[Sean_A]

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

Tommy Mac

Very little in common just may be enough to make a big difference in a design.  There were reasons why that first Maxwell plan was altered (radically imo).  Bringing in the par 5 3rd, boomerang green 6th, mini-boomerang green 14th, the up n' over 4th with a massive green, par 3 5th, the lengthed up n' over 2nd and a few more lengthenings was imo down to Dr Mac.  I say that because I believe with the exception of the 5th green, all the others could very easily be Dr Mac's concepts and indeed I would bet on it. Essentially, almost all the funk of the design was brought in with this second plan.  The really creative bunker/green interplay in these holes is for the most part not like the remainder of the course.  I would also point out the totally different shapes of the proposed bunkers (far more Mac-like than the original plan).  I spose I will have to disagree with until I am shown proof that Dr Mac had nothing to do with the second plan.  Until then, I am sticking with UofM being a Max design with serious Dr Mac input. 

Ciao

[Neil_Crafter]

Sean
Are you saying there are two distinct plans for the UoM course? There is one reproduced in Chris Clouser's book on p55 which he states is the "original routing". What do you know about a subsequent plan? Assume you have seen it or have a copy of it the way you are describing the changes. Love to see a copy.

Chris states in his book that:

"The preliminary layout by Maxwell identified several of the green sites and many of the holes in the final routing. Mackenzie visited the course after the preliminary plans were created and made modifications to holes two through five, changed the gree designs on holes six and fourteen and made recommendations for some bunkering changes. The changes by Mackenzie increased the length of the design from 6250 to 6600 yards and created a par 71 design"

So it would seem that Mac influenced considerably the final plan for the course, and joint architect status with Maxwell appears well warranted.

Tom
As for Melrose, I think Mac's input on this course was quite similar to UoM. Certainly some support for this in newspaper accounts of the day. Evening Public Ledger of 22 March 1927 headed "Famous British Golf Architect Will Plan Melrose CC Links" and says in part:

"Mr Maxwell has already drawn some tentative plans and he and Dr Mackenzie will spend several days going over the property. Then they will decide on the final plan - and work will begin at once. The actual construction of the course will be in charge of Dean Woods, chief engineer of the Mackenzie-Maxwell organisation; but Mr Maxwell will pay frequent visits here to supervise the job."

And according to an article of March 28 1928, Mackenzie made three trips to inspect the works. The same article calls Mackenzie the architect and Maxwell his assistant in charge of construction.

I don't think there is much doubt as to Mac's involvement and influence on the planning and design of Melrose, just like at UoM.

[Tom MacWood]

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.

If most of the evidence points to one architect being responsible I don't think he should have to share credit with a business associate or someone who gave minor advice. As an example at Melrose Mackenzie wrote that Maxwell's plan was so good that he only made minor suggestions. Maxwell should not have to share credit with Mackenzie at Melrose IMO, and Mackenzie must have concurred because he never took credit for it or listed it. Likewise I don't think Mackenzie should share credit with Colt for Alwoodley, and Colt must have agreed because after AM left the firm he stopped listing the course. And I don't believe Alison should share credit for all the courses designed by Colt & Alison in the US. Maxwell, Mackenzie, Colt and Alison were all extremely talented in their own right, independent and rarely collaborated with one another.

Yost was a goof ball. He did not play golf but had such incredible imagination that he could mentally play the game, so he claimed. He landscaped the Michigan course and made some changes to the design, converting the course from par-71 to par-72, which he believed should be the standard. If you asked him who designed the course I think he'd say he did.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom
As for Melrose, I think Mac's input on this course was quite similar to UoM. Certainly some support for this in newspaper accounts of the day. Evening Public Ledger of 22 March 1927 headed "Famous British Golf Architect Will Plan Melrose CC Links" and says in part:

"Mr Maxwell has already drawn some tentative plans and he and Dr Mackenzie will spend several days going over the property. Then they will decide on the final plan - and work will begin at once. The actual construction of the course will be in charge of Dean Woods, chief engineer of the Mackenzie-Maxwell organisation; but Mr Maxwell will pay frequent visits here to supervise the job."

And according to an article of March 28 1928, Mackenzie made three trips to inspect the works. The same article calls Mackenzie the architect and Maxwell his assistant in charge of construction.

I don't think there is much doubt as to Mac's involvement and influence on the planning and design of Melrose, just like at UoM.

Neil
I guess I'm a skeptic, but I doubt Mackenzie made three trips to inspect the work at Melrose by 1928. i think it is more likely the author of the article confused Mackenzie and Maxwell. 

This what Mackenzie wrote about Melrose:

"I then went East and conferred with my eastern American partner, Mr. Perry D. Maxwell. He had just completed the design of a new golf course in Philadelphia, the Melrose Golf course, and his design was so good that I was only able to make a few minor suggestions for its improvement. Mr. Maxwell was a member of the Advisory Green Section of the USGA and relinquished this on taking up golf architecture. He has made a study of golf architecture for some years and visited this country. During my previous visit to America I inspected some of his courses and was much impressed by the fact that he had done better work at a much smaller cost than any other golf architect in the East. It was for this reason that I asked him to come into partnership, and further experience of his work has more than confirmed by first impression of his great ability."

[Sean_A]

Neil

Yes, there were at least two plans.  The one printed in Midwest Associate was the original Maxwell plan.  The one printed in the Life and Work of Dr Mac is what I believe with alterations by Dr Mac.  Its only a handful of holes, but they are very important alterations and these holes with the exception of the 5th are what I belive to be very Dr Mac like.  Additionally, I think the bunker scheme is radically different in places and it shows up in particular on holes like #s 11 & 15.  To my very much layman's eye these changes point to Dr Mac.  I still believe Maxwell was the main man, but imo the alterations go a long way to making UofM the very fine course that it is as those new holes are most of the best on the course.   

Ciao

[Neil_Crafter]

Sean
Thanks, I had not realised that the plan in Chris' book was different to the one in Doak et al. I do now!
Certainly holes 2 to 6 are totally replanned. So this is a significant contribution by Mackenzie in and of itself, let alone the changes to green shapes and bunkering.

Tom
As Mackenzie was not yet permanently living in California in 1927-28 he would have been through NYC a few times coming backwards and forwards from the UK. Side trips to Philadelphia to take a look at Melrose would have not been too hard to imagine. He was getting paid after all! One of the March 1927 articles also mentions that Mac had just visited Pine Valley and Merion east.

[Sean_A]

Neil

Just to be accurate, it is only my very fallable opinion that the changes at Michigan were down to Dr Mac.  I could easily be wrong.

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Neil
Since neither plan was drawn by Mackenzie how are you able to determine he altered the plan?

[Jud_T]

Tom,

How are you able to determine that the changes weren't Mac's? Would he have normally drawn the modified plans himself in such an arrangement?

[Neil_Crafter]

Tom
I cannot personally determine that they were his changes, but I am willing to go along with Chris Clouser's conclusion in his book that they were his. They might not be of course, but I think it is more likely than not that they are. :-)

[Tom MacWood]

Jud
I can't prove the changes were not made by Mac, nor can I prove the ghost of Old Tom Morris didn't do it. What kind of question is that? You don't prove who wasn't the architect, you prove who is the architect, and most of the facts point to Maxwell. Of the courses I am aware of that Mackenzie designed where plans exist most are in his distinctive hand. The one exception I know of is Valley Club, and I don't know the full story of that project. I do know Robert Hunter signed the contract with the Valley Club.

Neil
I think Chris's speculation was based largely on the same info we are looking, perhaps even less.

[Neil_Crafter]

Tom
I have just enquired at the University Archives at UoM and hopefully they may have some additional information hidden away. Maybe not.
Chris C may have had information to guide his comments in the book, hopefully he can chime in here to let us know that or whether it was indeed speculation on his part.

I am not endeavouring to diminish Maxwell's role at UoM or anywhere else, I just think Mac played more than a figurehead role in the design of the courses he did with Maxwell.

Valley Club design contract was indeed signed by Robert Hunter, and on behalf of Mackenzie and Hunter.

Valley Club plan not drawn by Mac as you say, and Sacramento (now haggin Oaks) and Melrose also not drawn by him.

[PCCraig]

I am far more interested in the work that Mike Devries plans to do on the course than I am how much of the course is Maxwell and how much is MacKensie....

[George Freeman]

I am far more interested in the work that Mike Devries plans to do on the course than I am how much of the course is Maxwell and how much is MacKensie....

Agreed! 

Mike D. - Can you give us any insight on what type of work you'll be doing at the course?

[Tom MacWood]

Valley Club plan not drawn by Mac as you say, and Sacramento (now haggin Oaks) and Melrose also not drawn by him.

Neil
Why do you believe Sacramento was not drawn by Mackenzie? It sure looks like his drawing style to me.

[Neil_Crafter]

Tom, think you might be right looking at it again. Think it was the white lines that put me off. It looks a bit crude though, like he was rushing to get it drawn.

[Sean_A]

Tom
I have just enquired at the University Archives at UoM and hopefully they may have some additional information hidden away. Maybe not.
Chris C may have had information to guide his comments in the book, hopefully he can chime in here to let us know that or whether it was indeed speculation on his part.

I am not endeavouring to diminish Maxwell's role at UoM or anywhere else, I just think Mac played more than a figurehead role in the design of the courses he did with Maxwell.

Neil

Have you gotten anywhere with your enquiries?  

Mike D

Any news?

Ciao

[PCCraig]

+1, would love an update on any restoration work.

[JC Jones]

I'm not sure why the 7th green at Crystal Downs is considered to be distinctly MacKenzie. 

I've heard a story that when MacKenzie paid his only other visit to CD beyond the few days he was there at the beginning, he did not like the 7th green (whether that was location, design, etc., I am not sure).

[Neil_Crafter]

Neil

Have you gotten anywhere with your enquiries?  

Mike D

Any news?

Ciao

Sean
No reply from them at all I'm afraid. Probably would need someone in Michigan who could go to the Uni and approach them directly. I've had no luck remotely.

[Mike_DeVries]

Hi All,

Sorry for the delay.  Anyhow, I have prepared a report for the University and we had a meeting to present and discuss the ideas.  No decison on schedule of what will happen and when, as there are still some follow-up meetings to determine that.

As to the main adjustments to the course, we will be looking at restoring the green margins back out to their original sizes.  For instance, the  famous 6th with its two-tier, wraparound green is about half the size of its original 10,000+ size.  Looking back at the aerials to 1937, the back half of the green is substantially larger and will be awesome once it is restored, offering lots of pins, more fun options, and much improved agronomics with the spread of wear.  Bunker style will follow MacKenzie's tenets again, instead of the generic, simplified bunkering that is evident on much of the course.  Tree management will continue to be an issue, with some trees already removed last spring (spruces behind #5G, #7G and #10G) and pruning taking place.  The teams have a new practice facility that was begun before I was involved - new building, range redone, etc. for their use only, not the public's.  Due to the use of the course for college players, I have looked for ways to lengthen the course and provide them with some additional length and I have a solution that will bring the course over 7000 yards at par 70 and require them to hit something besides a W-8i into a par four.  These tees will be for their use and tournaments, not for everyday use, but they add length in the right spots to challenge players and not affect the regular tees as well as keep the character of the course intact and fun to play for the average player.

I will update more as decisions are made in the near future.

GO BLUE!!!!
Mike

[Jud_T]

Now the course may have a much more interesting defense than the nonexistent one across the street...    If there's any justice in the world this will sail through committee...

[PCCraig]

Hi All,

Sorry for the delay.  Anyhow, I have prepared a report for the University and we had a meeting to present and discuss the ideas.  No decison on schedule of what will happen and when, as there are still some follow-up meetings to determine that.

As to the main adjustments to the course, we will be looking at restoring the green margins back out to their original sizes.  For instance, the  famous 6th with its two-tier, wraparound green is about half the size of its original 10,000+ size.  Looking back at the aerials to 1937, the back half of the green is substantially larger and will be awesome once it is restored, offering lots of pins, more fun options, and much improved agronomics with the spread of wear.  Bunker style will follow MacKenzie's tenets again, instead of the generic, simplified bunkering that is evident on much of the course.  Tree management will continue to be an issue, with some trees already removed last spring (spruces behind #5G, #7G and #10G) and pruning taking place.  The teams have a new practice facility that was begun before I was involved - new building, range redone, etc. for their use only, not the public's.  Due to the use of the course for college players, I have looked for ways to lengthen the course and provide them with some additional length and I have a solution that will bring the course over 7000 yards at par 70 and require them to hit something besides a W-8i into a par four.  These tees will be for their use and tournaments, not for everyday use, but they add length in the right spots to challenge players and not affect the regular tees as well as keep the character of the course intact and fun to play for the average player.

I will update more as decisions are made in the near future.

GO BLUE!!!!
Mike

Great news!

[George Freeman]

Mike - sounds great.  My fingers are crossed!

[Brent Carlson]

Mike,

Great news.  It is comforting to know that the course is in good hands.  In addition the fact that the course can still be relevant to the modern college golfer is excellent.  I can't wait to see how it turns out.

Brent

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()