Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: PThomas on October 15, 2011, 09:53:07 PM
-
From the magnificent Planet Golf USA book, Darius Oliver writes in his Yale section:
"Although the Short, Redan and Eden holes are quite good, they are not among Raynor's best, and these replicas do get less interesting the more you see of them." (He then goes on to rave about Yale's Biarritz)
Agree with the above quote? Is repetition of the templates any worse than a modern architect producing similar and/or mudane holes?
-
Is repetition of the templates any worse than a modern architect producing similar and/or mudane holes?
It's no worse. But is it really any BETTER, unless you try to do something to improve upon the templates?
And is your standard for new architecture really "similar and/or mundane holes"? Shouldn't we demand a bit of creativity?
-
Is repetition of the templates any worse than a modern architect producing similar and/or mudane holes?
And is your standard for new architecture really "similar and/or mundane holes"?
Absolutely not Tom!
I want to see well desiged golfholes, that's my highest wish
do you think that most/some of the template holes really try to better their predecessors..or do they try to closely replicate?
-
Paul,
I can't remember a replica or template I didn't enjoy playing.
There's something about them that presents an enjoyable challenge.
Would anyone not want to play courses that were exact replicas of NGLA and Fishers Island, start to finish ?
I don't view the question in the context that every hole on the golf course is a replica, and therefore, diversity, in the form of creativity or deviation from replicas would be mixed in with the template holes.
My guess would be that certain landforms tend to be a magnet or ideal setting for certain templates.
How original is any par 3 ?
You hit from point "A" to point "B"
It's dictated, target golf.
But, that doesn't mean it can't be made interesting, even in duplication/imitation.
-
A sense of place is more important than whether the concept is tried and true. Variations of variations can be quite interesting if the place is right.
-
I could play Yale or Old White every day. I'm guessing that many would say the same about Fishers Island, Chicago GC, Creek Club, Piping Rock, and other CBM/SR courses.
-
I'd rather get tired of playing a brilliant, strategically sound template than a lesser hole.
That said, what do Fishers Island and Yale's Biarritz holes have in common other than length and green/swale?
What do Yale and National's Redans have in common?
What is common to the Edens at MPCC and TOC?
Of course the one common theme among all the above is that they are wonderful holes.
-
"Although the Short, Redan and Eden holes are quite good, they are not among Raynor's best, and these replicas do get less interesting the more you see of them."
Why do "these replicas" get less interesting, while the myriad of other holes we all play not get less interesting? Should it mean once you have played your home course 10 times it gets less interesting?
It's a pretty silly quote from Darius really. If template holes were not named or identified as templates, they would be seen as interesting holes similar to others designed by MacDonald, Rayner et al, just as many of the best modern day architects have holes that are recognisable as their designs from course to course.
-
You have to put Oliver's quote in context. He was playing quite a few targeted courses in a fairly short period of time. It would be hard not to say "been there done that" for practically any archie or hole theme without purposely picking versions on very different types of terrains.
Ciao
-
I am never bored playing template holes and the comparisons are always fun. The line about Yale`s Short, Redan and Eden being quite good but not among Raynor`s best should not be counted as a knock but rather a testament to the quality of Mac/Raynor`s work as a overall collection. A back handed compliment at worst.
-
Yale's set of one-shotters -- hardly a weak bunch.
Short:
(http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/7025/img0379sb.jpg)
Biarritz:
(http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/396/img0394lzn.jpg)
Redan:
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1366/img0409be.jpg)
Eden:
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/9024/img0415xq.jpg)
-
Just tweek them a little. Isn't that what makes Old Mcdonald so appealing ?
-
Interesting question.
To be honest, I would say no. At least I have never been bored seeing yet another version of the CBM templates.
Philosophically, many gca's and golfers have a mental list of challenges they like to see in a well balanced and fun round of golf. If those include a precision shot to a well guarded green, or running a shot through a valley to a back pin, or using slope to access a back left pin, for instance, then I would say no, they wouldn't get boring unless that type of challenge became boring to you. And, why would it?
Now, it could be that at any point in time, you get tired of one of those shots at least for a while. Since there are more than 18 ideal holes/challenges you could certainly go play another course for a while or mix them up all the time. But, a well crafted golf hole can usually challenge one thing really well, and can't be easily changed, nor should it be for natural changes of mind for golfers.
What the statment and answers really got me to thinking about is whether we as modern golfers are really starting to substitute the experience of others (mostly of PGA pros on TV) over our own experiences in evaluating golf courses? In this case, Darius had the good fortune to play or tour several Raynor courses in a short time, which is not the experirence most golfers would have with any of the holes.
I think I would be happy to play a Raynor course day after day, with only an occaisonal break.
-
How original is any par 3 ?
You hit from point "A" to point "B"
It's dictated, target golf.
Dictated? Target golf? When you have a par 3 where a foursome of low handicap golfers (less then 3) all use a different club with a different plan of attack, I'd hardly call that target golf. Haven't seen an original par 3? You need to get out more.
-
I love the 9th at Yale, tried to talk Von Hagge into doing here at Admirals Cove...was definitely talking to an individual with dumb and deaf ears.
When I was a member of the Ritz, the had a 175 island green ala the 17th a TPC iin Sawgrass. I hated that hole, especially everytime I hit it in the water or worse when I hit the green and the ball went over the back into the water.
-
Dang. Those par threes at Yale are awesome.
The folks at Contentment would say no.
WW
-
I enjoy both template and non-template holes.
There is a lot to be said about creativity, but when someone can take a template hole and actually impress by instilling some new idea or concept within the template that is creativity and template hole rolled into one...also pretty great.
-
How original is any par 3 ?
You hit from point "A" to point "B"
It's dictated, target golf.
Dictated? Target golf? When you have a par 3 where a foursome of low handicap golfers (less then 3) all use a different club with a different plan of attack, I'd hardly call that target golf. Haven't seen an original par 3? You need to get out more.
Don, some golfers fade the ball, others draw it, some hit it high, some low, some are longer/shorter than others, but, they all have the same pass/fail test... hit the ball from the tee to the green, from point "A" to point "B".
It's target golf.
You must tee up from a very limited designated area and hit to a specified target.
That's inherent in all par 3's.
-
Wade--
The funny thing is--in my opinion, at least--the par threes are not the main stars at Yale, with the exception of #9. I just did a crude ranking of my favorite holes at Yale and #9 was the only par three in the top half for me. The other par threes are by no means weak holes in the grand scheme of things, but their very-goodness is outstripped by the greatness of many of the par fours.
-
If templates are boring, why is Old Macdonald so much fun? I enjoy a good template.
-
Pat,
I always viewed target golf as when all players have to execute the shot to the same target. In the case of a par 3, if your saying all are aiming at the flag, then I guess its target golf. But if design, weather, and conditions allow for different ways to get to the pin, and each golfer chooses a different target to land the ball in an attempt to use contour and shot trajectory to get to the hole, is that really target golf?
In your definition it would seem every golf hole would be target golf.
-
I like templates - a lot. Let's come at this another way: How many pedestrian (architecturally mailed in, if you prefer) golf courses would be made more interesting with the inclusion of a few templates?
Mike
-
Templates, to me, present a fun, interesting hole, that was designed to test some aspect of your game...
For example, how could one get bored of hitting a shot to the right side of a redan, watching your ball roll disappear and roll all the way down by the back right hole location. To me, that shot just doesn't get old, so whether I'm hitting the shot into National's 4th or even any other redan, the shot can always be interesting.
Another greatness to template architecture is variety, similarity and remembrance.
Variety in that each template hole is very much different than its siblings on other courses.
Similarity in that one can notice the same style of hole, strategy, and potentially green complex.
Remembrance in that template holes (and names for that matter) allow the golfer to easily remember the hole after the round.
I also enjoy making sort of a checklist...
Try to play all the redans, biarritzes, edens, roads, alps, etc. and its always fun to compare:
"Oh that alps has a similar drive to this one but the green complex kind of looks like that one" etc.
-
Templates get really good shortly after the death of the architect.........
-
Frankly, I don't think it is the templates alone that are interesting. I think it is the routing of the courses that have templates and how the course flows that highlights the fun, concepts, and challenges imbedded in the templates.
And, for the record, I am no template guru. I've only played a few of these types of courses...NGLA, Lookout Mountain, Yeamans, Shoreacres.
-
Frankly, I don't think it is the templates alone that are interesting. I think it is the routing of the courses that have templates and how the course flows that highlights the fun, concepts, and challenges imbedded in the templates.
And, for the record, I am no template guru. I've only played a few of these types of courses...NGLA, Lookout Mountain, Yeamans, Shoreacres.
I'd agree with what you said and add that the idea of a 'template' has been part of the American golf experience for 110+ years. We all know Macdonald to be the most famous proponent, but every architect has used them sometime or another, if for no other reason than inspiration.
Maybe Oliver doesn't know this.
-
The only thing more boring than the templates is the predictable defense of them on this forum! :)
I suppose it's no surprise. For a bunch of guys who wish they were architects, it's much easier to imagine that some hole could have been a reverse Redan, than to actually come up with an original design. Of course, that's also true of many of the professionals in the business.
-
Tom,
You're an interesting/ironic guy to be taking shots at the architectural opinions of the folks on this board...
-
Tom,
You're an interesting/ironic guy to be taking shots at the architectural opinions of the folks on this board...
Jim:
When did that ever stop me from saying what I thought? I did not have to sign a non-disclosure agreement for this board!
-
Tom is pretty consistent here and one of the few things we agree on.
See this thread from a year ago:
http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,46841.0.html
-
I have always found TD's aversion to templates to be quite interesting, since the preparation for his career was so much like CB Macdonald... Both traveled far and wide, studied numerous courses (good and bad) and came to very precise opinions on what makes good or bad golf holes before they started building their first course. Both built courses that fit naturally with their surrounds. Both built courses that are challenging for top players, yet quite enjoyable for golfers of far less ability. And while Tom would never want his holes to be classified into templates, he nonetheless has repeated the features he most admires, such as great width, challenging greens, alternative lines of play for less skilled players, etc.
So I would re-phrase the question "Do templates get boring" and ask "Do great architectual design features get boring?" My answer is an emphatic NO! And I would MUCH rather player an obvious, manufactured template than a bad "original" hole!
-
I have always found TD's aversion to templates to be quite interesting, since the preparation for his career was so much like CB Macdonald... Both traveled far and wide, studied numerous courses (good and bad) and came to very precise opinions on what makes good or bad golf holes before they started building their first course. Both built courses that fit naturally with their surrounds. Both built courses that are challenging for top players, yet quite enjoyable for golfers of far less ability. And while Tom would never want his holes to be classified into templates, he nonetheless has repeated the features he most admires, such as great width, challenging greens, alternative lines of play for less skilled players, etc.
So I would re-phrase the question "Do templates get boring" and ask "Do great architectual design features get boring?" My answer is an emphatic NO! And I would MUCH rather player an obvious, manufactured template than a bad "original" hole!
Bill:
Thanks. You said that better than I did. I was partly being flippant, and partly trying to be so concise that I could easily be misunderstood.
I think the main difference between myself and C.B. Macdonald is a simple one: in my early education, I saw probably 20 times as many good golf courses as he did, because there was so much more to see. Therefore I saw a lot more than 15 or 20 holes which I could choose as possible templates. Certainly, on occasion, I go back to some of those ideas. But the bigger point was that other architects had expanded the art of golf course design by coming up with great ideas of their own, so why should I settle for any less? Why should anybody? I guess I just question the last part of your statement: why would any architect build a bad original hole?
This is a recurring argument on GCA, but it's one that needs to be repeated so none of us get too lazy. I've designed a couple of holes lately that are more or less similar to the 6th at Pacific Dunes, because it happened to fit the situation I was dealing with. What that shows is that I need to get back to seeing more courses outside of my own work, so that my inspirations aren't all repetitive.
I think that, in the end, that's what produces a reliance on templates -- the architect in question can't think outside his own box. How many other architects' courses do you think Seth Raynor was visiting in the early 20's? And how many was Jack Nicklaus or Tom Fazio seeing 5 years ago?
-
so would you consider the 6th at PD a template hole now Tom?
are there other template holes? for ex, I know 12 at Muirfield Village is a close copy to Augusta's 12th...are there others like them?
Also, do certain architects use a certain type of hole again and again in their designs?
-
Tom,
You must have missed the point...you're mocking the architecural opinions of people that pretty much unanimously rave about your work...strange.
-
No in fact I get excited at the thought of playing a new one. Of course I loved every round I have ever played on a CBM/Raynor course. They tend to be fun, strategic as well as challenging. In fact the hardest part of my move to being a west coast golfer is not playing Mountain Lake 20 or so times each season. One feels that each hour of daylight is meant to be enjoyed on the course there.
-
Tom,
You must have missed the point...you're mocking the architecural opinions of people that pretty much unanimously rave about your work...strange.
I didn't miss the point. Really.
Why would I care if people here rave about my work, if they don't believe in the need for creativity? [This also begs the question, why would they really LIKE my work if all they want is templates? Very little of my best work is actually a result of using them. It's hard to reconcile Jim Franklin's positive opinion of templates with his professed love of Rock Creek, where none of the best holes are modeled on anywhere else ... but then again, it's harder to reconcile Pat Mucci's love of the 12th hole at Garden City, if he also professes to want to see the same four par-3 holes on virtually every course.]
I am just crazy enough to want people to UNDERSTAND what they're talking about, instead of just falling for the familiar. The main reason I mistrust templates is that they make you sound like you know something, whether you do or not. I'm naturally skeptical, because over the years I've listened to lots of fellow architects quote MacKenzie or Ross as inspiration, when often their courses exhibit no appreciation of those architects' work.
-
Tom...
I assume you had these feelings about templates prior to building Old MacDonald. What was the #1 thing you tried to inject into the template based course that you felt was missing from the prior ones? (FYI, I think I can make a guess...but I'd love to hear your thoughts first).
-
Tom,
You must have missed the point...you're mocking the architecural opinions of people that pretty much unanimously rave about your work...strange.
I didn't miss the point. Really.
Why would I care if people here rave about my work, if they don't believe in the need for creativity? [This also begs the question, why would they really LIKE my work if all they want is templates?
Tom, how would you describe the 17th hole at Pacific Dunes ?
A redan ?
Very little of my best work is actually a result of using them.
No one doubts that.
It's hard to reconcile Jim Franklin's positive opinion of templates with his professed love of Rock Creek, where none of the best holes are modeled on anywhere else ...
but then again, it's harder to reconcile Pat Mucci's love of the 12th hole at Garden City, if he also professes to want to see the same four par-3 holes on virtually every course.]
I never professed to want to see the same four par 3 holes on virtually every course.
Would you cite where I made that statement
As to the 12th hole at Garden City, it is so wonderfully unique that it begged restoration.
But, you fought restoring it because it wasn't your idea.
Just like you fought shifting the 7th fairway back to its 1936 location and restoring the long trench bunker paralleling it.
You may recall, and I can produce the correspondence, that you offered a half assed rendering of # 12.
Then, when I convinced the entire green committee and the chairman that the hole should be restored, you agreed.
Then, subsequently, you undermined the project by coming out against the restoration and re-recommending a variation of the half assed rendering you previously presented.
Don't bring up our respective roles in the restoration or failure to restore the 12th at Garden City.
I am just crazy enough to want people to UNDERSTAND what they're talking about, instead of just falling for the familiar.
The main reason I mistrust templates is that they make you sound like you know something, whether you do or not.
I'm naturally skeptical, because over the years I've listened to lots of fellow architects quote MacKenzie or Ross as inspiration, when often their courses exhibit no appreciation of those architects' work.
Tom, no one is attacking your creativity because you choose not to employ or over-employ templates.
The fact remains, that 100 years after their creation, they remain fun to play.
Give the Devil his due.
-
I think that, in the end, that's what produces a reliance on templates -- the architect in question can't think outside his own box. How many other architects' courses do you think Seth Raynor was visiting in the early 20's? And how many was Jack Nicklaus or Tom Fazio seeing 5 years ago?
[/quote]
From what I have learned, I would guess that Raynor saw very few other great courses beyond the ones he built with CBM. I think Raynor is unique in so many ways because he did not play the game, learned at the side of one great architect, and that architect stressed template features. And when people requested Raynor, they were, IMO, requesting a course built upon the principles that Macdonald had formulated. I disagree that Raynor could not "think outside his own box." I think he could have, if that is what he was hired to do. Look at what Raynor was able to do with Yale, by all accounts a great engineering feat, and tell me he could not have done something different IF that was what he was asked to do. People hired him for that type of box, not to build a new box...
I happen to think Fishers Island is his best course. But it is not a great course because of the templates. Rather, it is great because of it's location, excellent "links" soil, the way the course fits with it's surrounds. And because the template features are grounded in great golfing features, Raynor combined all of this into a great course. If the owners of Fishers Island had said, "Seth, we want to hire you to build a course, but we are tired of CBM's template features, do something different" I have no doubt that the reults would have been equally breathtaking.
-
Patrick:
I exaggerated your love of the templates as an example to show how people professing love for the Eden, the Redan, the Short and the Biarritz were leaving no room for any of the other great par-3 holes in the world, and how silly that would be. I tried to pick a par-3 I knew you liked. I had no intention of getting into Garden City business.
I do not concur with your purported history of our roles at Garden City Golf Club in relation to hole #12. For one, it's absolute total bullshit that I fought restoring it "because it wasn't my idea". Restoration is all about putting back someone else's ideas, and I've done more of that work than anyone who participates here. As for "half-assed renderings", that's really about as good as my drawings get. :) Getting things built is the part I'm good at.
I think you've got the sequence of events very wrong, and also the facts as to who's on your side and who's not in that battle. However, it would be unprofessional of me to air those details on this forum, as it's a matter between the client [that's the club] and architect. Perhaps you should consider whether your position as a member and green committee member makes it inappropriate for you to make such statements, as well.
-
I think that, in the end, that's what produces a reliance on templates -- the architect in question can't think outside his own box. How many other architects' courses do you think Seth Raynor was visiting in the early 20's? And how many was Jack Nicklaus or Tom Fazio seeing 5 years ago?
From what I have learned, I would guess that Raynor saw very few other great courses beyond the ones he built with CBM. I think Raynor is unique in so many ways because he did not play the game, learned at the side of one great architect, and that architect stressed template features. And when people requested Raynor, they were, IMO, requesting a course built upon the principles that Macdonald had formulated. I disagree that Raynor could not "think outside his own box." I think he could have, if that is what he was hired to do. Look at what Raynor was able to do with Yale, by all accounts a great engineering feat, and tell me he could not have done something different IF that was what he was asked to do. People hired him for that type of box, not to build a new box...
I happen to think Fishers Island is his best course. But it is not a great course because of the templates. Rather, it is great because of it's location, excellent "links" soil, the way the way the course fits with it's surrounds. And because the template features are grounded in great golfing features, Raynor combined all of this into a great course. If the owners of Fishers Island had said, "Seth, we want to hire you to build a course, but we are tired of CBM's template feature, do something different" I have no doubt that the reults would have been equally breathtaking.
[/quote]
Bill:
Is the above anything beyond wishful thinking on your part? Did ANY of Seth Raynor's clients ever ask him to do something different, and if so, what did he build for them that was different? I'm not saying he COULDN'T have, I'm just saying he DIDN'T.
I also think you give his clients too much credit. I think a lot of them probably had no idea what they wanted ... even more so than today's clients, because the clients of 90 years ago had not seen nearly as many courses as today's clients do. I don't think they called and demanded templates; I think they wanted the guy who built The National and Mid Ocean, and they just asked him to build them a great course because they figured he must know how to do it.
-
Tom Doak:
Why would I care if people here rave about my work, if they don't believe in the need for creativity? [This also begs the question, why would they really LIKE my work if all they want is templates?
Who ever said "all I want is templates"?
It's possible to like both chocolate and vanilla... I'd say a good percentage of us do.
-
It is not wishful thinking, just logical thinking. If he could figure out a way to build template features at a site as difficult as Yale, I reason that he could figure out a way to NOT build templates if that was the direction given by is clients. I agree with you that he probably was never given this direction.
TD, I have always chuckled at your mild criticisms of Raynor's work. Because as important as Mackanzie, Macdonald and others were in educating you on what you liked, IMO Raynor played a major role in steering you away from an over-reliance on the works of past greats. If there was no Raynor, would you have developed that belief as firmly as you did?
-
I haven't played many "official" template holes, but I have seen countless versions (afterall, a template is just a version of the original anyway) of templates - we all have. From my perspective, what really sets official templates apart is the stark shaping (often because the site wasn't suitable for a template so it was just constructed) and the expectation that all four par 3s will (should????) be present. The only template which really stands out as unique is the Biarritz. The green complex just isn't seen anywhere else by chance so it must necessarily be built intentionally. The other three templates exist in nature as it were and it makes sense to use nature when possible. Now, I could easily tire of the Biarritz. I understand the concept of a runner, but I would think much of the time for the theme to work (and for many it is the only way to play the hole so it is limiting in its playability) the course must be f&f. Otherwise, its penal target golf to the max with the player trying to whack a long club up what is essentially a narrow gut. Of course, one can lay back and that brings me to the next point. I think the concept of the Biarritz would work better as short par 4. So no, as long as we include all the templates we encounter along the golf highway I would't get bored except for the Biarritz. Everything has to be clicking for this type of hole not to get old fast.
Ciao
-
"The main reason I mistrust templates is that they make you sound like you know something, whether you do or not. I'm naturally skeptical, because over the years I've listened to lots of fellow architects quote MacKenzie or Ross as inspiration, when often their courses exhibit no appreciation of those architects' work." TD
That pretty much nails it. The problem with templates is not that they aren't good holes. It's that they tend to choke off the architectural thought process. Having neat, replicable hole concepts that function as stand-in's for what are complicated design ideas can do that.
Crystal Downs is a wonderful example of a course where the land presents any number of template opportunities. MacK must have seen that from his first day on the property. But he went in another direction and CD is a better course for it.
Bob
-
Very interesting discussion, thanks gents. It reminds of the metaphor a writer once used to describe why living a principled life was hard, i.e. he noted that the rules of chess weren't there to make the game easier, but to make it harder - the alternative being (in the absence of any rules) no game at all. It stuck me as related to this discussion, i.e. the principles that lie behind the great golf holes that have become templates weren't 'intended' to make it easier for architects to copy those templates over and over again, but to make architects work harder than ever at finding and manifesting those principles in unique ways and on ever-new/different pieces of land.
Actually, maybe that's a poor analogy, but I'll stick with it.
Peter
-
Peter
As a matter of interest, how many template holes did you think you played in your recent trip to Scotland ?
Niall
-
Nothing wrong with templates per se; it's the creative riffing, if you will, of the architect and the shapers that can lead to a form of expression on the land that can enable and ennoble the playing of the game. Or it can lead to a form of monotony which only dullards and xerox machines could enjoy. I like good template holes, playful reincarnations and bold takes on the form that create enjoyment on the course and debate in the bar.
-
I went golfing on a recent trip back to the NE with a bunch of my grandfather's buddies. They all have been playing golf for 40+ years and not one of them could tell you what a template hole was or looked like. Is this not the norm?
If we argue on this site for designers that design for the common people (the 90 some-odd % of golfers that are above a 10 handicap), those same people that couldn't tell you the difference between a Redan or an Eden, why is it essential that a template be placed on courses? Those 'average Joe' golfers are still interested in the game and obviously don't get bored by any means with both non-template AND template holes alike.
-
Something I've found enjoyable about template holes is that even on my first visit to a golf course, I understand how to play a hole. If you stand on a tee and know it's a redan, you dial in the draw to get to a back left pin, etc. For example, I played in an outing at Forsgate recently. When I got to the hole-in-one hole (#7), I knew it was a reverse redan. I hit it where I was supposed to and almost jarred it. Was it fun? You bet, but some of the mystery was gone too. If you played a course with a lot of templates every day (e.g. Yale) I can see how that might get a bit repetitive. I do think some of the beauty of some template holes is how different they can play from day to day.
Tom, I'd be curious to have your thoughts on this, but on most courses a given holes plays roughly the same from day to day. But think of how differently, for example a Double Plateau can with the pin on one of three levels or a Biarritz plays with the pin in the bottom vs. front vs. top. Of course some of this has to do with the severity of the greens which could be recreated elsewhere and courses with interesting greens can have holes that play differently depending on pin location. Template holes, in my opinion, do an excellent job of adding day-to-day interest. Good, creative holes can do the same thing elsewhere.
I think to some extent a lot of us on this forum love template holes because there's a certain amount of familiarity with them. By getting to know the template, we can step on a lot of golf courses and "know" that course a little bit. On one hand, that's great because you have a feel for a course the first time you play it. On the other, it does remove some of the nuance of discovering the intricacies of a course over time.
Lastly, the CBM/Raynor templates are fun because the features are big. Using the features is fairly easy. It's not like playing Augusta where you have to be a professional to control your ball enough to use some of the green features. A decent player has a fighting chance of using the big features in play. In my opinion, that's also why CBM/Raynor courses don't stand up to pros as well (i.e. pros eat them up) and have been less able to adapt to modern equipment.
-
Something I've found enjoyable about template holes is that even on my first visit to a golf course, I understand how to play a hole. If you stand on a tee and know it's a redan, you dial in the draw to get to a back left pin, etc. For example, I played in an outing at Forsgate recently. When I got to the hole-in-one hole (#7), I knew it was a reverse redan. I hit it where I was supposed to and almost jarred it. Was it fun? You bet, but some of the mystery was gone too. If you played a course with a lot of templates every day (e.g. Yale) I can see how that might get a bit repetitive. I do think some of the beauty of some template holes is how different they can play from day to day.
Tom, I'd be curious to have your thoughts on this, but on most courses a given holes plays roughly the same from day to day. But think of how differently, for example a Double Plateau can with the pin on one of three levels or a Biarritz plays with the pin in the bottom vs. front vs. top. Of course some of this has to do with the severity of the greens which could be recreated elsewhere and courses with interesting greens can have holes that play differently depending on pin location. Template holes, in my opinion, do an excellent job of adding day-to-day interest. Good, creative holes can do the same thing elsewhere.
I think to some extent a lot of us on this forum love template holes because there's a certain amount of familiarity with them. By getting to know the template, we can step on a lot of golf courses and "know" that course a little bit. On one hand, that's great because you have a feel for a course the first time you play it. On the other, it does remove some of the nuance of discovering the intricacies of a course over time.
Lastly, the CBM/Raynor templates are fun because the features are big. Using the features is fairly easy. It's not like playing Augusta where you have to be a professional to control your ball enough to use some of the green features. A decent player has a fighting chance of using the big features in play. In my opinion, that's also why CBM/Raynor courses don't stand up to pros as well (i.e. pros eat them up) and have been less able to adapt to modern equipment.
David- I don`t know anybody that has played Yale on a consistent basis that finds any of the templates repetitive. I guess you would also have to include National and Fishers as repetitive as well if that is the basis for that claim.
-
Interesting comments. I am not sure I have played enough "templates" to be qualified to answer but I would venture to say that it depends at least in part on how we understand the concept of supposed "templates." I tend toward CBM and HJ Whigham's view on the subject, As I understand their approach, variety was obtained in through the following:
1. Variety within the Round. An ironic aspect of "template" discussion is that the the template approach was meant to attain variety, not suppress it. But the focus was not on whether supposed templates from course to course were the same or different, the focus was on maximizing the variety the golfer would face within the round. This was a critical aspect of CBM's approach -- significantly varying the challenged the golfer would face from shot to shot and hole to hole. It is no coincidence that the par three templates are spaced from one end of the distance spectrum to the other with about 30 yards in between each! It was each of them was supposed to represent a unique challenge. Frankly, most modern architects, including some the good ones, could learn a lot about variety if they would try to adhere to such a formulaic requirement as substantial spacing on the distances required on the par threes. Such variety sure beats multiple holes of the same general length and character, whether some of those holes happened to be decent or not. Same goes for the two shot holes. Varying the distances and shots presented. is a lot less mundane and a lot more interesting than a parade of mid length par fours.
I think some around here forget that not every golfer hops around the globe playing one great course after another. I would venture to say that most serious golfers play most of their golf on one or a few courses. If that is the case, then isn't attaining variety within a round a much more laudable goal than attaining variety from course to course?
2.Variety From Play to Play of the Same Hole. Another place where supposed "templates" sometimes shine is that they present the golfer with a variety of options depending upon the wind conditions and circumstance of the match and present golfers of differing abilities with different ways to play the hole. I won't belabor this point, but see the article mentioned above for the different options presented by NGLA's Redan under different conditions. The idea behind many of the templates is to create variety, even within the holes themselves.
3. Variety Depending upon the Site. This is the kind of variety on which most people focus when discussing templates, but I am not sure it should be. As I said above, it just isn't an issue for most golfers, who spend most their time on a limited number of courses. That said, I don't think that CBM was as formulaic with his supposed templates as people seem to think, at least not initially. For example, in their 1914 article on the Redan concept CBM and HJ Whigham noted that the underlying principle of the Redan could be applied "with an infinite number of variations on any course," and that "the local scenery [I would say the natural setting] provides the variety." While this view is obviously wider than many here would accept, CBM and HJW seem to be pretty good sources on the subject, and the holes mentioned in that single article (the Redans at North Berwick, NGLA, Piping Rock, the reversed Redans at Merion and Sleepy Hollow, and the "beautiful short hole with the Redan principle at Pine Valley") give one an variety they thought possible.
People get caught up so much on whether a hole should be classified as a "template" or not, that they tend to forget that one of the initial ideas behind the templates was to teach general principles so they could be used in a variety of situations, depending on the site. And if one breaks down interesting holes, some of the same basic concepts underlying the templates crop up again and again, whether or not the hole would or should be identified as a template or not.
Are templates necessary to attain the kind of variety discussed in points one and two above? Obviously not. But many non-template designers would design much better courses if they would pay a bit more attention to these things.
________________________________________________
Tom Doak wrote:
I think the main difference between myself and C.B. Macdonald is a simple one: in my early education, I saw probably 20 times as many good golf courses as he did, because there was so much more to see. Therefore I saw a lot more than 15 or 20 holes which I could choose as possible templates. Certainly, on occasion, I go back to some of those ideas. But the bigger point was that other architects had expanded the art of golf course design by coming up with great ideas of their own, so why should I settle for any less? Why should anybody? . . .
Tom,
No doubt you saw many more good golf holes that CBM had at the time he designed NGLA. Nonetheless, I am not sure it is accurate to suggest that he had seen "15 or 20 holes" which he could choose as possible templates.
In his article on the Ideal Golf Course written in 1906 he listed out eighteen holes on a hypothetical ideal course, but he then wrote; "I have notes on many holes equally as good as a number of the above, but this list will convey to the mind of the reader a fair idea of what I have cleaned during the past few months [of study] as constituting the perfect length of hole consistent with variety." He seems more concerned with getting variety and variance of distances than adhering to these holes in particular, and was perhaps offering up these particular holes to provide an example of such variety.
Likewise, earlier in 1906 he wrote of having studied 1000's of holes:
"In the thousands of holes I have played and studied abroad with one idea in view, the principles that make up a good hole have cropped up again and again. I found myself classifying the holes on their basic principles, forming them into groups in which their desirable features were due to the reproduction of the same characteristics. On the new course these principles will be introduced to give attractiveness to each hole, and, according to the nature of the land finally selected, some three or four of the holes may be exactly resembled.
Perhaps "thousand's" was an exaggeration, but what is interesting to me is that his focus was on the underlying principles which made holes good rather than on the specifics of the holes themselves. That said, as CBM implied with his reference to the three or four holes that he might copy more closely, there were the smaller group of core holes that seem to have been more important to him and that pop up again and again.
Did CBM ever force these core holes onto a property where they just did not fit with the land?
-
Tom, I'd be curious to have your thoughts on this, but on most courses a given holes plays roughly the same from day to day. But think of how differently, for example a Double Plateau can with the pin on one of three levels or a Biarritz plays with the pin in the bottom vs. front vs. top. Of course some of this has to do with the severity of the greens which could be recreated elsewhere and courses with interesting greens can have holes that play differently depending on pin location. Template holes, in my opinion, do an excellent job of adding day-to-day interest. Good, creative holes can do the same thing elsewhere.
I think to some extent a lot of us on this forum love template holes because there's a certain amount of familiarity with them.
---
Lastly, the CBM/Raynor templates are fun because the features are big. Using the features is fairly easy. It's not like playing Augusta where you have to be a professional to control your ball enough to use some of the green features. A decent player has a fighting chance of using the big features in play. In my opinion, that's also why CBM/Raynor courses don't stand up to pros as well (i.e. pros eat them up) and have been less able to adapt to modern equipment.
David:
Your last point is interesting. I'd always thought the reason pros eat up Macdonald/Raynor courses is just because they're so short, but you are also correct that the features and slopes in the greens are much easier to use than MacKenzie's [or mine].
I would also agree that familiarity is a reason for the success of templates.
But your earlier paragraph is the reason I object to templates. My experience in the UK was that golf holes were not the same at all from one day to the next, because of the wind. I remember hitting 6-iron to the Redan at North Berwick the first time I played it, and 3-wood from the same tee two days later! Longer holes are short par-4's downwind and par-5's when it's blowing in your face. So, I've always tried to build holes that allow for wild swings of mood, whether it's due to the wind or the tee locations or the variety of hole locations on the green. Yes, some of the template greens do offer some wild hole locations -- think of the Short hole at National!! -- but the general impression they give is that "this hole is the same as that other one I played".
-
I have only played a few template courses. I am not completely sold yet but time will tell. My favorite template hills so far have been C&C's version of the short on most of their courses and Doak's version of the redan at Pacific. The holes felt more natural to me. I personally rather see an original golf course with some templates mixed in. As much as I love Old Mac I would choose Pacific 7 out of every 10 times. Once again I have only played Shoreacres, Chicago, and Blue Mound. I still need to see more. Out of those three Chicago is the only one that really blew me away. Shoreacres was very good but I wasn't in love.
-
David M
I spose I am one of those folks you are leaning on about general themes of templates being the important issue. No argument there, but at some point, when enough elements aren't present, then we can no longer use the moniker. The obvious template for this misuse is the Redan because it is the best template of the lot and some version of it seen most often - in my experience anyway. Where is the line drawn between a Redan, a Redanish hole, a hole with some Redan-like qualities or just an L shaped green on a plateau? I know you think it is semantics, but I contend the individual elements are important in making up the final product. Let us take the uphill element as an example. This encourages (or at the very least offers the option - which is very important for a huge percentage of players) a more running shot which then enables the green shaping & contours and front bunkers to be more pertinent than if a so-called Redan plays downhill. Furthermore, the uphill sort encourages f&f conditions (which has all sorts of implications for golf design) while the downhill version does not. Okay, I understand that more modern sensibilities demand that seeing the target is more important than original design principles. Indeed, seeing the target is a design principle itself. However, that doesn't mean that we have the same sort of hole by any means - certainly not one that can be described using what is essentially a descriptive moniker - "Redan". This in no way means that anybody can't or shouldn't roll off a theme, but it is very misleading to use a specific moniker when the hole doesn't meet the basic criteria of the elements involved.
Question for folks - for the average Joe, does the Biarritz really play all that different from day to day? It strikes me as a hole so long and narrow that most folks just hit a long club and hope to have a decent shot which enables them to garner a 4.
Ciao
-
David M
Question for folks - for the average Joe, does the Biarritz really play all that different from day to day? It strikes me as a hole so long and narrow that most folks just hit a long club and hope to have a decent shot which enables them to garner a 4.
Ciao
Sean,
Since I was Grounds Chair and part of a restoration committeee when we converted the front portion to green-height, I have carefully watched how members of all ability play this hole. The "average Joes" who can't hit it far take driver and play for the ball to roll through the swale. For these guys, the green height (and much firmer) front section really helps them have a chance to reach the back. For the "average Joe" who can hit it far, I notice an increasing number playing for the run up rather than trying to fly the ball to the back. Tee placement seems to be critical to the choice, since the hole can vary in length from 210 to 235 yards. So I think for many players, the hole does offer good variety. Each time I play it I have to work through this question: can I hit it high and far enough to make the ball hold if I carry to the back, or should I play it to run through the swale? Sadly, I almost always choose to fly it because I can't seem to keep my "less than full" swing straight, and I end up in the front bunkers.
The sticks NEVER play for the runner! Even if they have to hit a high cut driver into the wind, it is 245-260 from the back tee, they are just programmed to try to carry the ball to the pin.
-
Sean,
Most of C.B. Macdonald's and H.J. Whigham's examples of "Redans" don't even qualify as Redans under your standard. That ought to tell us something about the disconnect between the modern understanding of "templates" vs. the original understanding. I'll go with C.B. Macdonald's and H.J. Whigham's explanation and examples over your more formal definitions and requirements ever time. But then we have covered this plenty before, haven't we? Do we really need to go through it again here and risk derailing the thread?
______________________________________________
Bill Brightly,
Interesting description of how your Biarritz plays. Your remarks hint at something that I suspect was essential to the original conception underling some of these templates --how these holes were meant to pray upon the ego of the better players. Some of the "variety" seems to have been dependent upon giving the better player a slim chance of pulling off the perfect shot, thus goading the better player into hitting a "nearly good" shot and leading to an unsuccessful outcome.
-
Tom - Even though I enjoy a good template hole (NGLA, Fishers, Chicago GC...) why would that exclude me from appreciating a talented original (Rock Creek, Sand Hills, Victoria National...)? Maybe Rock Creek is in my top 5 BECAUSE it is so original. NGLA is also in my top 5 BECAUSE the templates are so good. Why can't a golfer like both?
-
I think Jim makes a really good point. I think excellent golf courses can come in various shapes and sizes.
-
Patrick:
I exaggerated your love of the templates as an example to show how people professing love for the Eden, the Redan, the Short and the Biarritz were leaving no room for any of the other great par-3 holes in the world, and how silly that would be.
Exaggerated ? Perhaps misrepresented would be more apt. ;D
I think you know me well enough to know that I like variety in golf holes, while at the same time knowing that I also enjoy playing templates.
They seem timeless in that the fun and challenge remain even though there's an inate repetiion in them.
When you consider that many, if not most, remain intact, nearly 100 years after their creation, you have to think that they have intrinsic enduring values, otherwise they would have been altered beyond recognition.
I tried to pick a par-3 I knew you liked. I had no intention of getting into Garden City business.
Then perhaps you shouldn't have mentioned that hole.
We both know that the current version is seriously lacking and that the original was very well regarded by many.
I'm rather passionate about that hole as I think the current version is so out of architectural context with the balance of the golf course.
Mel Lucas wrote to me personally and provided a wealth of information as to how the hole was allowed to fall from grace/greatness into mediocrity.
And yet, almost 50 years after the disfiguration, the hole has been allowed to stand
I do not concur with your purported history of our roles at Garden City Golf Club in relation to hole #12.
I'm fairly confident that my recollection is very accurate.
For one, it's absolute total bullshit that I fought restoring it "because it wasn't my idea".
Now Tom, we all have our egos.
You have yours and I have mine.
You're a very talented architect, no one questions that.
But sometimes, "pride of authorship" gets in everyone's way.
Just look at Washington, D.C. for exhibit "A"
If you had continued to champion the restoration effort, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
So, let's leave it at that.
Restoration is all about putting back someone else's ideas, and I've done more of that work than anyone who participates here. As for "half-assed renderings", that's really about as good as my drawings get. :) Getting things built is the part I'm good at.
We had a great opportunity, that unfortunately was lost.
I think you've got the sequence of events very wrong, and also the facts as to who's on your side and who's not in that battle.
Anything's possible, but, I feel comfortable with my position.
However, it would be unprofessional of me to air those details on this forum, as it's a matter between the client [that's the club] and architect. Perhaps you should consider whether your position as a member and green committee member makes it inappropriate for you to make such statements, as well.
Without criticism, progress is impossible.
Ditto restorations. ;D
Remember, I didn't bring my name, Garden City's name and the 12th hole up.....................you did.
-
I am not sure if templates would get boring, but would anyone on this site turn down a chance to play NGLA every day to find out?
-
I am not sure if templates would get boring, but would anyone on this site turn down a chance to play NGLA every day to find out?
No.
-
I haven't been bored by them (as of yet) because they are not them same holes.
Think the alps at NGLA and Yeamans. Not the same.
Think same courses and the versions of the Cape. Not the same.
I could go on, but I think you get my point.
Add in good land and an interesting routing and you have a total different experience.
-
I second Mr. Moriarty esq. point on playing to the ego of better players with the Biarritz, because even though I'm no great shake with a stick, I'm no stranger to ego.
-
The only thing more boring than the templates is the predictable defense of them on this forum! :)
I suppose it's no surprise. For a bunch of guys who wish they were architects, it's much easier to imagine that some hole could have been a reverse Redan, than to actually come up with an original design. Of course, that's also true of many of the professionals in the business.
So Old Macdonald is boring? I loved it.
I have no desire to be an architect either. I am happy to play the courses the real geniuses come up with. It is like music. I have no desire to learn how to play guitar; I would rather hear Stevie Ray Vaughn play.
-
Templates do not bore me. They have architectural merit and I have yet to see two that were exactly the same. Even with regards to the "Short" hole, I have played a few but have never played two greens that were exactly the same.
-
Templates, although sharing the same principle of design, are vastly different from course to course...besides the par 3's (whose templates are very much more similar), all other templates are so incredibly different and yet they present the golfer with a great hole.
Take the alps hole, the 17th at Prestwick..
Having played this hole, I can say that the Alps at National, Fishers, Yeaman's, Essex County CC, etc. are all very very different. The idea, concept is the same but the holes are completely all unique.
Take the road hole, 17th at TOC
This hole is also very different from course to course, and although most are slight doglegs to the right, some are straight away or slight diagonal carries and some are even dogleg rights as North Shore CC.
On top of all the variety presented in each template hole from course to course, one must also recognize that they are not 18 distinct templates on every course, most only have a handful. The rest of the holes are usually strategically unique to the course and often are very strong holes.
-
Given his long tenure on this site, Paul Thomas asking this question is like shooting fish in a barrel when it comes to creating an active thread :)
One of the things I like most about template features is that, by definition, the architect is linking us to the history of the game. Wether it be CBM, his assistants, or modern architects, they all are saying: "I recognize that there are great old holes that were built by someone else (or nature) and they are so noteworthy that I will use them as inspiration for the hole I am designing. I trust that the playing characteristics will translate into good golf in the future." This entices us to learn about the original hole, and also where else the features have been employed. How can that not be a good thing?
-
"......replicas do get less interesting the more you see of them."
Agree with the above quote? Is repetition of the templates any worse than a modern architect producing similar and/or mudane holes?
I can't say I agree with that quote - for mine its more of a quality argument. Do "great" golf courses get less interesting the more you see of them ?
That said - some of the templates I've seen still lag behind the original's ie: TOC's Eden and NB's Redan.
-
I just played Old Mac. The templates were really great. Some of the best versions I've seen. But the non-template holes were the best holes on the course.
Great course. Great templates. Sublime original holes.
Food for thought, I guess.
-
KP: by that do you mean the original Redan and Eden are your favourite holes if those types.
I'd agree re Eden, not re Redan.