[Ran Morrissett]

Seth Raynor's engineered style - many of us love it and a few  others think it fails artistically.Which of his courses would have the most "engineered" (for lack of a better word) look? And why do we love it so much?

[Ran Morrissett]

I'm back. In my limited experience, his least engineered courses appear to me to be Shoreacres (excluding the 14th!) and Yeamans. The most either Camargo or Fishers.

[T_MacWood]

I would agree with Camargo, Fishers Is. and would add Chicago. It could be argued that his greatest designs were his most 'engineered'.The reason for my fondness for his work is because they are so unique. The combination of the sharp edges of his features, with natural beauty of the sights is a very interesting contrast. His style has a certain old time charm. And although his courses have an engineered look, he also must be given credit for identifying the natural features of the sight and routing the course to take full advantage of them. On a srategic level his copies of some of the great holes of Great Britain is a benifit. They were time tested designs and he was a genius at fitting these duplicates into his sights.With all that being said I wonder if some of his courses are benefitting from his current popularity. Although he didn't design that many courses, he did seem to get to about every corner of the country. Ran you made an interesting comment about your 'limited experience'(hell you've seen more courses than 99% of golfers)but because his courses stretch from Hawaii to Florida to Minnesota to an island off the coast of Connecticut it would be difficult for all but a handfull to have a full experience(combined with the interesting fact that they are amongst the most exclusive clubs in the country).So when I see so many of his designs being acclaimed I'm a little sceptical. I wonder if golfers in say Florida give Mountain Lake extra support because it is their regions Raynor design or Somerset in Minnesota or Monterey Peninsula in California. I could be wrong, but I wonder how these courses  compare with the Chicagos, Camargos and Fishers Islands of the world. I don't know.

[Ted_Sturges]

If we can consider Yale a Raynor, (and we probably should), then it would be a candidate for being not very engineered looking.  Due to the rugged nature of the property, for me it comes off more natural than Fishers or Camargo.  For example, their's is one of the most natural looking redans of his I've seen.  TS

[George_Bahto]

Very nice Raynor post Tom.  I applaud your insight to and knowledge of Seth Raynor's work.I have to make a minor correction on one of your statements: "Although he didn't design many courses......."I won't give you my latest count but they are nearing 90 - Macdnald spoke of Raynor building 150 courses - he may have been right for I have uncovered over a dozen that were never credited to him and they keep cropping up.There are just a few of his courses that have been acclaimed that may be too high in the polls.  On the other hand there are a number of his designs that should be listed in the "best of's" that are not.  Many of these have been altered substantially but some of issues that have held them off lists are now being addressed.Let's have more input from our particpants on this "Raynor most engineered designs" posting.

[T_MacWood]

George,You certainly would be the index finger of the handful of MacD/Raynor/Banks experts.Why do you think their designs are so endearing?Which of their designs should be better known?Why is The Knoll in Dave Marr's top 10 courses in the country and why is it featured in 'The Encyclopedia of Golf.'Why don't you see any golf balls on the green in the new photograph on the home page?

[Ran Morrissett]

Tom,I can't let your crack go un-responded. So would you believe that the reason there is no ball on the 4th green is because the picture was taken after John had hit but before I had?As for no ball on the 1st, of course John has famously not played it and would you believe my approach to the green in two was airborn when the photo was snapped?Tom, if you believe that, you are even a finer man and more of a gentleman than I thought!

[John Sessions]

I think George is going to make us wait for his book (and I'm ready for it too)! Great answer by Tom in the meanwhile.Seth Raynor is a hero for creating manufactured courses and all current architects are reviled for doing the same. I think Tom covers very well why this is the case (brillant routings, etc.)

[Bob Ellington]

I don't have enough first hand experience with Raynor courses but I agree with Tom MacWood: is this guy getting overrated? 15 courses in Golf Week's latest 100? From never having heard about him a decade ago until today where he is "it" in the rankings, on this website, etc., is it out of control or does his work justify the adoration?Nicklaus 1980s work had a manufactured look too...

[Gene Greco]

 Fisher's Island would have to be the one with the MOST engineered look out of necessity. With so many holes right next to the sound it appears as if he constructed many of the greenside mounds to protect against storm surges. Of course, many of his other courses have a similar look but I feel not to such as great an extent as at Fishers. However, he did end up losing 13 green and most of 14 fairway a number of years back and both were rebuilt. The course deserves the adoration it gets not only because of the majestic pristine setting but also for the masterful flow and design elements which define many great golf courses, including many of his others.  Why we love Seth Raynor courses is the  same reason why we love great desserts made in top-notch restaurants. They too have an engineered look to them but are presented in such a manner as to be appealing to both the eye and taste buds all leading to great fulfillment and satisfaction. The engineered courses of the 80's look fine but somehow just don't "taste" as good.  "I can't define pornography but I know what it is when I see it."  Bob, you'll know why we love them and rate so many on the greatest list once you play one or two.

[Gib_Papazian]

Bob, I am afraid I am going to have to call a two shot penalty on you for even mentioning Seth-man and Karnac Sr. in the same breath.Next we'll be drawing comparisons between Katherine Hepburn and Dolly Parton.

[Rick Wolffe]

Can someone summarize the business relationship between MacDonald, Raynor and Banks.  I recall briefly how they got togther, but I do not fully recall how they operated together -- who did what and what was the contracting or partnership relation on how they got paid?Also when did Raynor and Banks go off to work as golf course constructors independently and did they also work for others beside MacDonald?  I understand that Banks outlived Raynor and worked on his own too.  When did this occur and was there a notable change in the golf courses built under Banks total influence?Thanks for the insight.

[rkg]

RW's comments bring about another question.  Did'nt Banks basicly build most if not all of Fishers about the time of and after Raynor's death.  If so would that not account for a quite a bit of the extra "manufactured look"?  I just recently realized that Banks(died in 1931) did not live much past Raynor ( died 1926 ).  And  I was surprised to realize CBM(died 1939) outlived them both by a good bit.  I had always just assumed Raynor and Banks outlived the teacher.

[George_Bahto]

Kye: this part I love.  On one hand we have Seth Raynor and Charlie Banks, both guys as straight as can be. One dies at age 49 the other at age 51. In the meantime we have Macdonald, pure wine women and song - big-time ... this guy lives to be 83 !!Is there a lesson here???RW: Raynor went out on his own in the late teens (CB did not want to be a course builder) - he hired Banks in the early 20s (the Roaring Twenties when he had all sorts of things going on - Raynor dies suddenly in early 1926 leaving Banks with many, many courses unfinished, from the east coast to Hawaii and from Milwaukee to So Carolina ....... including 3 courses at Monterey.Banks finished them, lost a few jobs during that period because he just couldn't get there, and did about 30 or so courses on his own including some in South America. He was just coming into his own when he died - had a weak heart for about 2 years before that.(a short overview)Kye: my understanding is that F/I was just about complete that fall before Raynor died.  But since banks had so many things to finish, he didn;t get F/I completed for a while.

[Mike_Rewinski]

This topic has got me pacing the room in agitation. I haven't played a lot of Raynor courses so I can't compare many of his designs. I have played Fisher's Island many times and have never consdered it to have the "engineered" Raynor look, so I am surprised that it rates near the top. On a golf course with terrain as spectacular as Fisher's with only one fairway bunker and no "chocolate drop" mounding where is the engineered look?   So let's define the "engineered" look, what is it? Which features at Fisher's look "engineered"? Which hole is the most "engineered"? To me Raynor's engineered look is square back elevated greens, rectangular plateaus on greens, linear pop up mounding, linear bunkers and rectangular elevated tees. This is what I see on my course, but Westhampton is about as flat as a golf course can be, so maybe Seth had to exagerate things to get character. Our Punchbowl par 3 was done on basically flat ground, how can you do that without making it look manmade?

[George_Bahto]

I agree with Mike - I think what a lot of people do not realize is that Fishers Island is very "lumpy" (if you will) because it was left there when the glaciers during the ice age began to recede.  This is what I was told by Charlie Ferguson their historian.So, the ground that seems as though it was moved (engineered) was really not - it was a result of what I described above.

[George_Bahto]

We've got to get Mike calmed down!  I can see him pacing around his house - he usually walking around in bare feet !!! Now you guys have him nuts.(Supers, Committees, Archies etc. are having withdrawals what with all this snow on the ground.  :-) ....... )

[Gene Greco]

I don't believe the "Alps-Punchbowl" #4 was created by a glacier. Raynor utilized as a defense a large rectangular hump to create a blind approach should one drive to the safe side of the fairway. If one has the game and the huevos to attempt to land the ball where there is a glimpse of the green, flirting with the bank which runs down to that pebbly beach, one is duly rewarded. Stategic golf at its best. When you finally arrive at the green you immediately feel as if you entered a giant egg carton. It has square line angles, linear humps all surrounded by a wall of grass that could just as easily be a stone wall and you wouldn't notice the difference - they both block the view of the sound and encompass the punchbowl in a very linear manner. No natural humps and bumps here. I don't believe I can think of a Raynor hole which looks more manufactured than this one does from approach to the green. #5 is, if not one of the greatest long par 3's in the world, surly one of the most spectacular. It has a giant SQUARE green which is guarded by an embankment which most assuredly WAS created by the glacier. The three-tierd green on #9 is similar to #12 at NGLA. They both have an engineered look with, again, the use of sharp line angles to define each pin placement. The back nine has more of a Banks influence with several greens and tees built up on a grander scale. As I stated before, these had to have been manufactured to protect against the ravages of a storm at high tide on holes 10 and 11. They were created not by nature, not  with a natural look of swales etc, but by a man who had a degree in engineering (Raynor). And so on.  

[Mike_Rewinski]

OK Gene, you've got the lip of the Punchbowl on #4, but I doubt if the hill is artificial. You have a square back green on #5 and plateaus on the greens at #9 and #18, but you've got to do better than that. The lack of fairway bunkers puts Fisher's way behind most other Raynor courses, most of them are loaded with those humpback whale mounds that guard the line to the green. My course has over twenty of them along with 4 plateau greens and 6 squarebacks.

[Gene Greco]

Mike:    The hill IS natural on #4, the one which faces you as you heroically drive over it. The large hump which blocks your view of the green as you hit your APPROACH (see above) is not.As you say,"..most of them(Raynor courses) are loaded with those humpback whale mounds which guard the line to the green."     We can go to all the Seth courses and count all the pop up mounds, square back greens, linear bunkers and tiered greens to arrive at the answer as to which of his courses has the most engineered look. However, quantifying this is not the right way to go about it, just as the procedure GD uses for its course rankings is off base.    When I play Fisher's Island I see stark contrast between the crisp corners of the green complexes and the softness and roundness of the little waves and ripples of the water and the glacial bumps surrounding them. In one of the greatest and most unique settings in all the world to strike a golf ball I see more than the genius of a man who routed a course so majestically around the tip of an island, but also the practicality of one who knew that shit happens to greens built butt joint to the level of the water's edge.    

[Mike_Rewinski]

Gene, the landforms at Fisher's are so spectacular that they greatly overshadow the few engineered features that we listed. You may have information that the hill on #4 is not natural but the key is that it doesn't look "engineered" to me. I think that it fits in with the surrounding terrain so well that if Raynor did build it it can't really be counted as an "engineered" feature. I would be interested to know if the pond on #7 is natural or if Raynor dug it out. To me it looks like it was constructed and maybe recently (relatively speaking), especially with those rocks placed in it. You should come and play Westhampton, you will see Raynor's engineering touch everywhere.

[Gene Greco]

Mike:    Yes, the landforms are SPECTACULAR. I'm surprised no one listed this course among the most stunning courses in the world in another thread. Fisher's does belong among this group of courses - Sand Hills, Old Head (setting only), Cypress Point, Banff Springs. When I play all these courses "Wow" and "My God" pops into my head at every turn. I've also played Bandon and was taken back by the setting - I bet Mr. Doak's Pacific Dunes will be an architectural masterpiece that will also nestle in nicely among these beauties.  I'll call you in the spring before the crowds arrive at Westhampton to continue our chat further.

[Evan Fleisher]

Just back from a Hawaiian trip to the island of Oahu, and had the opportunity to play a supposed Raynor course designed in 1926 called Mid-Pacific Country Club (at the recommendation of several folks here at GCA).I really never had that "engineered" feeling anywhere on the course, except for some of the recent "tweaks" done by the club.  Overall, I'd say the course flowed pretty nicely with both the surroundings and topography of the general area including: some lush/dense foliage, incorporating some natural water flows/streams, generous bunkering, and deceptive greens (although aren't all island greens somewhat deceptive?)Not sure if this is truly one of "his" courses, or maybe one that was finished up by someone else.  Can anyone here shed some light on this topic?

[TEPaul]

MikeR:I believe I agree with you about Fishers. Sure there is manufacturing and engineering but pretty well disguised on that site as to exactly where it begins and ends. Now I'm agitated too and getting ready to get up and pace myself.I agree with you too about Westhampton. Sure it's a flat, flat site but still nobody who had eyesight could miss the engineering.

[herrstein]

EVERY Raynor course that I have liked has had the "engineered" look, which as a former highway contractor I have mostly identified with the steeper, uniform slopes and squared edges on most of Raynor's work.The courses like Somerset, Monterey, Mtn. Lake, and some others that I have seen, that have less of the engineered look, I have always assumed to have been altered (and research would confirm this.)The alterations at Lookout Mountain over the years all involved this kind of "softening" or even obliterating the offensive, steep, engineered slopes. It was the style of the day in the 50's and 60's, trying to make everything look "natural".  Now Silva ( and his able contractor!;-)) has restored most of those bunkers to their former 1:1 sloping selves. The new bunkers are certainly much more "engineered" looking than they were before."Why do we love it so much?"I'll tell you why I love it:1. the line between success and failure is quite abrupt and clear- even if it's not "fair."2. Most of the gentle slopes found in nature don't actually present as much of an obstacle to deal with as do the steeper slopes on an "engineered" course.3. The starkness of the shadows against the backdrop of a pure natural setting is somehow soothing to my soul.4. I prefer the way flat-bottomed bunkers play and maintain.5. I think the straight edges somehow clarify the strategy- making the geometry of the strategy more compelling.6. I don't know.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()