Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: A.G._Crockett on January 09, 2003, 12:00:33 PM
-
In the new issue of Links Magazine, which got to my house yesterday, there is a very good article on the subject of "replica" courses. I tried to find it on their website, and couldn't (though I did get a great screensaver!) BTW, Geoff Shackelford wrote a sidebar to the article as well.
I enjoyed the article thoroughly, and wondered who else out there might have read it and what your feelings were.
-
A_G_Crockett --
Got to my house yesterday, too.
I didn't get around to reading the story -- but did look at the cover pretty closely, and had the first thought (a quick one, too) that I've ever had about Replica courses.
That thought was: Why not? So long as the USGA doesn't start playing its Opens there ... why not?
I'm sure someone here will be able to set my mind straight on this!
-
Hmmmm... not that I care much one way or the other about this, and I read the article and enjoyed it, and have played a few replica courses that I also enjoyed...
But Dan, you of all people have no problem with this? What happened to the high principles re copyright? Reward for individual effort for research? Are the principles gone so quickly?
If so, look for me to ransack your column and publish a Best of Dan Kehly out here, changing the words just enough like the letters in your name so that so you'd lose if you sue me. I'll say it's "inspired by a great MN columnist."
Just pulling your chain, really. But this was surprising.... ;)
TH
-
I got the issue today. Haven't read the article yet but I am predisposed to not like replication of golf courses.
I also thought Disney's plan to build a civil war theme park in the middle of the actual civil war sites was a bad idea too.
I also dislike Las Vegas.
I think I may alienate a few people with this post.
So be it. ;)
-
What if the USGA hosted the Open at a site that was replica course of the great holes in the UK?
What kind of reaction do you think that would get?
-
Heck, lets play the US Open on the replica course made up of great US Open holes...! From #1 Winged Foot all the way through to...?
-
I am now absolutely convinced that I am a first class hypocrite.
My aesthetic sensibilities tell me to disparage replicas.
however,
I would sell my first born into a life of servitude to play a good replication of Augusta and if I knocked it on in 2 on either 13 or 15 everyone who I have ever known in my life would soon know about it.
-
All I said was: Why not?
Tom IV --
I know you're just griefin' me -- but I'll answer you, anyway: If I thought these "replica" courses were taking one penny away from the courses being "replicated" or the designers of those courses, I would oppose them with my usual strident implacability. If I thought there was one person on Earth who, given the choice between playing the Road Hole and some "replica" of the Road Hole, would choose the "replica," I'd oppose the "replica" courses with my usual strident implacability.
But I don't think either of those things. I think (subject to being corrected, by someone who knows better) that these courses are harmless novelties, and that those who play them probably have some fun doing so -- as much fun as they might have from your typical new course catering to the kinds of people who'll never have the opportunity to see the real Road Hole or to play a shot over or into the real Rae's Creek (or even over or into the real Cypress Hedge!).
JakaB --
In re: "Why do people want life to be so damn easy...take a pill for a hard-on or play a classic hole out of context of history and exclusitivity. Buy a happy meal and use the Hamburgler as an ass plug...or work hard and earn your happiness.....its becoming a happy world my friend and I don't seem to be in a hurry to jump aboard."
Nor am I, sir! Nor am I.
The only one of those things I've done (not that I wouldn't do others of them, if I had no better option!) is to work hard to earn my happiness.
But neither am I in a hurry to condemn those with ideas different from mine. I've never played a "replica" course, and if I had the money to build a golf course, I certainly wouldn't build a "replica" course -- but I'm just not seeing how anyone is being harmed if people play classic holes "out of context of history and exclusitivity." That's not how you want to play them, and that's not how I want to play them -- but if some other clown wants to play them that way, it's no skin off my nose (or true golf's, either, in my view).
Look at it this way: Every clown who's over at the "replica" course isn't clogging the way ahead of you!
-
What I found interesting about the article was the author's (Wexler?) contention that the early designers in America, MacDonald especially and then Raynor, et. al., frequently copied holes from G.B., at least in a general sense. I had not read that anywhere before, though it makes perfect sense.
I took the author's premise to be that the "revival" of replica courses after the RTJ period of "long and strong" design is exactly that; a revival. Although the newer courses are more or less exact replicas, rather than what might be called artist's renderings, the author contends that it has always been thus...
I really, really liked his tounge-in-cheek comments about the Bear's Best courses, since here in Atlanta I've be wrestling with whether or not to pay a lot of money to play a course designed by a guy I don't really like made up of replicas of holes that I'm not really familiar with!
-
If I thought there was one person on Earth who, given the choice between playing the Road Hole and some "replica" of the Road Hole, would choose the "replica," I'd oppose the "replica" courses with my usual strident implacability.
Dan - prepare to be stridently implacable. The article discusses just this as a real possibility. You may not believe it, and I'm not 100% sure it's true, but it sure is possible that quite a few people play a "faux" Road Hole and decide to save their money and that's good enough. I can think of many people I know for whom this would be VERY possible....
TH
-
Read it, it was ok. I always liked the looks of Royal Links in Vegas, although I about shit when I read that they charge nearly $225 bucks to play. You've got to be kidding. ONly in Vegas. In a sense all golf course architecture is replication. I'm sure some yaywho is going to come in and make beef with that statement but it has been discussed on here many times, "Are there any original ideas left?" Invariably someone is going to chime in with their idea for a 'reverse biarritz' or what have you, but really, now. Par sixes. 700 yard holes. :P
-
I am busted.
You and I know I really don't want to belong to Augusta.
I would be very disillusioned.
My place is among those I can feel superior to ( there aren't many left but they know who they are ).
Some of my favorite places in this world are on the east end of Long Island. I visit there often. I have decided I will never live there. You can't own beauty. You can't possess a sunset.
I will sleep well tonight just knowing that Augusta is still there.
I will never play at Augusta.
I may sneak on to Shinnecock someday and play a few holes till the ranger has me arrested.
Jack,
Why not just work a little harder and become a member of Augusta....if you want something why not simply make the sacrifices to achieve it...or just admit its not really what you want....If you need a plan...here it is: Sell everything you own and go the the Atlanta area and do simple acts of kindness to strangers asking for nothing in return....make a number of peoples lives a little better while never seeking publicity or advertising your good deeds. Eventually despite your best attempts to remain quiet you will be discovered and rise through the ranks of society until everyone will want to know Jack. Riches will be bestowed upon you and that elusive invite will find its way to your door....Sure you'll go to Hell because you only did your good deeds to gain entry into a country club....but even Satan couldn't hold 15 green with a three wood...so the fires will burn a little brighter on the days of your fond memories of the real and only AGNC.
-
Jack
Tour 18 in Houston (the only replica course I have played--outside of NGLA, of course) has a great Amen corner that is apparently pretty authentic, except for the beer babes who will take your picture teeing off on #12........
Dna (that's a tyop, but I like it!)
They used to have a replica of the lighthouse on their replica of Harbour Town's 18th, but they got sued by Sea Pines and had to demolish it.
-
Another quick thought, inspired by Mr. Huckaby, about "copyrights" and "replicas" -- a thought that I think JakaB will appreciate:
Building a replica hole, it seems to me, is the moral equivalent of quoting another person's book. So long as one transcribes the quotation accurately (or as accurately as possible), and so long as one attributes the quotation properly, and so long as the quoting doesn't go at such length as to steal the original's very essence, few will find fault with the quoter. Some may well observe, and properly so, that the quotee deserves more credit for the quoted thought than the quoter deserves -- but very, very few of us, if any, will find the act of quoting repugnant on its face.
Check this out, JakaB! Here's what I think you're saying -- in the words of the oft-quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson: "I hate quotations. Tell me what you know."
(Reminds me of an old New Yorker cartoon, with a guy saying: "Well, of course you may quote me. I'm oft-quoted." Sorry I couldn't have been reminded of a cartoon I drew myself.)
-
Dan: interesting comparison, but as Rich pointed out, the "quotees" don't want to be quoted, in the case of these courses. I refer you to the lawsuits filed by several courses against the original Tour 18....
And I can't say as I blame them.
Words can be quoted, exactly.
Golf holes cannot. There are certain elements that will always be missing.
TH
-
Dan: interesting comparison, but as Rich pointed out, the "quotees" don't want to be quoted, in the case of these courses. I refer you to the lawsuits filed by several courses against the original Tour 18....
And I can't say as I blame them.
I don't blame them, either. I just think they got their undies in a bundle for no good reason.
I was attempting an analogy (not a pure equation) between a quotation and a replica hole -- and am (and was!) aware that "certain elements ... will always be missing." I was attempting to acknowledge that fact with the words "as closely as possible."
Oh, well.
As for the need to be stridently implacable: If there are really people who, given the choice between the Road Hole and a "replica" Road Hole, would choose the "replica," then (a) the world is even more screwed up than I'd imagined, and even fuller of clueless goofballs, and (b) I want them thousands of miles away from the Road Hole. I want them in Houston or someplace, playing Tour 18.
So, I've changed my view: If there really are such people, let's make sure they have what they want, lest they get in the way of what we want!
-
Hey Jack if you want to play Shinney really bad simply take a week of vacation and go out there and caddy. They send caddies off the first tee at 4:00 if they are empty which can be quite often in May. Nothing is impossible.
-
Dan:
I'm glad you've changed your view.
Because I truly believe many people MIGHT be able to afford a trip to the UK, or to Pebble, or whatever, and decide not to do so, decide "close enough" when they play these replica holes. There's absolutely no data on this, it's just a feeling I have. And I wouldn't call these people goofballs, nor tell them to stay in Houston - I'd say keep at it, maybe some day things will work out, but I sure understand financial realities.
I also believe neither Pebble nor St. Andrews nor any of these places is hurting for money, so they can afford to miss these people.
But the principle does exist, in any case.
TH
-
I've played the tour 18 course outside of Dallas. I could see some basic resemblances for the holes, but for the most part just a good round of golf. The greens were very fast....even too fast in some instances (#10 there which I believe is the church pew hole at Oakmont had a green running at least 14 with a sharp slant......one of my partners who is a 3 handicap 7 putted the green).
-
After reading the article, I concluded that Silva's Black Creek
sounds like an interesting place to play. Has anyone had the chance and done so?
There is little original thought in golf hole concepts these days--everything is at least loosely based on something that's already been done before. Replica courses are fine with me, even if some examples border on cheesy. The golf world is a big one, and there's room for replica courses.
I think the best approach in this arena is to shoot for the flavor of a particular architect, and adapt it to that particular site. there are fewer limitations that way, and less holes that
are forced upon the land.
I usually look forward to LINKS, but boy, I really had to dig through this issue for some beef. Just a pile of golf trip/golf retirement promotional material. I do enjoy Wexler's writing, however.
-
Thanks.
I may do it.
Hey Jack if you want to play Shinney really bad simply take a week of vacation and go out there and caddy. They send caddies off the first tee at 4:00 if they are empty which can be quite often in May. Nothing is impossible.
-
I have played both Tour 18 courses in outings connected with trade shows, played Golden Ocalla (I like the way they mixed in a few replica holes with the original ones), and have played the front 9 of Black Creek (after playing Lookout in the morning) and I must say that they were each enjoyable in their own way. Not all because of the architectural significance, but doggonnit they were FUN. And isnt that the reason that about 99% of the normal golfers play.
Jack,
Regarding playing Augusta's replica holes. While playing in an outing at the Power Generation Show in Houston at Tour 18 a number of years ago I hit my shot at the #12 Augusta replica stiff. It rolled directly at the hole and stopped about 2 inches short of falling in. Now it wasnt the real Augusta, but do you think that each year when the Masters broadcast came on that I might not have mentioned that to anyone within earshot and gotten a warm feeling inside. You bet I would have! In fact I still seem to find opportunities if I am watching the broadcast with friends.
Anyway other than being looked down upon by the starch pants purists, what the heck can you find wrong with them.
I love wine, and my neighbors wife always has White Zin around their kitchen. Probably not what I would be stocking in my house, but I dont deny her the right to consume it or criticize her for it. I may tease her husband when she is not around, but never to her face.
Replica courses exist for a reason. There are people who want to play them. That is why I love capitalism, if people dont want them, they wont be around for very long.
-
(http://www.waltersgolf.com/04_royal_links/images/1_home/image_main__01.jpg)
I enjoyed Royal Links in Vegas and Architects Golf Club in New Jersey, and while they are both "Replica" courses, they have completely different styles. When you drive up to Royal Links which has the goofiest looking Scottish castle as a clubhouse , it is very clear that you are playing Vegas-style Scottish golf. PB Dye made the holes as true replicas to the point where they have actually constructed a Wall for the 17th at TOC. To date all of my overseas golf has been in Ireland, so it was fun to get some Vegas style exposure to Scotland, but clearly it is not the same experience as I had at Carne (Ireland) on a 40 mph windy day.
Architects Golf Club in NJ www.thearchitectsclub.com has a totally different feel. It is a "Tribute" course to 14 or so golf architects. There are no replica holes, Stephen Kay and Ron Whitten tried to recreate a certain style of each architect, but they did not copy a hole. It starts out with Old Tom Morris and end up with RT Jones. Here is a picture from the Seth Raynor Par 3 #8 (http://www.thearchitectsclub.com/gallery/hole_images/8-a.jpg)
It is also priced more realistically, and I am sure that I will play it again as I travel that way frequently. Again I enjoyed it, and it did not seem as goofy as Royal Links
-
As everyone knows, I hate replica courses because they're a cop-out. They're also a waste of construction cost -- certainly an architect ought to be able to come up with a good golf hole without moving as much earth as it takes to re-create Rae's Creek.
I understand why they're popular, and why they will proliferate, but it's a terrible thing. And, can someone who builds replica courses call themselves a "golf course architect"? I'd like to know what everyone thinks.
Dan's point about quotations is also interesting. Nearly every month now I pick up some magazine or other and read an interview with a golf course architect I've never heard of, who may or may not have ever built a golf course. What do they all have in common? They quote Alister MacKenzie or George Thomas like they are dear old friends.
-
Tom,
So are the Kay and Silva courses (Black Creek, Architects) ok while the others are not? Kay, Silva and Forse are the current day Raynor's, stamping out the same formula on every course, even doing tribute courses.
Is this wrong? Where do you draw the line?
-
Bye;
I've played several Stephen Kay courses and I think it's an inaccurate disservice to suggest that he stamps out the same formula on every course. Even his holes at the Architects Club are not copies, but simply holes inspired in particular architect's styles.
Forse is doing mostly restoration work these days, on any number of individual Golden Age architect's courses, and Silva's courses don't really follow any set pattern either.
Perhaps you could explain what you mean by your broadbrush criticism?
-
Mike Sweeney,
I'm pretty sure Perry Dye did Royal Links and recently got sued by the owners. Having never been to Scotland the course was fun, way too expensive though.
-
Perry Dye did Royal Links and is planning to do a copy of Royal Links next to Denver International Airport. It's on the books but I'm not sure when/if it'll happen.
A replica of a replica? Sheesh. ??? ::)
All The Best,
-
Mike,
Go to any of Silva's courses and you'll find the redan, cape, punchbowl ..... Take a close look at the Kay courses, you'll find the same thing.
Forse is all golden age, when he does new work it's all in the tone of the "old masters." Look at his PR, it's all there.
-
Tom Doak,
Do you have a monopoly on referencing guys like MacKenzie and Thomas? Are you in your work above imitating golf features that have been incorporated before? What do you think of NGLA?
-
Guest...
Take it easy man!
Mr. Doak...
In reference to your question...I always liked what Pete Dye wrote in his book about referring to himself as a golf course designer, not architect. Thus, I'm inclined to believe that "architect" stands for no more than 'you obtained a degree in architecture'. Are you implying that it SHOULD mean an architect is one who offers original ideas?
It is sort of curious to me that this thread has garnered as much attention as it has. I get the feeling that the predominant position of the group is that cookie cutter replication is bad, but original designs BASED ON tried and trued 'hole styles' is good. Not every Redan is the same. Not every cape is the same. There are features to these 'hole types' that all golf course architects and players of the game find agreeable.
Therefore, we love NGLA, we love Raynor's body of work. We do not love the places that 'mail it in', so to speak, to use a parlance of the times. The road hole is in St. Andrew's, not in Texas. It is equivalent to the first time you see one of the big $$$ casinoes in Vegas...Paris, New York New York, Luxor. It may look like the Eiffel tower, but it is not. IMHO...cheap thrills
-
This seems to highlight a culturla issue for me. replica courses bring to mind the new Dragnet or Mission Impossible remakes or a plethora of other remakes of TV shows or movies. Are we incapable of original thought? Is golf also reflecting this give me the cheap immitation because the original is too much work culture. Or $ buys memories/experiences..I can pay $325 for Royal Links and still be home for dinner. Just a ramble/rant!
Cheers
Stan Dodd
Rust never sleeps.
-
And, can someone who builds replica courses call themselves a "golf course architect"? I'd like to know what everyone thinks.
Tom,
From what I have learned about your business as a very early stage and inexperienced developer, there are two parts to Golf Course Architecture: 1) Creative and 2) Functional.
The Creative side is where the architect brings fun and/or challenge to the golfer playing the course depending on the goals of the developer. Sadly, I have not played any of your courses to date (missed a trip with my Partner to Stonewall last summer) but clearly GCAers feel they are fun and challenging, and the Creative side is a big reason that we are all here.
The other side is Functional. Does the course drain well? Does the routing leave room for houses (oops a bad word at GCA)? Is the maintence budget able to cover the course that was delivered?... Obviously this is not the stuff that starts threads such as "Golf Courses and Spirituality", but it can make or break the economics of a golf course and is a very important piece to the puzzle.
Thus, I would say that Perry Dye (I stand corrected from above) is the Architect of Royal Links, he just was not a very creative one on this project as dictated by the developer. In reference to Kay, again there are no Replica holes at Architects, so I would say he should be credited with the Creative side also.
-
I have really enjoyed reading all of this, which, like Mdugger, I didn't anticipate from the topic.
As I continue to read responses and to think about the topic, it seems to me that maybe a summary of how people feel about "replica" courses, as least on GCA, is similar to the difference between two people who read the same great book. One reacts to the book by saying, "I want to write a book like that someday!" The other reacts by saying, "I want to copy that book!" The former still retains creativity while honoring the greatness of another, while the latter isn't a plagiarist (since nobody will really mistake Texas for Scotland), but the latter also certainly isn't especially creative by building a piece of "road" next to a green somewhere in Texas!
-
I play and live at a recently opened (circa 2001) daily fee/semi-private golf club south of Jacksonville, Florida. My firm also (coincidentally - sort of) was the planner for the community and clubhouse architect. During the design phase our 13th hole, a 190 yard par 3 playing across a large diagonal lake was considered to be designed as a replica of our area's most famous hole - the 17th at TPC Stadium. The hole would've been shortened to 135 yds with the green smack in the middle of the lake. In retrospect our client's and the golf course architect's decision to resist the temptation was absolutely right - no matter how wonderful the 17th is, it wouldn't have been the same. Nor even as good as our current hole!
A fake is a fake, you can replicate topography, etc - but each golf course becomes it's own special place. Just like buildings shouldn't be repeated, neither should golf holes.
-
For what it’s worth, just a word about replica courses.
At the “advanced” age of 70 (hah) I had the opportunity to design and built a course based on architecture of the Golden Age. I never dreamed of ever doing that - I had never even given a thought about doing such a thing.
For a novice, it was a most satisfying experience - a chance to demonstrate what I had researched over the past few years, more important, a chance to honor an architect who had been in the shadows, nearly unknown, for so many years.
To see your one-dimensional drawing talk a life of its own was an incredible feeling.
That said - I would never want to do a replica course again!
I love restoration work.
I would be interested to know if another novice, arm-chair architects, if given an opportunity, would turn such an opportunity down ....... all things being equal - I doubt it
-
Yes, I guess there is a split.
I can't really criticize someone for designing a course "in the style of" an older architect. If Brian Silva wants to make his style like Seth Raynor, why not? How can we tell him that style isn't his own? After all Raynor and Banks took their whole act from C.B. Macdonald!
But, if the course is done that way so it can be MARKETED with a dead architect's name, I do think that's pretty low. For example, the course at Boyne Highlands which features Donald Ross replica holes is now included in their ads as follows: "Play courses by Robert Trent Jones, Arthur Hills, and Donald Ross!" From everything I've heard Black Creek is an excellent course, and Brian Silva should be getting the credit for it, not Seth Raynor.
-
Tom Doak,
I may have missed something, but I could not find the words you quoted regarding Boyne Highlands when I looked on their website. Maybe they are included in a brochure.
Otherwise the language they use indicates a reverence for Donald Ross and clearly call the course a memorial course. There is no confusion about it being designed and built by others trying to imitate the best of Donal Ross. They go into detail in describing how they went about deciding on specific holes and features. If there is a trademark infringement, I am sure there will be a lawsuit. Otherwise, what is the problem? Can you tell us where you read the words you quoted by any chance?
The RTJ and Arthur Hills courses are their own, are they not?
-
Guest,
Not sure where I saw that tag line for the Ross course ... quite possibly in a TV advertisement, since I live close by. But they have used it, or it wouldn't have gotten my attention.
For all I know they have permission to use it from Ross's estate. But I still think it stinks.
-
Tom Doak,
Can you tell us why, even with the approval of the Donald Ross people (if the have it), do you think that a course memorializing Donald Ross "stinks"?
Do you think it is a "cop-out"? Do you think it is unethical for some reason? Is it fair to say that moving soil to get the golf hole one wants is a "cop-out"? If you think so, isn't that just a matter of style preference (minimalist versus other), assuming the owner is on board financially?
What do you think of NGLA?
By the way, do you feel that your quote above was an exact enough replica of what was advertised to use quotation marks? Or were you just trying to give us the gist of the ad?
Thanks in advance for your answers to these questions.
-
Hey Guest- In stead of blowing what Doak said way out of proportion, why don't you just post under your real name? Or,
Is there some ethical reason you're hiding? :P
Blanket statements are stereotypes and I find 87.6% of the time they are applicable.
I do know of what I have always thought of a replica course in the middle of the northside of Chicago, Maravitz, formerly Waveland, was a real treat for us city types when we were learn'in. It was alleged to be replicas of holes from the motherland, Scotland.
-
AClayman,
I apologize. I am not trying to blow anything Tom Doak wrote out of proportion. He is questioning the idea of replica courses in terms both of what he calls a "cop-out" and in terms that seem to cast a dark shadow on the business practices of some resort he lives near by. Those two sides of the issue are interesting to me.
On the one hand, it seems like many golf designers reference the classic golf designers. I get the impression from Tom's first post that there is something wrong with that, but I don't really know what that is. Doesn't anyone else want to know why Tom thinks that golf designers should not reference MacKenzie? Especially since he himself has done so? Is there a line drawn somewhere that one has to cross to be allowed to reference MacKenzie? If Tom knows of one, maybe he can tell us what it is.
As for the business of making replica courses and the marketing of them, I would just like to have Tom fill out a little more our understanding of why that "stinks". Maybe that is an unfair thing to ask. I don't know. But if it really does stink, then maybe selling photos of those golf holes in the form of calendars and marketing those famous courses at all through merchandise (with the courses' permission of course) stinks too. I think Tom is a good person to ask about this stuff because he has written about other courses and used diagrams of golf holes in his written work. I believe he has even sold some of that written work.
If I am being unfair in asking him to flush out his thoughts, I take back all my questions.
-
Guest:
I think a pretty good number of readers know exactly why Tom is bothered by architects referencing MacKenzie when they themselves build courses that don't even wildly resemble the doctor's in terms of strategy, variety, aesthetics, etc.
I'm not sure if there's "a line drawn somewhere that one has to cross" to reference MacKenzie, but considering that Tom has published a biography about the man and is, so far as I'm aware, the only person on earth who has seen every single one of MacKenzie's courses, I'm pretty certain he's crossed it. I'm not too sure about some others, though...
With all those questions I was thinking that you might really be Pat Mucci.....but Pat's got the courage to always post under his own name.
DW
-
Daniel,
I find it odd that people here are making judgements about other human beings, in this case nameless golf designers, and what they may or may not know about building golf holes that reference classic golf designers. If a young photographer came to me and spoke glowingly about trying to make use of someone famous' style, I doubt that I would be as discouraging as Tom in his first post. But it sounds like whatever Tom Doak says is good enough for you. More power to you.
As for asking questions, well, Tom can answer them or ignore them. I didn't want to put words into Tom's mouth, so I asked him to explain what he meant by some of the things he was saying. They seem to me to be questions that are straight to the point and relavent to what he himself had written. Maybe I don't know my way around here, so maybe Tom is not supposed to ever be questioned like I have questioned him. Like I said, if I am somehow being unfair, I take all my questions back.
-
Guest:
I can't speak for Tom -- obviously -- but what I believe he's objecting to is NOT an architect copying/learning from/feeding off the styles of the masters; it is the quoting of the MacKenzies, etc. in an effort to help sell their own work which, in reasonably objective eyes, bears little or no resemblance to the men they're quoting.
Tom, please correct me if I'm wrong.....
DW
-
Daniel Wexler,
I'm not "guest", but find it interesting that you would make that assumption based solely on an anonymous poster's use of interrogatories.
I don't view posting under one's name as courageous, I view it more in the light of personal responsibility and accountability, a mark of integrity.
-
Guest
You are blowing what he said out of proportion. Let it rest.
Mucci
You find it "interesting" that so and so thought such and such about you. Leave it alone. This thread had enough controversy before you checked in.
-
Daniel,
Thanks for responding. Regarding these golf designers you mention, Tom's original quote in his first post said,
"Nearly every month now I pick up some magazine or other and read an interview with a golf course architect I've never heard of, who may or may not have ever built a golf course."
Well, what can I say? If he's never heard of these people, how can he or you or anyone judge what they know, what they are intending in their work, how well they are pulling it off, etc., etc.? Maybe Tom is assuming the worst, maybe he misspoke and he does know who these people are. Either way, why do you take disparaging comments about these people at face value? And does it further this discussion or is it a bit quick to cast aside people copying golf holes/features who may be trying to further the game, at least as they see it? That's just a question. I would hate to see two standards for what is acceptable in golf design. One standard for the named designers, and one standard for those just starting out. It is a complicated issue, so rounding it out might be worth some time.
And the reason I ask about NGLA is that it would have been a shame if MacDonald had been discouraged from building holes that were meant to be copies (maybe not exact copies, but copies nonetheless) because someone told him at the time that it was in some way a "cop-out". I know that is a little different than exact replicas, but it is on the continuum.
-
mdugger,
Our posts crossed in cyberspace. I have said what I wanted to say. It was about fairness. I will do what you ask and let it rest.
-
This is very interesting.......
I think the "Guest" has hit a nerve when it comes to the idols of this website.....Mr. Doak, C and C, Mr. Shackleford, and the rest.
It is really funny how quick the "regulars" come to the defense of their people. It is as if every idol's word or action is gold.
While I realize there are some brilliant ideas exchanged on this website, it is ignorant to quickly dismiss outside thoughts.
I admire the "Guest" for challenging Mr. Doak's opinion and hope there will be more in the future.
Without this type of discussion the GCA world is a dictatorship...well maybe it is anyways!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
mdugger,
I stayed out of it until Daniel Wexler brought me into it.
-
Yes, that's true, I did.
But Pat, it was lighthearted-- well, the "questions" aspect anyway. That you'd only post under your real name I was dead serious about.
DW
-
Look at this discussion about apparently copying golf holes and concepts of known golf holes of famous designers of the past. Look at how quickly it degenerates into accusations by contributors on here that other contributors "idolize" various designers and that they aren't willing to question what they say.
Question Tom Doak or anyone else! And if that seems unfair or too difficult to do then at least there can't be anything wrong with discussing or remarking on what you THINK they already have said on here (about a particular subject).
Sometimes it's difficult to even have a discussion on here because contributors start questioning each other on whether they even have a right to discuss certain subjects, accusing each other of playing favorites, of not being fair, etc!
Just talk about it! Tom Doak can always defend himself if he feels the need to which he probably doesn't.
From what I've read from Tom Doak on this subject on this thread, and in the past on the same subject, is he feels creatively an architect probably has some responsibilty to create his own holes, instead of blatantly borrowing holes that have been used and over-used by others. Particularly holes with really recognizable names and such like a redan.
And if an architect is going to create something that may look something like a famous hole of a famous architect at least don't blatantly advertise that fact using the architects name. Seems to me that's what Tom Doak is talking about and maybe said he thinks 'stinks'. So what? It probably does stink since clearly that architect would seem to be trying to get additional notice for something by piggy-backing on the name and reputation of a well known old architect.
But I think additionally Tom Doak has said a number of times that he thinks any architect should at least attempt to create golf architecture that is as fresh as he can make it given the ramifications of various sites and such. What's wrong with saying that?
Obviously Tom Doak is completely aware that there're only so many original and fresh architectural concepts that're possible but if something you do has some similarity to something a Ross or MacKenzie may have once done, then at least don't advertise that fact.
It's sort of like one of the holes at Stonewall2 that does look a bit like a redan but apparently Tom Doak told his crew to please not try to advertise that fact!
-
I read an article recently which puts an interesting twist on this debate (not including the amusing "Bias! Free Pass!" interjections).
This article was about how the Chinese view art. Apparently, to them, a beautiful copy is just as important and valuable to them as art as is the original. A "copy" which improves on the original is better still (viz. CB's "Redan" at NGLA). Given this philosophy, why not have 10 or 50 or 500 "Amen Corners" out there--particularly if the alternative is just another golf course, unique and as lovingly designed and built as it may be?
Also, if it is true--and I very much think it is--that the Chinese will dominate world culture by the end of this century, if not before, maybe the best built and looked after "replica" courses will dominate the Top 100's that our grandchildren will want to play.
All you archies out there--maybe this retro-naturalistic-individualistic bandwagon is the wrong one to be on if you really want to try to make your mark in GCA history!
-
I'll go out on a limb and say that all of our favorite songs are played with notes that have been played before, in structures that have been used before yet each song is different. New songs are "constructed" with old ideas.
Isn't learning to find and use these classic strategies sorta like learning your scales?
-
Ah ha! A late push here in favor of replication. I like the way Rich brought in a different culture. That is in fact good for this group, a group sometimes needing to break out of its cultural bias. Also, well said Eric. And remember, songs are often covered with enthusiastic response. All good ideas. A more well rounded discussion never hurts.
Having said that, would anyone be interested in discussing cloning? We have secured some of MacKenzie's DNA and we think we can make a go of it...
-
Rae,
If you can produce, let's see it! ;D::)
-
Rae
You're too late, man. Tom Doak has already come into contact with so much DNA from MacKenzie's old routing plans that he has now taken to wearing a kilt and acting tetchy when anybody else uses MacKenzie quotations in their promotional literature.
On a related note, Tom Paul has been under treatement for several years at a secret laboratory in Philadelphia (right across the street from Gulph Mills) and is more than half-way along in his quest to look like Ben Crenshaw rather than Andy Williams.
-
I played Royal Links in Las Vegas and it was disappointing to say the least. Everything was different, the grasses, the scale, the temperature, the wind, the humidity,the ambience.
In my previous life, I was in the textile business. We would take great old printed fabric from the 1850's, and use them for inspiration, not for copying. If we had a great artist, usally we got wonderful results. If we gave it to an average artist, we got a bunk for replica mediorce art.
A great artist is like a great architect. Their eyes see differently than the rest of us.
I think this is the point of visiting all the old courses in Ireland and Scotland. They provide inspiration to creative minds, and open up their eyes to new possibilities. Then, when they get a project in which the land talks to them, they see holes that they may not have seen before.
In addition, when working with a flat uninpiring piece of property, it opens the land up to a greater menu.
-
My people just alerted me to this article. Why is my name being mentioned alongside Vanilla Ice in a golf magazine? Was this meant for Rolling Stone?
-
Steven Tyler:
Wish I could answer that-- and I'm the one who "wrote" the article. I'm really not sure where those first couple of paragraphs came from, but they definitely weren't in the version I turned in.
Geoff Shackelford: Which is worse, Vanilla Ice or Billy Sixty???
DW
-
I made the mistake of playing a replica course in MB, SC a year or so ago and I walked away more disappointed than anything. There was a sign on one hole indicating that it was a replica of 16 at Augusta and I still wanted to ask the Head Professional if they had put the sign on the wrong hole. I think that it is similar to Jon Bon Jovi singing Sinatra covers. I have told many people that if on the day that I do play Augusta, there is someone waiting behind the 18th green asking me for my clubs and telling me that I could never play again, that would be fine with me. I am fairly certain that that would not be the feeling would not be the same on a replica. I live in Atlanta and there is a new Bear's Best that is receiving good reviews but I am undecided about making it a priority to play.
-
Rich comes up with another solid idea that the Chinese are likely going to dominate golf and golf architecture in the future with exact replica courses and such.
Not sure where the Chinese have been for the first few hundred years of golf and golf architecture but that's a small point and really shouldn't matter.
There can be little doubt that Max Behr was just a latter day personification of Lao-tzu and his Taoist philosophies on naturalism in golf and golf architecture which are simply an important part of the Tao (which of course anyone can clearly see in Behr's writing if they would only bother to read him carefully enough)!
Creative and unique non-replication architecture will be considered an example of the Godless, selfish, heathen West, lead by the United States, of course.
Doak, Hanse and Coore & Crenshaw will not be allowed in the People's Republic of China and the Great Canadian/American/Scot Western golf transporter and replicator, C.B. Macdonald, will become the new age icon of the Chinese people!
An aging Rick Goodale will rail against both West and East as golfing fudgers and cheaters for not adopting the obsolete and nearly forgotten CONGU system of golf handicapping.
-
Steven Tyler:
Having now had a chance to read "my" article in Links more completely, I can tell you that you are far from the only interloper in the piece; there's a whole lot in there that I didn't write. So in case you're curious....
All references to C.B. Macdonald, Seth Raynor, history and architecture are mine. All references to musicians, movie makers, Tom Keating (who I've never even heard of) and Elvis impersonators were the creation of some very bored person at Links.
Not that it will change the face of history but if anyone's interested, I'd be happy to post the article that I actually wrote...
DW
-
Daniel
I, for one, would be interested in having you post the original article.
Thanks
Rich
-
Okay Rich and Steven Tyler (and the rest of Aerosmith?), here's the version I turned in. Note, please, the sidebar at the end (ultimately omitted completely) which was to accompany an aerial of The Lido's 18th hole discovered recently by the incomparable Craig Disher.
[I'm doing this in multiple parts as the text appears to be too much for a single post...]
For most historians, the 1911 opening of Charles Blair Macdonald’s National Golf Links of America marks the birth of golf course architecture as we know it. Intended to set a standard in strategic design, The National was a strikingly unique work in that it featured two types of holes: those original to Macdonald and those modeled after time-honored classics of the British Isles. Ironically, such luminaries as Bernard Darwin and Horace Hutchinson cited Macdonald’s originals as generally being the layout’s best, but it is unquestionably for the replica holes that The National has become most famous.
Macdonald’s approach was carried on by a pair of his disciples, Seth Raynor and Charles Banks, and would ultimately be employed – at least for the occasional rendition – by nearly every famous architect of the game’s pre-World War II Golden Age. Following the War, however, as men such as Robert Trent Jones and Dick Wilson made difficulty the cornerstone of modern design, the replica concept lapsed quietly into obscurity.
Or did it?
For more and more frequently during our recent golf construction boom, we have seen all manner of replica holes being built, some paying homage to the timeless designs of the past, others attempting simply to capitalize upon them. Whether such renditions are tasteful or tawdry often lies wholly in the eye of the beholder, but modern replica facilities can generally be classified in two groups: relatively exact copies of famous holes as part of a “theme” course or C.B. Macdonald-style adaptations of celebrated design concepts, tailored to a more individualized canvass.
Despite its current popularity, the former or theme layout is hardly brand new. Indeed, its roots can be traced back at least to the 1960s when the Tory Pines Golf Resort in Francestown, New Hampshire modeled nine holes after some of the world’s finest. This largely forgotten adventure was abandoned during the 1970s (later to be built over), leaving historical recognition of the pioneer role to the Golden Ocala Golf & Country Club in Ocala, Florida. There, in 1986, architect Ron Garl included eight replica holes in an otherwise original design, copying such disparate classics as St. Andrews and Augusta National to generally favorable reviews. As a private club, however, Golden Ocala remained largely unknown beyond its immediate area. The Donald Ross Memorial Course in Harbor Springs, Michigan, a 1989 resort layout replicating 17 Ross holes, has remained similarly underpublicized.
Of course, few things attract widespread attention better than litigation, which leads us to perhaps the most famous of replica facilities, the Tour 18s. Tour 18 Inc., based in the Houston suburb of Humble, first appeared on the scene in 1992 with a hometown layout incorporating direct copies of 18 famous holes from prominent PGA Tour sites. Shortly thereafter, they were sued in federal court for copyright infringement by several featured courses including Pebble Beach, Pinehurst and Harbour Town. In 1994 a judge ruled largely in Tour 18’s favor, allowing the use of the copycat holes but forbidding the names or trademark icons of the original courses (e.g. the Harbour Town lighthouse) to be employed in any promotional manner. So blessed by the courts, Tour 18 opened a second replica track outside Dallas, this one featuring “America’s 18 Greatest Holes” and finishing with a pre-2002 rendition of Augusta National’s Amen Corner. The company’s most recent project is a “concept” 18 (i.e., inexact hole copies) at a Spring, Texas real estate/corporate development called Augusta Pines.
The fallout from Tour 18’s legal troubles is reflected in the more cautious marketing of the World Tour Golf Links of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, a 27-hole replica facility which promotes its holes as being “inspired by” the world’s best. Similarly, Renditions Golf of Davidsonville, Maryland offers a disclaimer reminding players that they have not received permission to reproduce their chosen 18 and are in no way affiliated with, or endorsed by, the clubs represented. Yet each carefully reproduces well-known (though occasionally offbeat) holes and are not bashful in detailing their selections. Notably, both include their own versions of Amen Corner, whose three famous members are quickly taking their place with North Berwick’s hallowed Redan among the world’s most copied holes.
On the list of places not copying Augusta, we must assume, are Jack Nicklaus’s entries into the replica game, Bear’s Best. Located in Georgia and Nevada, these joint ventures with Dallas-based ClubCorp feature Nicklaus reproducing his own high-profile designs— an apparently litigation-proof formula, but one which may lack some of the panache of Tillinghast, Ross or MacKenzie copies. Indeed, while Jack & Company can surely recreate their own designs faithfully, a brief glance at some of the represented courses (St. Mellion, Old Works, Las Campanas, Desert Mountain) suggests that even if they couldn’t, most of the holes aren’t famous enough for the average player to discern the differences.
The obvious selling point of such facilities, of course, is fantasy: that in one day – and at a manageable price – the golfer can approximate playing numerous classic holes which, in the real world, he likely lacks both the entrée and financial wherewithal ever to see. And to a large degree the concept works. For with greens fees running in the $60-$80 range, Tour 18 (by far the most established operator of the bunch) reports a healthy 60,000+ annual rounds at each of their replica layouts.
But the downside of the copycat game is equally clear: Even if one faithfully reproduces the contour and strategy of a classic hole to the utmost degree, it will still lack the climatic, aesthetic and overall sensory ambiance of the original. In short, how can one possibly recreate the experience of Pebble Beach in the middle of Texas?
While such a battle is, by nature, largely unwinnable, it seems only fitting that the boldest attempt should be made in that capital of the enlightened put-on, Las Vegas. There Walters Golf has invested some $32 million in the Royal Links Golf Club, a British-flavored layout featuring 18 holes copied from past sites of The Open Championship. The anticipated selections from St. Andrews, et al. are dutifully represented but, in this case we must certainly tip our caps to the developer’s dedication to the realistic. For in addition to sending architect Perry Dye back to the Old Country to examine the originals firsthand, other novel touches include the installation of multiple irrigation systems tailored to the various types of replica grasses and the inclusion of historical markers indicating the locations of great Open Championship moments. Such commitment to detail comes with a price, however, as greens fees at the Royal Links can run as high as $255.
-
Continued...
All of which brings us back to Mr. Charles Blair Macdonald.
It is both interesting and amusing to ponder how that cantankerous old gent might view such copycat facilities, for his groundbreaking brand of replica work was strictly about stylistic adaptation. This creative interpretation of classic holes was, in fact, common among the game’s legendary designers, from A.W. Tillinghast’s Redan at Somerset Hills, to Devereux Emmet’s frequent repetition of various personal favorites. Indeed even that apple of the modern imitator’s eye, Augusta National, was itself somewhat an adaptation, offering several holes whose strategic features were lifted proudly by Dr. MacKenzie from classic British originals.
But Macdonald and his protégées, Raynor and Banks, were surely the champions of this creatively imitative approach, leading a field which frequently blended time-proven templates and strategies into the unique contours of the local terrain.
Architect Brian Silva recently revived this methodology at the Black Creek Golf Club near Chattanooga, Tennessee, a visually striking layout which echoes both the Macdonald/Raynor aesthetic and their essential design philosophy.
“Only four holes – the Redan, Biarritz, Short and Punchbowl – are direct lifts from Macdonald and Raynor,” Silva explains. “The others are all original in strategy and character, but detailed on the ground in the Macdonald/Raynor style.”
The result is perhaps the finest form of modern replica work, a layout which likely brings the golfer far closer to the Macdonald/Raynor experience than a theme course brings one to Augusta or St. Andrews. “Reproducing the feel of the land, the climate and other factors is tough,” Silva notes. But clearly, when duplicating style rather then exact specs, a capable architect can achieve a great deal.
Another such designer is George Bahto, Macdonald and Raynor’s biographer and restorer of their courses up and down the East Coast. In 2001, Bahto completed his first original project, the Stonebridge Golf Links in Hauppauge, New York, a 6,245-yard layout featuring both pure replicas and a number of original holes intended to capture the Seth Raynor flavor.
“My goal was to honor Raynor’s architecture,” says Bahto, “not to put my own footprint on things. I believe that Stonebridge offers the public-course player an opportunity to experience the design philosophies of Macdonald and Raynor that he might not otherwise get, especially around the greens which are modeled after some of my favorite Raynor originals.”
And on this last point in particular, Stonebridge certainly seems to have succeeded, even with purists.
“If George wasn’t creating those greens as a tribute to Raynor,” observes noted writer/historian Geoff Shackelford, “golfers might think the architect was nuts. But he was remaining faithful to the old style and, as Raynor did, he was able to subtly inject some of his own ideas to make play more interesting.”
Perhaps the most novel undertaking of this type is even more recent, at McCullough’s Emerald Golf Links near Atlantic City, New Jersey. There, on a former landfill, New York-based architect Stephen Kay created a 6,535-yard layout featuring holes modeled primarily after classic British and Irish originals. Like Silva and Bahto, Kay’s versions are intended less as exact copies than creative replicas, though fans of the Open Championship may recognize such mainstays as the Postage Stamp at Troon, the 10th at Turnberry and the Long 14th at St. Andrews. Interestingly, many more of Kay’s holes are based on less-famous originals from places like Royal Portrush, Nairn, Prestwick and Gleneagles.
But for the true fan of Golden Age design, all of this pales in comparison to the course’s centerpiece: a replica of the 18th hole at C.B. Macdonald’s long-lost Lido Golf Club, in Lido Beach, New York. This epic original was itself based upon Dr. Alister MacKenzie’s drawing of an optimum par four which won a 1914 design contest sponsored by the British magazine Country Life. Providing three distinct lines of play with starkly varied degrees of danger, MacKenzie’s plan was somewhat altered by Macdonald to fit the Lido’s narrow site. At the Emerald Golf Links, however, Kay enjoyed a wide enough corridor of play to copy the full magnitude of the original, with the result being a hole stretching a staggering 160 yards in width!
But is it truly a faithful replica?
“We tried our best,” says Kay, “but we only had MacKenzie’s drawing to work with. We measured and scaled everything, including the size and shape of the green. The only difference was the steepness of the contouring. MacKenzie’s four- and five-foot contours would be too severe for modern green speeds.”
An additional difference is the defense of an island section of fairway. In MacKenzie’s drawing, it was surrounded by beach (his ideal hole naturally being a seaside affair), a hazard for which Macdonald substituted thick rough and reeds. At the Emerald Golf Links, Kay approximated the beach by constructing a three-acre waste bunker— and therein lies the crux of the issue: If a replica cannot match the precise playing characteristics of its chosen original, will the golfer find it disappointing? If it is framed against an industrial park instead of the Pacific Ocean, or routed across the Nevada desert instead of Scottish coastline, is the experience substantially diminished?
Speaking strictly in terms of dollars and cents, we can answer this with a cautious no. For replica courses of both the copycat and adaptive variety have succeeded in generating both significant attention and a steady clientele, and their ranks are proliferating— though hardly at an eye-popping rate.
Aesthetically, the criteria are different. Given the acknowledged difficulty of reproducing the unique characteristics of the chosen original, we can perhaps liken copycat or theme layouts to the lithographs of famous artworks one so often encounters; a thoughtful interaction may convey some sense of the real thing, but the overall experience is seldom likely to be confused with it.
Stylistic adaptations, on the other hand, would appear to fare better. For the best of such works manage to convey – with a little imagination, anyway – the sense of playing an additional design by a legendary architect, not some almost-accurate modern facsimile. But what of designers less regimented than Macdonald and Raynor, whose styles are tougher even to identify, much less convincingly duplicate?
Thus at the end of the day, the copycat variety may well enjoy a brighter future, for the concept can be repeated ad infinitum and seems to fill a legitimate niche. One might wonder at what point the novelty of attacking Pebble Beach in suburban Houston begins to wear off, but as architect Silva observes: “Most golfers can’t play at Augusta National. Straight replica courses provide an alternative experience, and there’s probably some real value in that.”
SIDEBAR
Stephen Kay might well be forgiven if his replica of the Lido’s 18th doesn’t precisely match C.B. Macdonald’s original, for Kay was working without benefit of a photograph. But recently, golf historian Craig Disher discovered perhaps the only surviving aerial of the Lido, dated 1942.
As the highlighted section indicates, Kay’s work was pretty well on the mark.
-
Hello,
I have copied three brief quotes from the Boyne USA Resorts / Boyne Highlands web page. It is not taken out of context but from paragraph(s) promoting the golf on various pages.
Please read through these quotes.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////
QUOTE (1)
" Boyne Golf- Spanning the nation the spectacular backdrop of Montana to the rolling hills of northern Michigan. The focal point of Boyne USA's golf collection is centered in the prime golf environment of Michigan's northern lower peninsula, also known as "America's Summer Golf Capital". These 162 holes of world-class golf are the products of some of the game's masters including Robert Trent Jones, Arthur Hills, Donald Ross and soon, Pete Dye. All lie within an easy drive or shuttle ride of each other and promise a richly diverse offering of holes for any length vacation. "
QUOTE (2)
" Ever since Robert Trent Jones left his mark on Boyne Highlands it has been known as the heart of America's summer golf capital™. The four world-class designer courses, including Jones' perennial top 100-ranked Heather, have placed Boyne Highlands in the forefront of Michigan's golf facilities winning the prestigious Silver Medal for facilities and service from Golf Digest, 5 straight times.
Donald Ross, Arthur Hills and William Newcomb have some of their best work displayed here. The renowned, Jim Flick makes his summer home here and oversees numerous clinics and instructional programs such as Boyne's famous Super Five Golf Weeks and our acclaimed Highlands Golf Academy which are geared for all levels and ages of golfers. "
QUOTE (3)
"The Donald Ross Memorial
featuring ProLink Satellite Yardage Sytem
Over five hundred golf courses were designed by Scotsman Donald Ross, the "Michelangelo" of golf course architecture. His designs reflected the philosophy that golf courses should be subtly deceptive rather than unduely penal... a true test for skilled players yet enjoyable for golfers of all abilities.
Eighteen recreations of the master's greatest holes. St. Andrews, Pinehurst, Royal Dornoch, Inverness, Oakland Hills and others pay tribute to this accomplished designer. Greens are painstakingly detailed. Rated one of the state's finest by Golf Digest. "
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
GCA guys would know the situation but maybe some would not.
I think this is some of the advertisements that Daniel Wexler, Tom Doak, et al were referencing.
-
I hadn't looked at this topic for 2-3 days because I don't really want to waste time arguing with faceless "Guests." I don't really mind when people post anonymously sometimes, but I suspect the guest has a personal beef with me and has to use a pseudonym so I don't call him or her on it.
Thank you, John Stiles, for digging up those quotes from Boyne Highlands. It's the first quote they use in their TV ads up here, although they haven't started using Pete Dye's name yet.
I complained about the trend for every designer to use quotes from MacKenzie or Thomas or whomever, which has gotten out of hand. Perhaps some of these designers really have studied a lot of their work and respect it in their own designs, but I think it should also be pretty obvious (even to Guest) that probably some of the "quoters" are less than sincere. I picked on the ones I "have never heard of" (really) because I would guess the odds of their insincerity are higher, but notice that I didn't disparage their work -- I don't even know if they have any.
TE Paul: Thanks for coming to my defense. The 17th at Stonewall 2 is, in fact, a Redan hole. It was a pretty obvious natural setting for such a hole -- long par 3, world tilting to the left -- but at the start of the job I told Don Placek that I thought we had done too many Redan holes (three or four out of 13 courses) and we should try something else there. We tried a couple of different things, which looked really awkward, and then I gave up and built the Redan that's there now. It's a bit more like the 17th at Mid Ocean than the others we've built, though I didn't notice that until after it was done.
On the other hand, of the six best holes on the course, four were not inspired by any golf hole in particular. I'm sure there is some golf hole somewhere in the world with a similarity to the par-5 eighth, but I don't recall where. (The green is a bit like our ninth at Riverfront, but since it's approached from above and it's a par-5 instead of a par-4, it plays much differently.)
My main goal when designing a new course is to create several interesting holes that aren't quite like anything we've done before. The bothersome part is that when golf writers or architecture aficianados come around to see them, they comment first on our great Redan! Which is why I'm trying to get away from using any classic holes at all, no matter how great they may be.
P.S. As "Guest" and everyone else knows, I think the National Golf Links is one of the finest courses in the world. I like everything about it: the great Redan which is better than the original, the Road green, but above all the first and sixth and eighth and tenth and fifteenth and seventeenth holes which are NOT replicas of famous British holes. Moreover, the National was built when hardly anyone in America had any idea what the great golf holes of Britain were like. I suppose those building "replica" courses can make the same argument today, that Joe Public hasn't ever played the Redan so we'll give him one, but ask yourself this question: are they really out to promote golf architecture, or just to make a buck? I think the answer was different for C.B. Macdonald than for Mr. Walters in Vegas!
-
All references to musicians, movie makers, Tom Keating (who I've never even heard of) and Elvis impersonators were the creation of some very bored person at Links.
Mr. Wexler --
Only one man's opinion -- having read the article as Links published it and having skimmed the article as you submitted it:
That very bored person at Links (a.k.a. your editor, who's undoubtedly very bored because so many of the magazine's other writers don't work hard enough to make sure even the editor isn't very bored) improved the piece by punching up the lede, giving it a larger-than-golf context. And I think the Elvis line is a good one. The only editorial misstep I spotted was that parenthetical "(sigh)" your editor inserted. (No editor should be allowed to sigh on behalf of a writer.)
Are you saying that your editor never talked to you about what he or she was up to? Never asked you to jazz up your lede, but just went ahead and did it -- without consulting you, and without showing you an edited version? I'd certainly object to that, if I were you -- and I'd give the editor a bit of grief for inserting a mistake into your copy: The expression is "palming off," not "pawning off."
As I said: One man's opinion.
-----
To the rest of you: Some wag advised against knowing too much about the making of sausages and laws. Add journalism (particularly magazine journalism, in my experience) to that short list.
-
Dan Kelly:
All done 100% without my knowledge. I was never told, asked, informed, warned, etc.
A pretty talented scribe once told me that every writer's style evolves over time, but that nobody has the perspective to really "see" their own evolution.
I just did.
DW
-
"These 162 holes of world-class golf are the products of some of the game's masters including Robert Trent Jones, Arthur Hills, Donald Ross and soon, Pete Dye."
I completely agree with Tom Doak -- the preceding passage stinks.
Although Mr. Doak has made it clear he's not a fan of replica holes and courses in general, I thought it was pretty clear that his olfactory senses were specifically offended by a golf course disingenuously implying that the late, great Donald Ross actually designed and built some of their holes, when in fact he didn't and couldn't have. That is despicable.
Having said that, I'm not offended by replica courses as long as they are clear about what they are not: original, or identical.
As Tom Huckaby mentioned early on in this thread, "Words can be quoted, exactly. Golf holes cannot. There are certain elements that will always be missing."
And that being the case, I just don't see any reason why a golf club can't try to provide its patrons the faux experience of playing a famous hole or course, just as Pepsi can't be stopped from trying to provide a similar alternative to Coke, Harry Connick Jr. can't be stopped from borrowing Frank Sinatra's phrasing or Brian DePalma can't be prevented from paying homage to Alfred Hitchcock.
The real will always be distinguishable from the fake, as long as the fake is not allowed to call itself real.
-
Daniel Wexler,
I think it is a shame that your solid article on golf course architecture, appearing in LINKS magazine was diluted with non-golf related fill.
Shame on them.
-
So much as the Golf Writing INdustry knows, the only way to get something entirely published as intended, is to be the editor yourself.
When I saw for the first time, what I thought was my best writing, or at least the heart of what I was trying to say, removed and others thoughts inserted, I was furious. A friend, had emailed me the words of Dan Jenkin's opening passage from "You Gotta Play Hurt" where it describes of what he would like to do with the carraige of his typewriter, is one of the most classic wishful versus for any journalist who has experienced what I would call--CENSOR.
Yes, there is nip and tuck to make it fit, but just like, and in this case with Daniel's original article, it is criminal.
-
I sure would like to see a replica course of ANGC as it was on opening day in the 30's. That would be way cool. I think I've found a mirror image of the original 16th here in NM. Substitute the verdant and replace it with rock and violia(sp?) it's has the creek and green site to die for.
Joe Hancock- I assumed most courses have the necc. equiptment already and also assume the marginal increase and decrease in the mowers work would be picked up by the other. So marginally it may take one guy longer but the ither less, no?
-
Patrick and Tommy:
I'm glad somebody's bothered. :)
Actually, I'm really disappointed that the sidebar got dumped. I thought that people would be seriously interested in seeing Craig's Lido image....
DW
-
So would have I!
In fact, Craig, if you are reading this, Please Please post that image!
-
i always thought the "genius" in course architecture should produce a tract which best compliments the land the course layout is designed for and is built on - using originality as a benchmark - anything else is just either randomly moving dirt (potluck results) or moving the dirt to fit a template (replica) - in commercial architecture this would produce a "parking lot" and a "strip mall" respectively
while i may never play many "originals" - in my humble opinion a replica i could play, well, just wouldn't (couldn't) be the same
with replicas - who needs architects ?
-
I have read and re-read this entire topic several times trying to pull my thoughts together on this subject. IMHO... I have decided ALL courses are "replicas" to one degree or another.
I'm convinced you can pick ANY hole on ANY modern course and a "similar" design can be found somewhere on a "classic" course. The surrounding landscape might be different; the hole might feature sand as an obstacle instead of water; one may be by the sea, the other by a mountain. But, the bottom line is that there is nothing new under the sun. Every golden age designer copied features from his home courses and replicated their famous holes here in America. And many, particularly Donald Ross, copied them over and over again.
The genius of a great golf course designer is that he (or she) can see the possibilities that the land offers and bring them to life. I am reminded of the quote by Elbert Hubbard, "The sculptor produces the beautiful statue by chipping away such parts of the marble block as are not needed." The fact that a certain style hole might have existed before on another course is immaterial. If it fits, it fits. If it works, it works. If it pleases the golfing public, it pleases the gofling public. If a course, or a single hole for that matter, is intentionally created in the "style" of a classic because it pleases the designer, the owner, or the paying public then, so be it. Imitation IS the sincerest form of flattery.
As for the true "replica" courses like Tour 18... golf is a great game, but it is also a business. These courses are simply a novelty item that provide their owners a "hook" that works in the marketplace. I say more power to them. What's the concern? That someone might not visit St Andrews because he's already played a copy of a couple of holes in Texas? Get real. And what's wrong with a theme course. Are you afraid that someone might make a few bucks by evoking the name of a long dead designer? If the public respects the work and enjoys the course they will pay to play it... if not, it will fade away. That is the way it has always been, even in the days of Old Tom.
You classical purists remind me of the conservative religious groups we have here in the south. They think they have all the answers, too. If you want to get to Heaven it's their way, or the highway. And, don't even think of changing one word in the King James version of the Bible or you will be struck blind. Sound familiar? If some of you guys had been making decisions in the days of the "classic" designers many of the courses you so revere wouldn't exist because they are nothing more than replicas of the famous holes and courses their designers treasured and respected.
Bottom line... the world is better place every time a new golf course is built. Just keep 'em coming!
-
This is the picture that would have appeared in LInks had they elected to show the sidebar in Daniel's article; #18 at Lido GC in 1942:
(http://home.earthlink.net/~cdishe/images/nr182.JPG)
-
From everything I've heard Black Creek is an excellent course, and Brian Silva should be getting the credit for it, not Seth Raynor.
This is absolutely true. The work at Black Creek is Brian Silva's, not Seth Raynor's.
Raynor's been dead for some time now.
Even I won't claim to be channeling his spirit.
(But don't ask me about the hat.)
I've always been a little uncomfortable with the "tribute" label put on Black Creek. I told a gathering of writers around opening day that the course was not a tribute to anybody unless it was going to be a tribute to ME! But somehow the idea that the course was a tribute to Raynor got circulated anyway, because the course does so obviously and consciously use Raynor/Macdonald themes and styling.
Whatever. The course's strategy and design is its own and stands on its own merits, just as NGLA is its own course, and Yeamans Hall and Camargo and Chicago and all of the other courses that echo one another are their own courses....
The pure replica courses, however, artificially constructed so that the ground contours are even replicated, lose some of their own character in doing so, in my opinion. But what do I know? I haven't ever played one.
Having played the 17th at St. Andrews and lots of the Raynor/Macdonald "Road Holes," however, I wouldn't say that any of them aren't their own idiosyncratic selves, each different and most of them good.