in a Redan now and again, that's okay too.
P   


 

[MCirba]

You can always count on the Cheap Seats!

[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - OT, but just for you re the cheap seats/the populist approach. Here's a true story:

Late in his career, Louis Armstrong is on a triple bill at a lakeside pavilion -- Illinois Jacquet, Lionel Hampton's band, and Louis' All Stars (in that order). Except that Hampton is late. So, after Jacquet plays a crowd-pleasing set, there is a long delay waiting for Hamp and the fans are restless and so Louis offers to go on second. The fans appreciate the gesture and love the music. When he's done, still no Hampton - but just then his bus pulls up. Armstrong's people say, 'okay, we can go now', but Louis says: "No, just a minute, I want to see this". What he means: the fans are now in no mood for Hampton, and even after a rabble rousing first number, there is only a smattering of applause. Louis wants to see if Lionel, the old pro, can win them over. Well, Lionel is trying hard -- one up tempo number after another, lightening fast solos on his vibes, jumping up and down, playing drums...but nothing: the crowd is still unenthusiastic. So, Hamp calls for Flying Home, and just before his tenor sax player is about to take a solo, he leans in close and says "Pops, I'll pay you $10 bucks if, after your solo, you get up on the railing and jump into the lake". The sax player agrees, plays a honking screeching solo and then puts his horn down, gets up on the railing, and jumps into the lake. The crowd goes wild! The soaking wet horn player makes his way back on stage, and as the other solos are going on, Hamp says "I'll pay you $20 bucks if you do it again". And that's what happens -- another solo, and another jump into the lake. The crowd erupts in applause, and there's a standing ovation and cheers and shouts of joy, and a huge round of applause when the number is over.
And, from the wings, Louis Armstrong nods a tip of the hat to Hampton and smiles to himself, and says: "Okay, we can go now".

I think that's what Pete Dye knew/understood when he built the 17th at Sawgrass...as do all those who have 'copied' the island green since then 
 

[MCirba]

Perfect.   

[Kalen Braley]

Pete,


Pardon going slightly OT, but I have to ask as I know very little about the history of Jazz, (although I was in my high school 2nd string jazz band for two years, alto sax)


What did you think about Whiplash the movie?  I absolutely loved it, a modern masterpiece...but I suspect the purists hated it...

[V_Halyard]

Pete,


Pardon going slightly OT, but I have to ask as I know very little about the history of Jazz, (although I was in my high school 2nd string jazz band for two years, alto sax)

What did you think about Whiplash the movie?  I absolutely loved it, a modern masterpiece...but I suspect the purists hated it...

Peter, great Hampton Story and Kalen, Great question.  Here is an answer with some On-Topic analogies Included./  
As a former session drummer that paid for part of college studying with a master named Alan Dawson and commuting to NY and Boston to sub with people like Pat Metheny and Alan Holdsworth, I enjoyed the movie. Playing and breaking into the session scene in NY as a newbie is profoundly depressing and damn near abusive. So if you really love it, you keep at it until it stops hurting, or you quit. Whiplash was absurdly dramatic but had threads of the real insanity.

The "chops" that people develop, especially in NY are built the same way a top golf am or pro goes to the range and pounds 500 Draws, then 500 fades, 500 100-Yard shots etc. Kids that play in today's bands and drum corps adhere to the 10,000 minimum hour formula and develop extreme proficiency. They are able to move seamlessly between bone dry precision, the hippest of beats and rhythms, collaborating with, and without computers. There are places in NY where you can find 30 rooms of drummers teaching, practicing and convening almost 24hours/day. (See Drummer's Collective) NY was ground zero for building chops under fire because NY sit-ins and sessions were the most ruthless on the planet.

(Insert On-topic Analogy Here)
Not unlike the golf swing, it doesn't matter how the stick hits the drumhead. As long as the club is properly angled at impact and the stick hits the drumhead with the proper angle/sound, timing, style and intent, it's being done right. If the hole is inspired by a template and it fits the course and the land, it might be considered having been done right. If it is a blatant template copied and pasted onto a plot of land with no thought or consideration of the land, course flow, and playability, I would argue it's being done wrong. In music we play and reinterpret classics all the time. A great reinterpretation of a song is far different than a bad "Cover" of a song. Think of the power of MTV Unplugged songs vs. the Muzak version of the same song horridly puked from a tiny elevator speaker. 

The same can be said of golf architecture. In closing, if you find a purist that hates Whiplash, pay them no mind and know that many music purists are frozen in time. If you enjoyed it, watch it again, get a sub-woofer, and turn the volume up to "11".

- Vaughn

[Kalen Braley]

VHal,


I've seen the movie probably 5-6 times and never tire of it. Such a tight and concise script with excellent acting, especially JK...he played that part a little too well, even I wanted to punch him! 


The reason I asked was an article or two I read indicated that for the most part peeps are positive and encouraging/helpful in Jazz circles, not the negative, super cut-throat, everyone is your enemy as the film depicts.  Figured I'd ask people in the know, as i wouldn't have the first clue...

[V_Halyard]

VHal,


I've seen the movie probably 5-6 times and never tire of it. Such a tight and concise script with excellent acting, especially JK...he played that part a little too well, even I wanted to punch him! 


The reason I asked was an article or two I read indicated that for the most part peeps are positive and encouraging/helpful in Jazz circles, not the negative, super cut-throat, everyone is your enemy as the film depicts.  Figured I'd ask people in the know, as i wouldn't have the first clue...

It can be both collaborative and cut throat. Playing with other talented musicians is a dream.  Taking the chair of another and the friend of another is a knife fight. Only one Can sit in the chair at a time 

[William_G]

Tom - I understand about great land, but CC of Charleston is on flat, relatively featureless land and it is an excellent course... far from Raynor’s best, but very good. So, it can be done.

love that place

[Peter Pallotta]

Really neat and interesting exchange and insights, gents - thanks. (Sorry, K, I missed this the first time -- but haven't seen the film so couldn't answer anyway.)

I used to go to my local jazz club often: as V would know much better than me, it's amazing how many great young players (on all instruments) continue to come out of schools every year; they know their instruments and their histories and the music so exceedingly well, and yet, popular tastes being what they are and the music/film industry changing so rapidly, it's so tough for them to 'find a place' in the world these days, let alone make a living at it.

I think sometimes, to borrow V's analogy, how a young jazz musician must envy a young golf pro -- the latter can 'measure' his progress and 'compete' with others in the most 'objective' way possible, ie he can shoot lower scores. For the musician, in a broader context (ie outside his peers) it is so 'subjective'.

I've read about how much criticism Lester Young took when he became the star sax player in the Basie band, taking over from Herschel Evans-Buddy Tate (who both played in the much different Coleman Hawkins style). Luckily for him and us, Lester never let it get to him too much. In the late night cutting contests, when he was up against yet another Hawkins disciple, he'd tip his hat back before starting to play and say "Some of you mother-f-----s are all *belly*"...and then spin off a dozen choruses of long, lovely melodic lines in that beautiful, lighter-and-gentler tone of his.

I think there's a parallel to gca too -- as Tom D has noted, connections are important to success, but so is timing...and he was able to take hold of an opportunity and jump right through that 'window' when it came...just like, in the early 80s, a sudden rush of interest in the music and great new talent came together and wonderful players like Wynton Marsalis and Terence Blanchard actually become stars!





Sorry, please excuse the side-bar ...I'm playing 'outside the changes' (tee hee)

[William_G]

I do understand that Michael [like our old friend Mr. Mucci] believes that certain ideas are so good you should repeat them over and over again ... that's why I changed the word "our" concept of what's acceptable in the quote above to "your" [his].  My concept of what's an acceptable golf hole goes back to what I could see and what I could imagine about the early days of golf in Scotland, which was that golf is a cross-country game, and pretty much nothing is off limits.  That's the real lesson of the 13th at North Berwick ... but imagine if guys took away from it that you should build a stone wall on every golf course!

I just think that with the templates you get too many instances of trying to hammer a square peg into a round hole.  It's one thing to build a Redan on a natural site for one ... it's another to haul in 5000 yards of fill to build the 7th at Chicago Golf Club in a cornfield.

Tom - I don't think certain ideas are so good that they "should" be repeated, but that it is not unacceptable for them to be repeated. Most golfers don't travel to compare courses, so having a hole on a course in SC that is similar to a course in New York is not an issue for me... if it is a great hole design and executed properly.
As Sean says, there is an element of "playground engineering" to designing and building any golf course. Obviously, Raynor falls heavily onto the engineered vs artistic side of the "style" scale... which is really what I was getting at with my original question.
Maybe the MacRayBanks courses just weren't pretty enough for new architects to want to hang their hat on that style. Or, maybe the golfing public just became enamored with more the attractive "parkland" styles and the desire for engineered courses was abandoned.

It's just that the engineered style of MacRayBanks (et al.) had its day and clubs from Hawaii to SC to New York sought their design services... and, wonderfully successful "playgrounds" were created for these clients. Then, it just all stopped. Poof! And, now, these courses are honored as special, unique and treasured... with many meticulously restored to their original glory.

In that context, one would think that the renaissance in appreciation of these courses (no pun intended!) might lead to more of this style being created. It is obviously, a good way to create a top level course on a bad piece of property by, as Tom says, hammering a square peg into a round hole. There are a lot of very sad, unforgettable courses I have played that could have definitely benefited from the MacRayBanks treatment... and still could!

PS - the 13th at North Berwick doesn't say that you "should" build a stone wall on a course... but, that you "could" build a wall and it would be OK if it is done properly. It sets a precedent.

+1

great thread

thank you Michael

[William_G]

In my limited experience, there is room for unique, great holes even on template courses themselves.  The best hole at Old White at the Greenbrier is Number 6 which as far I as know MacDonald was not basing on an already existing hole.  And at Old Mac, Number 7 may not be the best hole on the course but it is one of them and certainly the coolest.  Now, are either of those holes "concepts" that did (Old White) or will (Old Mac) take gca in new directions?  Probably not.  But isn't the idea of using the land in innovative ways such as those two holes exactly the concept that lies in opposition to templates. Please do not get me wrong, I like templates and like to see some of them incorporated in non-template courses, but as others have noted, there remains plenty of room for great holes that are not imitations or nor even inspired by existing holes.


Ira

7 at Old Mac (Ocean) was thinking out of the box...well done

[William_G]

I like finding playgrounds hidden in nature

or building a playground that wasn't there like the Ocean hole at Old Mac is a great thing

[ward peyronnin]

Perhaps the focus is too narrow regarding the style of which Mike is speaking on this thread. Naturally "template" holes are the first place people turned. But I think the key is the term "engineered style". These guys combined using the ground feature when they had but then created  strategic details that were not subtle or necessarily natural to achieve layers of effect on the golfer. Lawsonia is not a set of template holes( yes there are some) but an overall brilliance imbued by artfully place trenches and ridges and slopes and fierce elevation transitions. These don't fight the landscape but in some cases blend or in others create stark contrast. They are used to fool and confound the eye and inclination when choosing a line of play.

Look at design post war overall. Detailing and grace were abandoned for efficiency, clarity, simpleness, etc. To me this style when done right is not easy but is more often done incompetently merely because it is easier and less work and creativity. The pinched bunkers and forced carries and etc are easily executed and comprehended- Yawn.

So why are the rather gross but effective features and detailing of this style more often not used by architects now or are they? They are not natural or they are perceived as gimmicky or out of date? I think this practice does not necessarily comprise copying

[Shelly Jones]

This is an interesting thread to read.


It seems to me that we are avoiding two principal elements of design. The first is the nature of the land itself; its topography, the nature of its winds, etc. The second element seems to me the architect and the distillation of his/her observations and experience. That is what you are buying in many respects.


I doubt that any architect wants to openly emulate others. Having said that, however, it seems to me that the architect will be able to use some of the concepts that he observed or used in previous work. CB Macdonald toured the UK to observe courses, but he had to adapt what he learned to the land that he was using.


And there is also a small element of trial/error. Colt tinkered with many of his designs well after completion. So did Donald Ross.

[Michael Whitaker]

Ward makes an extremely valid point... this it NOT about template holes, but the style and look created by MacRaynorBanks. It will be interesting to see how Arcadia Bluffs South will be accepted and reviewed. As a public course it will be the first chance for most golfers to have the experience of playing this style.

The Arcadia Bluffs website says that the objective of the South Course is:   "To present players with the opportunity to play a golf course that would stand as a testament to the challenges and emotions experienced only at a few select classic private courses from golf’s earliest days."

Maybe is it just a reflection of my personal taste in golf courses, but I have never played a MacRaynorBanks course that I didn't totally enjoy. As Eric implies above, if I lived in the Northeast and played one of these courses on a regular basis perhaps I would not be as enamored with the style... but, I don't think so! To the best of my knowledge EVERY MacRaynorBanks course is considered one of the best courses in its local area (if not THE best).

I'm still baffled how this "STYLE" was totally abandoned in favor of the generic design style that took hold after WWII.

[Tim Liddy]

I echo the theory of change due to construction equipment. The advent of the bulldozer change slopes and contours dramatically into unnatural, mechanical, soft slopes and shapes compared to the crisp slopes completed by hand tools and horse drawn scrapers.

[Tim Martin]

Ward makes an extremely valid point... this it NOT about template holes, but the style and look created by MacRaynorBanks. It will be interesting to see how Arcadia Bluffs South will be accepted and reviewed. As a public course it will be the first chance for most golfers to have the experience of playing this style.

The Arcadia Bluffs website says that the objective of the South Course is:   "To present players with the opportunity to play a golf course that would stand as a testament to the challenges and emotions experienced only at a few select classic private courses from golf’s earliest days."

Maybe is it just a reflection of my personal taste in golf courses, but I have never played a MacRaynorBanks course that I didn't totally enjoy. As Eric implies above, if I lived in the Northeast and played one of these courses on a regular basis perhaps I would not be as enamored with the style... but, I don't think so! To the best of my knowledge EVERY MacRaynorBanks course is considered one of the best courses in its local area (if not THE best).

I'm still baffled how this "STYLE" was totally abandoned in favor of the generic design style that took hold after WWII.

Whitty-Spot on analysis. The rankings regardless of source are loaded with this style and people love them. They are sought out by nearly everyone that has an interest in golf course architecture yet there are those that decry them as unoriginal and forced. If I could only play this style going forward I wouldn’t be disappointed.

[William_G]

+1 Tim

You have courses like Yale that are built on very difficult locations.

Then you have natural courses like Sand Hills built on ideal sites.

Then you have TPC Sawgrass.

I could play the above 3 places forever and never look back.

Yet playing Lawsonia  Links everyday in season would be all I would need.

cheers

[Tom_Doak]

The rankings regardless of source are loaded with this style and people love them. They are sought out by nearly everyone that has an interest in golf course architecture yet there are those that decry them as unoriginal and forced. If I could only play this style going forward I wouldn’t be disappointed.

The rankings NOW are loaded with this style.


The rankings in the 1960's and 1970's were not loaded with this style at all.  Places like Camargo, Shoreacres and Yeamans Hall were nowhere to be found in the rankings when I was in college.  For that matter, neither were Fishers Island and NGLA.


Tastes change.  Some people back then even loved Kool Aid.

[William_G]

like Tom said times can change

yet, I look for that timeless quality in everything

natural is natural and if you have a great site, don't ffff it up

if have shitty site and go natural, it may be no bueno

ShadowCreek is over 30 years old, and it's my favorite Fazio, a playground in the desert, love it

KISS is a good strategy as well, but Wynn made it happen, as has Keiser and Youngscap

cheers

[Tim Martin]

The rankings regardless of source are loaded with this style and people love them. They are sought out by nearly everyone that has an interest in golf course architecture yet there are those that decry them as unoriginal and forced. If I could only play this style going forward I wouldn’t be disappointed.

The rankings NOW are loaded with this style.


The rankings in the 1960's and 1970's were not loaded with this style at all.  Places like Camargo, Shoreacres and Yeamans Hall were nowhere to be found in the rankings when I was in college.  For that matter, neither were Fishers Island and NGLA.


Tastes change.  Some people back then even loved Kool Aid.

My response didn’t reference the rankings when you were in college. Thanks for the history lesson.

[Bill Brightly]

Mike, to me, the answer your question requires study of the history of the development of golf course architecture in the US and also our economic history.


Macdonald builds NGLA in 1911, borrows features from the best courses overseas, and he blows away everything that is on the ground in the US. (Not just the holes, but his advances in turf quality.) That sparks a huge demand for golf courses of similar quality. This happens to coincide with 20 years of great economic growth, so there is funding for this demand.


Many people want Macdonald to build their course but he is not interested in traveling all over the US so he only designs a handful of courses. He tells them to hire Raynor, and Seth is happy to traverse the country to do this work. I imagine that wealthy men in cities all across the country are contacting Raynor (and Tilly, Emmet and Ross and others) because they know  their current courses are not up to the new standard.


Everything Raynor knows about gca he learned from CBM, so he reproduces the templates, giving the owners exactly what they wanted. Raynor does not fit the holes as beautifully in the land as CBM, but the templates are such good holes to start with that all the Raynor courses are good and the features are clearly distinctive. So the Raynor style, while slightly different than CBM, creates it own demand. Raynor's business grows so he hires Banks (and Barton) to help. When Raynor dies in 1926, Banks finishes ongoing projects like Fishers Island and gets a few jobs on his own. The first is my home course, Hackensack, which Banks starts in the summer of 1926. We received "propositions" (they did not call them proposals) from Banks, Stiles & Van Kleek, and Tillinghast, with Ross declining because he was too busy. (Had Hackensack hired Tilly, this week's Northern Trust would not be at Ridgewood... Tilly would not have been hired the next year to build another course 5 miles away!)


There is still enough demand for the Macdonald-Raynor style for a few years, but then the Great Depression hits. Banks' business naturally falls off (he never comes back to build the third nine at Hackensack) and then there is relatively little new golf course construction for the next 25 years. Golf is simply not that popular. Baseball, boxing and horse racing dominate the sports scene and that does not change until Palmer (and then Nicklaus) come along. When significant course construction finally starts again in the late 50's, there is no one alive on the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks tree. RTJ and Wilson build in their style, and THAT style, which fits the new equipment, begins to dominate. (Hackensack hires William Gordon in 1960 to change our Banks course into a Dick Wilson/RTJ course... Damn our Modernization Committee!)


So there's my long-winded answer to your question!

[Tom_Doak]

There is still enough demand for the Macdonald-Raynor style for a few years, but then the Great Depression hits. Banks' business naturally falls off (he never comes back to build the third nine at Hackensack)

Charles Banks died in 1931, in case you were wondering why he didn't come back.

[V_Halyard]

There is still enough demand for the Macdonald-Raynor style for a few years, but then the Great Depression hits. Banks' business naturally falls off (he never comes back to build the third nine at Hackensack)

Charles Banks died in 1931, in case you were wondering why he didn't come back.

That does make for a long commute...