[Jud_T]

Gents,

Today I had the chance to have a game at the UMGC for the first time in five years.  It is always a very enjoyable round at the U course.

I noticed that trees were removed behind the fifth green, behind the seventh green, on the landing area for 18, and probably more.  On five it really looks good; opening up the view all the way to the boomerang sixth green.  Seven now has a view to State St.  There were likely even more trees removed throughout the course. 

When in the clubhouse I asked about the changes.  The staff mentioned that Mike (DeVries) is doing work to bring back the original MacKenzie design over the next 5-6 years.  This is very good news as the course has the potential to be even better.

What's the latest on the changes?  Is Brandon committed to bringing out the best in the design?  We know he is a golfer.

Wow.  Great news! Have to check it out myself this fall.  Maybe Mike will be kind enough to chime in when he gets a chance...

[PCCraig]

When in the clubhouse I asked about the changes.  The staff mentioned that Mike (DeVries) is doing work to bring back the original MacKenzie design over the next 5-6 years.  This is very good news as the course has the potential to be even better.

Fantastic news Brent. I'm glad the University decided to enlist Mike DeVries.

I just recommended the UM course to a friend who was driving through the area and he loved it.

[Tom MacWood]

Part of the problem with the original restoration project, in addition to hiring someone ill-qualified, was the idea they were restoring a Mackenzie course. Michigan is a Maxwell course. I'm wondering if they are making the same mistake again hiring a Mackenzie specialist. On the other hand Mike D. is intimately familiar with Crystal Downs (another Maxwell design mistakenly attributed to AM) so it may work out perfectly. 

[PCCraig]

Part of the problem with the original restoration project, in addition to hiring someone ill-qualified, was the idea they were restoring a Mackenzie course. Michigan is a Maxwell course. I'm wondering if they are making the same mistake again hiring a Mackenzie specialist. On the other hand Mike D. is intimately familiar with Crystal Downs (another Maxwell design mistakenly attributed to AM) so it may work out perfectly.  

What difference does it make who gets credit for the design of the course in respect to any restoration work?  

Edit: I should note that I meant what difference does it make in the case of the UM course of if it was actually Mackenzie or Maxwell.

[Sean_A]

Part of the problem with the original restoration project, in addition to hiring someone ill-qualified, was the idea they were restoring a Mackenzie course. Michigan is a Maxwell course. I'm wondering if they are making the same mistake again hiring a Mackenzie specialist. On the other hand Mike D. is intimately familiar with Crystal Downs (another Maxwell design mistakenly attributed to AM) so it may work out perfectly. 

Tommy Mac

Over the years you have slowly gone from UofM & CD being Dr Mac courses to them being Maxwell courses.  While I believe that both are likely cooperative projects (CD being more Dr Mac and UofM being more Maxwell) with Maxwell being much more involved in the designs than generally being credited with, I would like to see the documentation proving either course was a solo Maxwell job.  Or are you just stirring it up again?  Either way, it doesn't much matter as I think Mike has a good handle on what needs to be done. The issue is more of is there a will to get it done?

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Part of the problem with the original restoration project, in addition to hiring someone ill-qualified, was the idea they were restoring a Mackenzie course. Michigan is a Maxwell course. I'm wondering if they are making the same mistake again hiring a Mackenzie specialist. On the other hand Mike D. is intimately familiar with Crystal Downs (another Maxwell design mistakenly attributed to AM) so it may work out perfectly.  

What difference does it make who gets credit for the design of the course in respect to any restoration work?  

Edit: I should note that I meant what difference does it make in the case of the UM course of if it was actually Mackenzie or Maxwell.

Because the two men had completely different styles, and their is tendency when restoring a Mackenzie course to enhance or emphasize (what they believe is) his prototypical style. You see that with a lot of restoration of courses designed by old architects with a bold distinctive style.

[Tom MacWood]

Sean
There is plenty of documentation pointing to Maxwell, and I've presented before, and a complete absence of documentation pointing to Mackenzie. I think you have your heart set on Michigan being a Mackenzie course so you've chosen to ignore it.

[Sean_A]

Sean
There is plenty of documentation pointing to Maxwell, and I've presented before, and a complete absence of documentation pointing to Mackenzie. I think you have your heart set on Michigan being a Mackenzie course so you've chosen to ignore it.

Tommy Mac

You think wrongly.  I don't care if either archie is deemed the principal.  

I haven't ignored anything.  As of 4 February you thought CD was a mystery despite what is written in Doak's book (which I can only assume you believe is not true).  Athough, I don't recall you presenting any documents to contradict the book.  If you did, I missed it.  Can you reproduce the info on this thread?  I also think it strange that you discount evidence such as Dr Mac being hired to design CD and perhaps UofM (though I can't find any documentation that either was hired).  I would suggest that some of the bunkering on CD looks very Dr Macish (though this isn't the case at UofM).  I would also suggest that some greens seem blueprint Dr Mac stuff.  At UofM, the 6th, 14th and 4th come to mind.  

Ciao

[Jud_T]

from Cybergolf article....

'Clouser goes on to explain that, during their period of collaboration (1924-35), "Mackenzie would get the contracts, then they would collaborate on the design. Then Maxwell finished everything." History reflects this arrangement at such famous places as Crystal Downs and the University of Michigan Golf Course"

[PCCraig]

from Cybergolf article....

'Clouser goes on to explain that, during their period of collaboration (1924-35), "Mackenzie would get the contracts, then they would collaborate on the design. Then Maxwell finished everything." History reflects this arrangement at such famous places as Crystal Downs and the University of Michigan Golf Course"

That would be our own Chris Clouser from Indianapolis. Perhaps he could elaborate when he has a chance?

[Tim Leahy]

I heard they closed the driving range to UofM players because they were praticing too much! LOL

It looks like it doesn't hold a candle to the Warren Course at Notre Dame!

[Richard Choi]

It looks like it doesn't hold a candle to the Warren Course at Notre Dame!

Ummm.... from Golfweek's ranking of campus golf courses...

12. University of Michigan Golf Course 5.75
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
1931, Alister MacKenzie

14. Warren Golf Course 5.72
Notre Dame, South Bend, Ind.
1999, Bill Coore, Ben Crenshaw

I'd say the candle is holding pretty strong...

[Tom MacWood]

I haven't ignored anything.  As of 4 February you thought CD was a mystery despite what is written in Doak's book (which I can only assume you believe is not true).  Athough, I don't recall you presenting any documents to contradict the book.  If you did, I missed it.  Can you reproduce the info on this thread?  I also think it strange that you discount evidence such as Dr Mac being hired to design CD and perhaps UofM (though I can't find any documentation that either was hired).  I would suggest that some of the bunkering on CD looks very Dr Macish (though this isn't the case at UofM).  I would also suggest that some greens seem blueprint Dr Mac stuff.  At UofM, the 6th, 14th and 4th come to mind.  
 

This thread is about Michigan's course, if you want to discuss CD I'll be glad to on another thread. Regarding Michigan there is plenty of evidence Maxwell designed the course, and there is no evidence Mackenzie did anything at Michigan other than your opinion three greens are typical Mackenzie. What courses come to mind when you think of 4th, 6th and 14th greens?

[Tom MacWood]

from Cybergolf article....

'Clouser goes on to explain that, during their period of collaboration (1924-35), "Mackenzie would get the contracts, then they would collaborate on the design. Then Maxwell finished everything." History reflects this arrangement at such famous places as Crystal Downs and the University of Michigan Golf Course"

Mackenzie did not come to the US until 1926; he and Maxwell became partners some time around 1927 and that partnership lasted about two+ years. I believe their only projects during that time were Oklahoma City, Melrose, CD, Michigan and Ohio State, and it was the very early stages at Ohio State and right before the partnership dissolved. According to an interview with Maxwell in the NY Times Fielding Yost asked Maxwell to design Michigan after playing Melrose in Philadelphia.

[Sean_A]

I haven't ignored anything.  As of 4 February you thought CD was a mystery despite what is written in Doak's book (which I can only assume you believe is not true).  Athough, I don't recall you presenting any documents to contradict the book.  If you did, I missed it.  Can you reproduce the info on this thread?  I also think it strange that you discount evidence such as Dr Mac being hired to design CD and perhaps UofM (though I can't find any documentation that either was hired).  I would suggest that some of the bunkering on CD looks very Dr Macish (though this isn't the case at UofM).  I would also suggest that some greens seem blueprint Dr Mac stuff.  At UofM, the 6th, 14th and 4th come to mind.  
 

This thread is about Michigan's course, if you want to discuss CD I'll be glad to on another thread. Regarding Michigan there is plenty of evidence Maxwell designed the course, and there is no evidence Mackenzie did anything at Michigan other than your opinion three greens are typical Mackenzie. What courses come to mind when you think of 4th, 6th and 14th greens?

The 6th and 14th are not dissimilar to CD's 7th and are part of the changes made after Maxwell's first submission.  I haven't seen Pasa in person, but it seems to me the sprawling nature of of the three Michigan greens in question strike me as similar to some as Pasa.   

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Sean
CD and Michigan have very little in common with Pasatiempo or any other Mackenzie course I'm familiar with.

[Chris_Clouser]

Tom,

The Maxwell partnership began when Mackenzie came to the States.  One of the first things he did in the US was meet with Maxwell in 1926 in Philadelphia and provided some consultation at Melrose.  That course was finished in 1926.  They later met in Oklahoma City at a hotel in town, the Biltmore I believe, and also toured the construction at Nichols Hills (now OKCGCC) and Twin Hills.  I believe Maxwell included Mackenzie in the contract at Nichols Hills but there was no involvement by Mackenzie in the final product.  There is a whole mystery as to the design though as it was intended to be a 36 hole facility but that changed by the time it opened.  My guess is they shold off part of the propety before the two courses could be finalized.  Their partnership was active from what I can tell until the events at Ohio State unfolded, which I believe you have a full understanding of that.  So I believe it was active until Mackenzie's death.  I feel Maxwell felt some allegiance to Mackenzie's design at Ohio State and that was a driving factor in him taking the work there for a short time.  I've mentioned my thoughts on Crystal and U of M several times in the past.  But I do think Mackenzie was involved in both designs, more so at Crystal than at U of M.  The fact is that Mackenzie's name has a lot more cache than Maxwell's and that is why those courses clearly want his name attached to the course. 

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

The Maxwell partnership began when Mackenzie came to the States.  One of the first things he did in the US was meet with Maxwell in 1926 in Philadelphia and provided some consultation at Melrose.  That course was finished in 1926.  They later met in Oklahoma City at a hotel in town, the Biltmore I believe, and also toured the construction at Nichols Hills (now OKCGCC) and Twin Hills.  I believe Maxwell included Mackenzie in the contract at Nichols Hills but there was no involvement by Mackenzie in the final product.  There is a whole mystery as to the design though as it was intended to be a 36 hole facility but that changed by the time it opened.  My guess is they shold off part of the propety before the two courses could be finalized.  Their partnership was active from what I can tell until the events at Ohio State unfolded, which I believe you have a full understanding of that.  So I believe it was active until Mackenzie's death.  I feel Maxwell felt some allegiance to Mackenzie's design at Ohio State and that was a driving factor in him taking the work there for a short time.  I've mentioned my thoughts on Crystal and U of M several times in the past.  But I do think Mackenzie was involved in both designs, more so at Crystal than at U of M.  The fact is that Mackenzie's name has a lot more cache than Maxwell's and that is why those courses clearly want his name attached to the course.  

Melrose opened April 6, 1929.

Mackenzie and Maxwell were partners when the OSU project was announced on the eve of the great stock market crash of 1929, and they were not partners very shortly after that. OSU brought Maxwell back in after AM's death in the late 30's, but that did not last long either. Mackenzie were working independently through the Depression until Mackenzie's death. It was clearly a financial decision by one or the other or both. And their partnership was really in name only, as far as can tell they worked independently and rarely if ever collaborated, much like Mackenzie's partnership with Colt, and Colt's partnership with Alison.

[Neil_Crafter]

Here's a syndicated article about the opening of the UoM course that appeared in the Appleton Post (Wisconsin) on 26 March 1930. The article only credits Mackenzie for the course design. While I am not suggesting that Maxwell was not involved - clearly he did the work of getting the course onto the ground - Mackenzie must have done enough to have been recognised this prominently. Chris has put forward the argument that Mackenzie's name would have had more cachet, which I am sure was right to some degree, but this article appears based on an interview with Fielding Yost who would have known exactly what had gone on, and yet the article only mentions Mackenzie. Curious.

Regarding Nichols Hills, the articles I have found from The Oklahoman suggest that Mackenzie was involved right from the start on this project and from these I think it is likely he visited the site a few times, so he was not totally uninvolved as Chris had indicated. But Maxwell again got the 27 holes on the ground. I don't think there was a mystery about the course being 36 holes as The Oklahoman articles - which I have sent to Chris - clearly indicate the project was to be 27 holes and 27 holes were built.

[Tom MacWood]

Neil
He was recognized at Melrose too, and I don't believe he had anything to do with that course either. Mackenzie wasn't even in the country when Melrose was laid out.

At Michigan you have a plan that is clearly not drawn by Mackenzie, and is signed by Maxwell (Mackenzie's name is misspelled on the plan too). The course was constructed by Dean Woods, who built all of Maxwell's courses at the time (Wendell Miller was building AM's courses east of the Mississippi during this period). The character of the course is nothing like Mackenzie's courses, before or after. Maxwell in a 1934 interview with NY Times claimed he was hired by Yost to design the course. I spoke with Maxwell's daughter and she mentioned her father was very close to Yost. When the course opened in the Spring of 1931 the partnership had already dissolved. Mackenzie never mentioned the course in his extensive writing, nor did he list it in any advertisement. Based all that information I don't put a lot of stock in that article.

[Jud_T]

So Maxwell was much more important than we think but he couldn't spell?

[Tom MacWood]

Mac or Mc, its a common mistake, and I should know.

[Richard Choi]

If Maxwell was so close to Yost, why would he forget to mention Maxwell in the interview posted above?

The fact that Dean Woods constructed it just means that Maxwell was involved which no one disputes. The character of the course is something that is highly debatable. And the fact that Maxwell's daughter said he was close to Yost doesn't mean anything.

Just because the partnership was dissolved by 1931 does not mean much as Mackenzie only spent few days at Melbourne and his credit for that course is undisputed.

[Tom MacWood]

If Maxwell was so close to Yost, why would he forget to mention Maxwell in the interview posted above?

The fact that Dean Woods constructed it just means that Maxwell was involved which no one disputes. The character of the course is something that is highly debatable. And the fact that Maxwell's daughter said he was close to Yost doesn't mean anything.

Just because the partnership was dissolved by 1931 does not mean much as Mackenzie only spent few days at Melbourne and his credit for that course is undisputed.

You call that an interview? Yost failed to mention Mackenzie's name too.

Fine, Maxwell's daughter recollection doesn't mean anything. Its hard to ignore the plan for the course signed by Maxwell, and Maxwell's interview where he explained how and why Yost hired him. How do you explain that away?

[Richard Choi]

Tom, if we are going to get into this, can I first ask what is your definition of a golf course architect who gets to have his name attached to a course?

It is clear from the above newspaper article and ever other formal documentations that Mackenzie's name was presented as THE architect of the course from the beginning. If Maxwell thought differently, you would think you will see him disputing that. Do you have some documentation on where Maxwell claimed authorship of the course?

Unless you were there while the course was built, I find it highly distasteful to dispute something that is fairly well documented.

We can have a debate on exactly how much work was shared between Maxwell and Mackenzie for the UMGC, but you can not dispute that every party involved at the time attribute the golf course to Mackenzie.

Based on your recent history, I would strongly advise you to present some real documentations to back up your claims than some hokey interpretations of the facts, which mostly what I see from you on this subject.

What you are claiming is nothing short of a fraud orchestrated by University of Michigan and Fielding Yost, who is one of the greatest sports figure ever in NCAA history. As a devoted alum and admirer of Yost, I find that highly, highly offensive. Unless you have definitive documentations to back up your claim, you better back down.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()