[TEPaul]

"What we do know is that Roberts insisted from the beginning that Jones contribute no money. Jones offered a couple of times, but Roberts insisted that any additional funds come from the other members."

Bob:

That's very interesting. I've sure never heard that before. Do you have any idea why that would've been? Do you even know how early Roberts got involved in ANGC? Was he part of the planning when it was just a vision of Jones's? That's the way it began---as a vision of Jones's, right? Or were there others such as Roberts first who got Jones into it in the beginning? How early did the planning of ANGC start anyway? Was it before the Crash? Was it before Jones quite the game and perhaps had something to do with his amateur status? I've heard some fairly conflicting stories too about the situation of Jones's amateur status---some that he knew precisely about it and that he planned to give it up and others that the USGA had to come to him. The latter from Skee Riegal, no less, who was around back then, sure did know him well and probably should know what was really going on.

[TEPaul]

"Why they permitted the Mack debt and other debt to be cancelled is unclear."

It sure is unclear. But in things like that the truth is usually the same---it's a clever mechanism to not pay what you owe.

The opposite of that is a remarkable story of one W.E. Hutton brokerage firm on Wall Street (the other and smaller Hutton brokerage co).

Hutton & Co went into bankrupcy about 30 years ago. Bill Hutton was protected by corporate law from being personally liable but like the extraordinary gentleman he always was he did not look at the situation that way. He went far beyond corporate law in bankruptcy and dipped way into his own money and eventually, so they say, paid off everything debt dollar for dollar. It took him quite a while but he got it done, so they say. There're basically not people like that around anymore---that was the good old days of real businessman ethics and strong personal principles.

Probably not that different from the Merrill Lynch reformation and the way Merrill treated the Lynch family following the sudden death of Lynch after the Merrill Lynch handshake that apparently no one but them was aware of.

[Mike_Cirba]

I was in the bookstore last night and picked up the Augusta book again that Jeff refers to.  He's right...the shaping looks to be fairly primitive and nowhere near as good as Mackenzie was capable of.  

I have no qualms about the boomerang greens (some greens look terrific, in fact), but the bunkers seem fairly non-descript (even with their jigsaw edging) and out of scale, and the mounding seems awful.

It made me think Mackenzie was not around for the fine detail shaping and that the job was handled by someone only peripherally aware of what he wanted on the ground.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I was in the bookstore last night and picked up the Augusta book again that Jeff refers to.  He's right...the shaping looks to be fairly primitive and nowhere near as good as Mackenzie was capable of.

How do you know that ?
Maybe the shaping came out exactly as Mackenzie intended it.[/color]

I have no qualms about the boomerang greens (some greens look terrific, in fact), but the bunkers seem fairly non-descript (even with their jigsaw edging) and out of scale, and the mounding seems awful.

Now you can add MacKenzie to the list Rees in on.[/color]

It made me think Mackenzie was not around for the fine detail shaping and that the job was handled by someone only peripherally aware of what he wanted on the ground.
Miike,

It's amazing how you and others come up with theories when the course doesn't suit your tastes.

Would Cliff Roberts and Robert Trye Jones have been aware of what was wanted on the ground ?

Maybe your expectations are beyond AM's ability to produce.
Maybe you and others have deified him, when he's just a man ?
Maybe you and others have overrated his abilities ?

Do pictures tell the entire story ?[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

When did I deify Mackenzie?

I've studied his works, including original photos, and my opinion is that he was one of the greatest ever, and possibly the very best, at making man-made features appear natural, and blended them in exceptionally well almost everywhere he worked.

I'm not sure how Jones/Roberts, et.al. ended up with a course that looked as it did in terms of the features on the ground.  Have you seen the book?  

I would say that minimally the shaping was less than natural-looking, and some of it looked pretty awful.  

As far as whether he was capable of producing "better", one needs only to see Cypress, or Crystal, or virtually any of his courses to see the obvious answer.

I'm asking the question that I think Jeff is.  How did that happen?  

The only thing I can think of is that the course possibly opened early, was only sort of a "prototype" at that point, and Mackenzie intended to work there for a long time in the future which never happened.  That's total speculation, of course, but I don't know how else to explain it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

When did I deify Mackenzie?

Last tuesday.
You were a Johnny come lately.[/color]

I've studied his works, including original photos, and my opinion is that he was one of the greatest ever, and possibly the very best, at making man-made features appear natural, and blended them in exceptionally well almost everywhere he worked.

Mike, he was working with a highly sloped site in Georgia.
Tell me which bunkers he failed with ?[/color]

I'm not sure how Jones/Roberts, et.al. ended up with a course that looked as it did in terms of the features on the ground.  Have you seen the book?  

I've seen several books and numerous photos in the clubhouse.  Roberts wasn't disappointed, Jones wasn't disappointed, I'm not disappointed, why are you disappointed ?
And, can you identify the specific examples that disappoint you ?[/color]

I would say that minimally the shaping was less than natural-looking, and some of it looked pretty awful.  

Natural ?  For a highly sloped piece of property in Georgia ?
Could you be specific and identify each feature you're disatisfied with ?[/color]

As far as whether he was capable of producing "better", one needs only to see Cypress, or Crystal, or virtually any of his courses to see the obvious answer.

This is where you and others lose their minds.

Did you happen to notice the difference in the two sites ?
[/color]

I'm asking the question that I think Jeff is.  How did that happen?  

The only thing I can think of is that the course possibly opened early, was only sort of a "prototype" at that point, and Mackenzie intended to work there for a long time in the future which never happened.  That's total speculation, of course, but I don't know how else to explain it.

Ah, the MacWood method of deductive reasoning.
You don't know the answer, so you speculate, and eliminate any other possibilities because you haven't come up with them.

Where did MacKenzie live ?
How far a commute is that from Augusta, Georgia ?
What year was ANGC built ?
What year did MacKenzie die ?
Do you think that an individual who was never paid for his work would continue to return, traveling across the country "for a long time in the future" to continue to work and incur expenses while not getting paid ?
[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I don't understand your tone.  I'm giving my impression of the original course based on what seem to be features that clearly don't blend in with the surrounding terrain from the pictures I've seen (i.e. the mound to the left of 17, the greenside bunker on 2, the front left "tongue" of green on 4, the mounds around #8 green, the green out well to the right of the interesting bunker on 10, and several pimples that just seem to appear randomly on many holes).

I'm frankly surprised.  I had believed the original course was more of a masterpiece and although the basic holes are very sound and some are brilliant in concept, the details seem to be askew.

I think Mackenzie clearly hoped to have a long-term relationship with the club, until they stiffed him, that is.  I can't blame him for not coming back, but although he left the "bones" of a great course, it wasn't until it was fleshed out over time that it became the course that it is today.

I was surprised to see myself looking at the modern day pictures and seeing the course improved.  I had expected the opposite.  

[TEPaul]

The thing I'd most like to know about the original ANGC (somewhat apart from the aesthetic details of the individual features of the course such as the bunkers and mounds early on) is if there was truly something about the course (or was supposed to be) that was a novel departure (or experiment in some way, if you will) in architecture.

I was talking to Bob Crosby about this last night. He knows the course for years and seems to be looking into and looking to reanalyze any early material on it.

Particularly interesting would be to find something that shows some philosophical connection regarding ANGC between the ideas of MacKenzie, Jones and perhaps Max Behr and the West Coast contingent of that time such as Hunter and even Thomas.

Bob pointed out that there was a rash of good architectural books done in a window of a few years in the mid to late 1920s just preceding the creation of ANGC. It seems those fellows mentioned and some others were really looking to push the architectural envelope in various ways at that time.

Was ANGC one of the most daring architectural experiments in that way at that time? And if so how? Did economy factor into the equation as well? ANGC was quite inexpensive for that time (apparently $100,000 to do) Was that part of the point---eg the concept?

Very wide fairways, minimal bunkering (22), extremely rolling land (random gravity golf), highly complex greens and green-ends. Was this an attempt at minimal architecture (economy) that produced maximum unobvious strategies?

Were those mentioned collaborating with each other philosophically, even if loosely, on this one? Was this supposed to be some example of a new and unique "ideal" in architecture? If so, how well did they pull it off and how well was it understood? Or was it misunderstood?

Bob:

Why did you say you think Roberts may have insisted Jones not put his own money into ANGC?

[TEPaul]

Another thing I particularly like about Bob Crosby's direction in looking into the entire history and particularly the concept of ANGC is that he feels dedicated hagiographical attempts on Jones and his own life should be minimized in the future and all the truth about him throughtout his entire life should be better known. And Bob's a huge fan of Jones. I couldn't agree more. Jones was clearly a complex man, and that and the reasons why are simply very interesting. Is there more to know about Jones about-face on TOC in 1926? Was his journey from beginning to end more complicated than those who've chronicled him have told? I don't know but I'd like to know. To me there's nothing much finer than redemeption. If that was part of his journey that's the type of story I feel truly inspires.

[Jeff_Brauer]

I was in the bookstore last night and picked up the Augusta book again that Jeff refers to.  He's right...the shaping looks to be fairly primitive and nowhere near as good as Mackenzie was capable of.  

I have no qualms about the boomerang greens (some greens look terrific, in fact), but the bunkers seem fairly non-descript (even with their jigsaw edging) and out of scale, and the mounding seems awful.

It made me think Mackenzie was not around for the fine detail shaping and that the job was handled by someone only peripherally aware of what he wanted on the ground.

Mike,

Thank you for actually responding to the intent of the original post - looking at specific pictures (since we can't view the original) and discussing the features as they were, rather than all sorts of other things.  Had you thought they were great, that would have been okay, too.  Like you, I wonder why Pat has to break down every word of your post.....

Pursuant to Doak's, thread, all we needed to do on this thread was too buy a cup of coffee and look at a book to make an intelligent response.  However, I do understand some of the wanderings, especially on a Jones thread.  

I can speculate as to why Roberts wouldn't allow Jones to put money in.  First, as a financial advisor, the idea of UOPM (using other peoples money) has been around forever.  I think the idea that other people would especially pony up money to be associated with a celebrity has been around forever.

From a legal perspective, I wonder if they made Jones a limited partner, where he specifically could not be liable for any debts incurred by the separate ANGC corporation.  Had he put money in, he may have been able to have been deemed a/the general partner according to the structure of  the incorporation papersand possibly liable for some debts, so Roberts was strict about that to protect his fortune.

Like Tom Paul, I lament that it is that way, although I disagree that the 20's was more full of honest men than today (Teapot Dome Scandal, Robber Barons, etc.)  Jones may have been a top drawer guy, but he was a lawyer, and presumably knew how to protect himself financially.  It does seem that he could have found a way to pay Mac's bill, though.  Anyone who can't pay their bills, especially when documented ability to do so is there, will have their character called into question, even if a celeb.  It's one of those subjective issues in judging his character that might rank up there with the policies against or at least indifferetn to African Americans - was he was simply a man of his times/region, or should he be held to a higher standard?

I will label all of the above as pure speculation on my part.  Sorry if it offends Jones fans or anyone else in any way, especially if it is wrong......which it well could be.

[TEPaul]

"Like Tom Paul, I lament that it is that way, although I disagree that the 20's was more full of honest men than today (Teapot Dome Scandal, Robber Barons, etc.)  Jones may have been a top drawer guy, but he was a lawyer, and presumably knew how to protect himself financially.  It does seem that he could have found a way to pay Mac's bill, though.  Anyone who can't pay their bills, especially when documented ability to do so is there, will have their character called into question, even if a celeb.  It's one of those subjective issues in judging his character that might rank up there with the policies against or at least indifferetn to African Americans - was he was simply a man of his times/region, or should he be held to a higher standard?"

JeffB:

There you go---that's great. That's the kind of interesting discussion I like to see on here.

Some may say---OH NO, let's not open history's real door because there might be something in there abhorent to our sensibilities today and to the perception of our beloved icons and heroes. That's precisely Bob Crosby's point about Jones and all this, I believe. IE, let's just look at the truth of it---it's far more interesting and educational that way. It can help us see how far we've come, at least, or if in fact we really have, at the very least in our heart of hearts---in our real character in the dark.

Were those men back then more honest than we are today? Were they, in the converse, more the ruthless robber barons? Well, we don't really know do we unless we look at them in the light of their own times and try not to transpose them into our own times in which they did not live and could not have known or understood?

ANGC indifferent to African Americans? One could probably say that about them today, as some have, but what about ANGC in Jones time when it began? Bob Crosby tells me that some of the bigwigs in Georgia at that time with whom Jones, ANGC et al rubbed shoulders, perhaps even a Georgia US Senator may have been card carrying members of the Ku Klux Klan. If they were, I don't call that 'indifference to blacks', do you?

Am I trying to indict the south back then, Georgia, ANGC or Bob Jones? Not at all----just like Bob Crosby whose a Georgian, I'm only trying to look at the truth of any time to see what the world was like during that time and how it may've been different than our own time. Only then can we begin to better understand our journey, from where it came and where it may go.

[Jeff_Brauer]

TEPaul,

I only vaguely remember the details of a discussion here (and elsewhere during the Martha Burke saga) about whether Jones was anti black or indifferent.  As I recall, some thought he was typical of well to do southerners at that time, and others thought he was moderate.  I don't recall anyone thinking he was a civil rights activist, but again, I could be wrong.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
I only vaguely remember the details of a discussion here (and elsewhere during the Martha Burke saga) about whether Jones was anti black or indifferent.  As I recall, some thought he was typical of well to do southerners at that time, and others thought he was moderate.  I don't recall anyone thinking he was a civil rights activist, but again, I could be wrong."

Jeff:

Even though all this is probably very much off the topic of the orignial ANGC and its architecture back then, I hope the contributors on here will put up with it because obviously some of us think it's a fascinating sideline nonetheless---eg how some of these men in architecture back then looked at the world is sometimes interesting to what they did in architecture, certainly with the cultures of their clubs and such.

Is it important to know what Jones's real feelings and particularly his positions on an issue like African Americans (a term that was probably never used in Jones's time and has apparently morphed from his time to our time from negroes (or worse) to blacks to African Americans---God don't you love our use of euphemisms and political correctness to make us feel better about ourselves somehow? ) in his own time? I think so. It seems Bob Crosby does too.

I guess the most interesting question is---should Jones be considered a worse man or a more racist man if he held the very same beliefs and positions on African Americans in our times that he may have in his own time?

To be honest, personally, I'm not sure what to say or feel about that---and that's why I think the question is so interesting.

On the other hand, and this may sound contradictory, I feel that it's pointless, and somewhat ridiculous to take a man like Thomas Jefferson, and his beliefs about African Americans which was fascinating, to say the least, on both sides of the issue, and plunk him in our time and accuse him of being a virulent racist. Jefferson was a man of his own time, not ours, and should be looked at in the context of his own time only----in my opinion. (had Jefferson somehow been able to imagine our time---which spookily he just may have ---only then would that transposed analysis of his feelings and positions in his own time work).

[Jim Nugent]

Iīd be real interested to learn about the real Bobby Jones.  Are there any good biographies, that donīt merely fawn over their hero?  What is the story about Bobby perhaps losing his amateur status?  

IMO this would be a real interesting topic for a thread here.  

[TEPaul]

"What is the story about Bobby perhaps losing his amateur status?"

Jimbo-Baby:

There seem to be a couple of stories about that too and they don't all appear to correlate very well, to say the least. I never even thought about that until I got to talking to someone, in the supermarket of all places, who obviously played with and against Jones and apparently knew him well.  

He told me the USGA basically came to him and told him he couldn't be an amateur anymore---this due, I think, to that instructional film he made and made a ton on. I just can't believe Jones didn't just basically go to the USGA and tell them what he was going to do first----which was basically do that film and drop his am-status because of it. But this guy said---no they came to him on that before Jones told them what he was going to do or did with the film and that Jones then said; "OK, I quit competitve golf altogether because I definitely do not want to ever play competitive golf as a professional.

Knowing what I've always heard about Jones, his understanding and respect for the rules of the game, something seems sort of off about that guy's story, though.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't understand your tone.  

I'm partially breaking your chops, but to be serious,
I don't know what you expected of the guy.

Like many, I think you focused on minutia and overlooked the important stuff, like the routing and individual hole designs on a piece of land that is on a steep slope.[/color]

I'm giving my impression of the original course based on what seem to be features that clearly don't blend in with the surrounding terrain from the pictures I've seen (i.e. the mound to the left of 17, the greenside bunker on 2, the front left "tongue" of green on 4, the mounds around #8 green, the green out well to the right of the interesting bunker on 10, and several pimples that just seem to appear randomly on many holes).

The bunker on # 10 wasn't meant to hug the green, it was offset.  If you look at some pictures of CPC you might see a similar configuration.

I think this notion of "blending in" is nonsense, and used by some to nit pick at good golf courses when they can't think of anything of substance to criticize.

Did Charles Blair MacDonald, Seth Raynor and Charles Bank's design's blend in ?

How exactly, on a highly sloped piece of land in Georgia, should the features have blended in ?  And, why should they have blended in ?

MacDonald, Ross and Tillinghast used mounds, why was it inappropriate for AM to do so ?[/color]

I'm frankly surprised.  I had believed the original course was more of a masterpiece and although the basic holes are very sound and some are brilliant in concept, the details seem to be askew.

I don't know if anybody deemed the golf course a "masterpiece".  Certainly, it was an excpetional golf course that entertained seasonal play in the winter.

How are the details askew ?[/color]

I think Mackenzie clearly hoped to have a long-term relationship with the club, until they stiffed him, that is.  I can't blame him for not coming back, but although he left the "bones" of a great course, it wasn't until it was fleshed out over time that it became the course that it is today.
Mike, he was 63 when the golf course was completed.
Life expectancy in the 30's wasn't much beyond his age, hence I doubt he hoped to have a long term relationship with the club.

Roberts also felt that MacKenzie wasn't spending enough time at ANGC in 1931, and as a result, MacKenzie send Marion Hollins to do his bidding.  Marion Hollins was wealthy at the time. MacKenzie probably had good reasons for doing so.  Neither ANGC nor MacKenzie were doing well financially.

I don't think MacKenzie had any intention of having a long time, substantive, on site relationship with ANGC.

I forget whether or not ANGC made him an member or honorary member.  But, if they didn't, doesn't that tell you everything you need to know ?[/color]

I was surprised to see myself looking at the modern day pictures and seeing the course improved.  I had expected the opposite.  

Many, like yourself, who have seen the golf course in person, gain a heightened respect for it's design.  Others, who have  never seen the golf course keep telling us that the old course was superior, architecturally, as if any and all subsequent alterations have detracted from the architecture and play of the golf course.

Up until the recently intensified tree planting program, many of the changes have been for the better..[/color]

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I agree with most of your points, not the least of which is that the ANGC on the ground today is superior to Mackenzie's original version that I've only seen in pics.

I also agree that many of the changes over the years have been good, but the recent tree-planting and narrowing with rough have been stupid ideas.

I don't think this "blending in" is nonsense, however, and I don't think you do either.  If a feature looks like a sore thumb, such as the pic of the mound left of 17 at ANGC, even you would have to admit that your aesthetic sensibilities get jarred.  The weird thing, and the original point, is that this IS Dr. Mac we're talking about, NOT Rees Jones.

I'm used to it from Rees.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

What some seem to forget is the practical nature of early golf course construction, including, during and after the depression.

You never know when a mound might have a very practical application and reason for its existance.

Hence, you can't make the call absent critical information relating to its construction.  You can't base your judgement solely on photographic evidence.

It would be like taking a single photo of you as you're about to hit a chip shot and drawing a conclusion relative to the pending result.  Your form might look good, but, we all know what's about to happen, and it isn't pretty, sort of like my short putting.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

You don't think you can look at photos of ANGC and determine that relative to CPC the shaping appears less natural?  Even if there was a practical need for a mound (like burying tree stumps) why shouldn't it look as good?

One simple question for you - did you actually look at the pix we are speaking of, and base your opinions on those, or are you just spouting off as normal?

[Patrick_Mucci]

You don't think you can look at photos of ANGC and determine that relative to CPC the shaping appears less natural?  

No, I don't think that you can look at select photos and make that call.

Conversely, you can look at photos taken from angles other as the golfer sees the course and draw incorrect conclusions.[/color]

Even if there was a practical need for a mound (like burying tree stumps) why shouldn't it look as good?

Some of it depends upon the angle the photo is taken from.

A prime example is NGLA's greens.
Photos taken from the approach angle don't reflect an artificial look.
Photos taken from behind the green reflect a highly artificial look.[/color]

One simple question for you - did you actually look at the pix we are speaking of, and base your opinions on those, or are you just spouting off as normal?

Well, I'm spouting off as normal, but, I have seen the pictures.

The picture of the mounds on page 102 is taken from an awkward angle and not reflective of what the golfer sees as he approaches the hole.  The picture on page 101 is more representative of what the golfer sees and I don't find those mounds objectionable.

Mounds at ANGC are an integral part of the design, systemically, hence, their appearance isn't out of the ordinary.   And, I don't find them objectionable, even if they are photographed at unflattering angles.

"I'm ready for my close-up Mr DeMille"

A photo or number of photos taken from awkward angles or angles that the great majority of golfers will never see is akin to watching a play from behind the scenes, it's not representative of what the producers and directors wanted you to experience.[/color]

[Jeff_Brauer]

Good to hear you have at least seen the pix! For the limited evaluations I was trying to make, I am very comfortable in viewing pictures and knowing what I see.  What was that old Groucho Marx line - "Who are you going to believe - Pat Mucci or your own eyes?"

I don't have the book with me, so I can't respond directly, but some of the pix I am referring to are from the golfers perspective. I recall one of the third hole from the landing area, for example.   The golfer would see that angle, and the mound back left of the green is a "pimple" and poorly executed, IHMO. Your opinion may vary, but that is the nature of a discussion board.

Your comments about non normal viewing angles are interesting to me.  My first day at K/N they took me by Kemper Lakes.  The back of the fill pad on green 5 faced Rt. 22 on the way in, and was flat and straight.  I wondered why they didn't dress it up, and their answer was similar to yours - few golfers would ever see the back of the green so they didn't spend much effort on them.  Given the public viewing angles, or even views as you might see from other areas of the course, I generally try to make the back side of the greens somewhat artistic, although I have heard a few comments on the Quarry 8th, as being decidedly not so!

Back to the topic at hand, my comments on Augusta specifically were noting the many wrap around green shapes, which I don't think would ever be considered good tournament golf design by better players, even if they may be fun.  For that matter, how many unusual greens per course would be "good design?"

As to the mounds, it struck me that the mounding tied into slopes at CPC almost imperceptibly - the toes of slopes in the b and w photos clearly show a lot of fill went in to blend them.  The mounds in the b/w photos of ANGC don't tie in naturally, as they end aprubtly at natural grade, the tops are peaked, rather than with long rollovers, and  and they are much steeper on the side slopes - on a site with broad natural rolls, where arguably, broad tie in slopes would be even a better fit than CPC.  Both sites have a grand natural scale, as well.

If things happened then as they do now, I suspect that w/o Mac's help, they would be a result of a contractor who has poor supervision, or is trying to make the project work on low bid by moving less earth.  Of course, that is just speculation, but makes sense given the finances.  Its just interesting to know in the last few years (with several books) how one of America's great courses really struggled along by virtue of its bad timing, and how it got (arguably) much better as times improved.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I believe the picture you referenced on # 3 has a mound with a bunker cut into it, and not a mound behind the green as you indicated.

What may be lost in the picture is the swale fronting the green, especially on the left side, and the green's quick rise from that swale.  The green is elevated above its surrounds on the left, and yet, the green retains a steep high right to low left slope..

Originally there were a tremendous number of wrap-around greens.  I liked them, but, some might find their numbers to be a bit of overkill.

As to the mounds and the comparison between ANGC and CPC you have to remember that ANGC is built on the side of a pretty steep slope.  CPC, as a whole, enjoys far flatter terrain hence, there's not a need to raise greens substantively.

In addition, there's a large scale to ANGC, a feeling of a big golf course, not unlike BPB and as such, I don't find the mounds unsettling, obtrusive or offensive.

I don't know what lies beneath the mounds and I don't know the purpose of all of them, but, I found them far less invasive or unattractive than you did.

Like you, I was surprised to learn of the club's shakey begining and early years.  An older friend of mine told me that he was invited to join, but, he deemed the club too remote, the golf season and weather a bit iffy compared to going to Florida for the winter, so he passed on the opportunity.
He indicated, that in retrospect, that he wished that he had joined.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()