MacKenzie bunkering--over the top?

[ForkaB]

Looking at Philip Gawith's great pictures of Kingston Heath and the picture elsewhere on this board of Tom Doak's (presumably faithful) restoration of the 13th at Cypress Point, how many of you agree with me that Dr. MacK occasionally went well over the top in his bunkering schemes?  At the very least, some of his stuff looks much more like "framing" than "camouflage."  I'd say "superfluous" and "eye candy" if I hadn't already said so many, many times before on this DG.

[wsmorrison]

Rich,  I have thought so for a long time now.  It worked a lot better at a place like Cypress Point when it had a natural look to it with raggy edges and longer grasses.  Today with the scalpel like edging and close cut mowing it does come across over the top, especially some of the bunkering above greens on ridges.

The Kingston Heath bunkers look better in my view.  I especially like the way the fairways meld into the leading edges of the bunkers, a lost practice in the US.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I know exactly what you mean and I'm also considering Wayne's point about MacKenzie's bunkering style being a bit more naturally apropos in a really dunsy, sandy site like Cypress.

But to answer your question---no, I don't find it over the top at all. Over the top from what? From what a completely "naturally" formed bunker might look like? Sure it's over the top or at least different from that model but the fascination of MacKenzie's type (of bunkering) is it was some of that but also some of the most interesting "stylizing" ever known in golf course bunker architecture, in my opinion.

We, on this board, I think, sometimes get way too carried away with this whole "natural" and "minimalist" idea and model. Is that type of architecture interesting in golf? Of course it is, immensely so, but it probably wouldn't be so much if every single golf architect attempted to do it the very same way.

MacKenzie was a real "naturalist" in golf archtiecture in many ways but in another way he surely did apply "Art" principles (landscape "art" or architecture principles) to his golf course architecture. Those "Art" principles include "Harmony" "Proportion", "Balance" "Rhythm" and "Emphasis".

MacKenzie, was excellent in the area of scale, in my opinion. And in the "art" principle area of "Emphasis" (at least as that's defined in C&W) I think MacKenzie got into a really interesting wrinkle in that applied area (looks hard, plays easier). In other words, he didn't exactly draw the golfer's eye to the most important part, if that means where the golfer SHOULD hit the ball.

I feel I've never fully understood the meaning of it but Max Behr made a most interesting remark (he certainly wasn't the first or only one to say this about art) about what the "Art" of golf architecture should be. Behr said it should essentially be an art of 'interpretation' and not an art of 'representation'.

If Behr meant by that what I think he meant, I'd have to say MacKenzie, in my opinion, may've been the best at it ever. And that means a certain degree of "stylizing" (interpretation) that to me, anyway, is just architecturally or artistically fascinating.

Is it somewhat of a paradox to the attempt at the look of total "naturalness" as perhaps the Boers were trying to create with their military trenches (a look which the Brits would not notice the land had been touched?). (Also, we should never forget something else that MacKenzie very much noticed and mentioned and filtered through his thinking as to its effect regarding camouflage in military trench-making by the Boers. That is that they not only made military trenches that looked exactly like Nature itself but they also made extremely artificial looking trenches the way the British did. The only difference was the British military were in their extremely artificial looking trenches and the Boers were not! ).

Of course it's somewhat of a paradox. So what? I guess if golf course architecture really is to be considered an "art" form simply attempting to create something that looks exactly like nothing at all had ever been created by man may not ALWAYS be the idea or the desired result.

[Brian Phillips]

Rich,

That is why Colt was a better architect than MacKenzie...
I don't know of one over bunkered Colt course.

Brian

[ForkaB]

TEP

My hypothesis is that MacKenzie was NOT a "naturalist"--whatever that means.  No one who understood the essential nature of even the most "dunesy" of soils and/or the nature of the game of golf would over-bunker like he did on some of his courses.

Rich

PS--and yes, I have seen the pictures of #9 CPC, before and after, and played and studied that hole, and have read what you think of it many. many times.  And yet, I still believe what I write above.

PPS--I don't that Max Behr would have like much of Dr. MacK's stuff, if he looked into the heart of his own heart....

[SPDB]

Rich - I definitely agree with you. MacKenzie's bunkers are awfully pretty to look at, but often they are superfluous.  

For some reason however, I far prefer this:



To this:



even though they are comparable in their extravagance.

[ForkaB]

Good point, Sean, and I agree.

Rich

PS--am the only one who looks at the bottom picture and sees a photographic negative of the top picture, i.e. the interstices between the bunkers on the former look an awful lot like the actual bunkers on the latter?  Maybe the arhcitect of the bottom picture was really making a very profound and yet subtle statement?

[Brian Phillips]

Both pictures show bunkers that do not look as if placed by nature.

Brian

[cary lichtenstein]

Brian

I would have to agree

Cary

[Bill_McBride]

The bottom photo also has about three times the area of bunkering... what a monstrosity.  How would the supers in this group like to maintain that?  What is the bunkering like on the other 17 holes?  

I see nothing OTT on Cypress Point, the Valley Club, Alwoodley, just great proportion and artistic expression.  Look at the photos in Geoff Shackleford's book on Cypress Point with MacKenzie and his Packard down below the 7th green.  Poetry!

[Mike Benham]

It worked a lot better at a place like Cypress Point when it had a natural look to it with raggy edges and longer grasses.  Today with the scalpel like edging and close cut mowing it does come across over the top, especially some of the bunkering above greens on ridges.

Is that a design or maintenance flaw?

[Tom_Doak]

Rich:  Although I thank you for assuming otherwise, I have had nothing to do with the restoration of Cypress Point.

You may be right that Dr. MacKenzie's bunkering is superfluous or "over the top" for golf, however, you are dead wrong that it is "over the top" for camouflage.  MacKeznie's whole point was that camouflage was SUPPOSED to be over the top, i.e. it's so unnatural in its shape and pattern that it blends in with the natural.  That's how camouflage works.

I don't understand your point about the "nature of soils" either, but I believe that MacKenzie understood them as well as you do.

[ForkaB]

I see nothing OTT on Cypress Point

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=21492

Bill

Check out "six" on the first post on the above referenced thread.  If that's not OTT to you then we have a different definition of "top!"

Tom D

I didn't exactly use the phrase "nature of soils" but I think I've found the reference.  All I was saying is that bunkers such as are on the picture of CPC #13 above are only very abstractly reminiscent of naturally occurring bunkers on linksland and/or dunesland--IMHO, of course.  I think I've probably spent more time in my life walking through and over and looking at such land than MacKenzie ever did, but I could be wrong.....

[Bill_McBride]

Rich, I've played #13 CPC twice in the past three years and was never put off by the bunkering behind the green and beside the green.  You had just knocked a driver over a sandy berm out of a sandy hillside teebox below the magnificent dunes surrounding #8 and #9.  The bunkering around #13 reflected the clouds above the ocean behind the green.  I was overwhelmed to the point that I three putted the second round.  I think I missed the danger of the spine running vertically through the green because of the setting of the green complex.

I love those bunkers behind #13 like I love the bunkers on the hillsides behind #3, 15 and 18 at The Valley Club.  Superfluous perhaps but magnificent.  You would never find bunkers like those on modern courses except from the handful of designers of the modern courses I appreciate most.

What do you object to at #13 Cypress Point?  The number, the shaping, the ties in to natural areas, the sheer volume of sand, the color of the sand?  Have you played it since the in-house bunker renovations?

[Steve Lapper]

I don't agree with you Rich, et.al.

MacKenzie may or may not have been a naturalist (overall, I think he made holes where he found them) and his bunkering can be called "superflous," but it seems to me that he used bunkering (not unlike C & C) to define the holes within the natural landscape.

At CPC, let's not forget that so much of the terrain was already sandy and that planted grass (often to replace the iceplant and other natural vegatations) was the "add on" or change to the  original or natural environment.

On and across the Sandbelt, much of the work by Russell and Morcom (done in the late 1920's and into the early 30's) had already established the "scalpel-like and close-cut edging" (hand cut and trimmed) that you and Wayne think is "over-the-top."

This work and stylization was specifically designed to help maintain the lifted far-side lips of the bunkers (that when viewed from greenside, appear to camouflage/conceal back into the fairways) from having the winds blow the sand out of the bunkers. At CPC that was a real problem early on. While winds don't normally howl in Melbourne as severely as in Monterey, the style of close-cut bunkering melds had it's own history. Morcom and Russell both remark in the some Australian golf history books that the firm fairway conditions should aid and not "block a wrongly hit ball from rolling into a hazard where difficult lies shall be the norm and instant escape near impossible."

Mac Kenzie wanted to have his sculpted bunkers to define the shotmaking and yet not appear to overwhelm the course. He sought to have them be purposeful and the human "eye candy" added to the canvas.

I can't think of one of his courses where that wish did not succeed and succeed grandly. Rarely, if ever, can a MacKenzie work be not easily identified. Other architects (Ross, Flynn, Tilly and MacDonald & Raynor) may have tried to emulate this but none, (other than perhaps Colt & Allison) seemed to have been as talented in this.

[TEPaul]

"PS--and yes, I have seen the pictures of #9 CPC, before and after, and played and studied that hole, and have read what you think of it many. many times.  And yet, I still believe what I write above.

Rich:

I'm not sure what you mean by you still believe what you write above. On many holes and in many areas of Cypress Point MacKenzie and the American Construction Co did bunkers that were pretty highly "stylized". Some say they got into to mimicing the look and shapes of passing clouds. I guess one could say that's a form of imitating nature but that's sort of beside the point. Your point seems to be that all architects if they are to do something that's to be admired in bunker making should always imitate the shape and look of natural dunes or natural linksland dunes. While of course there's nothing wrong with that at all---as natural linksland dunes are the natural model for sand bunkering on golf courses and in golf architecture I'm glad that all golf architects did not feel constrained to imitate that look ONLY in everything that was ever done with bunkering in golf architecture. They say on the 13th at Seminole Ross or his crew tried to somewhat imitate the look of waves that could be seen beyond the green.

Some obviously don't like any form of "stylizing" in the look of bunkers and obviously you're one of those people. I'm not.

As for the 9th at CPC and the sand areas Mackenzie used there----basically they WERE all natural with the single exception of the bunker he appears to have actually constructed (reamed out) just short and right of the green. The rest of the sand area on that hole was basically just used as it was before he planted grass on the tees, fairway area and green. All he did in those completely natural sand area on both sides of that hole is just clean up some of the vegetation or vegatative debris that was on some of that sand area.

And that's not subjective, it's just a fact. If you can't see or understand that you either don't understand this subject very well or you don't see comparatively very well.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Well said Tom Paul. However,

If Behr meant by that what I think he meant, I'd have to say MacKenzie, in my opinion, may've been the best at it ever.

This is a perfect example of where William Park Bell never seems to get any respect. As an Architect, yes, MacKenzie may have been the greatest, had bigger and better examples of his work preserved, where as Bell's work can only really be seen now in pictures. Bell wasn't worldy either, just here in the West. BUT...... He was on to something as was MacKenzie. I truly do think Golf Architecture was going to reach its pinnacle here in California as well as in Australia and other locales as the Sport grew in interest and popularity. Of course Golf itself was cut down when the world economy was devasted by depression and a world war.

To me when playing MacKenzie or Bell or Behr, addressing a shot while being intimidated by something that looks awfully hard, I find out ususally isn't, while seeing something that looks somewhat easy is actually very difficult, or at the least challenging to the point it sends the heart racing knowing the intent. You look at the photo of Lake Merced that Sean posted, and also knowing the location of that hole, as well as the terrain it was set in--from the tee it looks to have been a heart-pumping hole, however it wasn't difficult once you got past the provocation of those sand hazards. However, I would surmize that the green was a completely different monster or challenge to deal with because that was the next challenge to the hole itself. The hole to me is very classic in the MacKenzie sense. Not because of the supposed eye candy, but because its the challenge that is being presented and how it blends into the scheme of things for all players of varying talents and deficiencies.

Rich, an example of a course we both know: Barona Creek.

In my opinion (and I'm sure I'll hear about this tomorrow in a phone call!) Todd both used and overused eye candy.

Example:

Hole #3, the really good par three with a really interesting green. Todd created some pretty interesting and natural looking bunkers on that hole and actually borrows bunkers from 5th to add to the deception for the back drop of that hole. He also picked an interesting spot of terrain on which to build it in relation to the routing of the rest of the course. I think it's one of two holes that run that direction in the routing. Yes, it's eye candy, but its good eye candy. The scale of the bunkers of the 5th make them look as if they are right off the back of the green--or at the very least has you thinking, "Are those bunkers just off the back of the green? ? ?"  

Then take the use of the bunkers of the 16th, which in my opinion is over-use. In fact that hole to me is what hampers the rest of the 17 great holes on that excellent course.

[TEPaul]

Tom Doak said:

"You may be right that Dr. MacKenzie's bunkering is superfluous or "over the top" for golf, however, you are dead wrong that it is "over the top" for camouflage.  MacKeznie's whole point was that camouflage was SUPPOSED to be over the top, i.e. it's so unnatural in its shape and pattern that it blends in with the natural.  That's how camouflage works."

TomD:

I'm trying but that is a concept I can't understand at all. My sense is it's almost completely the opposite.

If something that is artificial is to be camouflaged it's artificiality (unnatural look) has to be hidden by a natural look somehow or what is man-made (what's artificial) has to be made to look like it was made by nature.

How in the world can ANYTHING that is actually so unnatural looking no matter how over the top it is be expected to BLEND in with the natural?

Whatever is 'so unnatural looking' (artificial looking) can only create a strark juxtaposition in look with what is natural. It can't blend in (in look) with what looks natural for the simple reason highly artificial looking and natural looking are at the complete opposite ends of the spectrum.

I do understand though that MacKenzie mentioned the Boers also created very artificial looking military trenches as well as highly natural (and camouflaged) ones. But in the Boer War there was a purpose for that---eg to draw fire at the artificial trenches (where the Boers were not) and not at the camouflaged and natural looking ones that could not even be detected (where the Boers were).

But what would MacKenzie want to use a highly artificial look in bunkering for other than trying, through deception, to induce a golfer into thinking he should take a risk by hitting his ball at or over something clearly put there by man, the architect, to challenge him to take a risk for a reward?

If that's what you mean by your remark above then I understand.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom:  Have you ever seen the patterns they use to camouflage navy ships at sea?  They don't just paint the whole thing ocean blue, they go with a wild pattern of different shades of blues and greys, so there is no man-made "edge" of the ship to attract your attention.

Likewise, MacKenzie's jagged edges of bunkers were in many cases more jagged than real-life dunes are formed, but those shapes [which Rich is objecting to] were designed on the principle of camouflage, to blend in with all the shapes created by the plants and so forth.

[Sean_A]

Am I mistaken or is Cypress quite an unusual style (meaning very stylized) for Dr. Mac.?  I don't know much about his courses, but from the few I have played and by photos, Cypress strikes me as visually unusual compared to his other courses.

Ciao

Sean

[Mike Nuzzo]

Tom D,
Are you also saying that the bunkers at 13 at cypress aren't there to blend in, but to confuse the player?

Tom P ...

http://www.shipcamouflage.com/warship_camouflage.htm

[TEPaul]

"Tom:  Have you ever seen the patterns they use to camouflage navy ships at sea?  They don't just paint the whole thing ocean blue, they go with a wild pattern of different shades of blues and greys, so there is no man-made "edge" of the ship to attract your attention."

TomD:

Yes I have seen ships painted that way but that's obviously because wild patterns of different shades of blues and greys blend in with the ocean, and perhaps the sky, and their colors better than a ship that's painted 'ocean blue'. Logically that must be the case since the entire idea of "camouflage" is that the object you're camouflaging will be visually as indistinguishable as possible from what surrounds it.

"Likewise, MacKenzie's jagged edges of bunkers were in many cases more jagged than real-life dunes are formed, but those shapes [which Rich is objecting to] were designed on the principle of camouflage, to blend in with all the shapes created by the plants and so forth."

I understand that. Again, the idea is to make the bunker look something like a mimic of something natural to blend in in various ways, in the case you cite, plants and so forth perhaps surrounding it. After-all the jagged edges are generally plants and such. That to me shouldn't be described as 'over the top' and a look that is 'so unnatural'.

On the other hand, straightish man-made lines and such would not blend in at all well and would create man-made "edges" that would starkly juxtapose and contrast with what surrounds them and therefore would be more likely to attract the golfer's attention. To me that's the opposite of the principle of camouflage.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, all

To me, the purpose of camouflage is to deceive.  IMHO, a great example is the fairway bunkering on the 4th at CPC which confuses the player in terms of the proper line and length of the tee shot.  The analogy to the Boer war trenches is not difficult to see.  On the other hand, bunkering like that on the 13th at CPC (and the 15th, now that you mention it) does the opposite--providing a framing for the target, rather than distraction.  To take the naval example further, the relation between the bunkering and the green on those two holes is as if there were a bright yellow bullseye in the middle of an otherwise camouflaged ship.  I'd prefer to see that green surrounded by native vegetation, as in the foreground of the photo I referenced, but it's just me, and I respect other's different opinions.

Bill McB--last time I played CPC they were building those bunkers on 13, so technically no.
Tom D--sorry for misattributing this work to you.  Weren't you doing work there in 2001-2, or am I having yet another Senior Moment?
Steve L--ice plant isn't native to California
Mike N--that USS Agammemnon drawing is very Art Nouveau.  Could it be that Tiffany rather than Morris was the aesthetic father of golden age archeticture?

[T_MacWood]

One of the interesting aspects of MacKenie bunkering is comparing how different constuction men interpreted his ideas: the early courses like Alwoodley and Moortown, his brother (with the Irishmen) is the middle years, Morcom in Australia, Wendell Miller at Palmetto, ANGC and NYC, Maxwell, and Hunter, Fleming and the Irishmen again in California. Morcom may have been the best.

[Steve Lapper]

Steve L--ice plant isn't native to California

Rich,

    Technically, you are absolutely correct. However, this "bully" plant has become the dominant and throughly invasive seashore vegation along the California Coast, from Ventura north through Mendacino. I checked with an agronimist friend from Stanford and he assures me it has been there for well over a century, thus leading us both to believe it existed before CPC came into existence.....just a footnote.