[Tim Leahy]

I read alot about Mackenzie's best golf course designs on this site, but everyone has a bad day. I would like the GCA to expound on Mac's worst, most boring, extreme or abnormally quirky designs in the United States. I know most were probably redone or don't exist anymore, but what are considered his worst works. I have seen Sharp Park and Haggin Oaks is a local but neither seems to have enough of his design left to make them examples.

[Tom_Doak]

Tim:

By Dr. MacKenzie's own definitions those might be his worst courses, because (for very different reasons) neither stood the test of time.  He was adamant that if the routing and the greens stayed intact and did not require remodeling, that "finality" was the sign of good architecture.

[Mark_F]

It had a few clever holes,and one or two very good ones, but I thought Cavendish was a bit ordinary, although its somewhat isolated location was a bonus.

I know Buxton isn't in the US, but then geography never was my strong point.

[Bill_McBride]

Tim:

By Dr. MacKenzie's own definitions those might be his worst courses, because (for very different reasons) neither stood the test of time.  He was adamant that if the routing and the greens stayed intact and did not require remodeling, that "finality" was the sign of good architecture.

Would Sharp Park have been that bad if it hadn't been destroyed by the ocean in its infancy?

I have played a lot of golf over the years at Sharp Park, ending in about 1976, and never cared for the holes across the highway (were they original? Doubtful) but the layout west of the highway isn't bad at all.  The conditions of course were dreadful, all the income sucked out by the Cityl.  The description and plan in Wexler's Lost Links make it look great.  Imagine it without the berm and with ocean views from most of the holes.

I've never seen Haggin Oaks; I guess a lot of changes have taken place over the years.

[Tom_Doak]

Bill:

If I had designed a course which was destroyed by the ocean shortly after it opened, let's just say I wouldn't put it at the top of my resume.

Mark:

I really liked Cavendish, even though it's very short (5800 yards) and relatively simple.

[Anthony Butler]

Tim:

By Dr. MacKenzie's own definitions those might be his worst courses, because (for very different reasons) neither stood the test of time.  He was adamant that if the routing and the greens stayed intact and did not require remodeling, that "finality" was the sign of good architecture.

Given its rating in the Confidential Guide, the amount of changes to the course by Eric Apperly, and the fact that Greg Norman has been allowed on the course with a budget, New South Wales must be close to the top of the list.  

[Bill_McBride]

If I had designed a course which was destroyed by the ocean shortly after it opened, let's just say I wouldn't put it at the top of my resume.

Well, there wouldn't be much left to put ON the resume, right?

From what I have heard over the years, that must have been the storm of the century.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Is there any corollary between someone's worst work and the chance that it's been redone?  One would like to think that a reason for redoing a course is because it was poor in the first place.

I think Sutton Coldfield should be considered as a candidate. There's very little of his work left and the course today is over much the same ground. Given the tightfistedness of most UK clubs is this an argument for saying there was probably little to mourn there?

[Tom Huckaby]

It would make sense that if one's design is massively changed, for whatever reason, the original design can't be one to be very proud of.  THus Sharp Park and Haggin Oaks would have to be among the leaders here.

But among courses that remain relatively intact, how about Green Hills CC, also here in the SF Bay Area?  I have no clue what is or isn't left of his original design, but I had thought it was relatively intact.  In any case what's there today really isn't all that great - it's a pretty blah course.

TH

[Mike Hendren]

Tim:

By Dr. MacKenzie's own definitions those might be his worst courses, because (for very different reasons) neither stood the test of time.  He was adamant that if the routing and the greens stayed intact and did not require remodeling, that "finality" was the sign of good architecture.

Based solely on this criteria, perhaps Augusta National Golf Club should be considered.  While I am an apologist for the course, after spending great time with Stan Byrdy's book, I am astonished at the number of significant changes to the golf course that occured in its first 25 years.  In my opinion, they appear far more pronounced than the much maligned recent changes there.  

I plan a thread on this subject in the near future, but can't help but wondering if Jones would have taken such liberties with the course if Mackenzie had remained alive.  

Mike

[BCrosby]

The Portland Course at Troon?

[Tom Huckaby]

The Portland Course at Troon?

Hmmmm.....
Seems to me there's a lot there to like - at least a lot more than Green Hills here in the Bay Area.  But that might be among the lesser of his lights.

[David Stamm]

Tim:

By Dr. MacKenzie's own definitions those might be his worst courses, because (for very different reasons) neither stood the test of time.  He was adamant that if the routing and the greens stayed intact and did not require remodeling, that "finality" was the sign of good architecture.

Based solely on this criteria, perhaps Augusta National Golf Club should be considered.  While I am an apologist for the course, after spending great time with Stan Byrdy's book, I am astonished at the number of significant changes to the golf course that occured in its first 25 years.  In my opinion, they appear far more pronounced than the much maligned recent changes there.  

I plan a thread on this subject in the near future, but can't help but wondering if Jones would have taken such liberties with the course if Mackenzie had remained alive.  

Mike

Mike, I too have read the book and you're absolutely right, it is astonishing. I have also been toying with the idea of starting a thread to show the side by side drawings of the course as we get closer to the Masters to show everyone the differences. If your going to though, go for it, I look forward to it. I think it's important that everyone here see just how significant the changes really are.

[KBanks]

What about poor execution of a MacKenzie design? The Jockey Club has been cited as an example.

Has anyone on the board other than Tom Doak seen it? The few discussions of it convey disappointed expectations.

Herb Wind theorized that a crucial distinguishing factor between it and, say, Royal Melbourne, was that the latter must have had a uniquely gifted construction superintendent, and thereafter a greenskeeper, who understood what MacKenzie was after.

[Ray Tennenbaum]

I don't think the Lake Placid Club is very great, a couple of interesting holes, it's probably a distant 4th or 5th best of the courses up there.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Sean I also really like Sutton Coldfield.  It’s great piece of land, lovely turf and an interesting golf course - a solid Doak 4 with one great par 3.  

However I think the club makes a great deal of it’s famous designer and yet in the club history in the chapter called The Legacy of Dr MacKenzie, you can pick out the following:-
1919 Dr Mac “made a proposal keeping (only) 6 of the pre war holes.”

Holes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6(Mac’s 7th) are his “after that while some lines of the present course are recognisable the positioning of the tees & green is mostly unrecognisable “(from his plan.)  

“Mac’s 15 is not unlike the present 12 although the green is positioned differently and the 18th is approximately the hole which is played now.2

The work took place in the early 20’s and was dogged by lack of funds after fires ate up more than the original total budget. This caused ructions within the club and it’s possible they abandoned some of his ideas. Mac was asked to provide alterations to his plan including lengthening several holes.  The greens were constructed from sketches and he wasn’t involved with overseeing the work.  These facts could also account for some of the later changes.

The club altered the order of holes and the ‘lines of play’ several times notably in 1939, 1951 and in 1976 following more fires.

I feel that the Club is guilty of overselling his involvement with the current design. Several times I have read that having 3 consecutive Par 5’s is an example of Mackenzie’s original thinking when in fact he had at least one of them as a par 4.

Hence I conclude this is definitely not a course that should be considered authentic Mac, but one that I would be happy to play again soon.

[Anthony Butler]

What about poor execution of a MacKenzie design? The Jockey Club has been cited as an example.

Has anyone on the board other than Tom Doak seen it? The few discussions of it convey disappointed expectations.

Herb Wind theorized that a crucial distinguishing factor between it and, say, Royal Melbourne, was that the latter must have had a uniquely gifted construction superintendent, and thereafter a greenskeeper, who understood what MacKenzie was after.

Yes, Mick Morcom originally, and to my mind RMW still plays much as he intended it to... someone with an mediocre short game could hit 10 greens there and still shoot in the 90s.

Maybe Mackenzie couldn't envisage the speed that his greens are played at now. At the same time, I think he would see them as the most natural way to maintain the challenge of the course that the improvements in equipment threaten to take away.

arb:

[Andrew Summerell]

Tim:

By Dr. MacKenzie's own definitions those might be his worst courses, because (for very different reasons) neither stood the test of time.  He was adamant that if the routing and the greens stayed intact and did not require remodeling, that "finality" was the sign of good architecture.

Given its rating in the Confidential Guide, the amount of changes to the course by Eric Apperly, and the fact that Greg Norman has been allowed on the course with a budget, New South Wales must be close to the top of the list.  

I would agree, as the original routing had some strange choices that Apperly fixed & the greatest holes on the course, as they are now, are Apperly, not Mac.

I think it was finished in 1928 & Apperly was working on it by 1935. Is that the quickest major redesign of a Mac course ?

[PCCraig]

While I may not agree, but would others note the University of Michigan course to the list? I know for a lot of years it was used as a parking lot.

[Anthony Butler]

Tim:

By Dr. MacKenzie's own definitions those might be his worst courses, because (for very different reasons) neither stood the test of time.  He was adamant that if the routing and the greens stayed intact and did not require remodeling, that "finality" was the sign of good architecture.

Given its rating in the Confidential Guide, the amount of changes to the course by Eric Apperly, and the fact that Greg Norman has been allowed on the course with a budget, New South Wales must be close to the top of the list.  

I would agree, as the original routing had some strange choices that Apperly fixed & the greatest holes on the course, as they are now, are Apperly, not Mac.

I think it was finished in 1928 & Apperly was working on it by 1935. Is that the quickest major redesign of a Mac course ?

The course was mostly redesigned because the Army (which technically owned the land the course was on until the 90s) took the course back during WWII. The major holes that were either new, redesigned (or in the words of Mike Clayton-ruined) were 1, 2, 6, 12, 17. That still leaves  7, 13, 15 and 16 as Dr. Mac's.

[Tiger_Bernhardt]

Nice one there Bob. Bogie, I am shocked this near Masters Week, you would bring up the pride of the south in a negative way. Me thinks this Hill Billy is still suffering from frost bite received during the Bandon trip.

[Tom_Doak]

KBanks:  I don't know who said that The Jockey Club is a poorly executed MacKenzie design, but I disagree.  It was a very flat site on poor soils and he did what he could with it -- he also spent a fair amount of time there compared to many of his other projects.  Of course, he didn't have Maxwell or Morcom or Hunter down there to help him (the construction supervisor was Luther Koontz), but even Maxwell would have had difficulty turning The Jockey Club into a naturally rolling topography.

Andrew:  They were changing Sitwell Park practically the same day MacKenzie finished it.

[wsmorrison]

Is there an architect, past or present, that comes close to MacKenzie in terms of designing bunkers behind and above greens?  I don't have first-hand experience, simply from photographs, so maybe there is a sampling error...I guess this style looks good in photos.  

These sorts of bunkers clearly serve to frame the green--not something I am overly fond of on a regular basis.  Do they serve other purposes?  I recognize that bunkers placed in areas that rarely come into play can serve to broaden the perspective and avoid a focus towards the target, but these kinds of bunkers are usually more on the periphery of a hole.  I have not played any MacKenzie in the US, but it almost seems like he has too many bunkers around greens.  I must be missing something in terms of his bunkering philosophy.  I've never seen such a systematic abundance of greenside bunkers from other architects.  Am I wrong?

How difficult is it to maintain his bunkers on steep slopes above his greens?  Was he/his construction crew known for creating good surface drainage above the bunkers to avoid washouts?

[Mike Hendren]

Bogie, I am shocked this near Masters Week, you would bring up the pride of the south in a negative way. Me thinks this Hill Billy is still suffering from frost bite received during the Bandon trip.

Relax Tiger.  My comments were made solely in the context of Tom Doak's quote of Mackenzie's criteria.  

That said, shorten the 7th and thin the trees there and at the 11th and the course migrates back up the list from its current ratings.  Also, based upon my limited knowledge, the course today is superior to the course that held the first invitational tournament in the early 30's.  (Bob Crosby, please go easy on me!).

Btw, nice forecast on the coast next week for a round at PCC.  

Mike

[KBanks]

Tom,
 
I haven't seen either RM or Jockey Club. You and Herb Wind are in a select company of those who have seen both.

I was paraphrasing Herb's remarks in "A Calling for Correct Proportions", his essay upon receiving the Donald Ross award from the ASGCA. I don't think Herb was implying that MacKenzie's design of the The Jockey Club was substandard. He was speculating about the difference in quality between it and Royal Melbourne, and one theory he advanced had to do with the effectiveness of the construction process in giving life to the design of each course. Your comments seem consistent inasmuch as you note that the Jockey Club's construction super may not have been the equal of Mick Morcom. Your point about the disparate quality of the sites is well taken.

Since it did not appear in The Confidential Guide, can I put you on the spot and ask how Jockey Club would rank on the Doak scale? Royal Melbourne is a perfect 10.

Ken
 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()