Courses considered great with fewest bunkers...

[Mark Bourgeois]

Sean

MacKenzie didn't set out to copy TOC but embody its best features and its ideals, for example the notion of making a course pleasurable to everyone.  So not a copy, more like homage. He wrote of the following holes adopting at least some of the features or principles of specific holes at St Andrews:
ANGC->TOC
4->11
5->17
7->18
14->6
15->1
17->14 (reversed)

Does this help?
Mark

[TEPaul]

Probably the intention of sort of copying the principles of TOC with ANGC was to offer the golfer a ton more directional options. The fact was to those guys TOC was one of the few where most any golfer sort of had to actively decide which way to go. That just wasn't the case with most all the courses they were looking at in America. Bob Jones basically said as much when he mentioned that most all American championship courses of that era could be or probably had to be played the same way day after day. He and his philosophical fellow travelers like Behr and Mackenzie felt that was definitely not the case with TOC.

Another tip-off is that they mentioned it was often very hard to distinguish between what was fairway and what was rough at TOC. Apparently they liked that and visualized ways of conceptually using it in their radical design arrangements----eg ANGC, Lakeside et al.

[Paul_Turner]

For 36 holes Portrush may have the fewest, perhaps 60 bunkers on the Dunluce and Valley combined.

[TEPaul]

When it comes to the philosophical ideas of a Behr/Mackenzie/Jones with their experiment in less bunkering and maximum width (perhaps even no rough) here's a real world example of how it may've effected most golfers compared to what most courses were to those guys.

When I played good golf and a ton of tournament golf with the courses I played on in America, I was pretty short off the tee but way more accurate than most. It just about never occured to me to try to place the ball in some part of most all the fairways I played. To me the deal was to just hit the fairway, and when I played well for about twenty years it was pretty spooky but round after round I seemed to basically miss two fairways a round (and not by that much).

It wasn't until I finally got back to NGLA (which wasn't as wide then as it is now) after not seeing it for almost forty years that it actually occured to me on some tees that I had a real choice of different directions to go in. To say the least it was a huge revelation to me.

I think this was the very thing the likes of Behr, Mackenzie and Jones were looking at with their new ideas (or TOC principle copy ideas) back in the late 1920s and early 1930s.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom Simpson was preaching (and practicing) minimal bunkers in the early 20s, and perhaps even before that. Morfontaine, as an example, only had 25 bunkers. I forget the exact number but Simpson, in his principals of good design, expressed what he felt should be the absolute maximum of bunkers per course, 50 or 60 I believe.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood et al:

It seems to me, in a general sense, the entire philosophy of bunkering on golf courses went through a number of considerations for a number of differing reasons.

First, the consideration of what more bunkers or less bunkers meant as to good or interesting golf. Of course this could've meant good and interesting golf in the context of strategies in play as well as some aesthetic context. Some seemed to be of the belief that more bunkers automatically meant better golf and better aesthetics in golf. Eventually others seems to get around to disagreeing with that, but why?

Eventually golf clubs and golfers realized that despite these kinds of philosophies there was very much another context and a most important one---eg economics! Basically bunkering is just not inexpensive to make and maintain.

Should not this last consideration be considered a most important one regarding bunkers?

Some think so and apparently some don't. It seem to me the ones who think so are the ones who are paying the bills and it also seems to me the ones who don't think so are the ones who never have to consider the cost or paying those bills. 

One of the best recent examples of this kind of thing may be the considerations facing Aronimink with their bunker restoration. Their choices were to restore app. 80 Ross bunkers or to restore app. 220 original bunkers covering basically the same space but in sets of twos and threes in the same spots as Ross's "field drawing" single bunkers.

They chose the latter because of some considerations to the expense of both construction and on-going maintenance costs.

[TEPaul]

The Fownses of Oakmont and Herbert Leeds of Myopia----arguably two of the best courses of that very early era, were apparently of the opinion that more bunkers meant better golf.

Leeds used to install bunkers at Myopia over time if he observed or was told that balls were going into places to which they were not penalized. Eventually, even some of the best analysts of the time said that Myopia had too many bunkers.

The same was true of the Fownses of Oakmont. At one time the maximum amount of bunkers on their course was said to hit the 300 mark!

[Thomas MacWood]

In the mid- to late-20s was there an architect in the world that bunkered his courses more heavily than MacKenzie? The plan for Kingston Heath must have at least 200 and Cypress Point was probably in the ballbark too. MacKenzie's shift to minimal bunkering during the Depression was more a case of pragmaticism rather than a sudden philosophical change. Simpson and Behr came by their view on minimal bunkering honestly.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I think an architect such as MacKenzie most certainly understood that with some types of sites far more bunkers were appropriate while at the same time far less bunkers were appropriate at other types of sites.

I think all any one really needs to do is look at the preconstruction photos of Cypress Point with its massive NATURAL sandy/wasty areas compared to say preconstruction photos of ANGC that had none of that to see what Mackenzie's more bunkers or less bunkers philosophy was all about and what I'm talking about.

In other words, the bunker or architectural feature philosophy of a Mackenzie was definitely not in some kind of one dimensional context or some kind of vacuum----it pretty much had to do with what kind of site he was working with and obviously that could be incredible different pre-construction!   

[Sean_A]

Tom Simpson was preaching (and practicing) minimal bunkers in the early 20s, and perhaps even before that. Morfontaine, as an example, only had 25 bunkers. I forget the exact number but Simpson, in his principals of good design, expressed what he felt should be the absolute maximum of bunkers per course, 50 or 60 I believe.

By fewest I thought we were in the realm of certainly less than two per hole if not closer to an average of one per hole.  Certainly, 50-60 suggests that bunkering (and in the case of Simpson specifically, greens) is still the primary "hazard" of choice.  Having just seen Blackwell, my guess is the course has 60ish bunkers and that at least 1/3 if not half of the blighters could go.  Mind you, I wonder how many were slapped in after Fowler/Simpson.  In any case, the bunkering is the main reason I believe Simpson had something to do with Blackwell.  I don't think Fowler would have used anywhere near 60 bunkers. 

Ciao 

[Sean_A]

Tom MacWood:

I think an architect such as MacKenzie most certainly understood that with some types of sites far more bunkers were appropriate while at the same time far less bunkers were appropriate at other types of sites.

I think all any one really needs to do is look at the preconstruction photos of Cypress Point with its massive NATURAL sandy/wasty areas compared to say preconstruction photos of ANGC that had none of that to see what Mackenzie's more bunkers or less bunkers philosophy was all about and what I'm talking about.

In other words, the bunker or architectural feature philosophy of a Mackenzie was definitely not in some kind of one dimensional context or some kind of vacuum----it pretty much had to do with what kind of site he was working with and obviously that could be incredible different pre-construction!   

TomP

You could be right, but I wonder when he hit on this concept.  Some of those California courses are loaded with bunkers and they don't look particularly sandy. 

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

Toms

Interesting points re MacK bunkering. You know, he picked his "themes" early in his career and stuck to them, at least as far as his writings.

One such theme was economy, particularly in design and construction, and with all those bunkers you have to wonder what he was thinking.

Maybe he just meant he was cheaper than an amateur, in other words in a relative sense.

Good catch on Simpson.

"To restrict bunkering, in fact, has a double advantage; it puzzles the proficient and does not diminish the pleasure of the less expert."

Mark

[Peter Pallotta]

Mark - I don't want to sidetrack this very good discussion, but your last post raised a question for me:

Are we being anachronistic in assuming that in Mackenzie's day more bunkers equated to higher costs?

What I mean is, I noted that he was talking "primarily about the design and construction" cost of bunkers.

Were the “maintenance costs” associated with bunkers also factored into his sense of economic design?

Did ANYONE factor in maintenance costs back in those days? Even if they did, shouldn't we assume that those costs were dramatically less (even in relative terms) than they are today?

Also, on the right kind of sites and/or with a certain level of (modest) expectations re the look and form of the bunkers, do we know for certain that bunkers back then somehow added more than their fair share to construction costs?

All questions....

Peter

[Mark Bourgeois]

Good questions, too.

I think you're right about him referring really to construction. I think his point was that once he built something it wouldn't have to be redone / rebuilt, at least owing to reasons of features, holes etc in the wrong place, poorly finished and so forth. This is his "finality."

But let me go back and find specifically what he wrote on bunkering...

Mark

[Thomas MacWood]

Peter
Are you familar with Tillinghast's famous PGA tour - where he went around the country removing bunkers? They placed a monetary value on each bunker removed. He was credited with saving over $300,000 one year.

TE
What are some examples of MacKenzie going with minimal bunkers based upon the site - prior to the Depression?

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom M , Mark - thanks.

Tom, no I wasn't familiar with that, and that's a striking figure. I've read before about the cost savings associated with less bunkers (in the old days) but I honestly never quite understood it, economically-speaking. But I've also tended to assume that the removing (and/or adding) of bunkers in those early days had as much to do with the changing tastes and philosophies about golf course design as it did with economics, i.e. with ideas about what was and wasn't sufficiently 'testing' or sufficiently 'natural' etc. And finally, while I don't think us moderns have anything to teach men like Behr or Mackenzie about theories of art in architecture, it does seem to me that our age is more concerned about or precious about bunker shapes and looks than the previous age was -- and so I've assumed that 'holding the look' of the bunkers and the costs associated with that goal weren't something the old ones had to deal with much.

Incorrect in whole or in part?

Peter 

[Thomas MacWood]

Mark
In Tillinghast's case the bunker removal project was all about economics not about changing tastes. In fact just prior to going on his bunker removing tour he designed what may be his most heavily bunkered course (based upon how many truck loads of sand were utilized) - Bethpage-Black.

"And finally, while I don't think us moderns have anything to teach men like Behr or Mackenzie about theories of art in architecture, it does seem to me that our age is more concerned about or precious about bunker shapes and looks than the previous age was -- and so I've assumed that 'holding the look' of the bunkers and the costs associated with that goal weren't something the old ones had to deal with much. "

You don't think MacKenzie, Tilly, Thomas, Bell, Thompson, Simpson, etc were concerned about the aethetic appearance of their bunkers? Please expalin.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - no, I sort of meant the opposite. The designers you mentioned were indeed concerned about that, but the number and extent of golf course restorations (including bunker restorations) over the last couple of decades leads me to believe that golf clubs, golf club members/leaderships, golfers in general, and the golfing press back then did not share the samel level or quality of interest in that subject -- which is why I thought that maintenance budgets aimed, in part, at 'holding the look' of those bunkers would not have been as high back then as they are today (in an age when golf clubs seem to know -- and better appreciate -- that they've got in the work of the old masters).   

Peter

[BCrosby]

... MacKenzie's shift to minimal bunkering during the Depression was more a case of pragmaticism rather than a sudden philosophical change. Simpson and Behr came by their view on minimal bunkering honestly.

What is your evidence for the above about MacK? I've seen nothing that indicates that the design of ANGC was constrained by economics. The course's minimal bunkering was an important part of an explicit design theory that had been well articulated by Jones and MacK from the beginning of the project. Indeed, their notions of wide playing corridors and huge greens would cut directly against concerns with economy.

I agree with you about Simpson and Behr: re coming early to the virtues of limiting bunkering. The point of my posts above was that their influence on MacK is not well appreciated. By the time MacK wrote Spirit of S.A., the last thing he wrote, he clearly bought into the idea. The concrete evidence for that is in the ground at ANGC. I would add Crystal to that list, another late course.

Given the enormous respect all three men had for TOC (which had/has hundreds of bunkers), I've wondered how they felt about the notion of minimal bunkering vis-a-vis their adulation of TOC.

The double irony here is that in one of the last things Crane (their arch enemy) wrote on gca, he suggested various changes to TOC. His most frequent suggestion was the removal of a number of bunkers.

Bob

[Thomas MacWood]

Bob
What was the first golf course MacKenzie designed with minimal bunkering and what was the reason he stated for going that route?

You'll find the evidence there.

[BCrosby]

Tom -

I'm not sure I understand your question. Might MacK have tried to sell some projects on the economies of his design? No doubt.

But that does not change the fact that there was at least one golf course MacK built in the Depression where the minimization of bunkers was done as an explicit part of his design theory.  That course was ANGC. Which as courses go, was a pretty important one in his repetoire.

Bob

[Thomas MacWood]

Bob
Prior to 1929 MacKenzie was on a roll, plentiful projects and plentiful bunkers. MacKenzie had very few design projects after October 1929. He was forced to reinvent himself in the early 30s to in response to the economic sitation.

Ohio State is a good project to study to see his tranformation. MacKenzie was chosen by OSU because the athletic director loved Cypress Point. His design at OSU was closer in style to the Valley Club or Union League, as far as bunkering is concerned. When the stockmarket crashed the project was put on hold indefidently.

In reading his letters to OSU (trying to spark interest) you can see MacKenzie changing course, with a major emphasis on Bayside Links as the model of his new ecomomic style. He tried very hard to have the powers-that-be go out and see that golf course, and I'm certain that was the story with other potential clients.

Ironically the OSU director in internal communications was not impressed by Bayside, or ANGC for that matter. He said that was not the true MacKenzie style; the California courses were the true MacKenzie style in his opinion.

PS: I'm not convinced MacKenzie designed Crystal Downs.

[Sean_A]

Bob
Prior to 1929 MacKenzie was on a roll, plentiful projects and plentiful bunkers. MacKenzie had very few design projects after October 1929. He was forced to reinvent himself in the early 30s to in response to the economic sitation.

Ohio State is a good project to study to see his tranformation. MacKenzie was chosen by OSU because the athletic director loved Cypress Point. His design at OSU was closer in style to the Valley Club, as far as bunkering is concerned. When the stockmarket crashed the project was put on hold indefidently.

In reading his letters to OSU (trying to spark interest) you can see MacKenzie changing course, with a major emphasis on Bayside Links as the model of his new ecomomic style. He tried very hard to have the powers-that-be go out and see that golf course, and I'm certain that was the story with other potential clients.

Ironically the OSU director in internal communications was not impressed by Bayside, or ANGC for that matter. He said that was not the true MacKenzie style; the California courses were the true MacKenzie style in his opinion.

PS: I'm not convinced MacKenzie designed Crystal Downs.

Tommy Mac

I too wonder about CD.  I think that Crystal Downs & UofM should be considered joint designs with Maxwell.  For sure Maxwell was very heavily involved at Michigan - at least half credit should be his.

Ciao

[Mark Bourgeois]

MacK's economy of design was in reference to the value-for-money of using a professional to design and build a course. Otherwise, clubs would find they'd have to go back eventually, sometimes sooner rather than later, and fix poor design / construction.

Aren't we missing a big precursor to ANGC: Jockey Club?

Seems to me a lot of the talk ascribing so-called revolutionary design aspects belongs to JC, save the "if a tree falls in the forest" problem.

I guess the question is whether the JC folks were cost constrained. Or is the assertion that JC, Bayside, and ANGC somehow planned to be "calling cards" for the new, Depression-friendly style?

Tom

Consider this a statement of extreme interest in those letters!

Mark

[Thomas MacWood]

Jockey was the first (that I'm aware of), but it would be difficult for MacKenzie to point his American clients down to S. America. St. Charles in Canada was another one.

One thing these courses (Jockey, St. Charles, Bayside and ANGC) all had in common, they were constructed by Wendell Miller & Co. And the economics of this style was not just because of less upkeep due to minimal bunkers and rough. They were supposedly inexpensive to build too. The constuction process was highly mechanized, therefore the courses could be constucted rapidly. Bayside was constructed in five weeks. I believe Jockey was very quick too.

Ironically Wendell Miller lived for a time at Toluca Lake and was involved in the construction of Lakeside. I suspect MacKenzie was introduced to him by Behr. Miller was an instructor at Ohio State prior to starting his firm, which was based in Columbus.