Pardon another Mackenzie thread but I'm interested to know whether what I am putting forward is 'new' or not - I don't think it has been discussed here before but guess I'll find out soon enough.
Reading David Owen's 'The Making of the Masters' again, which I reckon incidentally is a pretty decent book, I was struck by a snippet on page 66:
"Augusta National was not the only club that owed MacKenzie money. St. Andrews, in Yonkers, New York, had "repudiated" his fees, he told Roberts, and two other clubs for which he had done design work had gone belly-up."
It's clear from Owen's writings that he had access to ANGC's archives in writing this book, and he refers a good deal to the correspondence between Mackenzie and Clifford Roberts. I believe he is quoting the word "repudiated" from one of Mackenzie's letters to Roberts, which is an interesting word to use. An old Websters dictionary I have (given to my parents in 1953 as a wedding gift) provides one definition of 'repudiate' as "To refuse to acknowledge or to pay; to disclaim, as debts", so it has that financial sense.
I have never heard Mackenzie's name in connection with St Andrews, presumably as any design work he may have done for them was never implemented. I wonder if it has any connection with this extract from Mackenzie's article for The American Golfer from May 1933 entitled "Problems in Remodelling Courses":
"The other instance concerned a club amongst the oldest in America. The course was designed years before anyone had formulated any definite ideas about golf architecture, so it was hardly to be expected that the layout would be ideal. As a matter of fact, the general design was no better than that of other courses which were constructed about the same period.
The first four and the last four holes were extremely hilly. There were many fine architectural features and backgrounds that were not utilized. There were many parallel holes and there was a stream, which should have been used as a diagonal hazard, which was crossed at right angles. The course was far too difficult for the average golfer, and, on the other hand, of little interest to the good player. In fact it was somewhat surprising that the members got any real pleasure in playing it.
On the other hand the chairman of the greens committee had made a study of golf courses, and had eliminated the worst of the hill climbing at the end of the course. Also the club had an excellent greens keeper, who had got the course into very good shape. Apart from the hills, there was not much acreage to make a first class golf course, and a plan for taking in more ground involving an expenditure, of considerably more than a hundred thousand dollars had been considered.
My problem was to use as many of the existing greens as possible and to evolve a good golf course at a minimum of expense. I had never a more difficult problem with which to deal, and, after several weeks of careful study and planning, I evolved a scheme, which, without taking in any additional land, would give an exceptionally pleasurable and interesting course at an extremely low cost. One hole had already been made from one of the plans, when unfortunately something happened in the inner workins of the club and the work was not carried through to a finish."
My question is this - was Mackenzie describing St Andrews GC in this article? I am not familiar with the course as it existed then to know if the description of hills and stream match, but certainly his reference to a club among the oldest in America would seem to fit. But if it isn't St Andrews, then I wonder which course he may have been referring to?
Any help gratefully appreciated.
Incidentally, in the next paragraph of that article, Mackenzie refers to a similar case in Montreal where he prepared plans for the reconstruction of a course there that were accepted by the greens committee but then were overruled by the board of directors on the grounds he was making the course too difficult. Any ideas on a candidate in Montreal?
cheers Neil