When Mackenzie lost it..

[David Stamm]

Richard, we first must have some sort of basis to go off of, that being an understanding  of AM's thought's on the TOC and his thoughts on architecture as a whole. John has said that he has not read any of his writings. In the absence of AM's presence, this is all we have to go by. And unless John has seen as many AM courses as Tom Doak, what can be a basis for a discussion? I'll be the first to admit that AM was not a perfect designer, but to make the type of statements that John has made without knowing what his thoughts were or have a very broad experience of his courses, where can this go? I have only a limited experience myself of AM's courses. I've played Pasa a few times and walked CPC and Valley Club on occasion's. Hardly a basis to defend any position by itself. I have, however , read almost all of what he has written. This by no means makes me any sort of expert, but the effort has been made on my part to gain a understanding of AM's idea's and thoughts. Maybe I'm expecting too much of others, but perhaps John could do the same before embarking on something like this. Right or wrong, it's all for lively discussion and we all can benefit from our observations, no matter the position. Perhaps what he has written can be analyzed and then discuss what the meaning could be and what he may have been trying to say. I, for one, would find that interesting. But we need common ground (a knowledge of WHAT HE SAID) in order for that to happen.  

[John Kavanaugh]

To get this back on track, could someone show me where Mackenzie used the style of The Old Course in a way that would show that he loved the place.  This should be easy.

[John Kavanaugh]

Richard, we first must have some sort of basis to go off of, that being an understanding  of AM's thought's on the TOC and his thoughts on architecture as a whole. John has said that he has not read any of his writings. In the absence of AM's presence, this is all we have to go by. And unless John has seen as many AM courses as Tom Doak, what can be a basis for a discussion? I'll be the first to admit that AM was not a perfect designer, but to make the type of statements that John has made without knowing what his thoughts were or have a very broad experience of his courses, where can this go? I have only a limited experience myself of AM's courses. I've played Pasa a few times and walked CPC and Valley Club on occasion's. Hardly a basis to defend any position by itself. I have, however , read almost all of what he has written. This by no means makes me any sort of expert, but the effort has been made on my part to gain a understanding of AM's idea's and thoughts. Maybe I'm expecting too much of others, but perhaps John could do the same before embarking on something like this. Right or wrong, it's all for lively discussion and we all can benefit from our observations, no matter the position. Perhaps what he has written can be analyzed and then discuss what the meaning could be and what he may have been trying to say. I, for one, would find that interesting. But we need common ground (a knowledge of WHAT HE SAID) in order for that to happen.  

David,

I'm talking about what he felt...Is there any way to discuss that without speculation.  What can be learned in regurgitating what he wrote?  What do you think his motivation for writing his books was when he had the opportunity to show his thoughts on the course?  Did he mentor anyone...If not how could his motivations be anything but self serving.

[David Stamm]

Richard, we first must have some sort of basis to go off of, that being an understanding  of AM's thought's on the TOC and his thoughts on architecture as a whole. John has said that he has not read any of his writings. In the absence of AM's presence, this is all we have to go by. And unless John has seen as many AM courses as Tom Doak, what can be a basis for a discussion? I'll be the first to admit that AM was not a perfect designer, but to make the type of statements that John has made without knowing what his thoughts were or have a very broad experience of his courses, where can this go? I have only a limited experience myself of AM's courses. I've played Pasa a few times and walked CPC and Valley Club on occasion's. Hardly a basis to defend any position by itself. I have, however , read almost all of what he has written. This by no means makes me any sort of expert, but the effort has been made on my part to gain a understanding of AM's idea's and thoughts. Maybe I'm expecting too much of others, but perhaps John could do the same before embarking on something like this. Right or wrong, it's all for lively discussion and we all can benefit from our observations, no matter the position. Perhaps what he has written can be analyzed and then discuss what the meaning could be and what he may have been trying to say. I, for one, would find that interesting. But we need common ground (a knowledge of WHAT HE SAID) in order for that to happen.  

David,

I'm talking about what he felt...Is there any way to discuss that without speculation.  What can be learned in regurgitating what he wrote?  What do you think his motivation for writing his books was when he had the opportunity to show his thoughts on the course?  Did he mentor anyone...If not how could his motivations be anything but self serving.

John, he mentored quite a few people. Robert Hunter, Jack Fleming, Perry Maxwell, Alex Russell. Hunter went on to write one of the best books ever written on the subject. Maxwell and Rusell went on to become very good arch's in their own right. And keep in mind, Jones thought enough of him and his ideas to build his dream course. I don't want to speak for arch's of today, but I'm sure his words were of use to alot of them. I have to think about an answer to your other observations.

[TEPaul]

"If that is truly the case why was Mackenzie afraid to copy the old course in style.  Why did he feel a need to top it...To show he was better.  People do not write love letters to without considering the return.  I see no value in reading what Mackenzie said he loved when the proof is in his work."

JohnK:

Attaboy.

You just keep questions like that coming in response to what some are saying to you about Mackenzie.

I'm behind you all the way. I may not personally agree with some of what you're saying but the exercise of intelligently answering what you're asking is inspiring and should be enlightening, in my opinion.

That may not be the greatest response possible but it's a good enough one, in my opinion. So keep them coming.

And furthermore, why indeed didn't Mackenzie, or presumably anyone else, more diligently copy some of the odd and natural aspects of TOC in what they did in their new constructions if they really did feel TOC was the prototype of all golf course architecture, not to mention the ideal?

I guess the easy answer to that question is that back in that very early day the idea of actually physically copying the look of some other hole on the opposite side of an ocean was simply impractical, if not impossible.

I took the balls of a guy like Macdonald to even remotely do that and even his attempts at those prototype holes became controversial, even amongst some of those architects we might call the real "naturalists".  

[JESII]

John,


There is a new(ish) course a couple hours north of Philadelphia set in the hills of the Pocono mountains. A really beautiful part of the state. The golf course has gained high acclaim since it was built 6 or 8 years ago and prior to my first going up there this year all the reports were realy favorable...save one item...the clubhouse was a very low profile cart shed looking thing from the outside. The complaint was that in such a beautiful part of the world, why not build a nice big beautiful clubhouse to match? I didn't much care one way or the other, the course was good, the service was great, the food also really good, and the comfort inside the clubhouse was top of the line.

Does it matter that the outside of the building looks like a gigantic cart shed? Is it a good thing that the architect (of the building) says he wanted to avoid taking away from the scenery with his own creation? I don't know...but you would seemingly think so...is this a universal point of view for you? Or is it just reserved for the bunkers at CPC?

[John Kavanaugh]

Do you think Bobby Jones also loved The Old Course and that is why he hired Mackenzie as his architect?  I think we both know better.

[Rich Goodale]

David

John has answered the part of your post to me regarding his feelings, and I think he has a very legitimate point to make.  I personally see Mackenzie's writings (and those of Macdonald, BTW) to be less about teaching and more about self-promotion, but I do understand that others see it differently.

As for your other points I completely reject your implication that Tom Doak (or anybody else) has, a priori, an opinion that is better or worse than mine or anybody else's.  The proof is in the pudding, but if the audience is populated only by fellow puddings, the quality of the proof can be diminished....

I must add, that while I still think that the half-pipe bunker on the 10th is just eye-candy (you have to pop-up a drive and duck hook a 3-wood to get there), I think that at Pasatiempo there is much more interesting architecture than at Cypress.  It was a much tougher site, and Dr. Mack made some great golf holes (2, 11, 16, even 10 (sans half-pipe)) off of a challenging set of topos.

I haven't really heard yet why the half-pipe on 10 is so great.  Tom D and Mike G try to make a point of the fact that I've never been in that bunker complex.  Well, I would never expect to be there, and I'm not that good of a golfer.  It's just a (to some people) pretty irrelevance.  A perfect definition (to me at least) of "Eye Candy."

Rich

[TEPaul]

"You do have to admit that John Kavanaugh has some large stones."

Bill:

Maybe he does, I don't know.

But my point is John Kavanaugh seems to be an iconoclast in some ways, and if we, on here, are going to glorify and make icons out of some of those early architects and the things they did we better get used to, and frankly better at, explaining to him or anyone else exactly why we feel as we do.

The best way to do that is not to dismiss him or his questions but to answer him and his questions intelligently and convincingly.  

[John Kavanaugh]

Does it matter that the outside of the building looks like a gigantic cart shed? Is it a good thing that the architect (of the building) says he wanted to avoid taking away from the scenery with his own creation? I don't know...but you would seemingly think so...is this a universal point of view for you? Or is it just reserved for the bunkers at CPC?

Jes,

Here is a quote from me on Sept 11, 2007 concerning a Doak course so I would say that yes my feelings are universal on beauty for beauties sake:

"I'm guessing those bunkers serve a larger purpose of preventing someone from driving a cart over a cliff than any golf strategy.  I see zero value in them being flashed up in a "Hey!!! look at me I'm a Doak bunker!" fashion."

[JESII]

But why is matching the surroundings...or attempting to match the surroundings...a bad thing? It leaves a feeling of inconsistency that might not be better than the alternative.

[David Stamm]

As for your other points I completely reject your implication that Tom Doak (or anybody else) has, a priori, an opinion that is better or worse than mine or anybody else's.  

 

Rich

Richard, I never meant to imply that. I merely was pointing out that the man has written an auto on Mack and that he supposedly has seen just about everything Mack has done. That's all. Period.

[John Kavanaugh]

As for your other points I completely reject your implication that Tom Doak (or anybody else) has, a priori, an opinion that is better or worse than mine or anybody else's.  

 

Rich

Richard, I never meant to imply that. I merely was pointing out that the man has written an auto on Mack and that he supposedly has seen just about everything Mack has done. That's all. Period.

Just because Doak thinks he is the reincarnation of Mackenzie it does not give him the authority to write an autobiography of the man.

[Rich Goodale]

Agreed, David.  I should and do very much respect Tom's opinions, but I also reserve the right to disagree with him, when and if I see fit.  As should we all.

Rich

[JESII]

I was wondering how to address that...figured I'd leave it up to one of you witty geniuses...like Dan Kelly!

[TEPaul]

Richard the Magnificent:

In one post above you go on and on about the idea of "eye candy" with bunkering.

What exactly do you mean by that and where do you suspect such an idea originally emanated from?

Do you suppose the natural blowouts and formations that occured on some of the earliest natural linksland courses were put there by Nature for the benefit of golfers? Do you think those things evolved only for the purpose of effecting the strategies and golf balls of golfers?

Of course not.

We all know that golf architects got into using sand bunkering for the sole purpose of effecting the strategies of golfers and the challenge to them and their golf balls.

This, some of us call "scientific" architecture---eg putting these features ONLY in places where some golfer's shot might be affected.

But what about places where that may never be true?

What if an architect immitated the random natural occurences of these things perhaps anywhere on a golf course as they were on natural linksland?

Should we really call those random natural occurences "eye candy" only because they don't necessarily influence anyone's golf ball?

That's a pretty self-centered way of looking at golf architecture, don't you think?

Perhaps Mackenzie just felt he should not only be in the scientific world of golf architecture in that what he created should affect the golfer's ball, but it seems he felt he should also be in the larger context of imitating the natural world in some interpretative sense.

What that is, in my opinion, is the world of the ART of naturalism as it applies to golf course architecture.

[John Kavanaugh]

But why is matching the surroundings...or attempting to match the surroundings...a bad thing? It leaves a feeling of inconsistency that might not be better than the alternative.

One of my points of contention is that I think the architecture of The Old Course does match its surroundings better than any Mackenzie course ever did.  I do not think Mackenzie even tried to match the surroundings he wanted to surpass.  That is the problem and why mother nature will always take it back.

[TEPaul]

JohnK:

Personally, I don't think Doak or anyone else needs to possess any particular authority to write a biography of Mackenzie or to write a book on anything else.

However, even Tom Doak can't really write an autobiography of Alister Mackenzie.

I think I'm pretty safe in saying that only Alister Mackenzie could do that.  

[JESII]

JK,

But then, why limit this to MacKenzie? I play at a Flynn course that  I think is pretty 'natural' but if Mother Nature wants some of it, who's going to stop her?

[John Kavanaugh]

Given that golf course architecture is not structural architecture why build structures at all if for any reason but to put a personal stamp on the land.  Here is a part of a review of the Phillip Johnson Glass House that says it in a way the intellectuals might understand.

"The vault and the box are two recurring themes in the history of architecture. Few boxes have ever reached the degree of sophistication to be found in Johnson's steel-framed Glass House. Inside the transparent box, objects and fittings (for example the free-standing 'buffet bar') take on the significance of chess pieces—checkmate produces a perfect ambiance! The éminence grise behind the design is Mies, and so is also (as a number of critics have playfully suggested) an eclectic pot-pourri ranging from Choisy's Acropolis plan, Schinkel's Casino, Mies's own Farnsworth House sketches and IIT plan, Ledoux's rationalism and possibly even Malevitch's 1913 'Circle' painting."

— Dennis Sharp. Twentieth Century Architecture: a Visual History. p173.

A link if you must.. http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Johnson_House.html

[Mike Golden]

But why is matching the surroundings...or attempting to match the surroundings...a bad thing? It leaves a feeling of inconsistency that might not be better than the alternative.

One of my points of contention is that I think the architecture of The Old Course does match its surroundings better than any Mackenzie course ever did.  I do not think Mackenzie even tried to match the surroundings he wanted to surpass.  That is the problem and why mother nature will always take it back.

John,

MacKenzie was more concerned with strategy than style as it related to the TOC:

MacKenzie studied the Old Course religiously and rated the 11th, 14th, 16th and 17th as holes without equal anywhere in the world. What he especially liked about the Old Course was the way that it could provide a stern test for the best golfers but was still playable for those with lesser ability.

He opined that there were always routes available to players of different skill levels and he often illustrated three, four or even five ways to play different holes. He was forthright in his opinion that these sorts of strategic golf holes could be recreated on any new course. The concept of strategic design is to reward the golfer who succeeds in taking the greatest risks, penalise him if he fails, but offer alternative routes for the less accomplished player. This makes golf a game not just of skill, but importantly, of judgement.

It also creates variety and interest which are fundamental to the enjoyment of the game. Ideally each golf hole could be played in different ways depending on the ability of the player, location of the tee, pin position, wind conditions and so on. As MacKenzie once wrote; "…there should be at least one, if not more, broad roads that lead to destruction and a narrow and hazardous road that leads to salvation." The aim of the GCA is to design each hole in such a way as to make the golfer think every time he stands on a tee 'how should I play this hole, what are my alternatives?'

This is from an article from the European Institute of Golf Course Architecture publication.

[John Kavanaugh]

JK,

But then, why limit this to MacKenzie? I play at a Flynn course that  I think is pretty 'natural' but if Mother Nature wants some of it, who's going to stop her?

To take this full circle, you do not have to worry because Flynn architecture has proven to be more likely to have continued existence than Mackenzies.

[TEPaul]

"One of my points of contention is that I think the architecture of The Old Course does match its surroundings better than any Mackenzie course ever did.  I do not think Mackenzie even tried to match the surroundings he wanted to surpass.  That is the problem and why mother nature will always take it back."

JohnK:

That last sentence is pretty damned profound if one thinks about it.

However, the first sentence is neither profound or even accurate. If it was accurate then why do you suppose they need to totally rebuild those clean-lined revetted bunkers about every five years?  

In a general sense the middle sentence is probably not profound or accurate either---merely just your own personal opinion.

The thing I find so interesting and ironic about TOC today or even beginning perhaps 150 years ago is that even though most call it the natural prototype for all golf architecture there are many things on it, and have been for perhaps 150 years, which are about as man-made and artificial looking as it can get.    

[John Kavanaugh]

Tom,

What you seem to forget about The Old Course is that the bunkers whose placement seems to be random and natural could indeed move about the property in a random and natural manner and the strategy of the course would not change.  The fact that they are rebuilt time and again in the same location does not matter but is simply convenient to everyday play.  The same can not be said of any Mackenzie course.

[JESII]

JK,

But then, why limit this to MacKenzie? I play at a Flynn course that  I think is pretty 'natural' but if Mother Nature wants some of it, who's going to stop her?

To take this full circle, you do not have to worry because Flynn architecture has proven to be more likely to have continued existence than Mackenzies.

"PROVEN"?

Would that be...beyond a reasonable doubt?