[Ulrich Mayring]

You know you are a failure as a golf architect ...

... when they start building tribute courses that are ranked higher than your originals.

Old Tom, anyone?

Ulrich

[Wade Schueneman]

Perhaps it should not surprise us that Old Mac is an instant hit with golf architecture enthusiasts.  In a sense, isn't the deck stacked?  We have seen the orginals (Road, Eden, Short etc.) and that focuses and enhances our experince of the recreations.  We are given the opportunity to revisit an old friend in a sense and are prepared to look for and appreciate subtle differences based on toporaphy or architectural interpretation.  Original holes often take longer to appreciate, but copies are immediately fun (if they are good copies).  It is interesting though, because I originally thought that Old Mac would only be appreciated after many rounds due to its strategic subtlety.  Perhaps using templates allowed Mr. Doak and Mr. Urbina and their team to build a subtle and strategic course that yet could be immediately appreciated by students of golf architecture due to their familiarity with the templates.  Of course, I do not doubt that the team injected all sorts of original and subtle strategic merit into the course that will take many rounds to fully understand.

[Brad Klein]

As someone who observed and modestly participated in the Old Macdonald design process over the last four years, what most surprised and pleased me was the way in which the original template idea migrated. There are some holes that adhere more closely (Redan -- 12) and other that vary wildly (Maiden -- 14), and some that don't even pretend to be emulations of anything but are pure originality (Ocean -- 7; Westward Ho -- 15).

All of that evolved because of a commitment by Doak & Urbina to making a golf course that fit the land rather than forcing holes onto the land. The real guiding principle with CBM -- as I explain this week in a forthcoming column in Golfweek -- is that the course should be big, bold, interesting, fun and on the outrageous scale.

There was also the anticipation of Jonathan Cumming's concern that the course needed to be economically viable. If you build a course for GCA maniacs it will go broke for two simple reasons. First of all, there aren't enough out there to make a place work -- for all of the discussion and enthusiasm and interest in architecture, it's still ony a small, esoteric niche of the wider golf market. And second, they all seem to be raters who don't pay!

So Old Macdonald had to have wider appeal even as it was true to its mission of honoring and embodying Macdonald design principles. Copying or using templates was actually also infeasible because it was never clear what the template would be -- the original in GB, NGLA, or some other Macdonald/Raynor version. I clearly remember the surprise of the folks at Littlestone in Kent, England, when they were told that their old famous 16th hole was the inspiration for Lido's 4th and Old Macdonald's 17th. That hole at Littlestone still exists in basic form but changed so much in subtle ways years ago, and I had to scrounge around out there in the dunes to find what had presumably been their alternative fairway.

But while there is a only a small corps of dedicated architecture junkies, there are enough traditionalists who like links-style golf, who like walking, who like playing 36-holes a day, and that's the market at Bandon. It's a form of "narrow-casting" that's been successful in cable TV and that doesn't need to appeal to the widest possible public. So all Old Macdonald has to do is be in that "narrow-cast" market and be maintainable for a reasonable cost -- which it is, even with greens that average 14,600 square feet in size. So I suspect that Bandon and Old Macdonald will remain economically viable, even as they are susceptible to market forces, because that little corner of the golf market will remain pretty loyal. And for all the trouble of getting there, it's still easier and cheaper for folks in the Western 2/3rds of the US to get there than to get to Scotland.   

[W.H. Cosgrove]

Brad, intersting comments on Bandon being the more accesible for those of us in the west 

As far as OM in concerned, it makes for a tremendous addition to the lineup at Bandon.  Different from the other courses it provides the "clean up" hitter to the other 3 courses.   If PD is intimate in its feel, OM is challenging in it vast nature.  After the first two and a half holes, the course opens into the great plains of golf, without the wind and the sun to guide you it almost feels as though you are free to wander in the desert for forty days!  And what a pilgrimage it becomes!  Honestly, I think it will take multiple playings to partake of the nuance in this vast space. 

The brilliance is in creating small discoveries in the broad and brawny.  While I love Pac Dunes for the intimacy, I believe over time OM will astonish in the variety it must provide in varied conditions.  If this is true, It should climb in the ratings over time where most new courses tend to fall and settle to a new position on magazines lists.

[Sean_A]

As someone who observed and modestly participated in the Old Macdonald design process over the last four years, what most surprised and pleased me was the way in which the original template idea migrated. There are some holes that adhere more closely (Redan -- 12) and other that vary wildly (Maiden -- 14), and some that don't even pretend to be emulations of anything but are pure originality (Ocean -- 7; Westward Ho -- 15).

All of that evolved because of a commitment by Doak & Urbina to making a golf course that fit the land rather than forcing holes onto the land. The real guiding principle with CBM -- as I explain this week in a forthcoming column in Golfweek -- is that the course should be big, bold, interesting, fun and on the outrageous scale.

There was also the anticipation of Jonathan Cumming's concern that the course needed to be economically viable. If you build a course for GCA maniacs it will go broke for two simple reasons. First of all, there aren't enough out there to make a place work -- for all of the discussion and enthusiasm and interest in architecture, it's still ony a small, esoteric niche of the wider golf market. And second, they all seem to be raters who don't pay!

So Old Macdonald had to have wider appeal even as it was true to its mission of honoring and embodying Macdonald design principles. Copying or using templates was actually also infeasible because it was never clear what the template would be -- the original in GB, NGLA, or some other Macdonald/Raynor version. I clearly remember the surprise of the folks at Littlestone in Kent, England, when they were told that their old famous 16th hole was the inspiration for Lido's 4th and Old Macdonald's 17th. That hole at Littlestone still exists in basic form but changed so much in subtle ways years ago, and I had to scrounge around out there in the dunes to find what had presumably been their alternative fairway.

But while there is a only a small corps of dedicated architecture junkies, there are enough traditionalists who like links-style golf, who like walking, who like playing 36-holes a day, and that's the market at Bandon. It's a form of "narrow-casting" that's been successful in cable TV and that doesn't need to appeal to the widest possible public. So all Old Macdonald has to do is be in that "narrow-cast" market and be maintainable for a reasonable cost -- which it is, even with greens that average 14,600 square feet in size. So I suspect that Bandon and Old Macdonald will remain economically viable, even as they are susceptible to market forces, because that little corner of the golf market will remain pretty loyal. And for all the trouble of getting there, it's still easier and cheaper for folks in the Western 2/3rds of the US to get there than to get to Scotland.   

Brad or anybody that may know

I have often heard the phrase "forcing holes into the land".  I have also heard at least one prominent GCAer say that CBM template holes are in the main identified by their hazards.  On all but a few a properties, it seems to me that if templates are the goal and hazards define the templates, how is it possible to fit in so many templates without forcing them?  I would also like to know what exactly "forcing" means?  I have always assumed it meant creating a hole where the key features didn't exist.  In the case of CBM templates this often means that the "key" concepts of the hole are stretched to the point of being far too elastic to easily identify the template with the original.  To me, Raynor screams of this all over the place and that is why his architecture doesn't blend well with the land.  Anybody care to set me straight?

BTW I never once thought Doak was gonna follow the templates slavishly.  The look is just so out of character with the more natural designs Doak tries to produce. 

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

I clearly remember the surprise of the folks at Littlestone in Kent, England, when they were told that their old famous 16th hole was the inspiration for Lido's 4th and Old Macdonald's 17th. That hole at Littlestone still exists in basic form but changed so much in subtle ways years ago, and I had to scrounge around out there in the dunes to find what had presumably been their alternative fairway.

 

During a foursomes match at Littlestone last fall, GCA's Mike "Mayday" Malone was kind enough to hit a wild, long hook off the 16th tee so that our group had a full five minutes to examine that former "alternative fairway" while searching fruitlessly in the hay for his lost ball.

It's pretty obvious when you are over there that the fairway left of that magnificent bunker had to go when traffic started to grow on the parallel road.  Pity.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

From the start of the job, I thought the one area where we could improve upon Macdonald's designs was in the construction of them.  Raynor and Macdonald were pretty much novices at construction when they built National.  All that Macdonald had seen in Scotland were natural or simply-constructed courses, and he never wrote anything about construction or about fitting the holes into the landscape, apart from decrying artificiality.  Plus, none of those courses were at anything like the scale Macdonald was trying to build in at National.

I don't like using the word "templates" because I don't think the geometric shapes of the Road hole and the Biarritz are the essential part of what makes them interesting.  To that extent, Jim Sullivan is right ... for Macdonald, the golf holes were about the golf shots.  And so, we could change the look significantly while retaining the golf shots, and come up with something that didn't look exactly like Macdonald built it, even if all the same ideas are there.

The key to the Redan is simply finding a ridge to play toward on the diagonal.  The key to the Alps is finding a ridge to play over (or around, if you want to imitate the hole at National, which we preferred).  The Hog's Back tee shot requires playing onto the end of a ridge.  So, if you've got a links property with some natural ridges, you shouldn't have to force any of those into the landscape; they are already out there.  It was more difficult for Raynor when he had flatter ground to work with -- Chicago Golf apparently didn't have the sort of ridge he needed, so he built up a huge artificial green for the Redan there -- but the real one in North Berwick didn't have to be forced into the ground, did it?

[Sean_A]

Sean:

From the start of the job, I thought the one area where we could improve upon Macdonald's designs was in the construction of them.  Raynor and Macdonald were pretty much novices at construction when they built National.  All that Macdonald had seen in Scotland were natural or simply-constructed courses, and he never wrote anything about construction or about fitting the holes into the landscape, apart from decrying artificiality.  Plus, none of those courses were at anything like the scale Macdonald was trying to build in at National.

I don't like using the word "templates" because I don't think the geometric shapes of the Road hole and the Biarritz are the essential part of what makes them interesting.  To that extent, Jim Sullivan is right ... for Macdonald, the golf holes were about the golf shots.  And so, we could change the look significantly while retaining the golf shots, and come up with something that didn't look exactly like Macdonald built it, even if all the same ideas are there.

The key to the Redan is simply finding a ridge to play toward on the diagonal.  The key to the Alps is finding a ridge to play over (or around, if you want to imitate the hole at National, which we preferred).  The Hog's Back tee shot requires playing onto the end of a ridge.  So, if you've got a links property with some natural ridges, you shouldn't have to force any of those into the landscape; they are already out there.  It was more difficult for Raynor when he had flatter ground to work with -- Chicago Golf apparently didn't have the sort of ridge he needed, so he built up a huge artificial green for the Redan there -- but the real one in North Berwick didn't have to be forced into the ground, did it?

Thanks Tom

That pretty much outlines what I thought you may be after.  Sort of CBM in spirit. 

NB's Redan I am assuming was named so after being built.  I suspect it was just a hole that fit - no?  It is hard to imagine (which is why I think the Brits were so uptight with CBM) someone in that day and age looking for certain brief to fulfill.  I also think that one of the main reasons the original holes and whatever holes for that matter looked more natural than what Raynor of CBM could ever dream of was in the main down to grade level architecture.  It is tough to build courses on good land which have visibility as a goal and varied shots via varied green sites without mucking about.  And as you say, Raynor and CBM were novice constructors - this shines through in their work.  Ironically, this may have been a blessing disguise.

Ciao

[JESII]

To that extent, Jim Sullivan is right ... for Macdonald, the golf holes were about the golf shots.  And so, we could change the look significantly while retaining the golf shots, and come up with something that didn't look exactly like Macdonald built it, even if all the same ideas are there.

That's the only point I was trying to make, Tom...maybe with the addition that I think it's a major distinction in design philosophy to begin the process thinking about certain specific shots as opposed to thinking about creating an enjoyable, interesting experience. In my mind these seem to be diametrically opposed approaches to the job.

[Tom_Doak]

NB's Redan I am assuming was named so after being built. 

It is probably heresy to say so, but this statement made it occur to me that part of the reason for Macdonald's success was not just the models of the holes, but a form of marketing -- he had names for the holes which people could access.  Even though he may have been way past "Architecture 202" himself, his style made it easier for others to understand it, and easier for people to write about ... and that's a secondary reason that National was so famous in its day.

Likewise, C.B. (and/or Raynor) were likely the first architects whose clients asked them for the same thing they'd done before.

[Sean_A]

NB's Redan I am assuming was named so after being built. 

It is probably heresy to say so, but this statement made it occur to me that part of the reason for Macdonald's success was not just the models of the holes, but a form of marketing -- he had names for the holes which people could access.  Even though he may have been way past "Architecture 202" himself, his style made it easier for others to understand it, and easier for people to write about ... and that's a secondary reason that National was so famous in its day.

Likewise, C.B. (and/or Raynor) were likely the first architects whose clients asked them for the same thing they'd done before.

Tom

It hadn't occurred to me that CBM would need marketing for NGLA or later projects.  If so, wouldn't Raynor/Banks have been the beneficiaries?

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:

I am sure C. B. Macdonald did not think of it as marketing, directly.  I'm just saying it worked that way.  But, he did have to sell a lot of memberships to his wealthy friends to make National happen in the first place, and it couldn't have hurt for them to have historical precedents instead of just "I'm going to build the world's greatest golf course."

A lot of marketing is just putting yourself (and your ideas) out there.  Macdonald was all about telling people what golf was meant to be.  If he were alive in this era, he'd probably use more green ink than Patrick Mucci to make himself clear.

[Terry Lavin]

Sean:

Macdonald was all about telling people what golf was meant to be.  If he were alive in this era, he'd probably use more green ink than Patrick Mucci to make himself clear.

Like the credit card commercials, "priceless"...

[Kevin Pallier]

I would also like to know what exactly "forcing" means?  I have always assumed it meant creating a hole where the key features didn't exist.  In the case of CBM templates this often means that the "key" concepts of the hole are stretched to the point of being far too elastic to easily identify the template with the original.  To me, Raynor screams of this all over the place and that is why his architecture doesn't blend well with the land.  Anybody care to set me straight?

Sean

I think the architecture on this hole fits pretty well with the land ?

[Tom_Doak]

Yep, that middle tee is just laying right on the ground, isn't it?   

[George_Bahto]

Tom, that's hilarious

[Mike Sweeney]

Yep, that middle tee is just laying right on the ground, isn't it?   

Tom,

Sitting on a low point of the island about 30 yards from the ocean side which is more susceptible to hurricane damage, any chance that tee has been rebuilt? 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()