Template holes stifle originality in design.
How can I say that? These template holes are revered by golf course architecture-philes. The greatest Golf Course Architects in history went to the well with these template holes, but should we?
Alps, Biarritz, Cape, Cardinal, DellEden (High-out), Eden (High-in), Gibraltar, Hell's Half Acre, Island Green, Long, Maiden, Perfection, Postage Stamp, Punch Bowl, Redan and reverse redan, Reef, Road, Sahara, Short
There are great, earth shattering examples of these template holes out there and no one debates that but I have a question. How is going back to the well on these classic/historic template holes any different than Tom Fazio repeatedly creating holes with similar playing characteristics and aesthetics for which he is roundly criticized by Golf Architecture's intelligencia? How many of today's Designers are guilty of this design repetitiveness? And don't even get me started on the Tour 18 concepts that may or should cause intestinal discomfort for some of us.
If a designer has preconceived notions about what good is through their love of template holes, one might suggest or infer that they'll go into their default design mode instead of exploring options and possibly finding "new" and different golf holes, nary I say, a great, new original golf hole worthy of template status.
More thoughts on today's Golf Course Design: