[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

With all of the land that CBM had at his disposal at Yale, why do you feel that the routing he chose was adventursome ?

[wsmorrison]

"Why are you guys getting on Hunt...he was just expressing his opinion? Is he the first to disagree with Wayne?"

Who's getting on Hunt.  I was having a discussion with him, it wasn't a heated dispute.  I'm fine with him loving the golf course and disagreeing with me.  You're right it is far from the first time and won't be the last.  So what?  Its a big world and there's plenty of room in it for me and Hunt.  I'd like to play golf with him someday, on a Raynor or anywhere else and chat about things like this.  I'd like to play golf with you someday too, Tom!

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I've tried a few times to get Tom MacWood to offer some specifics about his statements about naturalism and adventurous routings.  I hope you have better luck getting an answer  

[T_MacWood]

Pat
The first thing that struck me about Yale was the site, I don't know too many architects in 1924 who would have had the guts to take on that rugged site. And the golf course reflects that rugged site, as compared to Cascades which is much more graceful IMO.

Other examples: The bold use of water at holes like three, four and eight. The course has perhaps the most dramatic set of tees of any course I've seen (not mention the placement of some of the greens). And adventuresome is the number of completely unique and frankly wild holes--like ten, fourteen, seventeen and eighteen.

This was golf course designed for a student body!? They must of had some pretty tough students back there is 1926!

How would you compare the routing of Cascades to Yale and Cape Breton?

[T_MacWood]

"I've tried a few times to get Tom MacWood to offer some specifics about his statements about naturalism and adventurous routings.  I hope you have better luck getting an answer."

Wayne,
When was that?

[wsmorrison]

"I've tried a few times to get Tom MacWood to offer some specifics about his statements about naturalism and adventurous routings.  I hope you have better luck getting an answer."

Wayne,
When was that?

Reply#40

I haven't seen enough of Raynor, so I am not arguing from a position of strength, so Tom MacWood, would you please give some examples where and why the routing is so good especially as regards utilizing natural features?  

It seems there would be plenty at Yale but how about other places?  You used the term "exceedingly" that sure seems like a stretch.

Reply#46

Tom MacWood,

I think you have to understand the amount of engineering to understand the demands that existed prior to the routing and hole designs at Cascades.  To appreciate the vision to route the course as it was, you have to understand what faced teh architect in the beginning and not view it as it is today.  It must be among the highest engineered courses ever built, after Lido and Indian Creek that is.

Please give me specific examples of the exceedingly natural uses of features on Raynor courses.

"The first thing that struck me about Yale was the site, I don't know too many architects in 1924 who would have had the guts to take on that rugged site. And the golf course reflects that rugged site, as compared to Cascades which is much more graceful IMO."

Now, Tom.  Please tell me again why you are not considering the site before Flynn got to the Cascades and the result after his design and construction efforts when you say that Yale or Cape Breton was a more rugged site.  Do you know what it took to create the current site of the golf course?  Did you know that Tillinghast said the site was unsuitable for a good golf course?  This fact alone demonstrates that Flynn was able to "see" a great golf course that wasn't there.  

I'm not taking anything away from Yale or Cape Breton--I can't not knowing much about either one.  But I do think the way you look at the site today is not the whole picture.

You want to talk about guts?  Try looking at the site for the new golf course at Eagles Mere in upstate PA.  That also took guts, gonads or whatever.

[Hunt]

Wayne-

#5
Folks that don't like blind shots and also don't like punchbowls probably won't like #5. Certainly, you are entitled to your opinion.

After going through the tough 2-4 stretch this is a nice breather hole. Long hitters that go for the green in two can take a big number if not accurate.

Close attention to this green reveals shots hit left don't feed to the middle very much. Shots hit right do much more so.

There is a handle on the punchbowl-as you may recall-that is on the right. The punchbowl effect is detrimental here as ball feed away. I'll try to post some pics later to emphasize the point.

#16
I suggest you look at the course profile and see Ran's pics of the reverse redan more closely. This shot plays anywhere from 160 to 195 with a crosswind prevailing. The cant is about three feet from front left to back right. (Note that the stairs were pulled a year ago and the bunkering was restored).

To my point made earlier-the cant was not designed as severely as others as CB Mac felt this was to be for the club player. I would personally like to see the cant more severe but is still a very tough par when the greens are rolling at a 9.

When did you play here? Your pics indicate late fall or winter.

#18
Short par 4 of 410 but plays much larger. Counter to your orginal argument, this hole uses the natural terrain very well.

A tee shot of 240 carry is required to get up the hill otherwise you are staring a 190-200 yard approach shot to this green with that large bunker guarding it.

It's a great finishing hole IMO.

Hunt

[wsmorrison]

Hunt,

No, it wasn't late in the year, it was a 60 degree day this past January!  I was out visiting my twin brother who had his first kid in his second marriage.

I found a lot to like about SLCC.  It is a very good golf course.  I guess it does come down to taste, but I have some negative thoughts on some of the holes.  No big deal, that's just my subjective take on the golf there.

As for 18 being natural, maybe I misread the topography, but it sure looks like they dug a big hole in the ground to put that bunker and green site in that completely hidden hollow.  Again, my preference up the hill would have been a nice skyline green.  That's me.  I'm not right and you wrong.  Probably the other way around since so many agree with you.  It is an exceptional club with a fine golf course.  Is it one of my favorites?  No.  It sounds like it is one of yours and I can see why some such as yourselves would feel that way.

If ever you find yourself in the Philadelphia area, I would hope we can meet and have a chat--on a golf course if possible.

[Hunt]

Wayne,

January greens at SLCC are a lot like putting on a wet sponge. Because of the course's age, poa is all over the place and does not leave until the weather heats up.

Playing it firm and faster may have left you with a different opinion. Who knows?

You are correct about the bunker on 18-I was refering to the natural terrain used from tee to the green complex.

SLCC is one of my favorites. I never get bored playing it. The series of options, lies and green contours make it a great experience each and every round.

Yes, you and I disagree on this one but TEP's Big World Theory allows for that .

If in Philly, I'll look you up!

Hunt

[SPDB]

How is SLCC #8 (if I remember correctly) getting left out of this discussion. The use of the creek is terrific....and natural.

[T_MacWood]

“It seems there would be plenty at Yale but how about other places?  You used the term "exceedingly" that sure seems like a stretch.”

Wayne

I’m sorry that my response wasn’t up to par. Without boring everyone with a hole-by-hole description of Yale, Shoreacres, Camargo and Fishers Island I’ll try to give my impression of why these routings work so well.

Each is blessed with an interesting site. Yale a rugged hilly site with low swampy areas (converted into lakes), Shoreacres deep ravines and meandering stream, Camargo rolling hills combined with ravines, Fishers Island rolling coastline and lagoons.

IMO the reason Raynor’s courses are so natural is due to his ability to meld and bring out the naturalness of the site. When the opportunity presented itself, he utilized natural green sites, like the 2nd Yale or the 4th at Fishers Island. But the key to why his courses are so natural in my view, is due to his manufactured greens, the one feature many of his detractors point to. He was able to place greens near, or sometimes in, the most interesting natural features of the given site—taking full advantage of the sites natural attributes, which is the main ingredient of well-routed course IMO.

Another reason his courses are exceedingly natural IMO, is because he moved very little dirt tee to green. When I look out over a course like The Creek or Chicago, I don’t see the manufactured features but the beautiful natural land, which was left largely intact.

“Now, Tom.  Please tell me again why you are not considering the site before Flynn got to the Cascades and the result after his design and construction efforts when you say that Yale or Cape Breton was a more rugged site.”

I didn’t say that Yale was a more rugged site than Cascades. What I said was finished product was more rugged, Cascades more graceful. Yale reflects the ruggedness of the natural site better than Cascades in my opinion.

Raw vs. Refined.

SPDB
I agree with you. The 8th is one of the more unique holes you'll find, most likely because it maximizes Mother Nature in the form of the bending creek as you described.

[TEPaul]

"....he utilized natural green sites, like the 2nd Yale or the 4th at Fishers Island."

Tom MacWood:

Excuse my French but you're so full of crap I can scarcely believe my ears. If you happen to have a Fishers Island book as I do right in front of me--I'd ask you to turn to the pages on the 4th hole. There're a bunch of great photos of the 4th green including a great one from behind it. It's a beautiful and dramatic basic green site indeed hanging right on the coastline as it does but that app 6 foot high circular berm completely surrounding the green is about as man-made and engineered looking and as unnatural looking compared to all the other natural topography and natural contours as far as the eye can see as it could possible get.

And then I'd ask you to turn to the previous hole and check out that enormous platform green sticking about ten feet high straight out of the ground. And even the enormous manufactured looking platform of the biarritz on the 5th hole.

This is definitely not to say that these holes do not play great because they do but if you actually think those greens look NATURAL, I'm afraid you may have eyes but you most definitely do not see well!

[TEPaul]

"Another reason his courses are exceedingly natural IMO, is because he moved very little dirt tee to green."

Tom MacWood:

Back in the teens and early 1920s who the hell did move much dirt between tee and green unless they absolutely had to to overcome some major problem to a decent hole and make something work? Tell me which architects back in that era regularly moved lots of dirt between tee and green as they do today. And then find me some greens that look more engineered and manufactured than the three consecutive ones I just mentioned at Fishers Island including the 4th that you said was one of the most natural green sites you know or something equally ridiculous.

[wsmorrison]

Tom MacWood,

I'd say that National, The Creek, Fishers Island and Yeaman's Hall are in absolutely beautiful settings, nearly as good as it gets in golf.  The architects used some natural features well. But according to you the real construction architecture is in the greens because they moved very little dirt in the  midbodies.  Well, from the little of what I've seen (and admittedly that ain't a lot) they don't resemble the natural settings very well.  They might play great and offer real challenges, but natural?  Come on.

Maybe the best completely natural green site I've ever seen is the 16th at Pine Valley.  What would Raynor have done on that site?  I know we can't say for certain, but it is pretty easy to hazard a guess.

I guess I get a sense of ruggedness from the photos of Yale, but certainly not overly so.  I'll have to see it in person one of these days and hold onto my opinion till it is informed.

Few would say the Cascades is graceful, certainly not as it was intended to be maintained.  Have you been to the Cascades, Tom?  The surrounding mountains, streams, dry washes, rocky outcroppings, forests, topography and the like don't give me a sense of gracefulness.  I'm not going to grill you about it one way or the other.  I'm just curious how familiar you are with it and its surroundings.  If you saw a heavy rain or snow melt; the power of the water that flows through there is amazing--not amazing grace.

Agreed, 8 at SLCC is a very nice hole.  It is not unique and does not maximize Mother Nature any more than tens of other similar useage of streams or sandy waste/bunkers on holes by other architects.  Your hyperbole is showing  

[T_MacWood]

TE
One man's natural green site is another man's six foot berm.

Wayne
Yes. I've been to Cascades. Have you been to Yale or Cape Breton?

[T_MacWood]

"The architects used some natural features well. But according to you the real construction architecture is in the greens because they moved very little dirt in the  midbodies."

Uh?

"If you saw a heavy rain or snow melt; the power of the water that flows through there is amazing--not amazing grace...Your hyperbole is showing."

My hyperbole?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

But, with all of the thousands of acres he had to choose from, why did he choose that site ?

A site that would require spending a fortune.
A site that would require extensive blasting, drilling and carting.

It's not like that site was an ideal site for a golf course, he had to litterally carve those holes out of the rock.

George Bahto,

Do you know ?

[Mike_Sweeney]

Patrick,

Similar to Fishers, 36 holes was originally the game plan at Yale. Thus they probably routed the course with this in mind.



The land was a gift, and like any good university, Yale took the free land. From the Yale website:

"In 1924, a 700-acre tract of swamp and woodland was given to Yale by Mrs. Ray Tompkins in memory of her husband. With a budget of $400,000, Macdonald, in collaboration with Seth Raynor and Charles Banks, designed a masterpiece."

[George_Bahto]

Westhampton: Wayne, that crazy shape was the property. There may have been a few homes they needed (?)

Here is the routing (from an very early aerial)

[TEPaul]

GeorgeB, come on now, that little photo you put up there is not a picture of Westhampton's routing it's a picture of a combination cell phone/organizer, bottle opener/corkscrew, shoe horn and poop-scooper from "The Sharper Image"!

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Bahto,

What can you tell us about the 13th, 14th and 15th holes at Westhampton ?

Westhampton is one of the most underrated golf courses in the country.

[Top100Guru]

I thought of something off the beaten path here, but ya know, for those that don't particularly care for Raynor/CBM courses/clubs, well, you don't have to worry about being a member much less being invited to join to begin with....and for those of you, who love their respective work and are "fortunate enough" to be a member of one or are invited to join one or more at some point, don't ever pass up on the oportunity, you certainly would regret doing so!!!! Most people just "plain don't get it" when they play a CBM/Raynor course for the first time. I think TE Paul, Mucci, and SPDB all touched on this fact at some point in this discussion. Some people can play a CBM/Raynor course once and instantly "understand" why the holes look and play the way that they do......for others, it takes playing the course over and over again......while yet others still will just plain never get it, and that's fine, to each his/her own....but the underlying fact remains at the end of the day, that these two men, Raynor and Macdonald (and lest not forget Banks either) had the stuff to become what legends are made of as evidenced by their respective places in golf and golf architecture history.

[TEPaul]

McConk:

You know it occurs to me that of all those in the business and those without I know who I feel know golf architecture really well, I don't think I've ever heard one of them actually say someone "just doesn't get it". Most of them seem to be a little bit farther along than to say just that!    

[Top100Guru]

Perhap's I should have clarified who the people were/are that "just don't get it"......I have to believe that most architects and super's "get it" and that it is mostly the "average joe golfer" that just doesn't get it when it comes to the CBM/Raynor courses.....especially those playing or seeing a true Raynor or CBM course for the first time ever..........

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne
Yes. I've been to Cascades. Have you been to Yale or Cape Breton?"

Please read my posts a little more carefully then you won't have to ask this question--unless it was retorical for emphasis.  You'll find multiple references that I had not been to either.


"The architects used some natural features well. But according to you the real construction architecture is in the greens because they moved very little dirt in the  midbodies."

Your response was "Uh?"

Think about it,  all of it.  Including my next sentence:

"Well, from the little of what I've seen (and admittedly that ain't a lot) they don't resemble the natural settings very well."

The greens are where Raynor did most of the design work while utilizing the existing landforms in the midbodies.  This is consistant with your statements.  Are the greens, in general, natural in their settings or not?  You think so and I think not.
Despite this, the courses are very good and a thrill to play!  It is the description of the type of course that I disagree with.

Pat,

I think very highly of Westhampton; it is terrific as is The Creek and it would seem Fishers Island.  Yeaman's Hall in its original form was probably brilliant as well.  If Westhampton is not one of Raynor's most low profile golf course, I'd like to see the ones that are.

I think highly of most of the Macdonald/Raynor courses I've seen.  But I don't think of them in the exceedingly natural way that Tom MacWood does.

McConkey III,

"for those that don't particularly care for Raynor/CBM courses/clubs, well, you don't have to worry about being a member much less being invited to join to begin with "

What are you talking about?  Do you speak for all membership committees of all Raynor/Macdonald clubs?  That was a completely pointless comment and as dumb as I've seen in a long time.  Just because a person disagrees that there is an abundance of naturalism on courses by an architect, you get so offended that you want to take your ball and go home?  And we can't play with it anymore.  Give me a break.  

Raynor and Macdonald courses are a joy to play.  Their clubs are some of the best in the country.  But outside of National, Fishers Island and a few others, the sense of naturalism being expressed here seems to me misplaced.

"Raynor and Macdonald (and lest not forget Banks either) had the stuff to become what legends are made of as evidenced by their respective places in golf and golf architecture history"

Very inspirational.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()