[Gene Greco]

Herrstein:   You have answered most all of this question very insightfully. Mike and TE:   I wish I could express MY perceptions as clearly as herrstein has his. The fact is I am as passionate about Fisher's Island and Seth Raynor courses in general as both of you seem to be. In fact, my primary club was designed by Mr. Raynor and now I know why, thanks to herrstein, I love it so much. My office is a wedgeshot from Raynor's former home and I have even gone to the great man's gravesite on occasion. Yes, I am Raynor wacko! So don't be agitated and please go ahead and sit back down in your easy chairs. We just have different perceptions of one of the greatest golf courses on earth.

[Jim_Kennedy]

When you stand behind many of the greens at our Raynor/Banks course (Hotchkiss School G.C. in Ct.) you are impressed with the amount of material brought in to construct them and their surrounds. The part that always amazes me when approaching these holes from the fairway is that one never has the sense that all the fill/features weren't always there to begin with. Engineered? -yes, boring? -never.

[Bill Brightly]

GCA, the early years!

[TEPaul]

Interesting to look at some of our opinions that long ago, including mine.

Given the reflection of time and study and consideration I would say what some of the others seem to imply back then that the most engineered "looking" Raynor course was his first---Westhampton for the reasons given above.

And I'm not talking about the most visible earth moved, just the most engineered LOOKING. One must understand much of it might have to do with Westhampton's extremely flat site.

[Mike_Cirba]

Man...Mike Rewinski, Ted Sturges, Bill Vostinak, Tom MacWood, Dave Axland, John Sessions, Lou Duran, David Moriarty, and many, many more...

wow...that's some serious turnover.

 

[Tom Roewer]

When i first saw Camargo i was struck by what i see as the "Banks" look.  I think that Rock Spring is akin (only seen pics)  The look is one of big flexing muscles, popping out of wonderful Raynor routings.  Am I way off target here?  There just seems to me to be big differences in look to course(s) that Banks was given more a free hand to build after Raynor did the routing.

[wsmorrison]

"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. "

Look, I know I  take the opposite side of most on this site when it comes to Raynor and the engineered look and template model he stuck with in an era when most others were moving towards naturalism (using the natural site as much as possible and/or making man-made features looking natural).  I think this is a fascinating contrast to consider.  However, when I read opinions like that of Tom MacWood, I really do pause.  If a Tom Doak or a Ron Prichard or Bill Coore or someone else said something like the above, well, I would give it some real weight.  But how are we arm chair devotees of golf course architecture able to determine something like that?  He may have looked at sites to make the maximum use given the need to have templates, but what makes any of us amateurs think that he maximized the architecture of a site in that process?

How can we judge the routing of a golf course with very much insight given our limited understanding?  I think we should tread carefully before such conclusions are drawn.  Because there are template holes on every site, most give credit to the notion that his routing should be applauded because he was able to find sites to fit in his templates.  On the surface, this doesn't make sense to me.  What rigorous study was done to consider that the use of natural sites for certain templates (although at times he would just awkwardly pop them out of the ground just to have them) was not done at the expense of a different (and perhaps better) routing that would not have natural template sites but rather original hole designs based on what the ground gives?  How do we know that the maximum interest of the site was not compromised to find the template sites?

There are many on this website that are devoted fans of Raynor.  I think that is admirable and understandable.  But let's not fool ourselves into thinking we know that his routings ended up being the most interesting use of the land.  His design methods were bound to constrain his routings.  That is a point nobody seems to grant me or agree with.  I try to relate that the cause of templates must be restricting and the effects of that are not carefully considered by many.  In most cases, we don't have the skills and knowledge to do so.  I include myself in that lacking category and so withhold judgment on his skills as a router.  

I'm not at all certain that finding template concepts on all his courses is a sign of routing genius or architectural genius.  In my mind, his style is more compartmentalized than any other architect.  Some appreciate that he stuck with a good thing and delivered interesting and enjoyable golf courses.  My criticism has never been about the playability of his courses, simply the self-constraints and apparent lack of artistic growth.  I also believe that his routings (the same for all architects) should be considered not only for what he delivered but also what he gave up to do so.

I'm just barking into the wind and nobody hears me.  Well, I'll keep on promoting an alternative perspective on Raynor for balance and perspective.  Even if nobody listens  

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Do we need differentiate between engineered "look" and engineered? I would say that without a doubt, Yale is the most engineered considering how much rock was moved to create the course. As far as "the look" I would go with Fishers especially when you view holes, not from the line of play. Think about the 11th green as viewed from the 13th fairway or the 12th green viewed from the 14th fairway; those greens look engineered.

Anthony

P.S. Man, this discussion is like Old Home Day. Welcome back boys. All we are missing is the anonymous posters I so dearly miss. Somebody should forward this to many of the recent idiots who have been posting crap all too frequently.

[john_stiles]

One thing about Raynor & Banks is that you always look back at the course in reverse to get a dramatic view of the earthwork.

On sloping terrain, it seems a favorite was to place greens at point where the slope was beginning to fall away, and then you piled a large amount of soil for greens construction and then tied that into the slopes. This also gave you some very good spots for those very large flat bottomed bunkers.

As you play the hole, it is not as noticeable as when you look back after you walk away, or perhaps catch a long view across the terrain.

Lookout Mountain has many such locations for greens, seem to remember a number at Fishers, Camargo as well.

They didn't do much in the fairways but moved quite alot of dirt to create the green sites.

You notice the  'engineering' the most when you look back after playing a hole.

Banks constructed the Lookout Mountain course, but the routing, that set the requirement for the engineering work, was done by Raynor.

If Raynor did the routing, then that determined much of the engineering work that was ultimately required.

[TEPaul]

"Do we need to differentiate between engineered "look" and engineered?"

Anthony:

Of course we do. That is just about one of the greatest fundamentals of all.

One can make a golf course by doing almost nothing to the land (literal minimalism).

Or one can make a golf course doing a great deal to the land which looks like a great deal of earth moving and engineering was done.

Or one can do a great deal to the land and somehow make it look like almost nothing was done or engineered (hiding the hand of man----eg the appearance of minimalism).

[Bill Brightly]

Wayne,

You wrote this about Raynor:

"His design methods were bound to constrain his routings.  That is a point nobody seems to grant me or agree with. "

Let's ask Tom Doak, a naturalist architect. Did he feel constrained routing Old Macdonald?

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Ask Doug Stein if Brian Silva felt constrained routing Black Creek, Doug's homage to Raynor.

Anthony

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

You seem to take exception to my critical comments about Raynor, which can also be applied to Banks.  I can appreciate why.  However, why ask a rhetorical question of Tom Doak?  Of course you are free to ask, but I wonder if you really expect him to answer that it had no effect.  The very fact that the design of Old Macdonald is an 18-hole homage to Macdonald's designs, would unquestionably constrain the design and routing of the course.  In what way would the freedom to do whatever he wanted not be constrained by the limitation to honor Macdonald despite the interesting results we all expect?  

[TEPaul]

"You wrote this about Raynor:

"His design methods were bound to constrain his routings.  That is a point nobody seems to grant me or agree with. "


Wayne:

Dont include me. I know exactly what you mean and I certainly grant you that point. It's a good point and a fundamental one and I've never been able to figure out why so many on here can't seem to understand it somehow.

I guess it's just that they must think you're being critical of Raynor and they simply can't abide by that. In a particular way you are being critical of Raynor. Nevertheless they should grant you your point about an overly engineered look because it should be obvious to anyone with eyes that that is what it is.

However, apparently a lot of golfers over the years just like that engineered look.

[Bill Brightly]

Ok, here is why I take exception to it.

First of all, "constrain" is a negative term. When you use it in discussing an architect's work, you are starting out with a NEGATIVE implication, that the course could not possibly be the best possible for the site because a template was "forced" into the design. It is as if you are automatically taking points off for the design methodology. (If you were professor Wayne Morrison, Raynor would be starting out with a 90 in your class!)

I take a different viewpoint. I have no way of proving this, but having played many Banks and Raynor courses, I have a theory that selecting the sites for their par 3's was one of their first objectives when they walked the site.

Now I happen to think that the Redan is THE BEST par 3 ever created. So to me, if you start your course with a GREAT Redan, properly positioned to take advantage of the natural slope of the land, and use the prevailing wind to fight the shot, you are starting your course off with a GREAT hole, and you are well on your way to building a great golf course.

But you want to take points off because a Redan is a template. You call it "paint by numbers" architecture.

I am not an architect, but I can only imagine that every architect has to start somewhere on the property. They view a particular  land form that they "see" as a superb golf hole, and they continue their routing to include that hole. Raynor did the same thing, except their "first hole" vision was a template, probably a Redan or a Short. You want to knock the course, while I applaud them for starting with a guaranteed great golf hole, that will be great forever and ever.

[Bill Brightly]

"There are many on this website that are devoted fans of Raynor.  I think that is admirable and understandable.  But let's not fool ourselves into thinking we know that his routings ended up being the most interesting use of the land.  His design methods were bound to constrain his routings.  That is a point nobody seems to grant me or agree with. "

Wayne,

Gee, you wonder why fans of Macdonald, Raynor and Banks don't agree with your view? Here is the defintion of constrain:

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This con·strain       (kən-strân')  Pronunciation Key  
tr.v.   con·strained, con·strain·ing, con·strains

To compel by physical, moral, or circumstantial force; oblige: felt constrained to object. See Synonyms at force.
To keep within close bounds; confine: a life that had been constrained by habit to the same few activities and friends.
To inhibit or restrain; hold back: "Failing to control the growth of international debt will also constrain living standards" (Ronald Brownstein).
To produce in a forced or inhibited manner.
 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Wayne,
Isn't all GCA constrained, in one way or another? There are boundaries that must be adhered to, whether it's the size of the property or the nature, like bunkering, of the game itself.

Architects who post here have said that they find themselves re-using certain elements that they know have worked for them at other places. Are they constraining themselves if they do this, are they just being lazy, or are they seeing that there isn't much that would work better given the particular area of the course they are in? Recently we saw some photos of Flynn's work that look remarkably similar to one another. Did he 'cop' out on his routing, or just realize that something out of his kit bag fit?

I just don't believe there is anyone who could walk around FI or Yale or the back nine at Essex CCC or Shinnecock and find any better routing or set of holes. Of course, someone is always ready to say that 'this could be done differently', or 'this would be much better' but the staying power of these courses show that reasoning for what it is.  

I enjoy reading your usually knowledgeable posts, and those of the other voice in the wilderness (at least on this topic), Tom Paul, but I'm afraid your arguments here don't work for me.  Why, after all this time, do the courses by CB/SR/CB and WFlynn appear so frequently in every compilation of classic courses, unless what they built was in the upper echelon of architectural values, and worthy of inclusion?  

   

[wsmorrison]

I know I'm in for a battle on this, but I think it is one worth waging.  I think it is fascinating to consider why Raynor and Banks stuck with their tried and true and failed to be impacted on the naturalism movement.  I think it is fascinating to chart the evolution of design practices by various golf course architects just like it is interesting to study the progression of a Michaelangelo or Eakins or Picasso.  What progression is there in the artistry and presentation of Raynor and Banks?  Why did they stay with overly manufactured looking golf courses?  Were they cheaper to build?  Were they cheaper to maintain?  Did they like the contrast between the manufactured look of the course and the natural settings?

Then there are some fundamental failings.  They didn't plan elasticity into their courses so quite a fair percentage were not able to keep pace with technology and better athletes.  The Biarritz shot and the Redan shot have been compromised by increased carry distance combined with better stopping power due to ball construction.  The Biarritz concept had to be altered to allow green space where it never was before.  That is a significant change in design?  Why?  Because the design became outdated.

I don't fall into the category of highly regarding the courses of Raynor and Banks.  Why you think it should be universal acclaim is really beyond my understanding.  However, I am more partial to the courses of Macdonald and the ones Macdonald had a hand in.  Yet, I see them of a certain kind that I am not entirely fond of.  How this is a surprise to anyone is beyond me and beyond Tom Paul (who embraces the work of Raynor a lot more than I do).  

I do knock Raynor and Banks for doing things that have been done before and doing them over and over again.  If anyone comes on here and says that their template holes are always naturally situated and his routings found the perfect spot for these holes, I would say that is not fact.  I've seen enough to know that more than a few were heavily manufactured, popped out of the ground with no connectivity to the routing progression and certainly not the surrounding land.  The templates, symmetry and flat bunkers yield predictability and I think that is one of the worst features in golf course design.  Where is the use of perspective, offset fairways and greens (except Redan and Road Hole)?  The lines of play off the tee are rarely of interest because angles aren't in play as much on their courses as Colt, MacKenzie, Thomas, Flynn, Wilson, Crump, Fownes (on some holes) and others.

It is a fact, their courses, especially at the green end, are heavily manufactured looking.  An overwhelming majority of golfers don't consider these factors, they just play.  How many go out and really study the green sites and look where the fill came from and what is natural and what is man-made?  How many look at a depression or a bunker and consider what its relationship to the hole is?  If there is none, how many realize that the pit was dug precisely there merely to obtain fill?  I'd say precious few.  Those of us that do, find a facet of their work that didn't evolve but rather churned out what the client wanted; and that was a replicated experience.  They delivered this quite well.  

Of course most of the template holes were different in some ways.  The sites themselves were very different so it would seem obvious that differences would exist.

This brings me to one of Bill's points.  "Now I happen to think that the Redan is THE BEST par 3 ever created."

What exactly is the Redan that is THE BEST par 3 ever created?  Which one are you talking about?  The original at North Berwick, the one at NGLA, at Fox Chapel, at St. Louis CC, Westhampton, Yeaman's Hall, at CC Charleston?  There isn't one Redan.   Or are they all the BEST par 3s ever created?  OK, you like the concept.  You think it is the greatest par 3 concept in golf.  But it was manifested in many  different ways and some of them are downright lousy.  Are there some Redans that you don't like?  If so, why?  My personal opinion, which you seem to have an inability to grant me is that it is an excellent concept but I can think of one hundred par 3s that I think are as good and many better.

Bill was going to ask Tom Doak if there are any constraints when building an homage course or building templates.  Bill, what do you think?  Do you think it allows freedom of routing or does it limit routing possibilities?

Jim,

Of course routings require constraint and often compromise, especially today with more land use restrictions.  If an architect was expected to build 4 template par 3s and several other template holes, don't you think that impacts his decision making in many areas?  If Flynn, Tillinghast or other architects demonstrated a repeated concept copy (Flynn had 3 or 4 Redan-like concepts and 10 or more short par 4s where the direct line from tee to green was filled with undulating sandy waste or bunkers.  He didn't do them everywhere, he did them where they fit.  He wasn't bound by a convention that was expected or demanded.  The use of the concepts, how they were tied to their surrounds and fit into the routing progression is much more interesting.  However, we look at routings after the fact.  However, architects must do so without the benefit of hindsite unless they are involved in redesign.  I don't give us enough credit to fully understand the routing process to say that a site is maximized.  It helps to see different routing plans for the same ground.  However, that's rare.  I do think it should be easy to see that if 4-6 holes have been predetermined because of a template model, that is bound to impact or constrain the resulting routing.  That's my opinion.  You haven't proved it to be wrong.  Frankly, it takes people with more understanding than you or I have to help us with this issue.  Routings are difficult to comprehend.

You don't have to agree or disagree with me.  I don't see why I must agree with you.  A lot of this is subjective.  Where it is objective is what I fail to grasp.  I understand your points of view and recognize that it is shared by many.  My own differs.  So what?  How can you possibly expect everyone to feel about Raynor as you do?  I don't.

[Kyle Harris]

Golf Courses aren't natural. Period. I find it easy to accept both if you accept that simple premise.

Or am I missing the random pits of sand strewn about the Philadelphia countryside?

[Bill Brightly]

Golf Courses aren't natural. Period. I find it easy to accept both if you accept that simple premise.

Or am I missing the random pits of sand strewn about the Philadelphia countryside?

What he said!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Wayne,
You take a different perspective on this than I do, which is evident when you say things like:  "That's my opinion. You haven't proved it to be wrong".

This isn't an exercise on my part to 'prove' you wrong, so there really is no need for you to resort to such a defensive posture. I'm not trying to change your, or anyone else's, opinion.  After all, that's all it is, an opinion, and even though you are one of the few people who hold it, I say stick to your principles and stand by your man.



       

[Sean_A]

Golf Courses aren't natural. Period. I find it easy to accept both if you accept that simple premise.

Or am I missing the random pits of sand strewn about the Philadelphia countryside?

Kyle

Naturalism isn't an either/or proposition.  Of course building any course is like creating a garden, we are trying to bend the will of nature to suit our purposes.  However, many do attempt to blend nature with the man-made and some are more successful at it then others.  

I know many look at the pic below and see marvelous things.  I look at the pic and am immediately drawn to the green/bunker as something that distracts from the surrounds.  Little attempt was made to harmonize with nature.  It may well be that the hole is great, but a hole can be great and fit in a bit better with its surrounds.  For some reason, and it could be because Raynor builds great courses, I don't know, Raynor is given a pass on his sometimes abissssmal aesthetics.  I suspect that if modern archies tried to pull a stunt like this they would get slapped around on this site.  


For me, the look of a course greatly effects how I feel about the course.  I would really like to play a Raynor.  The only course I have seen like a Raynor was Annapolis CC by Banks.  I liked it a lot, but of course, many of the bunkers were missing and the greens shrunk becasue there were no bunkers wrap around as it were.  I wasn't a big deal to me because I detest the look of the flat bottom bunker like the one above.  

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Where is the use of perspective, offset fairways and greens (except Redan and Road Hole)?  The lines of play off the tee are rarely of interest because angles aren't in play as much on their courses as Colt, MacKenzie, Thomas, Flynn, Wilson, Crump, Fownes (on some holes) and others."

Wayne:

Interesting you say that about off-set fairways and greens of Macdonald/Raynor.

The Redan and Road Hole green type probably are some of the most enduring off-set or diagonal greens ever done and even though the vast majority of Macdonald/Raynor holes don't have off-set or diagonal fairways certainly some do and perhaps even the best ever done---ie the famous Cape Hole fairway of Mid Ocean and to some extent NGLAs #1 and #2 are also functionally off-set or diagonal, and even #3 if one takes the more aggressive right line off the tee. The same can be said for the Bottle hole due to the offset midfairway bunkering.

Even some of the great early architecture such as Merion East and Pine Valley don't have many more greens and fairways that are off-set or diagonal than that.

I still don't understand why so many on here have a problem with Wayne Morrison's point about not liking the engineered look of the lines of Macdonald/Raynor architecture. His point is a good one when he wonders why they didn't get into trying to evolve their architectural lines into ones that were more naturally appearing.

The reasons they stuck with their engineered look might be many, and certainly including the fact that a whole lot of golfers seemed to like that look both back then and today.

But even that fact does not logically extinguish Wayne Morrison's point.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I did mention the Redan and Road Hole greens as exceptions in a previous post on this thread.  However, I did not include your fine examples of a Cape Holes and other Macdonald holes you mention at NGLA, Mid-Ocean, St. Louis CC, Piping Rock, Creek, etc.  That is because this thread is about Seth Raynor and I am mostly critical of Raynor and Banks.  

Raynor's use of angles does not seem as sophisticated as Macdonald and even more so other architects such as Flynn, Thomas, Tillinghast, MacKenzie, etc.  Many of their fairway lines are straight and as engineered looking as their green sites.  I don't know why they didn't show signs of an evolution of style nor get into flowing lines, natural slopes and other components of naturalism.  This factor is either overlooked or embraced by their fans and other students of golf course architecture.  

Their courses, while interesting and enjoyable to play are in stark contrast to their surrounds.  A pastoral feeling is completely lacking and wonderful overlooks such as at Sleepy Hollow are dramatically altered with the juxtaposition of the machined look of their designs, especially the green complexes and the geometric shapes and flat bottoms of the bunkers.  This is a style they stuck to and didn't evolve from.  It is fascinating to consider why that is.  I guess you're right, many liked that look back then and today.  Though I think fewer than we think experience it today because of the private nature of the clubs and the fact that the portfolio of their courses is very small and their courses are rarely competed on let alone televised.  The enduring nature of their courses and the fact that the school of design was not perpetuated relies solely on the continuation of the private clubs themselves.  The test of time was narrowly applied.

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

I can't latch on to the idea that Raynor's use of angles was any less  sophisticated than any of the architects you've mentioned, at least at Mountain Lake. In fact, I'd say Mountain Lake is as close to a text book example as to how angles off the tee can be used subtly and more blatantly to throw the golfer off and sucker them into a bad choice.

The tee shots on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th(!), 8th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th and 18th at Mountain Lake all feature the golfer "fighting for angle" off the tee much like the golfer is required to at Rolling Green or Huntingdon Valley, for example.

One can stand on the 6th tee (especially from the back) at Mountain Lake and have no idea where to aim in the effectively 90 yard wide fairway. On the 4th and 10th, the golfer is asked to manage both distance and line respective to bunkering littering the line of instinct.

Angles abound at Mountain Lake in some extremely sophisticated and challenging aspects. Coincidentally, both Raynor and Banks did work there.

I can't speak for other Raynors, as I haven't been there. But I'm sure one of the reasons Mountain Lake is right next to Huntingdon Valley in the Golfweek ranking is this sophistication and thought behind the design.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()