Did Jones and Roberts Throw MacKenzie Under The Bus

[Mike Hendren]

I highly recommend Stan Byrdy's Alister MacKenzie's Masterpiece - The Augusta National Golf Club.

What stands out is the extent to which significant changes were made to the golf course in its first two decades as chronicled in this excellent book. 

This begs the question: Why?

Was the course not challenging enough for tournament play?
Did Jones and Roberts like to tinker and felt free to do so with The Good Doctor pushing up daisies?
Were they embarassed that they stiffed Mac for his fees and sought to discredit his original work?
Was it pride and ego?

Just curious.  You thoughts?

Mike

[Bob_Huntley]

Mike,

I have correspondence between Sam Morse and MacKenzie over the latters disagreements with Jo Mora, Morses's super at Pebble Beach, together with the financial problems with the original Shore Course at MPCC during the early years of the Depression. The good doctor was one prickly SOB and I am sure that Roberts at Augusta wanted to put him in his place.

One thing is for certain, Roberts had the wherewithal to pay Mackenzie and reneged. A sorry episode in Augusta's history that Jones surely regretted.

Bob

[David Stamm]

Mike,

I have correspondence between Sam Morse and MacKenzie over the latters disagreements with Jo Mora, Morses's super at Pebble Beach, together with the financial problems with the original Shore Course at MPCC during the early years of the Depression. The good doctor was one prickly SOB and I am sure that Roberts at Augusta wanted to put him in his place.

One thing is for certain, Roberts had the wherewithal to pay Mackenzie and reneged. A sorry episode in Augusta's history that Jones surely regretted.

Bob

Bob, I would love to see those letters. Perhaps at the KP? I have no doubt about the doctor's disposition. He was very strong headed and had very definite ideas, but I think he was right more often than wrong. I agree with your assesment of Roberts. He could've paid him. As for Michael's questions, in short, yes, they threw HIS COURSE under the bus. I'm quite certain that generally speaking he would've not liked the way the course evolved. It's always amazed me  how fast the course changed after AM died, almost to say "the crazy old fool didn't know what the hell he was doing." And yes, Byrdy's book is fantastic!

[Jim Nugent]

Did those changes make the course better...worse...keep it the same overall quality? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

ANGC was always intended to be a championship venue, hence, fine tuning after opening day would seem to be natural progression.

What was the amount of time AM spent designing and building ANGC ?

Could it be that the changes that followed opening day were a result of, initially, not fully taking advantage of the terrain at ANGC due to the limited amount of time spent in the design and development of the golf course ?

Could it be that AM's design theories were brilliant in the context of the club golfer, but inadequate in terms of professional golf at the highest level ?

When you view some of the changes, you can't help but think that they improved the golf course, for the members and the Pros.

Moving # 10 green to the knoll was brilliant, and, one has to ask, why wasn't it part of the original design ?

Changing the configuration of # 16 appears to have enhanced the hole, especially in the context of presenting a challenge to the best golfers of the day.

When you examine ANGC and the changes to the course, in a global sense, very few have been made that change the fabric of the course.

Moving # 10 and # 16 green, redesigning # 7 green, # 9 green and expanding some creeks.

But, essentially, the routing and general individual hole designs remain as they were in 1934.

Not long ago I was speaking with a fellow who's played ANGC for 40 years.

The one thing we both agree upon was that 6-9 short years ago we could both play the course from the Masters Tees without much difficulty, but, today, that challenge is overwhelming.

However, from the Members tees, the course remains a delightful challenge.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

I think it is pretty clear from the record that the intent of Augusta National was to create a golf course that was challenging for the highest caliber player and also enjoyable for the club member.   That's a tough order and one that required fixes.  It is too bad that mindset remains so fixed 70 years later.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wayno,

True.

As I stated, just ask the married guy with a mistress how easy it is to serve those two masters, for a short period of time, let alone 74 years.

[TEPaul]

BobH:

Those letters between Mackenzie and Morse certainly are interesting and Mackenzie certainly is blunt in them. Although they don't seem to be specific about the architectural differences between MaKenzie and Mayo it seems to me he must have been complaining about the complexity of the bunker design and probably maintaining them. It seems like Mackenzie is saying it is not up to some superintendent to dictate those things to him. Although the letters don't mention it the implication seems to be Hunter was brought in to negotiate a resolution.

The thing that interests me with Mackenzie at ANGC compared to the Monterrey Peninusla is the completely different bunkering, particularly in quantity.

I wonder how significant it is that Marion Hollins was sent to ANGC at one point in Mackenzie's stead?

As far as Mackenzie not getting paid, that one really is odd but some should probably not think Roberts et al had all kinds of money for ANGC in the depression. I've heard at one point the project almost broke Roberts, not to mention Roberts was an NYC broker and things weren't too cool on Wall Street at that time.

[BCrosby]

Ron Whitten doesn't think so. In fact Ron Whitten doesn't think MacKenzie had much to do with the original design.

Since Ron is a very important person who talks directly with Billy Payne and Tom Fazio about these things, all the changes to ANGC are just fine.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Bob:

Who does Ron Whitten think had most to do with the original design of ANGC?

[Mike Hendren]

Ron Whitten doesn't think so. In fact Ron Whitten doesn't think MacKenzie had much to do with the original design.
Bob

Thanks for weighing in, Bob.  I had hoped you would.  Very interesting.

TPaul, thanks for your comments as well.  Another thought I had was that given the club's early financial difficulties, perhaps the earliest changes - notably the smoothing of bunker edges and the the elimination of MacKenzie's green "tongues" at holes 4,6,7,9,18 - were maintenance related.  This seems consistent with your comments. 

Another theory is that Jones and Roberts needed MacKenzie primarily for the routing given the relatively difficult hillside site. 

Mike

[BCrosby]

Bob:

Who does Ron Whitten think had most to do with the original design of ANGC?

Tom - Beats me. Jones made it clear that he didn't. You got any ideas?

Mike -

I'm unaware of any definitive account of those changes. Maintenance expenses are a possibility, but it was a buyer's market for labor during the Great Depression. In fact, it might have been more expensive to change those "tongues" than leave them alone. But no one knows for sure.

Bob

 

[BCrosby]

Mike -

Rereading your last post, let me be clear. I am being as facetious as I know how to be about Ron Whitten. He is wrong as a matter of history, unperceptive as a modern observer and changeable as the wind. Capiche?

Bob

[Mike Hendren]

Bob, 

To borrow an unfortunate man's quote:  "What a stupid I am."

Kindest regards,

Mike

[Peter Pallotta]

Gents -

maybe stupid questions and/or ones that Mr. Byrdy's book has definitive answers to. But:

Are we sure a) that Augusta was primarily intended as a championship test, b) that, even if it was so intended, it had some obvious and marked failings in this regard, c) that if these failings as a championship test were in fact evident, that they became evident so quickly and obviously, and d) that the changes Mr. Roberts wanted so soon after the original course was completed had anything to do with the strengths and weaknesses of Augusta as a championship test?

I ask because in my limited reading it seems to me that Dr. Mackenzie and Bobby Jones intended Augusta to serve two masters, the membership and the best players in the world; in other words, that they intended to create and thought they were creating "the ideal golf course" not because it was only a good test for great golfers but because it was both a test for great golfers and for its members.

And if that's true, something tells me that Mr. Roberts didn't understand that concept or that goal in the least, and couldn't have cared less even if he did.

Peter   

[Lynn_Shackelford]

Before you conclude that Jones and Roberts threw Mackenzie under the bus remember this; Perry Maxwell, who partnered with Mackenzie at Crystal Downs, was the first architect brought in to tweak the design (#10 & #7).  It wasn't like Roberts and Jones were looking for Donald Ross.
I just think that it was only Jones and Mackenzie who were dedicated to the St. Andrews type model.  One died and that other seemed to have less influence than Roberts.

[Adam Russell]

I think they just missed. Jones and MacKenzie tried to take the St. Andrew's ideal and adapt it to GA's red clay. It didn't turn out quite like they wanted to, so all parties involved changed it as soon as they could. For all the praise both Jones and Mac get, rightly so, I think the combination of all the pressures of that time caused them to, in effect, whiff on the first try. The problem is that once the powers finally got it right, they felt that there was a tradition that was created to constant tweaking, and they continually have to live up to that tradition.

[RSLivingston_III]

How good of a player was Roberts?

[Mark Bourgeois]

He played to between a 6 or a 9 in his best years. From David Owens's book:

"In consultations among the three, Roberts's role was to supply the viewpoint of an average golfer..."

[RSLivingston_III]

He played to between a 6 or a 9 in his best years. From David Owens's book:

"In consultations among the three, Roberts's role was to supply the viewpoint of an average golfer..."

That's interesting that a 6-9 was considered an average golfer at a private club of that stature at that time.

[TEPaul]

"Bob:
Who does Ron Whitten think had most to do with the original design of ANGC?"


"Tom - Beats me. Jones made it clear that he didn't. You got any ideas?"


Aaah. Ummm. Hmmmm? Well, here's one possibility---eg Ron doesn't know what he's talking about. I guess it's one thing to just state that Mackenzie didn't have much to do with the design but another thing to supply an answer to who did.

Maybe it was Bra'r Rabbit. Maybe it was Tommy Birdsong but from everything I've ever heard he never liked to get too far away from the great Fernandina Municipal GC.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Ralph

I wouldn't read too much into David Owens's word choices. It could be the way you've read it but he also could have meant what Mike Keiser refers to as "retail" golfers...

Mark

[BCrosby]

Tom -

If Whitten says MacK didn't have much to do with ANGC (and Ron is a very serious person) and Jones says he didn't, then that leaves Bendelow.

The fact that Bendelow was dead should be overlooked because it does not fit our theory. I mean, heck, if others are going to come up with looney ideas about the history of ANGC, why can't we?

Bob

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bendelow is buried right on the exact spot -- the exact spot -- where Roberts later put up a flip chart in the Bon Air Hotel advertising memberships at ANGC.

[TEPaul]

PeterP and LynnS:

I think your two posts, #14 and #15, just could be incredibly important to not just what happened and why to the original design and design concept of ANGC but perhaps what happened to some of the hopes amongst a few philosophical and architectural revolutionaries of the time for the future of architecture and even golf. A couple of the questions in Adam Russell's post are probably very important too.

But first we should probably discuss what those revolutionary things really were they thought they were doing with ANGC originally.

And, if that could be determined with some certainty we could begin to consider why it didn't work, particularly with "championship" requirements and exigencies, or if and why it may've been very much misunderstood or even missed.

Something tell me if we can get that far we may begin to run into Bob Jones' feeling that a great golf course both could and would yield perhaps quite low scores if played really well and really strategically and thoughtfully.

Perhaps a guy like Roberts was just one of those back then, like many today, who simply do not like the very idea of low scoring under almost any circumstances!  

We should not forget that it is probably primarily the low scoring or what was felt to be too low scoring through the years that has led to the decades and decades of architectural changes to ANGC because of its Masters tournament.

[Tags:]

Tags: