Dr. MacKenzie: According To Strantz

[Michael Whitaker]

In The Spirit of St. Andrews, Allister MacKenzie says,

"A first class hole must have the subtleties and strategic problems which are difficult to understand, and are therefore extremely likely to be condemned at first sight even by the best of players."

This is one of several quotes from The Spirit of St. Andrews used by Mike Strantz on his website to explain his own design philosophy.

Do you agree with Mike and Dr. MacKenzie that first class holes are "extremely likely to be condemned at first sight," or is this just Mike's way of justifying what some have called "over-the-top" design?

What are some examples of MacKenzie holes that were "condemned at first sight" only to be proven "first class" with time?

[Joe Hancock]

I'm not enough of a historian to know what MacKenzie holes fit that description, but I immediately thought of #9 at Kingsley Club. One's description or interpretation of time might be called into play as well.

Joe

[Jfaspen]

I think of #11 at ANGC..  Hitting downhill off a slope to a narrow green that runs towards the water..  Back when originally designed, it was a decent 2 shots to get there.  
So yea.. You could blow the ball through the fairway or try to approach from the 2nd cut, but you risked the water.

Just my own guess.

[T_MacWood]

I would agree. My guess is the 16th at Cypress Point, requiring a super human carry in 1928, was controversial. Most holes with blind shots....like the 8th at CPC...get early criticism. To this day the 18th at CPC is bashed. I suspect a number of holes at Pasatiempo were open to criticism...the 10th and 16th? Finishing with a short par-3. The 7th at Crystal Downs, with its boomerang green. ANGC 9th's boomerang was removed as an example. The old 10th and 7th at ANGC only survived five or six years before being redesigned....is that enough time to appreciate the subtlties? The dunescape greens at Pebble Beach were ultimately remodeled, maybe that was due to maintenance consideration or perhaps it was also because they were just too unusual.

[TEPaul]

"A first class hole must have the subtleties and strategic problems which are difficult to understand, and are therefore extremely likely to be condemned at first sight even by the best of players."

This type of remark, and others like it by other architects such as Macdonald could be the most fundamental indication of what really great golf architecture is all about.

Why is that? In my opinion, Max Behr probably cited the most fundamental reason for this the best. He said at the bottom of it all a golf architect should create something that makes the golfer feel that he is discovering and finding his best way (his unique strategies) ON HIS OWN!

The opposite of this, of course, is for any architect to create something that shows the golfer very clearly the best or the only good way to go. When that happens all a golfer has to do is execute the shots along a prescribed and somewhat thoughtless path!

Alister MacKenzie's application of the fundamentals of camouflage are best seen here with this remark, in one sense. There's no question that MacKenzie's use of the concept of camouflage was a way of tying together and disguising where man and nature stopped and started in architecture but in another and probably more important sense this remark reflects the real effects of what camouflage best applied can do.

This is probably why Mackenzie was always called the architect whose courses looked a lot harder than they really were.

How did he do that? By creating the illusion that something looked far more difficult to do than it was and on the other side of the slate creating something that looked easy but turned out generally on the next shot to be anything but.

This isn't much different than the actual military application of camouflage that the enemy really isn't where he appears to be or that he actually is where he certainly doesn't appear to be!

With golfers who tend to want their hands held by architects and shown the way to go this kind of thing can create controversy and criticism. But over time when they finally find their own way it becomes probably the most enduring and respected architecture of all. Nothing is more exciting in architecture and in golf than to think you've discovered what the mystery was for you--what the secret is all on your own!

That was practically the entire and fundamental truth of golf architecture to Behr!

There was a wonderful example of this once used by Bobby Jones to both strongly praise a golf course, its architecture and a golfer. He played a number of rounds at TOC with Joyce Wethered (considered by some to best the best women player ever). On one hole he noticed that Wethered used a strategy to great effect, and then did it a number of times that Jones said neither he nor anyone else he was aware of had ever seen before or even noticed!

That pretty much says it all about that remark above and what the fundamental of truly great golf architecture is all about!

[Steve Lang]

 

One might then say we should pack this thing up and go home...

Having played Strantz' Tot Hill Farm and Tobacco Road, one might have to look no further than the first holes of either..

and I am then reminded of the first at Black Mesa (ala Baxter Spann), now that one got a lot of attention after the gca.com outing last september!

[Michael Whitaker]

Steve,

I am a great fan of Stantz's work expressly because his courses are sometimes difficult to understand at first. When I first played Tobacco Road I was in shock with all the blind shots and visual intimidation. But, I couldn't wait for the chance to play it a second time. And, now, I'm chomping at the bit to play it a third time. There are not many courses in this country that have captured my imagination like Tobacco Road... Black Mesa is close.

I have not had the opportunity to play Tot Hill Farm. Many people I respect have come away from it scratching their heads. I've become good friends with one of the owners and he tells me THF has been a business struggle. From what I understand, it was a difficult piece of land with severe elevation changes and LOTS of rock. I'm told that, as the rock was discovered, a decision had to be made to blast it away (an expensive proposition) or incorporate it into the course. Economics, as usual, won out.

The first time I played True Blue I fell in love with it. The grand scope of everything... the massive waste areas... the visual tricks and hidden fairways... the multi-option par threes... the challenging greens. But, I must have been in the minority because the owners were forced to "soften" the course in order to keep the 15+ handicappers coming back. Ridges were shaved down to reveal hidden areas of fairways or greens... some green contours were smoothed out... a few bunkers were filled. The changes were not too dramatic, just enough to quell the "over the top" crowd, but they were financially effective. The course now enjoys tremendous business success and is one of the most played courses in the area. To me, True Blue is a perfect case study for MacKenzie's quote. Several of its holes were "difficult to understand" at first and, as a result, they were changed... because most of the clientele didn't get (or want) a second chance to figure it out.

[Tom_Doak]

SOME great holes are likely to be condemned by great players at first sight.  The 16th at Cypress Point, the Road hole, etc.

Other great holes are not so likely to be condemned.  There are a lot of great holes at Riviera, for example, which might have stirred a bit of unrest when they were opened, but not like the Road hole.

Likewise, just because a hole is condemned at first sight doesn't necessarily mean it's a good hole, either.

[T_MacWood]

Strantz seems to enjoy pushing MacKenzie's theory to its limits, resulting in extreme reviews--some hate his work, equal numbers love it. I love Tobacco Road, a combination of great fun and artistic flair. It will be interesting to see how his work evolves.

[Tony_Chapman]

It's interesting about Strantz. He is way over the top. My brother is a excellent golfer (scratch) and we played TR last Wednesday. He brought up an interesting point, I think. Are his courses (at least Tobacco Road) "too easy" the second time around. I realize you still have to execute shots, but I thought his point valid. We played TR in 1998 and remembered most of it. To know where you are going on Strantz's courses is an obvious advantage. In fact, of our four rounds last week my lowest was at TR.


What is this an intimidating opener? There is all kinds of fairway out there.


Surely a wedge to this green wouldn't cause too many problems....would it?


This drive isn't that intimidating.....


....along with this approach.

[Michael Whitaker]

Tony - That is a very interesting idea. I'm not sure any course can be called "too easy" because, like you said, you still have to execute the shots. But, I too, had a great round my second time around Tobacco Road. As a matter of fact, it was one of my best scoring rounds ever! I think it would be fair to say that good scores are available to the average player on TR if he successfully negotiates the challenges presented... but, there is peril everywhere if he doesn't!

[Michael Whitaker]

Tom Doak - I agree with you that there are great holes that were not "condemned at first sight." Why, do you think, did MacKenzie make a point of of saying that "a first class hole must[/b] have the subtleties and strategic problems which are difficult to understand." Was his work overly criticized by better players?

[Steve Lang]

 

Mike,

Last year at TR in benign conditions I shot a 74 from "white (equivalent)" tees (spades?) first time, with an eagle that certainly helped, then later that day an 83 from next back ones (disks?), this year from same back ones, with wind up a bit, didn't even sniff at breaking through 80,..  So perhaps its more like buyer-beware, if you think your way through it conservatively, a good score is there to be had, but upon returns,,, "I didn't travel all that way to lay up!!

I think the struggle at THF may be more its location than anything else..  We played it on a travel day into Southern Pines, after driving through the night.  I found it much quirkier (if that's a word) at most times than TR, certainly due to rock outcropings, but coming from basic flat lands, its a hoot on my vacation fun scale.. We all enjoyed playing it, and we'll probably return next year.. but it might be a little much day in day out.  Though everyone we met there were real enthusiastic about playing there!


Pete,

Did you get #1 tee shot pic from left side of back tees??  all you see from there is the V!

[Tony_Chapman]

I don't know who Pete is, but yes I took that picture from the back tees.   I think it is a really cool tee shot from back there!!

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

Dr. MacKenzie did not particularly like low-handicap players, after several of them criticized some of his early work in England.  He took a few thinly veiled shots at them in his writings.

I do think MacKenzie really believed a hole should not be obvious at first glance or it wasn't really interesting.  However his quote indicates that he believed subtlety could achieve the same purpose that in-your-face difficulty could.