Macdonald & Math

[Sean_A]

I have just started reading The Evangelist of Golf.  I figure better late than never.  Starting on page 34 is an extraordinary outline in mathmatical terms of what the ideal golf course is.  How he came up with the percentages in relation to the essential characteristics is beyond me.  I guess since he built a few doozies I will let this go!  A couple of things on the list struck me immediately.

1. He states that the putting greens (which includes turf, undulation and variety) make up 18% of an ideal course.  From listening to what guys like Doak are saying does this make sense?  I would have thought the relative importance would be much higher.

2. Mac states that the nature of the soil is 23% of what makes an ideal course.  This doesn't sound outrageous to me as I am constantly harping about courses with poor turf.  I figure the soil and turf are closely related and it is tough to have good turf on poor soil.  This also demonstrates the importance Mac placed on the ground game.  Yet, I rarely hear people complaining about poor turf on this GCA.  Is this a sign that many of the great courses that are discussed are still too wet?

3. Mac thought that the importance of bunkering and other hazards (size, variety & placing) was only worth 13% of an ideal course.  I think this demonstrates the importance that Mac placed on using sites with undualtions and hummocks (making a load of b&h unecessary).  Based on GCA discussions one would have thought B&H were worth much more than 13%.  

So by my math, according to Mac, bunkers, hazards AND greens make up less than 1/3 of what makes a course ideal.  Can this be correct?  I don't think there are many on this site who would agree.  What do lot think?

Ciao

Sean

[ForkaB]

Sean

Anything that Macdonald (or Mackenzie, for that matter) has said or even implied is the gospel truth.  Go back to your room and work on your "gizinties."

[James Bennett]

Sean

I took the 23% soil measure to reflect the advantadge that a sandy, well drained site has over a heavier, clay site.

The natural undulations and ease of drainage possible on the sandy site made for greater possibilities for golf than a clay site where localised boggy areas could occur at times of heavy rain.

Nothing to do with turf on this occasion, IMO.

By the way, The Evangelist is a great book.

James B

[ForkaB]

Does a gizinty have anything to do with a cumzowty?

Not really, unless you are fancying your 4th grade teacher.

Teacher: "Charlie Macdonald!  Stop drawing golf holes on your desk and listen to me!"

Charlie:  "Yes Miss.  Sorry...."

T:  "OK Charlie.  Four gizintie twenty how many times?"

CBM: "I dinna ken, Miss (crying)."

T:  "That's OK, Charlie, I forgot you were a Yank.  We expect a little more here at the University of St. Andrews, but you'll learn.  Now go out a play a few holes with Old Tom Morris and come back and see me in my office."

CBM:  "Thank you, Miss."

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:  I just read that same passage yesterday, although I read it straight from Macdonald's book instead of from George's.

The fundamental truth of his "formula" is that the characteristics of the site [soil and undulating character] made up nearly half the success of the course.  After that, he has greens at 18% as still the most important contribution of the architect; bunkers and hazards next most important; turf just behind that; and then small things such as "proper width of fairways" and proximity of greens to tees.

The one thing he does not include is the routing of individual holes, but he does give 22% to the character of undulations on the property, and one could assume that the architect's choices of how to use these [i.e. the routing] is an important part of that 22%.

[George_Bahto]

This is one of the reasons he didn't want to build more courses - couldn't find many places that fit his mold.

........  and I doubt if the old fart cared if the anyone agreed with him  ....  

[Kyle Harris]

I thought about this thread a bunch during the black out, and the more I do, the more it makes sense.

At times, I feel too much emphasis is placed on green contour and bunkering/undulation/hazard work and too little on how those to things combine to form this thing we call the course. The very nature of how these features are combined through fairway mowing and presentation makes them what they are. The ichthus of the design is its very core, and cannot be understated.

Mowing patterns can make a strategic hole very penal and vice versa. It's all about how you put and tie it together.

[Tom_Doak]

Sean:  I didn't mean to perplex you.  I just said that 18% was explicitly for greens, and implied that you could give the routing anywhere between 1% and 22% depending on how you interpreted Macdonald's category on the "character of the undulations".  He wasn't clear on the subject, as far as I could tell.