Name the Architect

[T_MacWood]

I believe MacKenzie's long par-4's and his par-5's are pretty good. 13th at ANGC is considered by many to be the finest par-5 design in golf. 8 and 16 at Crystal Downs, 10th at Pasatiempo, the 8th at ANGC, 5th at New South Wales, 2nd, 5th, 6th and 10th at CPC off the top of my head. 5th at ANGC, 13th Crystal Downs, 11th ANGC, 3rd Valley, 12th at CPC and it appears there are a ton of long par-4s in Melbourne that are quite strong. And completely ignored his best work in the UK, which I'm not as familar with...not to mention his Lido design and remodel of the 8th at PBGL. He compares with any architect of his era, of any era.

3. There should be little walking between greens and tees...(MacKenzie successfully met this principle...despite one or two exceptions)

6. There should be a minimum of blindness for the approach shots. (Again successful as far as I can tell)

10. There should be a complete absence of the annoyance of and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls. (Ditto)

What is interesting, he came up with these principles in 1911 or 1912. At least that is the first reference to his principles I have found...they may go back even further. Although he did consistantly follow these general principles, I don't get the impression he was a slave to them.

I thought Nicklaus collaborated with Dye at Lake Geneva.

[Lou_Duran]

TMac,

For everyone except guys like Jeff Fortson, Pasatiempo's #10 is an excellent long par 4.  I am not aware of too many others, though the Doctor's portfolio is full of great par 3s, and short to medium length 4s.  His par 5s at the courses I've played tended to be much more sedate, though the first two at CPC are quite good (#10 has to be one of the easiest  holes I've played on any major course).  I believe that ANGC's #13 has been lengthened quite a bit, and even in the old days, a medium to short iron second was not that unusual.

Other than Jockey-Red, I haven't played any of the Doctor's foreign courses.  What I have domestically, they are hardly easy to walk and without the aggravation of lost balls.  Perhpas I am just not physically fit to MacKenzie's standards (though the picture of him and his auto in the middle of the course, at CPC, I think, make me wonder if would be a rider today), or the variance of my shots are well beyond his acceptable range.

My point about writing is that one can afford to be idealistic; having to put it on the ground is a totally different endeavor.  Like so many other things in life, compromises are required.

[SL_Solow]

Tom; I stand corrected.  Harris did the Brute, Dye and Nicklaus the Briar which has since been renamed and redesigned by Bob Cupp.

[T_MacWood]

Lou
What is your point regarding the par-4's and par-5's?

That MacKenzie did not design any strong par-5's/long par-4's or that modern equipment has weakened his fine efforts?

I believe you missed MacKenzie's point on both counts: walking from green to tee (avoiding long walks if possible) & the necessity of searching for lost balls because of unnecessarily heavy rough.

Like I said I don't think he was a slave to his general principles, which were (and are) very sound ideas. You work with the site you have, you create the most interesting design possible based upon the site and his sound principles. That is what he did.