[TEPaul]

Kyle:

I just don't get that fighting for an angle via fairway orientation at Mountain Lake on that many holes. Maybe somewhat on particularly #10, 12 and 13 but I don't think it's that much of an issue on the others. Not to me anyway. I'm not saying that placement on the fairway means nothing to what comes next but I don't see that many fairways themselves oriented that way for actual tee shots.

[corey miller]

I just want to note  to prove his point Sean somehow dropped Ran's caption to #2 at Sleepy Hollow, "good architecture adds to, not subtracts from the environment".  

I guess I am the only person offended by a pine tree that "protects" the hole?  

Of course he might also be wrong with his comment that "little attempt was made to harmonize with nature"  as the line of the hill runs from 17 tee through 16 green through 3 tee and finally through 2 green.  That you would have to see.  I would argue it is more important to maintain that line than worry about what is being dug below it.  

But I don't blame anyone for not liking any look, that is fair.  In fact, I fully expected 50% of our members would not like the look either.  

Does anyone want to look at before and after photos of our renovation to determine what harmonizes with nature better?  

Luckily, I happen to like the Mac/Raynor look I don't think our committee could have sold a "Flynn" restoration to the membership.  

[wsmorrison]

Corey,

There have been three different photos of this hole posted in the past.  By far and away, the restoration is a huge improvement on the previous iteration and is very much in line with the earliest photograph.  I expect the entire restoration/renovation project will be viewed favorably by the members, at least in the long run.  You mention that you understand that the membership will likely be divided in their appreciation of the Raynor look.  I suppose you grant the same understanding of non-members.
 
Why would you mention the following, "Luckily, I happen to like the Mac/Raynor look I don't think our committee could have sold a "Flynn" restoration to the membership."

Given that there never was any Flynn on the site, that seems to be a bit of a jab at me.  I don't understand why except that the Flynn style was so different from the Raynor style.  If you mentioned that you might never have sold a Tillinghast restoration to the membership, that would make a lot more sense since Tillinghast's work is being rejected and not Flynn's.  I don't like everything Flynn did and I am not subject to disliking something because Flynn didn't do it.  I like the playability but not the look of Raynor courses, especially on such a lovely site as Sleepy Hollow.  

Think of why the Pocantico Hills golf course was done the way it was done, that is in harmony with the natural surroundings and not in stark contrast to them.  Why a Raynor (he had passed away several years before the commission award) or Banks model would never have been selected nor even a Macdonald (he was never considered).  The Rockefeller family wanted the golf course to not stand out and draw attention to itself on the family estate grounds.  It is one of the most magnificent settings in America and an engineered golf course would look so out of place and detract from the views and the gardens.  It is a fact that Raynor courses are engineered and are not tied into their sites very well.  This has an effect on maintenance and aesthetics.  This fact can be separated from the playability.  When playability, maintenance and aesthetics work together, that is the course looks and feel as natural as can be given that it is a man-made object, it is to me the highest form of the art and science of golf course architecture.  

My opinion definitely seems to hit a raw nerve.  It shouldn't.  How do those that love the look of Raynor courses feel about the look of the more natural looking courses?  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Wayne,

There are those that say that Flynn's routings were so constrained that he had to employ cumbersome crossovers, something that Raynor didn't have to resort to.

How do you address that issue ?  

[wsmorrison]

Routings or routing, Pat?  The Pocantico Hills course does have some crossovers and some of the holes reverse upon themselves.  This innovative and challenging design gets about 4 rounds per day on average.  I think the constraints the design forces on the players is acceptable.  Given that the family LOVES the course, I think we can accept the fact.  But what do they know, right, Pat?

Do you think that Raynor would be able to come up with a novel concept like the Pocantico Hills course?  He would have been thrown out the stone gates on his ear when he would've wanted JDR's house torn down as it was the perfect site for a Biarritz  

[corey miller]

Wayne:

First, my Flynn comment was a bit of a jab at you, but it was good natured. .  I don't think either one of us would suggest veering away from the original architects style on a classic era course based on our own personal preferences and biases.  I don't walk around Merion and try to determine what Raynor would have done, or Macdonald. It's irrelevant IMO.

The two Sleeepy pictures that have been posted #2,16 are perhaps the  two most obviously constructed bunkering but the grees themselves are at natural grade.  A picture taken from #16 tee with the angular moat bunkering enhances the "skyline" feel and thus enhances the view across the river IMO.

I would readily allow for differences of opinion as to design prefereneces, member and non-member alike.  The problem is that the average person/member is not as sophisticated as you and those on this site and they would probably have no problem "changing the style" on a classic era course.  

I would argue that Sleepy Hollow is the best "walk in the park" in Westchester County in spite of Macdonald "detracting" from the natural environment.

Maybe someone can post photos of #16 at Sleepy Hollow next to #16 at Hudson National, both par 3's with the Hudson in the background.  We can then see what "look" works best.


Pocantico works really well vis a vis Flynn but I also would wonder to what extent Macdonald problems with Rockefeller at SH had in influencing Pocantico commission?

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

When it comes to the question of why apparently so many golfers like the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks style, an engineered looking style, probably can't be explained by the fact that most of the clubs of those courses are private.

The fact is there're a ton of golfers from all walks of life who do not belong to Macd/Raynor/Bank's clubs and courses who seem to love that style and look.

I think it's a most legitimate question to ask why that is.

In my opinion, it just does not do for those who try to explain it to say that the look is not engineered looking to them because it just simply is engineered and consequently engineered looking, and that fact is frankly impossible to deny.

The truth just may be that a very large amount of golfers likes that engineered look in golf architecture for various reasons.

But this does not in any way minimize or extinguish your own point about why you don't like that look because it just is a fact that the look of Macd/Raynor/Bank's architecture is a look that's pretty far from the more natural looking architecture of other architects.

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle:

I just don't get that fighting for an angle via fairway orientation at Mountain Lake on that many holes. Maybe somewhat on particularly #10, 12 and 13 but I don't think it's that much of an issue on the others. Not to me anyway. I'm not saying that placement on the fairway means nothing to what comes next but I don't see that many fairways themselves oriented that way for actual tee shots.

Considering that on 4, the only way to really have a good angle to have a go at the green in 2 is to catch a good lie in the rough left of the bunkers or hit a BIG cutter that somehow manages to fly all the way to the green. Those tees are lined up so the fairway bunkers are between the golfer and the direct line to the green with plenty of room right in the fairway to bail out and give you no angle.

On 6, the further right one gets in the fairway, the more all the bunkers around the green come into play, the longer the club you have in, and the less green one has to work with.

On 8, gotta hug the left side to have a shot even for a lay up that doesn't either risk falling into the pond or being on the level ground about 200 yards out.

On 10, playing to the outside gives you the shot at a long runner into the green that falls away from you and if you cut the corner on the inside, you have to hit a high 180ish shot over a tree that must fly the green or get caught up in the approach.

On 12, the hole locations dictates which side of the blind fairway from the tee you need to hit.

On 13, you either hit a fade over the middle bunker in the view or take it way right and carry it 240, else the golfer will be at the mercy of the green's fall away nature.

On 14, finding the correct side of the fairway is compounded by the dogleg, approach the hog's back from the incorrect side under firm conditions is never easy.

On 16, you take on the echelon bunkers or bail out way right, bringing the hazard in the approach into play and having the green fall directly away from you... again, the ideal line is from the rough left of the bunkers.

Mountain Lake is VERY much a tee shot course and the angles of approach from the tee to the fairway play the largest role in how easy of the approach shot will be. The course demands both correct ball flight, angle and distance off the tee in order to maximize the ability of the golfer to be aggressive with his approach.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Tom,
If you want to know why some people don't accept Wayne's positions all you need to do is read remarks of his, like this:

"It is a fact that Raynor courses are engineered and are not tied into their sites very well."

C'mon Tom, this is only a fact in Wayne's mind and when presented by him as an absolute, chips away at his credibility as an objective reasoner. Does Raynor have an engineered look, of course, but a walk around Fishers alone makes swiss cheese of the rest of his theory.

I understand why he doesn't like 'Raynor', that's his opinion and he's welcome to it. More people than not do like Raynor, probably why his courses always show so well in any compilation of classic courses.      

[wsmorrison]

Jim,

Are you telling me that Raynor's courses are not engineered looking and thus not tied in naturally to their sites?  No, you use the example of an incompleted golf course.  

You don't question Tom Paul who stated, "In my opinion, it just does not do for those who try to explain it to say that the look is not engineered looking to them because it just simply is engineered and consequently engineered looking, and that fact is frankly impossible to deny."

I've never been to Fisher's Island and from what I do hear, it has a measure of naturalism and an exceptionally fine course.  But it is an exception to a rule that is very clear.  I'm not saying 100% of everything he did is manufactured looking.  But an overwhelming majority of his work is and that cannot be denied.  I maintain that it remains a fact even if it cannot be applied in universally.  Sorry, your example does not disprove my idea.  By the way, what would Fisher's Island look like if it was completed given there is but one fairway bunker of the many intended?  I never said Fisher's Island isn't a great course and thoroughly enjoyable to play.  I'd love to one day and was supposed to but it was too cold so we played Yale instead and I had a great time.  

If you try to dispute that Raynor courses are very engineered looking and are not tied into their sites very well, I think this can be refuted.  However, for your sake, I will add a caveat that his greens and features are not tied in to their natural settings though there are a few hole exceptions.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Wayne,
Well, he framed the question about you, not himself, which is why I answered it so, but I think his is the more realistic approach.

    When it comes to the question of why apparently so many golfers like the Macdonald/Raynor/Banks style, an engineered looking style, probably can't be explained by the fact that most of the clubs of those courses are private.The fact is there're a ton of golfers from all walks of life who do not belong to Macd/Raynor/Bank's clubs and courses who seem to love that style and look.

I agree with this first paragraph, and wonder how many guests request return visits at the privates. We have a high return rate at our little public course, even though it's far from the haute-couture of Raynor's work.

      I think it's a most legitimate question to ask why that is. In my opinion, it just does not do for those who try to explain it to say that the look is not engineered looking to them because it just simply is engineered and consequently engineered looking, and that fact is frankly impossible to deny. The truth just may be that a very large amount of golfers likes that engineered look in golf architecture for various reasons.-TEP

I've never played a Raynor course on flatlands, but I don't agree that the 'engineered look' is predominate or that it projects an out-of-place experience when built over terrain like that found at Yale or FI.

   But this does not in any way minimize or extinguish your(Wayne's) own point about why you don't like that look because it just is a fact that the look of Macd/Raynor/Bank's architecture is a look that's pretty far from the more natural looking architecture of other architects.-TEP

You're not an advocate for the 'engineered look' and that is fine for you, I just look at it a little differently, that's all. For me, there is a broad range over which courses are built, from what is more 'natural' on the whole, to what is made to 'look' natural, to courses where engineering is more noticeable, and courses where a combination of approaches is found. I think any one can 'fit' the site it's on and I don't believe any of these approaches exclusively occupy the moral high ground of GCA.
   
 

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Wayne,

Routings.

You seem to have forgotten about Lehigh  

Perhaps he was copying that quirk from Wilson at Merion

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

Not surprisingly, I'm going to vehemently disagree with you.

MOST golfers don't see and/or recognize an "engineered" look.

Much of the "engineered" look, looks natural from the golfers perspective.  It's only when they look at the green complexes from behind the green complex that they begin to see the engineered nature of the green complex, AND, how many golfers study the previous green complex from behind it once they finish the hole and head to the next tee.

Most golfers are oblivious to what lies beneath their feet.

You, yourself had to rely on your faithful guidedog Coorshaw to lead you to the back of CBM-SR-CB green complexes before you you had your epiphany and spoke those fateful words, "Voila !, or was it Viola or Violin or Veal Milanese ?

Most golfers, teeing off on # 1 at NGLA rarely see the highly engineered green complexes that become so apparent when walking the golf course in reverse.

So, on this issue, you're all wet, like an old fettucini noodle.

Golfers LIKE the presentations provided by CBM-SR-CB because they send a unique signal to the golfer's eye and because they present a sporty playing challenge.  They have a unique but comfortable look, one that entices and challenges the golfer.

P.S.  While I realize the Coorshaw is part Chow, stop feeding
        him Chow Mein.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

Lehigh's isn't so cumbersome a crossover.  For what it gives you in terms of routing progression and wind direction variety (something I know you appreciate) it is a welcome feature and rather brilliant, don't you think?

While the crossover at Merion (cross 6 tee to 3 tee) that wasn't done until sometime between the 1916 and 1924 Amateurs.  I don't know who thought of changing the hole progression.

Are you saying you have to go behind this green to realize it is man-made?



Corey,

I didn't take your jab as anything but playful and in good spirit  

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Wayne,

How do you get from # 13 green to # 14 tee at Merion ?

Almost every green is man made.

If I shouldered the bunkers into the green, few would know it.

[Bill Brightly]

Pat,

Lehigh's isn't so cumbersome a crossover.  For what it gives you in terms of routing progression and wind direction variety (something I know you appreciate) it is a welcome feature and rather brilliant, don't you think?

While the crossover at Merion (cross 6 tee to 3 tee) that wasn't done until sometime between the 1916 and 1924 Amateurs.  I don't know who thought of changing the hole progression.

Are you saying you have to go behind this green to realize it is man-made?



Corey,

I didn't take your jab as anything but playful and in good spirit  

First of all, this picture is taken far from the right side of the green,  high up the hill. If you were playing the hole, the Hudson River would be dead to your left, and you would carry the bunker. The hole is dead up hill, so it is not as unatural as this picture might appear. The face of the trap is "with" the prevailing uphill slope.

This picture just happens to be one of the fantastic side-view/back-views you ALWAYS get on MacRaynors

Secondly, isn't it patently ridiculous to criticize a golf course because it appears to be "man made." They are ALL  man made, aren't they?

I think a sand trap is one of Man's most beautiful creations. So is a putting green. I don't need to pretend to be dumb, that Mother Nature made these things.

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne,

How do you get from # 13 green to # 14 tee at Merion ?"

Oops  When the course was first built, you played to the 13th green below the far end of the clubhouse (below caddy shack) and then walked behind the 1st tee to 14tee.  Today, you go in front of the first tee.  At least they had the good sense to put a bar on the lower terrace for a pit stop which takes cumbersome completely out of the equation  

"Secondly, isn't it patently ridiculous to criticize a golf course because it appears to be "man made." They are ALL  man made, aren't they?"

Bill,

I know the photo is taken from the side.  The view from the front of the green is not more natural in appearance, so I didn't bother to search for it.  This photo was on the same page and suits my point very well.

Not all features of a golf course are man-made.  Naturalism uses as much of the natural site as possible and strives to make the look of the architecture appear as natural as possible.  I suppose you also found something to like in the geometric era with its flat geometrically-shaped sand bunkers (a feature that MacRayBanks had a difficult time letting go of), geometric mounding and abrupt green pads.  You may not appreciate the extra effort and artistry it took to try to make man-made look as natural as possible.  Some people do.  I am one of them.  MacRayBanks were a transition between what you see at Shinnecock Hills in 1894 and the naturalism practiced in the 1920s and that is being cycled back to today.  MacRayBanks stuck with a good thing and stayed in a narrow convention unlike many others readily evolved beyond that design style.  Why MacRayBanks did not is a fascinating question.  

[Bill Brightly]

Wayne,

I can't have this conversation any more. We all grant you your preference for Flynn, we allow you your strong preference to "naturalism" (presumably even a bad naturalist attempt is better than a great template hole...)

But what we CANNOT grant you is the backhand slaps at MacRaynors, your inability to discuss their courses without including NEGATIVE terms such as "constrain," "stuck," "failure to grow" etc. You view their work to be substandard  BY DEFINITION , and that's why people get annoyed. I dont have to go to a Flynn course and look for negative things to prove that I am a fan of MacRaynors.

(Although I did chuckle at the "progresson" of Shinnecock, as if we didnt know that Flynn altered a Macdonald course...That was pretty funny.)

And you are too smart to pretend to be "fascinated" by MacRaynor-Banks lack of change, it is really very simple. Macdonald introduced great golf holes to the US when there were no great courses. He turned the golfing world on its ear! Other people wanted his courses, wanted those holes. He gave birth to great architecture, and Tilly, Ross, Strong, Crump were spurred on Macdonald's masterpieces. We are all the beneficiary of that  competition today. Rayor, an engineer and non-golfer, built the courses that wealthy people wanted Macdonald to build. Banks was a top assistant for two years before Raynor died, so he built what he knew for 4 years before the depression.  No need to feign "fascination," just to be thankful for the wonderful differences we are left with today.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Wayne,

Unless you're playing in the Sand Hills of Nebraska, there's nothing natural about a bunker on a golf course.

I happen to like the bunker pictured below because of its almost absolute function as a penal feature.

While it might look excessively to linear to you, in the context of unnatural, it's no more unnatural in structure and construction than Flynn's bunkers.  Only its perimeter configuration differs

GCGC has some rather linear bunkers, but they work quite well.
They serve a functional purpose not diminished by their shape.



Bill Brightly brings up a good point.

EVERYONE wanted CBM's-SR's-CB's designs.

They knew what they looked like and they wanted them.  They wanted them replicated on their golf course.

Interestingly enough, those features, those holes and those courses have withstood the ultimate test, the test of time.

The walk from the original 13th green at Merion to the 14th tee was cumbersome.  The relocation of the 13th green still presents a cumbersome walk in the context of the purity of the routing.

My point is/was, that you can't claim that SR's insertion of templates compromised his routings when Flynn's crossovers certainly did more to compromise the quality of his routings in purist terms/standards, standards that you want to hold SR to while giving Flynn a pass.  

But, I do admire your loyalty

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Wayne,

Bill Brightly's point about the angle of the photo is valid.

To the golfer, the hole doesn't resemble the photo, which is taken to the left and above the 16th tee.

To be fair, the photo should reflect what the golfer's eye sees.

Anything less is disengenuous and misleading

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

Frankly, I don't want to discuss this with you any longer either. This will be my last effort on this thread. You only focus on the negative aspects of my critique and completely ignore my stance on the enjoyable and challenging playability of their courses.  You also fail to discern the difference in my appreciation of Macdonald in contrast to his protoges Raynor and Banks.  Fine, if that helps you to consider my position as narrow and one-sided thus supporting your better perspective, have at it.  Likewise, you think my preference for Flynn must be a component for my disagreements with the design style of Raynor and Banks.  You ignore my preference for Thomas, MacKenzie, Colt, and a host of others.  My bias isn't nearly as Flynn-centric as you make it out to be.

I'll turn this around and observe that you haven't once acknowledged a single negative aspect of the Raynor and Banks design style.  You have defended their style without a single criticism, why is that?  Is everything about their style perfectly suited to your sensitivities?  You could not agree that template designs dictate routings without considering alternative processes.  You ignore a very radical and predictable design style (with predictable bunker lies) yet expect everyone to be as in love with the style as you are and bitterly disagree when someone is not.  To me, when someone has complete acceptance of a design style without any reservation, there is something misjudged or not fully considered.

Pat,

I know your regard for Macdonald and I guess there is a transference of that regard to Raynor and Banks with little consideration that their designs are closely linked to their mentor and while narrowly compartmentalized and bereft of artistic evolution.  I don't think this is arguable nor do I think this is a slight to the playability and shot enjoyment.  It is a critique of the aesthetics and quite possibly the maintenance requirements.  I'm not saying their templates are exact replicas, but they sure are close enough given they don't start with blank white canvases but rather different sites with unique topography.

Would the highly engineered look of Raynor work better at Cypress Point or the naturalism employed by MacKenzie?  Would you rather see linear lines, flat bunkers, geometric shapes and template designs on that spectacular site or do you embrace the work of MacKenzie as suited to that site?  Raynor would have been the architect of record had he not died.  This is an important point and one that is applicable to other less spectacular seaside sites but equally spectacular sites such as above the Hudson, in Ardmore or other locations.

There is nothing completely natural about Cypress Point or Shinnecock Hills but they are meant to blend in with their surrounds with more harmony than other architects, particularly Raynor and Banks.  I find it difficult to believe that this has not be acknowledged by the most vociferous Raynor and Banks defenders on this website.  Their silence speaks volumes.  Again, their courses are a delight to play but they are severe in style and it doesn't always work.  Macdonald's work is, to me, generally far more interesting than his derivative designers although there are some exceptions.

You bring up cumbersome crossovers as a knock against Wilson and Flynn.  I think they are brilliant solutions that are not at all cumbersome but result in an enhanced experience with little demand on the golfer.  The walk from 1 green to 2 tee at Lehigh is downhill.  The walk from 13 green to 14 tee at Merion is a slight rise (and it does pass a bar).  The walk from 2 green to 3 tee at Merion is also downhill and not long.  To call these cumbersome is a bit of a stretch.  As you know, the change in routing progression from the 2nd hole to the current 3rd (bypassing the current 6th) gives you the wonderful 3 Act Play that is a part of Merion's greatness.  So that crossover that you call cumbersome is in fact essential.

OK, here's a picture, although not from the perfect angle, but close enough.  Can you please explain why the picture I used was deceptive and this one more appropriate to demonstrate the natural look of the greensite?  I'll even stretch a point and say the flat sand bottom is a representation of the Hudson River below and the green the Palisades beyond.  How's that?  

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Not surprisingly, I'm going to vehemently disagree with you."

Patrick:

No, it's not surprising at all that you vehemently disagree with me. Most people who are wrong about 98% of the time do tend to disagree with me.

"MOST golfers don't see and/or recognize an "engineered" look."

Interesting, how do you think you know what MOST golfers dont' see or don't recognize? Perhaps you should just stick with what YOU see and recognize even if it's not much.

Well, on second thought, would you even want to do that if you'd like to learn to be right more than 2% of the time?

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

You and Bill and Patrick should stop arguing with each other on a subject like negatives and such and simply realize you are all just part of what makes my "Big World" theory as valid as it is, and ultimately as beneficial as it is for the entire art form of golf course architecture.  

Take Patrick, for example. The point is golf course architecture also needs to accommodate people who are incapable of being right more than about 2% of the time. If they actually enjoy being wrong 98% of the time, don't you suppose golf architecture should accommodate that too?

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

Pat,

I know your regard for Macdonald and I guess there is a transference of that regard to Raynor and Banks with little consideration that their designs are closely linked to their mentor and while narrowly compartmentalized and bereft of artistic evolution.  

Here's where I think you go wrong.

Since when does "style" need to evolve ?

One's artistic/architectural "style" is what makes their courses unique.  Why should there be a need to change it ?

A deviation from that style might result in a devolution of the product.[/color]


I don't think this is arguable nor do I think this is a slight to the playability and shot enjoyment.  

It is a critique of the aesthetics and quite possibly the maintenance requirements.  

Wayne, that's sheer nonsense.
The aesthetics at Westhampton, The Knoll, The Creek, Piping Rock, Yale, NGLA and others are terrific, if not spectacular.
How can you posture that any of those courses are lacking in aesthetics ?  It's simply NOT TRUE.[/color]


I'm not saying their templates are exact replicas, but they sure are close enough given they don't start with blank white canvases but rather different sites with unique topography.

So what ?
The holes and more importantly, the subject of this thread, the routings, work marvelously, with NO internal flaws, such as crossovers.

You may or may not remember all of the criticism that Atlantic took with respect to the crossovers.  Poster after poster was commenting that crossovers were an indication of a flawed routing.  If crossovers are deemed by the cognoscenti to be a routing flaw, especially multiple crossovers, then the object of that criticism, as it related to Atlantic, must be applied to Flynn's work at Lehigh and others.

His crossovers must be considered a routing flaw.
The Cognoscenti have spoken and we must listen.[/color]


Would the highly engineered look of Raynor work better at Cypress Point or the naturalism employed by MacKenzie?  


Would you identify the highly engineered "look" at Westhampton ?  I'd like to know where to find it.

You've described SR's work as having a highly engineered "look", yet, the look you allude to doesn't exist in the golfer's eye.
It's your way of predisposing an opinion.

I'd also like you to tell me how Flynn would have designed and routed Lido, Yale and NGLA.  To state that he'd use the natural resources, ala Dr Mac at CPC would be a foolish response.[/color]


Would you rather see linear lines, flat bunkers, geometric shapes and template designs on that spectacular site or do you embrace the work of MacKenzie as suited to that site?  

That's an absurd assumption on your part, one that attempts to predispose the answer.[/color]


Raynor would have been the architect of record had he not died.  This is an important point and one that is applicable to other less spectacular seaside sites but equally spectacular sites such as above the Hudson, in Ardmore or other locations.

What's so spectacular about the sites above the Hudson ?[/color]


There is nothing completely natural about Cypress Point or Shinnecock Hills but they are meant to blend in with their surrounds with more harmony than other architects, particularly Raynor and Banks.  

Wayne, the next time you're at Shinnecock, don't skip # 7.

If you think that hole is more in harmony with the surrounds than Raynor's and Bank's work you're deluding yourself.

The same can be said of # 17 and many other holes.
You're blind to Flynn's artificial work but have 20-20 vision when it comes to the same work by SR and CB.[/color]  


I find it difficult to believe that this has not be acknowledged by the most vociferous Raynor and Banks defenders on this website.  Their silence speaks volumes.  Again, their courses are a delight to play but they are severe in style and it doesn't always work.  


That's simply not true.  
How don't they work ?
They've been praised and enjoyed since the day they were built.

How does Morris County have a "severe" style ?
Essex County ?
The Knoll ?
Westhampton ?
Piping Rock ?
The Creek ?
Fisher's Island ?
CC of Fairfield ?

Most appreciate Flynn's work, but, don't try to differentiate it from CBM-SR-CB by demeaning their style and work.[/color]


Macdonald's work is, to me, generally far more interesting than his derivative designers although there are some exceptions.

You bring up cumbersome crossovers as a knock against Wilson and Flynn.  I think they are brilliant solutions that are not at all cumbersome but result in an enhanced experience with little demand on the golfer.  The walk from 1 green to 2 tee at Lehigh is downhill.  The walk from 13 green to 14 tee at Merion is a slight rise (and it does pass a bar).  The walk from 2 green to 3 tee at Merion is also downhill and not long.  To call these cumbersome is a bit of a stretch.  As you know, the change in routing progression from the 2nd hole to the current 3rd (bypassing the current 6th) gives you the wonderful 3 Act Play that is a part of Merion's greatness.  So that crossover that you call cumbersome is in fact essential.

No it's not.  That's narrow thinking on your part.  A HOMER call.   It's clearly a signal that he was unable to route the golf course within the constraints of the property boundaries, something you've alluded to when it comes to the triumvirate.

CBM-SR-CB would probably been able to create superior golf courses on those sites without crossovers.[/color]


OK, here's a picture, although not from the perfect angle, but close enough.  Can you please explain why the picture I used was deceptive and this one more appropriate to demonstrate the natural look of the greensite?  

Because any picture that doesn't present what's seen from the golfer's eyes "misrepresents" what the architect intended to be seen[/color]


I'll even stretch a point and say the flat sand bottom is a representation of the Hudson River below and the green the Palisades beyond.  How's that?  

That's hokey.

This isn't poetry, it's a field of play.[/color]

[corey miller]

Just so we are clear here, this photo above is of the 16th from the golfers perspective.  The other photo is of #2 taken from a strange angle.  #2 scales a hill and is actually quite natural looking from the fairway.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()