Which architects today don't use templates?

[Mark_Fine]

The thread about PGA West and TPC Sawgrass made me feel a thread about templates was in order.  Seems few here realize most all architects (not just Raynor) use template holes on many of their designs.  Maybe they aren't as pronounced (and broadcast as such) like Raynor's but if you see enough of their designs you will realize they play favorites (they just dress them up differently).


I remember explaining to the members of Cherry Hills that their course had three replica holes from Pine Valley.  They initially thought I was crazy until and I showed them detailed side by side comparisons.  After one presentation at the club, I had several Cherry Hills members who were also members at Pine Valley come up to me and shake my hand saying I learned something today that I never realized, it was eye opening. If one had studied William Flynn, they would know he was seconded to Pine Valley for eight years and finished construction of the golf course when Crump passed away.  One would know that Flynn used template holes from Pine Valley in his designs (we have at least two at my home club Lehigh CC that were inspired by Flynn's time at PV. 


If you play enough courses you will see these patterns (templates) used frequently by almost every architect.  I don't fault architects one bit for doing this.  People for example, criticize Pete Dye for building multiple island greens and for others using that same concept.  Same goes for building a hole very similar to #12 or #13 at Augusta.  Do you know how many different golfers will ever get to play one of those holes at Augusta or even the island green 17th at Sawgrass?  Far less than 99% of all golfers so why not give them multiple other chances to experience holes similar to that on other designs.  Maybe they can get that 99 percentage down to 98 

[mike_malone]

 Mark,


 I wonder if you are speaking of “ modeled after” versus a template. My view of templates is that they try to replicate the hallowed holes while being modeled after just takes ideas that work at a prominent course and applying them to a new location.


Flynn loved the elevated short hole with an angled green and an opening that fed the ball into the middle of the green.  Lehigh 4, Huntingdon Valley 10, Rolling Green 12 are favorites of mine which some might call templates. But he isn’t copying anyone. He’s using his own ideas. So it’s a pattern of his but not a template.

[Mark_Fine]

Mike,
As I said in another post, you can call them templates, patterns, models,... Basically what the architect is doing is using that same model and tweaking it from site to site.  Raynor's template holes don't all look like exactly alike.  He could have copied them much closer to exact if he wanted to.  Does the Biarritz hole at Fisher's Island look exactly like the one at Yale or the one at .... that he did?  I don't think so but they are all modeled after the same template/design concept.  Flynn, Tillinghast, Ross,..., as well as most all architects do the same.  They all have favorites whether they will admit it or not.  Play enough of their designs and you will see the patterns.  Covid has slowed my travel down but I have seen a few to compare.

[Tommy Williamsen]

It makes sense for an architect to "re-use" a hole that works. One of the things I like about Ballyhack is that most of the holes are very original. What is maddening is to see a hole that is the result of an unimaginative architect. How many holes have a perfunctory fairway bunker, two fronting bunkers left and right, and an flatish green?

[Mark_Fine]

Tommy,
Sad to say I have not seen Ballyhack but it on my must play list.  I know you have seen a lot of golf courses.  Are you sure Ballyhack's holes are all original and not patterned in some way off others?  The 3rd for example sure looks like a Redanish par three to me but again I have not played it just seen photos.  The terraced fairway 4th is not that uncommon but again I need to get out to see it. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Mark,


I think there’s a big difference between bringing a pre-conceived idea to a site... and designing a hole on a site that then reminds you of an already existing hole elsewhere.


I prefer the latter, not so much the former.


I’m sure if I’d designed 40 courses on not very exciting ground, I’d start to repeat a few ideas though.

[Mark_Fine]

Ally,
I agree with you, having pre-conceived ideas before looking at a site is a little different from having design preferences for certain kinds of golf holes.  That said,  the proof is in the seeing and I see a lot of holes that are close versions of the same hole.  Again, I am not complaining or being critical, it is just an observation from lots of rounds of golf.  Tom Fazio once said, "I have never built the same hole twice".  He is correct he hasn't because it is not physically possible, however, if you play enough Fazio courses, you will see he has built "almost the same hole" many many times over.  But they are very good holes so who can blame him.  Furthermore, how many golfers are going to get to play even a tenth of all his golf courses to ever know?  Very very few of us.  I am not picking on Fazio.  He is not alone. If you really think about what I am saying and take the time to study a bunch of any one architect's designs, you might agree with me more. 


By the way, if you happened to come up with some fantastic novel design concept for a golf hole, why would you only want to build it once especially if you built it on some far away ultra exclusive or difficult to get to location where very few golf will ever get to experience it?  You might want to use it elsewhere and just dress it up a little differently.  Just a thought 

[Thomas Dai]

How many basic ideas, variables etc are there?
Might even be possible to develop some kind of matrix of usage, probability, frequency etc?
atb

[Andrew Harvie]

I've yet to find a pattern in Rod Whitman's work, other than a ton of kicker slopes. Even in aesthetic, Algonquin vs Wolf Creek Links vs Wolf Creek Old vs Cabot vs Sagebrush vs Blackhawk are different. I have not seen his overseas work. It's perhaps a benefit of him having so few projects in his career, but Whit likes it that way!


I've only played 5 Doak's, and they've been wildly different in style, aesthetic, look, etc, so it's tough to say. I feel like he keeps it rather fresh though... maybe someone who has played more Doak's can correct me.

[Mark_Fine]

Most of us here know that C.B. Macdonald believed there were basically 21 types of golf holes that were truly unique.  Whether he was right or not who knows but he might have been close in his assessment.  He felt you needed to have versions of most of these holes on your 18 hole design to have a compelling and challenging golf course. 
We all know that architects have a lot of different features on their design pallet to disguise these different holes from one another.  Some are better at disguising them than others.  My point is that if you study closely and play enough of a particular architect's designs, you can often see which ones certain architects gravitate toward.  Obviously architects are looking for what each particular site has to offer but they are also keeping favorite design concepts/ideas in mind.  This is probably more true the less interesting and unique the site.  I am heading out to play an Arthur Hills design in a few minutes.  I love the golf course but there are holes here that he has built elsewhere (and I don't hold it against him)

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark -
that old phrase comes to mind, ie "to a hammer everything looks like a nail".
Which is to say: I imagine that architects who think of 'golf holes' first and foremost will tend to 'see' the same type/kind of golf hole on many different sites; while the architects who 'see' the particular site first and foremost may be less prone to repeat themselves.

But to Ally's point: it's a mysterious and delicate balance, it seems to me. As I've analogized often around here: take any knowledgeable jazz fan and he can identify a Charlie Parker solo after hearing only a very short phrase -- the style is so immediately recognizable, because in one sense Parker (like every other great in jazz) 'repeated himself' all the time. AND YET: if you listen to two or three takes of the same song/recording by Parker, you'll see that each take is *completely different*, so imaginative & creative & skilled & in the moment was his playing.

It's always him, but it's always different at the same time.

[Tom_Doak]

By the way, if you happened to come up with some fantastic novel design concept for a golf hole, why would you only want to build it once especially if you built it on some far away ultra exclusive or difficult to get to location where very few golf will ever get to experience it?  You might want to use it elsewhere and just dress it up a little differently.  Just a thought 

Spoken like a man who has never had a novel design concept for a hole!


If you had, maybe you would appreciate that part of the genius of the idea is that it fits so perfectly in its spot.  And you would also appreciate that having that great hole is what makes that remote golf course so special.  So you would be less inclined to just knock off your own idea in order to make a buck, and undermine that great course, offering the lame excuse that "others deserved to see it".




If you're going to redefine a template as "any idea you've seen or used before", then the only guys who will not have done that are the guys who have never built anything at all.   But I'm with Peter and Ally, that there is a huge difference between having a green site that falls away and being reminded of a hole somewhere else, vs. idolizing the Redan and finding a place to build it on your next course [or on every course].  It's not a template until you keep doing it.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Well, at least re-using holes is one of the benefits of a flat site, LOL.  As TD notes, the absolute best holes come from micro designing a green or feature to a very unique site.  But, I am sure Mark and I will never get as many unique sites as TD, and even on gently rolling ground, it's easier to envision some version of past holes if there is nothing unique about the land.


Besides, some architects think in terms of golf shots, and even providing a balance of golf shot types, others in terms of on the ground features, eventually blending both in some form or fashion, but leaning one way or the other.  I am sure JN and others thought process includes hitting high fades, low draws, etc. etc. etc., and if a green angled left with a particular approach contour and bunker placement to favor a shot, then it still works elsewhere, providing the wind is similar.


Overall, while fashionable to tell clients that every design is from scratch, we all know that isn't true.  Sometimes the question is like songwriting.  How many notes have to change to keep My Sweet Lord from being a copy of He's So Fine?  Take the green angle as per above, change out a sand hazard for a tree, reshaping the green just a bit to fit in without damaging tree roots, move a bunker somewhere else, have different side slopes because the site is more gentle, and voila, a green very few would notice started out as an idea from somewhere else.


Believe me, I have dropped in past greens in CAD to a new project, and it very rarely fits as is, and usually ends up being more work to tweak it rather than have started almost from scratch.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, at least re-using holes is one of the benefits of a flat site, LOL.  As TD notes, the absolute best holes come from micro designing a green or feature to a very unique site.  But, I am sure Mark and I will never get as many unique sites as TD, and even on gently rolling ground, it's easier to envision some version of past holes if there is nothing unique about the land.


Believe me, I have dropped in past greens in CAD to a new project, and it very rarely fits as is, and usually ends up being more work to tweak it rather than have started almost from scratch.

To be helpful, I highlighted the part of that first paragraph that probably keeps you and Mark from getting as many unique sites as I get.      Also, a pop quiz:


I was [*fill in the blank*] to find that when we got done with building Sebonack, my co-designer had his team map out three of the greens, so they could drag and drop them into future plans.


Choice of answers, listed alphabetically:
a.  Disturbed
b.  Honored
c.  Surprised

[Kalen Braley]

Hmmm... I'm going with B.  A true honor indeed! 

[John Kavanaugh]

Sounds like 15 ho hum greens to me.

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
I would answer d) All of the above 


But with that Sebonack comment you are basically validating my point that there is a lot of re-use of holes/design concepts (whether we like it or not) though I am sure you have never build the same hole twice 


As far as having a truly novel design concept for a hole that no one else has ever used, I am not sure I have?  Have you?  At Champaign we built a driving range that could also be used as a multiple hole par three practice course but that has been done I am sure somewhere before.  I've helped courses turn their 18 hole championship course into an 18 hole "par three course for a day" by use of alternate tees but that has surely been done before.  So no I don't think I have ever had a truly novel design concept.  I am anxious to hear yours and others novel ideas.


Again, I don't think it is a negative to have the knowledge and ability to picture other great holes and use that information on a new or existing golf course.  A lot of times we (maybe not you) are working on existing courses that have like Tommy said "a perfunctory fairway bunker, two fronting bunkers left and right, and an flatish green".  We are not all blessed with unique virgin terrain that we can do what we want on. 

So I go back to my original question, which architects don't use templates or ever repeat their favorite design concepts? 

[Ronald Montesano]

Disturbed is my answer, although D) All of the above seems like a Doaky thing to surprise us with.

[Peter Pallotta]

Well, TD might be:

Surprisingly disturbed by the honour

and/or

Disturbingly honoured by the surprise

and/or

Honoured by the disturbing surprise

and/or

Disturbed by the surprising honour

After all, as the great transcendentalist once said: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"

 

[Tom_Doak]

Disturbed is my answer, although D) All of the above seems like a Doaky thing to surprise us with.

Unfortunately, I can't say I was surprised, so you shall not be, either.

[Tom_Doak]

So I go back to my original question,

Mark, if you ever get to design a course from scratch, is your dream to just grab a few ideas you've liked from other courses and repeat them?

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
The closest I have come so far is with renovations where I didn't have to worry about restoring something from the past.  But even in those situations I was very constrained by what was already there, budgets, ..., what they would allow me to do.  As I said in another thread, on one course I wanted to add a simple centerline hazard and it was voted down immediately as too radical???   But to answer your question, if and when I do get that chance, so much will depend on what I am given to work with but I will say I am not holding back any novel design concepts that I have in my hip pocket. 

Getting back to your little quiz - I think if most any of us here other than maybe yourself built a green that someone like Nicklaus or any other noted designer wanted to use somewhere else we would be both surprised and thrilled (and surely not disturbed).  What is to stop them from playing/seeing the hole and then replicating it anyway without saying so.  At least in Nicklaus' case he is being forthright with his intentions.  It would be no different than playing in a pro/am with Tiger Woods and hitting an unconventional recovery shot and Woods says, "Wow, I have to try that shot."  That would be pretty cool, surprising as well, but cool.

Reminds me a little bit of when Mercedes-Benz came up with the anti-lock breaking system.  They could have kept the patent/ idea to themselves but instead allowed all other companies to use it at no cost because it was in the best interest of their industry.  If I came up with a novel golf hole idea, I sure wouldn't care if others used it if/when they saw fit.  Maybe it adds something new to the game that many others can enjoy.  Nothing wrong with that. 

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
Why don't you now answer my question - which architects today don't use templates or ever repeat their favorite design concepts?  What about C&C?  Be careful with your answer 

[Mark_Fine]

One of my favorite (but surely not novel designs that I did do but didn't get to implement was a nine hole par three course consisting of nine of Flynn's greatest par three holes.  My home club is Lehigh CC, a 1928 Flynn design.  We have an existing parcel of land that the club at one point was considering selling to build houses on.  I was vehemently opposed to the idea of selling the land (so many older clubs have done this and now wish they had that land back).  As an alternative to selling it, I proposed the Flynn tribute par three course.  I had a topo map of the property and worked with about 20 or so Flynn par threes figuring out which ones might work best with the property and came up with a design.  It never got implemented but it did help cause the club to put selling the property on hold which was a win in itself.  That was over 15 years ago and we still have the property 


By the way Tom, guys like MacDonald did ok studying all the great courses of the British Isles and then regurgitating the best of what they learned and saw into his designs.  I'd be ok with that level of success 

[Joe Hancock]

DeVries. I have never heard him ask, say, or otherwise reference a specific feature to reproduce, replicate, copy, etc. on any project I’ve worked with him.


When left to my own devices, I often joke that, as a designer/ shaper, I’m blessed with a poor memory. That way, I have to go through the problem solving for each site I’m building a feature, and I think the results are most pleasing to me when I react to the site as I’m moving dirt to solve the problems (drainage, grades suitable for golf, etc.)


I also am asked frequently to think of such-and-such hole, and try to implement said features in a different setting. I have to work harder in those instances, not only yo get the desired result, but also to plow past my mental roadblocks.