[Neil_Crafter]

Mark Rowlinson has written a piece in the new issue of the British published 'Golf Course Architecture' magazine on the topic of Alister Mackenzie. He starts by saying that

"Alister Mackenzie is probably unique among great golf course architects in that he was not himself a first rate player."

How true is this statement? If we limit ourselves to considering the pre WW2 architects. Clearly MacDonald, Travis, Colt, Alison and Alex Russell could be considered as first rate players. Tom Simpson is doubtful as a 'first rate player', while I don't believe Seth Raynor even played. I'd be interested to hear people's thoughts on this subject. How important is being a good golfer to being a good or great course architect?

Mark also listed Yarra Yarra in Melbourne as one of the courses Mackenzie designed while in Australia. Unfortunately this is not correct. The property was not identified until after Mackenzie had left Australia and the job was all Alex Russell's doing, although the course can be credited to the partnership of Mackenzie and Russell. The Dr never saw the property, although there is some conjecture that Russell kept him appraised by sending him plans and sketches. This is a common misconception about Yarra Yarra.

cheers Neil

[Joe Hancock]

Neil,

Too bad you limited it to pre-WW II architects. I could've easily named one modern architect who's predominate shot is the low, running hook, and it isn't on purpose. The day I see him hit one more than quail high will be the day we can start running irrigation.
 
Does it affect his designs? Nawwwwww........

Joe

[Tom_Doak]

Neil:

I've gotta tell a story about that one.

Years ago, when I was more known as a writer than as a golf course architect (I was working on High Pointe), I played golf with Tom Weiskopf at his new course Forest Highlands.

After the round, Tom opined that all the best golf architects were good players ... Macdonald, Ross, Pete Dye, etc.  I didn't know if he was taking a subtle dig at me or not, so I replied, "What about MacKenzie?"

Tom W. said he thought MacKenzie was a pretty good player, so I responded with the quote from GOLF ARCHITECTURE which says something to the effect that good players often make poor architects because they lack imagination!

Afterwards one of the developers (Dick Bailey, who is now also a golf architect) told me that he couldn't believe I said that, but I replied that I was just deflecting as in judo.

You are right that Simpson and Raynor especially were not great players.  But I wonder if the majority of good players in golf course design is more cause than effect ... that it's simply the way they established themselves as someone knowledgable about golf.  It is certainly much harder to establish that reputation if you are not a great player.

P.S.  Has Jack completed his homework yet?

[Ian Andrew]

I bet the average handicap is MUCH higher today than it was back them. I still think this is more relevant to how people became architects in the past as compared to the multiple options they have now.

Abilty to play neither helps nor hinders a creative mind. Someone lacking in imagination, but a great ball striker, still will not produce good golf.


OF NOTE:

A majority of past architects came from wealthy backgrounds too, but that is certainly not near the same case any more.

[Mark_Guiniven]

Neil,
Was C.B. MacDonald really any good or was he just a big windbag? Charles Price paints him as a bit of a 'Dummy Spitter' as you Aussies might say; with everyone playing horrible golf the first couple of attempts they made at a national championship (MacDonald shooting 89, 100 to lose by a shot) and crying like a baby until he won the third time.

John Morrison was the best player/architect I could think of, with a great record in Europe and in amateur play around London, carrying Longhurst on his back for years.


Sloan Morpeth (Portsea, Peninsula, Commonwealth, Oretti Sands) was terrific too, with three New Zealand Amateurs and two New Zealand Opens.

Then there was Alex Russell's 1924 Australian Open when he opened up with 68 round Royal Melbourne which must have been an unbelievable score in those days.

From what Hedley showed me I would agree with your assessment of Yarra Yarra. I don't think they would have started much of anything before February 7th 1927, the date the members actually approved the shift to East-Bentleigh, and by then Mackenzie was long gone. A newspaper gave a quote from Russell on April 23rd that "The design of the round embracing, of course, the scheme of hazards, grassy mounds, and hollows as well as sand bunkers is now in transit across the seas for Dr. Mackenzie's inspection. Maybe Mackenzie scribbled some changes on it and sent it back, who knows.

Have you ever seen Russell's 1924 Sandringham plan that became redundant? How different is it from the West course they ended up doing?

[Joel_Stewart]

Tom Doak: I'll tell you a story that happened last week.   I'm attending a seminar on Friday night which Jack Nicklaus is the speaker.   Tom Fazio is sitting in the very back row and I don't think Jack knew Fazio was there.

Jack like Weiskopf also believes you should be a good player to be an architect.  He takes a few subtle digs at Fazio and then really turns on the juice lashing out at Fazio for the changes at Augusta.  

The next day Fazio was a speaker and the moderator allowed Fazio to respond to Jacks comments.  Fazio took the high road and said Jack was allowed to think and say whatever he wanted and refused to comment further. It was a little tense.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tilly was a terific player before he began designing and continued as such for many years. He played the game so well that he was sought out by many players for swing advice.

He once finished as second low amateur in the U.S. Open.

[Tyler Kearns]

How true is this statement? If we limit ourselves to considering the pre WW2 architects.

Neil,

As golf course architecture was becoming a profession as opposed to a hobby in the early decades of the 20th century, I think it is very likely and logical that golf clubs would turn to the best amateur players or club professionals to aid in the design or renovation of golf courses. Here in Canada, Stanley Thompson got his start in 1913 by aligning himself with Nicol Thompson and George Cumming, the head professionals at Hamilton & Toronto respectively. Although Stanley had an educational background related to golf architecture, studying at the Ontario Agricultural College, he was also an excellent player, finishing within the Top 3 at medal qualifying for the Canadian Amateur 6 times between 1919-1927.

Seth Raynor learned how to design golf courses from C.B. Macdonald, proving that architectural talent and playing ability are not mutually inclusive.

TK

[Michael Dugger]

Interesting topic, Neil, I predict a lot of heated debate here.

I think it is absolutely garbage that you have to be a great player to be a great architect.  

I do realize nobody has claimed as much, necessarily, but it certainly seems to be a popular notion.

I love the part in Mckenzie's Golf Architecture about how he took Mr. Lapham out to swat some bombs during the final stages of construction.

I think it is essential that an architect know what a great player is capable of, but why must they be able to pull those shots off themselves to understand strategy?  

I find it akin to saying that a good architect must be a good greenskeeper.  I think the architect needs to be aware of how the condition of the turf will affect play, but how profound of a statement is that, really?  

That story about Fazio and Nicklaus is great.  I mean, what does Jack get that we do not, simply because he is the greatest player who has ever lived?

My feeling is that because of his career in competitive golf, Jack has seen, and played, most of the great courses of the world.  He has been exposed and has been forced to take apart the greatest holes in existance.  Of course this exposure is beneficial, but anymore beneficial than when you or I play the same course?

Before signing off I will add that it probably is beneficial to know what type of feature, or hazard, if you will, challenges the best players.  Yet still, even the USGA knows that tight fairways, long rough and small, steep and fast greens challenge the greatest players in the game most thoroughly.

Seems to me if you know what challenges the best players, and what is playable to the hack to boot; to blend the two together would be a pretty nice package.

Oh, and Tom Weiskopf sounds like a horses ass, not just based on this thread but numerous stories that I have heard
     

[Neil_Crafter]

Tom
I find it hard to believe your swing could produce a low duck hook!
And by the way, Jack has not sent in his homework yet - too busy Fazio bashing by the sounds of it. We could give him an honorary GCA membership for that! Also Tom, need you to reply re that RMGC issue we talked about, when you can.

As an architect and an amateur golfer who played off scratch for a while, I think that the ability to put yourself in the shoes of golfers of all playing abilities is something you need to consider - is it easier for the better player to recall what it was like when he was starting out in the game, or is it harder for an average player to imagine what it is like to be a good player? Difficult one. Design imagination and the ability to think in 3D are the most important criteria regardless of playing ability. However, as an architect who battles to win jobs when clients want 'name' architects I use the analogy - If you wanted an Opera House designed you wouldn't go to Pavarotti.

Mark G - Nice pic of Sloan Morpeth! The fact that he was a Kiwi didn't influence you to post it ? Many Australian professionals were also architects - Dan Soutar, Carnegie Clark, Tommy Howard and Jas Scott, while Eric Apperly was a high calibre amateur. I would say nearly all of Australia's pre WW2 architects were either professionals or very good amateurs. 'Cargie' Rymill here in Adelaide was an average amateur at best though.

No evidence exists to my knowledge of Russell's correspondence with Mackenzie despite some rumours to the contrary - but it would be fascinating to see it if it did exist. The 27 hole plan that RMGC has that I think you are referring to varies considerably from what was actually built as they got additional land after Mackenzie left Australia and so Russell I think modified the plans to suit the new land. No indication that Russell drew the plan in question. The whole area of RMGC's early plans is a little up in the air at the moment I believe.

Tyler - can't leave out you Canadians! Yes, Stanley was a decent player in his younger days.

Other good player architects include Sir Guy Campbell and also Hotchkin and Hutchison I think. What about Fowler - could he play?

I didn't delve post WW2 but if people want to talk about architects after this date then go right ahead!

Neil

[Sean_A]

Since loads of names are being tossed in the pot who are not great architects, I am astonished that Braid hasn't been chucked in as well.  What about Vardon, Old Tom and Taylor.  Now we are talkin great players.  All the other pre WWII mentioned earlier were second tier players at best.

Ciao

Sean

[ForkaB]

In ye olden (i.e. before they put the "g" in golden) days all "archietects" were excellent golfers, no?  It was the central element of the job description--need a course built, hire a well kent pro, or at least a ranked "amateur.".  I'm guessing that MacKenzie was probably the first hacker to make it to the top of his profession--probably due as much to his will and self-promotion as his obvious talent.  Am I right?

Today, of course, it is a much more open field.  Even so, I wonder if there are any real hackers (or non-players) out there who build courses as good as Raynor, the all-time GCA hacker extraordinaire?

[T_MacWood]

MacKenzie, Simpson, Raynor, and Abercromby come mind. I'm not sure about Flynn, Maxwell, Banks, Stiles, Thomas and Billy Bell, but I don't believe any of them would be mistaken for first-class amateurs.

[ForkaB]

Tom

I used the word "build" (present tense) for a reason.  Any non-Dead Guys you can think of?

[BCrosby]

Joel -

What did Nicklaus say about Fazio's work at ANGC?

Bob

[Adam_F_Collins]

I too believe that one does not have to be a great player. I think you need to be able to empathize with poor players, and often 'great' golfers got past 'poor' when they were still children - making it more difficult to understand the way average players look at the game.

However, I would agree with the statement that "You have to know golf - and to love it." to be a great architect.

[Joel_Stewart]

What did Nicklaus say about Fazio's work at ANGC?

That he doesn't recognize it anymore.  They have ruined it from a tournament standpoint.  And the best one was "ANGC is Mr. Jones and Mackenzie course and not what someone who is fiddling with it today".  Again Fazio was sitting in the back row.  I would have loved to see his expression.

[Jeff_Mingay]

How about today's most popular architects as players?

We know about Nicklaus, Dye, Smyers, and Crenshaw. But how about Doak? The Jones bros.? Fazio? And others?

Rod Whitman, who was a legitimate scratch during his younger days, tells me Bill Coore was a pretty good player for awhile too. But certainly not in the national amateur class.  

Mike DeVries is definitely the best architect-player without a driver in his bag... though, rumour has it he's finally carrying a 1-wood  

[tonyt]

I think that the ability to put yourself in the shoes of golfers of all playing abilities is something you need to consider

A talent and decision making mind that many a great professional tour caddy who cannot break 90-100 themselves does indeed posess. Some pros can tell you that some non-golfing experienced tour caddies can happily describe with accuracy and aplomb the various means of playing a particular shot facing the player, which one is best suited for the occasion and how to utilise the terrain to assist in making that decision. Two during my time on tour who never played a round of golf in their life.

Not belying the experience, merely pointing out that those who are inciteful can gain a very high understanding of many facets of life without doing so in the first person, even if relying on being around those who do in order to gain that knowledge.

An architect can mix in more than enough circles over years to be in a far better position of knowledge than an elite amateur golfer with little or no interest and therefore little potential to develop golf course design wisdom. And as for those who do take an interest, their talent plus their interest is not a walk-up free talent pass by any means.

The comparison of having Pavarotti design an opera house is apt.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()