GolfClubAtlas.com > Golf Course Architecture
An architect's porfolio - The Differences
Tom_Doak:
David:
I agree completely that Raynor's primary strength as an architect was routing. My experience is that people with good engineering / math brains tend to be best at that part of design, and Raynor certainly fits the mold there.
But, you could say that for his best courses AND equally for his worst courses, so it's meaningless to this discussion as to why some of his courses are superior or different. So I go back to my previous question about whether the differences come from the general quality of the site itself, or from certain existing features that led a particular Redan to be better than the others, or whether it's something else that Raynor actually did.
A great example of my question is the Redan hole at Shoreacres - #14. It's a great setting for the hole, alongside the ravine, but the unique part of it is the weird tilt on the right side of the green, which is differently done than any other Redan I've seen. But I have no clue as to WHY it's so different.
David Cronheim:
Tom,
I guess I'd hedge my response (surprising for me a lawyer, I know...). He built better courses on better sites, but then again who wouldn't. Though I've always contended that what makes Shoreacres maybe his best course is that it was a site where a lesser architect could've built a really, really bad golf course that just played back and forth across the ravines all day.
We also tend to look at Raynor's work as somewhat static - that he built the same hole over and over again. In my hours with Bahto, he used to say he thought that was an unfair critique because the holes were variations on a theme, not pure replicas (even though the newspapers used that term a lot to describe his work). I think that's fair to an extent. He was certainly still constrained by wanting to put a certain number of templates on every course and his creativity could be bounded by the desire to fit the hole into a certain template box. But his variation within each template is certainly what intrigues a lot of us. We love comparing the nuances - the spine in the redan at Camargo, the angle of the thumbprint, whether an Alps is totally blind like Sleepy Hollow or you can see the top of the flag (Camargo) or whether only one side is hidden (Old White). He also built some damn good original holes (15 at Shoreacres may be my favorite)
Uniquely, Raynor's work is always going to be measured against his own other work because so much of it is so similar. I'm tempted to say that his work is better on bolder sites (Fishers, Yale, Camargo) than on flatter ones (Blue Mound springs to mind), but some of his best holes are on flattish sites (the Lion's Mouth at CC of Charleston or the Redan at Camargo)
If you look at the courses built right at the end of his life (for example, Yale and Essex County) you see a lot of creativity in the presentation of the templates and combination holes. Think of the Alps/Lionsmouth/Punchbowl at Essex or even something like the 1st green at Yale, half road/half punchbowl. I think the Raynor of 1935 (if there were jobs to have) would've produced some very quirky and cool stuff. I've always thought Pete Dye in many ways became (on steroids) what Raynor might've ended up as. 18 at Harbor Town a channel hole with the 2 fairways connected, 16 at TPC Sawgrass a short surrounded by water, Short at Chicago Golf Club having 2 thumb prints - very clever adaptations.
That said, I do think it's too narrow to say the quality of his courses depended entirely on the site. A crappy site isn't usual a recipe for a great course. But he built some excellent courses on courses with only average movement. Yeaman's Hall and Chicago Golf Club spring to mind. That said, he built some not great courses (or holes) on flattish ground. No one is jumping to play the Creek for the first couple holes and I think Blue Mound is generally pretty dull.
A good way to judge your specific questions about whether his best holes came from great land or nuances in the templates might be to find his best flattish templates (or without strong backdrop). I tend to think his best holes are the result of nuance, not land, but his exceptional holes are the mix of both good land, used well with a clever twist (again, citing my double punchbowl at the Creek as a good example or the Alps at Fishers).
Mark_Fine:
Tim,
I am sure this is obvious but the more courses of architect that you see and study and the more you read his/her writings, etc, the more you will appreciate their design philosophies and preferences. I spent a lot of time studying an architect like Colt and we outlined some of his design concepts/preferences in our book on hazards. One thing for me that distinguishes a course like Colt's Royal Portrush (just played there last week) is the site itself. It is an amazing piece of property and that alone gives it advantages over other Colt sites. As Tom pointed out, the two closing holes were weak (very flat somewhat featureless ground). The two new holes are a vast improvement. I might have made the huge blowout bunker on the new #7 par five hole look more natural but overtime is will blend in (or they will tweak it). Overall it is an amazing golf course which accentuates many of the philosophies Colt promoted such as driving accuracy, distinctive natural features, diagonal carries, non-bunkers as hazards, ... It is close to a Doak 10 for me.
Mark
David Davis:
Tim,
Interesting and quite complex question.
Tom,
I'm sure you try to make all your courses different and they are for sure even though your style is certainly recognizable at least on the sandy courses which I have seen. It would be really interesting to hear your answer for Tim's question with regards to a few of your courses. Like take Pacific Dunes, Tara Iti and Barnbougle. What two points (realizing that might be rather limiting) would you most want people trying to learn from your work to pay attention to, take away from those courses that makes the uniquely different from the other?
Likewise for anyone that could do something similar for Colt for example that would be very interesting to hear. If you took say Portrush, Sunnindale and Saint Germain. 3 courses that have excellent architecture on completely different surfaces/environments.
Or perhaps Pasatiempo, Royal Melbourne and Valley Club from Mackenzie.
Honestly, I don't think I can answer this so very curious what others come up with.
Tim Gallant:
--- Quote from: David Davis on July 02, 2018, 05:22:56 PM ---Tim,
Interesting and quite complex question.
Tom,
I'm sure you try to make all your courses different and they are for sure even though your style is certainly recognizable at least on the sandy courses which I have seen. It would be really interesting to hear your answer for Tim's question with regards to a few of your courses. Like take Pacific Dunes, Tara Iti and Barnbougle. What two points (realizing that might be rather limiting) would you most want people trying to learn from your work to pay attention to, take away from those courses that makes the uniquely different from the other?
Likewise for anyone that could do something similar for Colt for example that would be very interesting to hear. If you took say Portrush, Sunnindale and Saint Germain. 3 courses that have excellent architecture on completely different surfaces/environments.
Or perhaps Pasatiempo, Royal Melbourne and Valley Club from Mackenzie.
Honestly, I don't think I can answer this so very curious what others come up with.
--- End quote ---
David,
You hit at exactly what I hope this thread will teach - mainly, if we have a broad understanding of a certain architect, then what is the one or two differentiating features of a course in relation to the portfolio that we should concentrate on.
I don't know and am curious as well. I will try to put answers in the OP so that people can get a guide without having to read this, hopefully, bountiful thread of information :)
Tom,
I agree about the originality of holes as something that is worth looking for in relation to the other courses that an architect builds. In this respect, I have always thought of Somerset Hills as the best (read favourite) Tillinghast course in the NY/NJ area of the courses I have seen because in my mind, it doesn't resemble any other Tillinghast course. Sure, there are still a lot of back to front slopes on the greens, but equally, there are a lot of holes where the green is flat from the approach (ie not raised). Holes like 2 (the only Redan he built), 4, 5, 7, 11 and 12 all have unique elements that I haven't seen on any other Tillinghast course.
I appreciate I am not a Tilly expert, and if there are others who want to shine light on AW, that would be incredible!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version