[Mark Bourgeois]

Mark Rowlinson has a piece on The Alwoodley in the latest issue of T+L Golf magazine: Click here.

Near as I can find the website does not offer the contributors' page found in the print edition, with mug shots of the contributors.  Too bad: Mark pips the actor Peter Gallagher for most-handsome contributor!

(As an aside, this month's issue of T+L Golf is a veritable GCA.com contributor fest, with quotes from Lynn and Geoff Shackelford in a piece on Rustic Canyon and Mike Clayton / Tom Doak references galore in an Australian golf piece.

Apropos, Nick Leefe asked me to pass this along to the group:

"In 1999 Tom Doak said the original greens would have been much larger than today.  You mentioned the large green at the short 7th where the 2 front bunkers (L & R) are away from the green.  Where we have the closely mown aprons at Alwoodley today they would have been the original greens in the early years, so much larger.  The 14th apron area in front of the green is another one that would have extended a long way down.

"· The largest green is the 13th with just over 8000 sq feet.  Some of Mike de Vries restored greens at the Meadow Club are well over 10,000 sq feet !!!

"· Rigs & Furrows. As there was much chat about these I will do some more research, to try & put some approx dates on when these would have been used for the first time, however nimble members do not seem to be worried though I have to say the sideways slopes at 5 have helped me hook my punched run ups into the green from 100 yards or so !!!

"· Yes we do putt from 60 yards but the longest I have seen holed was about 40 yards down the hill at 17."

There's so much excellent discussion fodder in these two sources, but what I really enjoyed:

1. Mac must have learned from TOC the efficacy of large greens in defending par;

2. Is the putter the most-important club at The Alwoodley?  The better players at BUDA rarely pulled driver, and on most-every green at least one golfer and more often two or three, regardless of ability, seemed to struggle to hit his approach close to the flag on those massive, disorienting greens. That put a lot of pressure on the putter out there, didn't it -- especially considering the "effective" size (per Nick's putter comment) of the greens, not just their "official" size.  If the putter is numero uno for all players, then that's another TOC lesson learned, yes?

3. Mac's desire to place bunkers hard against greens was something he figured out in his very first design, rather than something learned over time -- the thing that's incredible to me about his design at The Alwoodley is how many things he got right, right from the start, and without the benefit of having a legion of professionalized designers whose work he could have studied;

4. Mark R concludes his piece by noting, "It is hard not to reflect...how differently events might have unfolded had its design not been so successful."  One may speculate on who would have gotten his commissions, but what I find far more fascinating is to consider to evolution of green complexes without him.  Wild greens would have fallen to Maxwell to innovate, yes? What other design elements might have gone differently?

5. As Mark R notes (in the article and in his excellent history), we in part have the harsh winter of 1907-08 to thank for The Alwoodley, but what I find of interest is to consider the winter in the context of Mark's speculation in #3 above: just how did The Alwoodley come to be accepted as a "success" by club-level golfers, after the committee nearly "came to blows" with Mac during the design and construction?  Did it really fall to the blessings of Colt and Fowler?  Were the members that dependent on the opinion of professionals to decide their own approval?  This club-golfer approval must have been a near thing and by no means unanimous, yes?  For we do have the examples of Sitwell Park plus Mac's disappointment over CPC not generating the controversy he'd hoped.

Mark

[Sean_A]

Mark Rowlinson has a piece on The Alwoodley in the latest issue of T+L Golf magazine: Click here.

Near as I can find the website does not offer the contributors' page found in the print edition, with mug shots of the contributors.  Too bad: Mark pips the actor Peter Gallagher for most-handsome contributor!

(As an aside, this month's issue of T+L Golf is a veritable GCA.com contributor fest, with quotes from Lynn and Geoff Shackelford in a piece on Rustic Canyon and Mike Clayton / Tom Doak references galore in an Australian golf piece.

Apropos, Nick Leefe asked me to pass this along to the group:

"In 1999 Tom Doak said the original greens would have been much larger than today.  You mentioned the large green at the short 7th where the 2 front bunkers (L & R) are away from the green.  Where we have the closely mown aprons at Alwoodley today they would have been the original greens in the early years, so much larger.  The 14th apron area in front of the green is another one that would have extended a long way down.

"· The largest green is the 13th with just over 8000 sq feet.  Some of Mike de Vries restored greens at the Meadow Club are well over 10,000 sq feet !!!

"· Rigs & Furrows. As there was much chat about these I will do some more research, to try & put some approx dates on when these would have been used for the first time, however nimble members do not seem to be worried though I have to say the sideways slopes at 5 have helped me hook my punched run ups into the green from 100 yards or so !!!

"· Yes we do putt from 60 yards but the longest I have seen holed was about 40 yards down the hill at 17."

There's so much excellent discussion fodder in these two sources, but what I really enjoyed:

1. Mac must have learned from TOC the efficacy of large greens in defending par;

2. Is the putter the most-important club at The Alwoodley?  The better players at BUDA rarely pulled driver, and on most-every green at least one golfer and more often two or three, regardless of ability, seemed to struggle to hit his approach close to the flag on those massive, disorienting greens. That put a lot of pressure on the putter out there, didn't it -- especially considering the "effective" size (per Nick's putter comment) of the greens, not just their "official" size.  If the putter is numero uno for all players, then that's another TOC lesson learned, yes?

3. Mac's desire to place bunkers hard against greens was something he figured out in his very first design, rather than something learned over time -- the thing that's incredible to me about his design at The Alwoodley is how many things he got right, right from the start, and without the benefit of having a legion of professionalized designers whose work he could have studied;

4. Mark R concludes his piece by noting, "It is hard not to reflect...how differently events might have unfolded had its design not been so successful."  One may speculate on who would have gotten his commissions, but what I find far more fascinating is to consider to evolution of green complexes without him.  Wild greens would have fallen to Maxwell to innovate, yes? What other design elements might have gone differently?

5. As Mark R notes (in the article and in his excellent history), we in part have the harsh winter of 1907-08 to thank for The Alwoodley, but what I find of interest is to consider the winter in the context of Mark's speculation in #3 above: just how did The Alwoodley come to be accepted as a "success" by club-level golfers, after the committee nearly "came to blows" with Mac during the design and construction?  Did it really fall to the blessings of Colt and Fowler?  Were the members that dependent on the opinion of professionals to decide their own approval?  This club-golfer approval must have been a near thing and by no means unanimous, yes?  For we do have the examples of Sitwell Park plus Mac's disappointment over CPC not generating the controversy he'd hoped.

Mark

Mark

Thanks for your tidbits and the link.  Your comments concerning the putter at Alwoodley are interesting.  I am a firm believer that the putter is the most important club on any course - it can and often is a most disheartening weapon in matchplay.  I have long thought about the effect of large greens on putting.  

Generally speaking, I don't think big greens makes much difference to the score because a so-so long range putt is usually about as good as a decent chip for players of my standard.  However, there is definitely the element of giving a shot away if one three jacks, whereas we are less apt to think of giving one away if we are chipping - this is often the case even if we putt from off the green.  Sure, there are times when players accept a three putt because of being caught between a rock and a hard place, but this sort of thinking doesn't prevail very often.   I rarely play big greens.  In fact, Beau Desert is about the only course I play regularly that has big greens and I must admit to not having figured them out yet (that is partly due to my often indifferent putting).  But it isn't the size so much as the contours and slopes combined with the size that confounds me.  It was at Beau that I began to think of the effect trees had in hiding the lay of the land - but that is another matter.  

Why is it that many golfers feel this way concerning the putter??  When did the idea of a two putt become "standard"?  Is the idea of a two putt good for the game/architecture?  Has the idea of  a two putt affected architecture?  

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

Mark great post, now is the time to return our thoughts to Alwoodley and reflect on what we saw.


I'm afraid this will be one of my  "insignificant" posts as I havn't the time at the moment to channel my thoughts and you've toutched on so many things... hopefully later.

Finally great article Mark more than ever it's a shame you were not able to join us.

[Mark Bourgeois]

But, Sean, people practice chips; nobody practices 180-foot putts!   Also, regarding your Beau Desert observation, IMHO you are right to note the greater impact of slope and contour due to large greens: the ball remains in contact with the ground longer than on short putts, on pitches, and on chips.  But am I to understand correctly that you are unwilling to concede the largeness of the green as responsible?

Getting back to TAGC greens:
1. Mark R notes the significance of the design is that it was among the very first designed for the "Bounding Billy."  Is there a relationship between Mac's decision to supersize the greens and this ball?

2. Do the size of the greens factor into the remarkable degree of design preservation?  A 6,700-yard course at open would have had an advantage, and there's the major role club governance has played. (TAGC's committee model, and its performance with respect to design integrity, surely makes it a governance model to study! Of course, it needed a recent revision, but that's another matter...)

But would someone illuminate or even speculate on a possible relationship?  I have read that one defense of increased length is reduce green size.  Weathered and Simpson I believe recommended this...

Thanks
Mark

PS I guess there's also the question of how large the greens actually play, conceding firm and fast conditions and fall-aways may make them play smaller.  But for my money, they play plenty big!

[Mark Bourgeois]

Also, I just re-read Ran's review.  He dedicates more of the review to tee shots and, to a lesser extent, approach shots, rather than the impact and challenges of the putter.  So Sean you and I must be way off base!

Mark

PS Your end-of-post comments regarding the putter are interesting -- start a thread on it!

[Sean_A]

But, Sean, people practice chips; nobody practices 180-foot putts!   Also, regarding your Beau Desert observation, IMHO you are right to note the greater impact of slope and contour due to large greens: the ball remains in contact with the ground longer than on short putts, on pitches, and on chips.  But am I to understand correctly that you are unwilling to concede the largeness of the green as responsible?

Getting back to TAGC greens:
1. Mark R notes the significance of the design is that it was among the very first designed for the "Bounding Billy."  Is there a relationship between Mac's decision to supersize the greens and this ball?

2. Do the size of the greens factor into the remarkable degree of design preservation?  A 6,700-yard course at open would have had an advantage, and there's the major role club governance has played. (TAGC's committee model, and its performance with respect to design integrity, surely makes it a governance model to study! Of course, it needed a recent revision, but that's another matter...)

But would someone illuminate or even speculate on a possible relationship?  I have read that one defense of increased length is reduce green size.  Weathered and Simpson I believe recommended this...

Thanks
Mark

PS I guess there's also the question of how large the greens actually play, conceding firm and fast conditions and fall-aways may make them play smaller.  But for my money, they play plenty big!

Mark

No, what I am saying is that for most people, having to chip 40, 50 or 60 yards is just as difficult, if not more difficult than putting that same distance - especially if there are ups and downs and sideways bits and bobs.  You are right in what you say regarding largeness of greens, but I think the bigger impact is on the approach shot, not (as I explained earlier) in the putting VS chipping.  I find it very difficult to gauge and trust what I gauge to be true on approaching large greens.  The same could be said for approaching greens in which the fairway and green have a seemless transition.  It is so hard to judge distance in either case.  This is the reason folks end up with mammoth putts in the first place.  

I don't honestly know if large or small greens are the best way to defend against length.  Both carry their own pros and cons.  I suspect that if a course is f&f, small greens make play more difficult.  Perhaps the reverse is true for s&g (soft & green) courses.

Most of the classic heathland tracks were designed after the Haskell introduced.  So all of these courses had an immediate advantage when they opened and perhaps these designs taking into account increased length were part of the reason for their success.  It is my impression that many heathland courses are more or less in their original form - lets say recognizable for the original archie.  Probably the biggest difference for many heathland courses is the amount of trees relative to heather rather than architectural changes - but this is just a guess.  

I spose what I am asking in a round about way is Alwoodley that unusual in terms of design longevity for courses built around the turn of the century?  

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

To answer your last question, maybe not, after all.  Plenty of courses from that era remain at their original length.  Of course, many of those were shorter at open than 6,700 yards, weren't they?  And some didn't have the money to do anything about it...

But what about the relationship between the Haskell and the size of the greens at TAGC?  Assuming that a major organizing principle of Mac was "design for Haskell," then with respect to large greens what was he thinking?

You make the comment of not knowing whether large or small is the best way to defend against length. And the Haskell was longer, but I was thinking more about the relationship of large greens to the "bounding" bit: the gutty didn't behave that way upon landing, did it?

So, just thinking out loud and trying to answer my own question, Mac would have had to think about how a course might be designed in relation to how the ball behaved after it landed.  That's a big difference, isn't it? And that's as significant a difference to design as the increased length of the new ball, isn't it?

And so what does that mean for green size, in terms of run-up shots and aerial shots?

Mark

PS Regarding the challenges of putting vs. chipping from 40, 50, 60 yards: I can't say as I don't think I've ever putted from that distance more than a handful of times...

[Sean_A]

To answer your last question, maybe not, after all.  Plenty of courses from that era remain at their original length.  Of course, many of those were shorter at open than 6,700 yards, weren't they?  And some didn't have the money to do anything about it...

But what about the relationship between the Haskell and the size of the greens at TAGC?  Assuming that a major organizing principle of Mac was "design for Haskell," then with respect to large greens what was he thinking?

You make the comment of not knowing whether large or small is the best way to defend against length. And the Haskell was longer, but I was thinking more about the relationship of large greens to the "bounding" bit: the gutty didn't behave that way upon landing, did it?

So, just thinking out loud and trying to answer my own question, Mac would have had to think about how a course might be designed in relation to how the ball behaved after it landed.  That's a big difference, isn't it? And that's as significant a difference to design as the increased length of the new ball, isn't it?

And so what does that mean for green size, in terms of run-up shots and aerial shots?

Mark

PS Regarding the challenges of putting vs. chipping from 40, 50, 60 yards: I can't say as I don't think I've ever putted from that distance more than a handful of times...

Mark

I think you are right.  The main difference (as I understand it) between the gutty and Haskell was the amount of roll - more or less the difference in length between the two balls.  

It would be an interesting exercise to gather the info for well known and respected courses built say 10 years after the Haskell was introduced: size of greens, length of course, # and placement of bunkers and width of fairways.  Comparing this info to the gutty age and a few phases of the modern age could be very enlightening.  

Do you spose there could be a correlation (at least philosophically) between fairway width and green size?

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Re the relationship of fairway size to green size, leaving aside the issue of proportionality / aesthetics, I say yes: greens of large size, with bunkers and slopes hard against the collars, allow for huge variances in approach angles due to the variance in hole locations from one round to the next.

So you likely would want to have wide fairways so that the golfer can attack a flag from the proper angle; e.g., for a flag way left, the best angle might be from "way" right.

But the fairway width would be a function of green size, not the other way around.  So if you're asking were the greens designed large because the fairways needed to be wide to account for the Bounding Billy, I would say no.  I think the fairway width came after Mac would have decided on large greens.

Or maybe his decision for each was synched. I don't have anything from the historical record to point to, other than his respect for TOC, and he would have known of both elements there. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I still say the green size, but I'll have to see what I can turn up...

Hmm: given this fairway-width issue, is there possibly another relationship at work here, namely a relationship between green size and the post-landing run out of the Bounding Billy (presuming the golfer approaches from the proper angle)?

Did Mac want to add challenge by requiring the golfer to think really hard about all the combos of aerial angle + run out, or am I overthinking it?

[Tony_Muldoon]

Did Mac want to add challenge by requiring the golfer to think really hard about all the combos of aerial angle + run out, or am I overthinking it?

so many questions so little time.


Yes Mark I believe you are on to something here.  I would like to see others thoughts on comparing the relative flatness of the greens at say Walton Heath and  Woodhall Spa vs. the contours at Allwoodley.    Is this something the good Dr took directly  from TOC (which Ive never seen)? Why  did the other pioneers (including Colt?) not feel the same necessity to do this?

[Mark Bourgeois]

That's an excellent comparison, Tony. TAGC greens are striking in contour.  But maybe the question should be: why didn't the others build greens with contours the equal of TOC?

Could they have been early onto the fairness thing?

And back to the size of the greens: taking a hole like the short 7th, I thought it was built huge to challenge one's depth perception and thereby ratchet up the challenge, and that still makes sense to me, but now there's possibly this additional consideration of the bounding ball.

Did the thing bounce more than the balls of today? Would a large green like that have made the hole play easier, harder, or a wash?

And regarding my Question 5...

As Mark R notes (in the article and in his excellent history), we in part have the harsh winter of 1907-08 to thank for The Alwoodley, but what I find of interest is to consider the winter in the context of Mark's speculation in #3 above: just how did The Alwoodley come to be accepted as a "success" by club-level golfers, after the committee nearly "came to blows" with Mac during the design and construction?  Did it really fall to the blessings of Colt and Fowler?  Were the members that dependent on the opinion of professionals to decide their own approval?  This club-golfer approval must have been a near thing and by no means unanimous, yes?  For we do have the examples of Sitwell Park plus Mac's disappointment over CPC not generating the controversy he'd hoped.

...I went back to Ran's review and there's a great reference:

The group of founding members for Alwoodley must surely have been impressed by the strength of MacKenzie's convictions and design thoughts. Nonetheless, they called in Harry Shapland Colt to offer his valued opinion. Though Colt's best work was yet to come for several years at such designs as Swinley Forest and St. George's Hill, he (along with Willie Park and Herbert Fowler) was considered the preeminent architect of the time, in large part because of his active role as Secretary at the prestigious Sunningdale Golf Club. Nick Leefe, current  Chairman of the Greens at Alwoodley, notes that 'I too have to obtain the best available professional advice (agronomy/ecology) if I wish to make any alterations, which might affect the way the course is played. Nothing has changed.'

Is that really all it was about back then; i.e., the bloodless matter of a second opinion?  If they "nearly came to blows," as MacKenzie wrote, it sounds less like a second opinion and more like a visceral reaction to the utter estrangement of what they saw to anything they really knew or understood.

Lastly, that notion of "nearly coming to blows:"  I've often wondered what it must have been like for people hearing Louis Armstrong for the very first time.  Does "nearly coming to blows" describe the reaction of golfers seeing the "Louis Armstrong of golf course architecture" for the first time?

Mark

[Paul_Turner]

Did the USGA spec rebuild change the greens at Alwoodley?

Are the greens at Alwoodley significantly more contoured than courses built at similar time: Ganton, Sunningdale and Walton Heath??  I don't recall this being the case.  But I do remember Woodhall Spa's being a bit flatter.   Built a few years later, I remember the greens at Swinley and St George's Hill being more contoured than Alwoodley's.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Paul,

My reading of the club history is that the intent on many greens was to relay the greens; i.e., goal was drainage improvement.  But the 15th was a rebuild that returned the center- / back-left saucer and right-front bunker which appeared in earlier photos.

That said, in looking at the pics of the course taken closer to its opening, I would say at least several of the greens appear tamer today, but I don't know if this is down to the relaying.  (BTW the bunkers appear far tamer today.)

The courses you cite do have their share of well-contoured greens (perhaps excepting Woodhall Spa), but as a collection of greens, TAGC's are much wilder IMHO. There are fewer greens that hug the ground at TAGC than at Ganton, Walton Heath and Woodhall Spa -- aren't there?

St. George's Hill I agree has contours that give TAGC a run for its money, and possibly more, but it's not a slam-dunk for me as I see SGHC greens as built up and containing slope, not necessarily an example of collective super contour.

Taking into account the entire green complexes not just contour, and as a collective whole, how do you see Alwoodley against those you've referenced? Not so much better or worse (unless you want to put forth that opinion), but how do they differ in your eyes?

Just how different were Alwoodley's greens from its contemporaries?

Mark

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()