News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« on: January 03, 2009, 04:53:25 PM »
In MacKenzie's "Golf Architecture", he lays out the ideal principles of a golf course.  This group (GCA.com) seems to embrace his principles with near unanimity, except for principle #6.

"6.  There should be a minimum of blindness for the approach shots."

He goes on to explain:

"A blind tee shot may be forgiven, or a full shot to the green on a seaside course, when the greens can usually be located accurately by the position of the surrounding hummocks, but an approach shot should never be blind..."

"Blind holes on an inland course where there are no surrounding sandhills to locate the green should never be permitted"

"an even more annoying form of blindness is that which is so frequent on inland courses--that is, when the flag is visible but the surface of the green cannot be seen."

And later he becomes even more firmly against blindness of all sorts:

"The greater the experience the writer has of designing golf courses, the more certain he is that blindness of all kinds should be avoided."

This seems to raise a number of very interesting questions?

1.  Was Dr. MacKenzie just wrong about this?  If yes, how could he be so right about everything else and miss the boat so badly on this important question?  This group certainly seem to celebrate Tobacco Road, for instance.  But according to Dr. MacKenzie's principles the course should be questioned.

2.  Doesn't Dr. MacKenzie's opinion on blindness seem to contradict his background as an expert in camouflage?  Isn't blindness. even at its most basic, a form of camouflaging distance or hazards?

3.  There have been many debates on this website about how architects should be encouraged to visually deceive the player.  Doesn't Dr. MacKenzie's position clearly contradict that notion?

4.  Isn't Dr. MacKenzie almost agreeing with the old saw "it is all right out there in front of you"?

Can't wait to hear your opinions!  An extensive search of the website and even the current board discuss blindness in great detail...but I am very interested in opinions about why you think MacKenzie was so against blindness and why most on here think he is wrong?

Bart

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #1 on: January 03, 2009, 05:07:45 PM »
Mac had it going on and is 100% correct.  This group, not so much.....

His writings on camoflague don't really apply to the shot, they apply to making the built golf features look more natural.  As far as shotmaking, I think his writing would be from the other perpsective - what cannon shooter would prefer shooting to an unknown area vs. aiming where he knew the bad guys were?

You can decieve a player as to shot length with forced perspective while still not hiding the basic target.

You don't need to read mac to see he lays it all out in front of you....just play a few of his courses.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2009, 05:09:19 PM »
Bart
My take on this is that the whole point of camouflage is to "not" see what is there, if something is over the other side of the hill it obviously can't be seen anyway so there is no point in camouflaging it - unless you climb to the crest and look over that is! Mackenzie's Australian partner Alex Russell had a saying "if you are going to make it blind, make it bloody blind!" - in other words, no half measures, like being pregnant.

The basis of Mackenzie's 1920 book was a series of lectures he gave to greenkeepers in 1913 and 14 and so his views on blindness were quite likely fairly modern and perhaps a touch radical at that time. He does say that a full shot to a seaside green could be blind but not an approach shot, being a shorter shot. Blindness could be seen as resulting from poor routing choices and was obviously something Mackenzie would prefer not to include in his courses unless there were extenuating circumstances. I don't agree that you can conclude he was "wrong" on this, its his opinion after all. If its your opinion that he is "wrong" then that's fine too, we just have to weigh up whose opinion might have more weight. As a practising architect I believe it would take an exceptional circumstance for me to design a blind green - I am more inclined to have a situation where you can't see the bottom half of the flag from a less preferred part of the fairway.

I do not personally believe that blindness is really a valid component of camouflage.

Neil


Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2009, 05:45:55 PM »
Blurring the line between blindness and deception there towards the end of your post, no?   There always seems to be at least ten percent wrong with everyones principles. The good doctor used blindness to great affect on the 8th @ CPC. Another lesson from the days or yore on this website is about how occasionally rules can be broken. Design rules and formulas are bad enough.   
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2009, 05:50:21 PM »
Adam,

Design rules aren't bad if they are broken occaisionally for good reason.  If broken too often, you just go from quirk to a mess.  After all, any designer comes up with his own rules after trying and failing or succeeding.  They aren't arbitrary rules, they are rules based on experience and philosophy. 

If you believe in strategy, you have to believe in planning.  If you believe in planning, you have to believe in giving the golfers the tools.  On the ground, that manifests itself as few blind holes.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2009, 06:00:14 PM »
Blurring the line between blindness and deception there towards the end of your post, no?   There always seems to be at least ten percent wrong with everyones principles. The good doctor used blindness to great affect on the 8th @ CPC. Another lesson from the days or yore on this website is about how occasionally rules can be broken. Design rules and formulas are bad enough.   

Adam:

MacKenzie, himself, made it quite clear that not being able to see the bottom of the flag was deceptive.  I will quote: "On a green of this description (one which you can see the flag but not the putting surface), no one can possibly tell whether the flag is at the back, middle  or front of the green and is particularly aggravating to play your shot expecting to find it dead, and to discover that your ball is at least twenty yards short".

Yes, I was blurring the line between blind and deceptive...but I feel that MacKenzie was condemning blindness, in part, because it is deceptive.

Adam, have you played Tobacco Road?..blindness is used as more than an occassional feature, is that good or bad?  I am simply asking how the love for a course TR on this site jives with the general principle.

Neil,  I am not saying MacKenzie was wrong...but after reading this website for a year, it is my impression that the group thinks he is wrong.

Neil and Jeff, I understand your points about camouflage and certainly don't disagree with you in any way...but it is interesting to me that someone so interested in hiding and blending things would be so negative toward this most obvious way of hiding obstacles or the target.

Bart
« Last Edit: January 03, 2009, 06:12:16 PM by Bart Bradley »

Mike_Cirba

Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2009, 06:13:33 PM »
Dr. Mackenzie, like most architects who wrote, often practiced a game of do what I say, don't do what I do.  ;)

He is, of course, dead wrong here.   In fact, given his railings against socialism and his support of freedom and liberty, I would think he should argue for including some blind shots just out of a spirit of adventure and democracy.

Fortunately, he was right about quite a number of other things.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #7 on: January 03, 2009, 07:03:26 PM »
Both Dr Mac and Colt were very much against blind approaches.  In fact, this is why I believe Colt built up or used plateaus for so many of his greens - at the risk of being too repetitive. 

I can understand the sentiment against blind shots and especially approaches, but if one is gonna live by "lay of the land" sword there must be occasion for the blind shot and I think both of these guys accepted that to a degree - especially when re-working courses.   What is different about Strantz at The Road is that he embraced blindness whereas I think Dr Mac and Colt accepted as not quite necessary evils, but certainly less than ideal. 

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #8 on: January 03, 2009, 07:04:40 PM »
Dr. Mackenzie, like most architects who wrote, often practiced a game of do what I say, don't do what I do.  ;)

He is, of course, dead wrong here.   In fact, given his railings against socialism and his support of freedom and liberty, I would think he should argue for including some blind shots just out of a spirit of adventure and democracy.

Fortunately, he was right about quite a number of other things.

Ok, Mike, why did MacKenzie get this wrong and nearly everything else right?  His batting average is pretty high...how are you so sure that he struck out on this one?

Bart
« Last Edit: January 03, 2009, 07:23:21 PM by Bart Bradley »

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #9 on: January 03, 2009, 07:20:55 PM »
Mike Cirba,

If you can seriously tie blind shots to the pursuit of liberty, see Mike Young's thread on taking stuff too seriously......(insert smiley)
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Cirba

Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #10 on: January 03, 2009, 07:27:27 PM »
Mike Cirba,

If you can seriously tie blind shots to the pursuit of liberty, see Mike Young's thread on taking stuff too seriously......(insert smiley)

Jeff,

If you think I'm just going to sit around here idly while Mackenzie insults the entire Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and mom and apple pie, well then you've got another thing coming!   ;)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #11 on: January 03, 2009, 07:29:41 PM »
Mike,

Give 'em hell.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mike_Cirba

Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #12 on: January 03, 2009, 07:41:44 PM »
Bart/Jeff,

Honestly, why I think Mackenzie is so wrong here is because he's taking a reasonable idea and assertion and carrying it to a ridiculous, dogmatic conclusion.

When he rails against an approach being blind because one can only see the flagstick and not the entire green, that's a bit absurd and hypocritical, don't you think?

Besides, as Kevin Costner said about strikeouts in "Bull Durham", they're undemocratic, and I'm not going to stand for it.  ;)

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #13 on: January 03, 2009, 08:28:40 PM »
I think Mackenzie used the design theme of "blind from the wrong tee shot line, very visible and much easier shot from the right line which might be close to the creek or fairway bunker" a lot.  But maybe not as much as others as there might not be as many natural opportunities to do so.

But I think that's one of the great themes in golf design.  Sometimes you have to take a dangerous line to get a much easier shot.  The poster child for this is probably #17 at NGLA.   Play the safe shot to the right, see the top of the flagstick.  Play the heroic line down the left with a long carry, and see the entire green plus be on a better angle.

That to me is the best use of blindness or semi-blindness, not playing your tee shot over a rock on a hillside.  Not that I wouldn't give almost anything to playing Lahinch tomorrow, I am dying to play golf in the Republic of Ireland.  ;D

Jim Nugent

Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #14 on: January 04, 2009, 05:58:50 AM »
How closely did Mackenzie follow his own rule? 

Mark Bourgeois

Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2009, 08:21:31 AM »
Bart

Very good questions. To add to Jeff and Neil's comments regarding camouflage, and I hope without repeating them too much, Mackenzie's criticism of blindness is his argument FOR the application of camo principles.  He wanted the golfer to see everything...so he could manipulate the golfer as he liked.

Mackenzie wanted as much as possible to be visible - but not for everything to be as it appeared.   Two examples of this are his desires to make holes or shots "look hard but play easy" as well as to give the player thrills.  He was thinking beyond the physical challenges of playing the hole to the mental and emotional aspects.

So, Mac's use of camouflage in golf design wasn't about hiding things, in fact (and understandably something most get exactly opposite) but about making things visible -- then manipulating, controlling, the way the golfer experienced the hole.  As a camouflage expert, Mackenzie knew he needed our eyes.

Fundamentally, camouflage, no matter where or how it is applied, demands a shift in how the camoufleur thinks and creates. He has to see his work not in terms of the work as it is or even as it appears to him, but how it will be processed by the "user's" brain, ie the totality of the experience.  The camoufleur must shift his focus from the object or figure (golf course) to the subject or signal processor (golfer).  As Neil writes, blindness removed the "input signals," and with nothing to process the camoufleur's talents would not be needed.

Mackenzie didn't want to remove input signals, he wanted to control them.  He often gives us too many signals, in fact, like a green from another hole that we might think is the green on the hole we are playing, or a green that appears smaller than it is because of huge bunkering (sensory overload there!) surrounding it, or a green that appears closer than it is due to the use of swales and / or bunkering.  Playing a Mackenzie course can be a uniquely cerebral experience - with an interesting mix of emotions thrown in, too.  He is toying with us, challenging our knowledge of ourselves and our games, and using fundamental notions involved with camouflage as a military doctrine (rather than camouflage as a set of tools or bag of tricks) that range pretty far afield of anything a designer would come across in studying course design.

I know this might sound like academic gobbledygook, but as you read his writing, take note of how he writes about a feature, a hole, an element, whatever.  He writes often about a lot more than the simple facts of the thing: he writes about the experience, the way the golfer will interpret it or feel about it. The story he tells about the Scot who calls the water hazard a "bonnie burn" when he clears it and a "doomed sewer" when he fails is one example.

So in a way I think your questions about blindness miss the mark a little.  The fascinating bit then about a Mackenzie design might be that at first glance "it's all right in front of you"...when it's really not.

Another point: today we think of blindness as a tool or design element available to designers, but back then I think Mac was writing to a generation of designers who accepted it as legitimate or at least as a reasonable compromise to unsolvable routing problems.

Today, we solve that problem with a bulldozer. This makes the question of blindness entirely different. Mac's argument was that blindness was the lazy man's way out.

So to answer your question...

I think there's a difference between blindness when used by a modern designer to play with us, with our emotions -- because unlike then we don't see it too much -- and blindness back then, when it was the product of a compromise, and far more common than today.

But then as now it comes down to: does the blindness give you pleasure, does it enhance your experience of the hole?

Mark

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2009, 08:27:06 AM »
Bart/Jeff,

Honestly, why I think Mackenzie is so wrong here is because he's taking a reasonable idea and assertion and carrying it to a ridiculous, dogmatic conclusion.

When he rails against an approach being blind because one can only see the flagstick and not the entire green, that's a bit absurd and hypocritical, don't you think?


Mike,

My experience is that when you make a self imposed "rule" (or in my case ROBOT - Rule of thumb, often broken) you come across situations far too often where you are tempted to break it.  If you feel strongly about not having blind shots, you tend to work the design until you eliminate most of them, but a few always remain.  I always felt that its breaking the rule TOO often that leads to poor design, not breaking it every once in a while.

In routing, sliding a proposed green down the contours to turn an uphill hole into a less uphill hole or even level or downhill happens quite frequently to eliminate blind shots to greens.  

Then, its often a matter of details that prevent seeing the entire putting surface - typically, we must raise any lip to keep drainage out of bunkers, even just a few inches.  These lips can often hide the bottom of the flag behind the bunker on a level or slightly uphill approach shot.  Obviously, experience also tells me that keeping bunkers further out to the side of uphill greens creates more visibility.  I know that if I want frontal bunkers on an uphill hole, the green will likely be blind and have to decide to live with that or not.  

If I do, then I pay more attention to defining the green edge with the bunkers so golfers can mostly tell how close a pin is to the left or right edges.  Of course, they can't judge how far back a pin is without a yardage guide or peek from an earlier spot on the course.

I get the sense that Mac felt the same way, but also just ran into situations where he also had to accept a blind flagstick bottom.  I can't recall too many Mac Greens that are truly blind, like a Dell hole.  But, some are uphill and some do have the base of the pins blocked for reasons above.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2009, 08:30:17 AM »
Mark,

Yes, blindness was far more common then.  People were getting tired of it and trying to change it, perhaps not unlike people getting tired of the "formula" of no blind shots now.....

Following any very good design concept too strictly and often enough produces formula.  What was once radically differenet becomes standard, and then becomes stale.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2009, 08:54:22 AM »
Bart

Very good questions. To add to Jeff and Neil's comments regarding camouflage, and I hope without repeating them too much, Mackenzie's criticism of blindness is his argument FOR the application of camo principles.  He wanted the golfer to see everything...so he could manipulate the golfer as he liked.

Mackenzie wanted as much as possible to be visible - but not for everything to be as it appeared.   Two examples of this are his desires to make holes or shots "look hard but play easy" as well as to give the player thrills.  He was thinking beyond the physical challenges of playing the hole to the mental and emotional aspects.

So, Mac's use of camouflage in golf design wasn't about hiding things, in fact (and understandably something most get exactly opposite) but about making things visible -- then manipulating, controlling, the way the golfer experienced the hole.  As a camouflage expert, Mackenzie knew he needed our eyes.

Fundamentally, camouflage, no matter where or how it is applied, demands a shift in how the camoufleur thinks and creates. He has to see his work not in terms of the work as it is or even as it appears to him, but how it will be processed by the "user's" brain, ie the totality of the experience.  The camoufleur must shift his focus from the object or figure (golf course) to the subject or signal processor (golfer).  As Neil writes, blindness removed the "input signals," and with nothing to process the camoufleur's talents would not be needed.

Mackenzie didn't want to remove input signals, he wanted to control them.  He often gives us too many signals, in fact, like a green from another hole that we might think is the green on the hole we are playing, or a green that appears smaller than it is because of huge bunkering (sensory overload there!) surrounding it, or a green that appears closer than it is due to the use of swales and / or bunkering.  Playing a Mackenzie course can be a uniquely cerebral experience - with an interesting mix of emotions thrown in, too.  He is toying with us, challenging our knowledge of ourselves and our games, and using fundamental notions involved with camouflage as a military doctrine (rather than camouflage as a set of tools or bag of tricks) that range pretty far afield of anything a designer would come across in studying course design.

I know this might sound like academic gobbledygook, but as you read his writing, take note of how he writes about a feature, a hole, an element, whatever.  He writes often about a lot more than the simple facts of the thing: he writes about the experience, the way the golfer will interpret it or feel about it. The story he tells about the Scot who calls the water hazard a "bonnie burn" when he clears it and a "doomed sewer" when he fails is one example.

So in a way I think your questions about blindness miss the mark a little.  The fascinating bit then about a Mackenzie design might be that at first glance "it's all right in front of you"...when it's really not.

Another point: today we think of blindness as a tool or design element available to designers, but back then I think Mac was writing to a generation of designers who accepted it as legitimate or at least as a reasonable compromise to unsolvable routing problems.

Today, we solve that problem with a bulldozer. This makes the question of blindness entirely different. Mac's argument was that blindness was the lazy man's way out.

So to answer your question...

I think there's a difference between blindness when used by a modern designer to play with us, with our emotions -- because unlike then we don't see it too much -- and blindness back then, when it was the product of a compromise, and far more common than today.

But then as now it comes down to: does the blindness give you pleasure, does it enhance your experience of the hole?

Mark

Mark

I agree that Dr Mac was more interested in manipulating the golfer or really bamboozling him.  However, I disagree that the original archies chose blindness as an easy solution to a routing "problem".  I don't think the original blind holes were seen as a problem originally.  It was only once Colt and Dr Mac came along that blindness was seen as something less than ideal and that the ideal course could be achieved, but at what cost to diversity?  I reckon blind holes, punchbowl greens and front to back sloping greens essentially bit the dust once the Colt/Dr Mac systems of design took hold (and I do mean that these two guys are more or less indirectly responsible for nearly all the architecture that came after them).  I would also say that the use of bunkers and plateau greens became much more important elements of design perhaps at the cost of more natural hazards that may have been much more lower key.  In other words, architecture truly hit the first phase of "attractive" design.  One must also remember that Colt and Dr Mac had many of their bunkers altered which render them much less effective in terms of blending with nature and therefore as for their original purposes - including camo. 

I know this isn't all about blind shots, but imo blind shots are so intertwined with architecture as a whole that it is impossible to compartmentalize blindness as its own deal.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #19 on: January 04, 2009, 08:58:34 AM »
Apache stronghold opened my eyes to Doaks clever use of blindness. Rewarding the golfer who challenges it. On PAC dunes closer Tom used blindness as a strategic element rewarding the well placed shot with a visual while the others have to overcome the adversity of being blind. A theme he really perfected @ BN. Axland n Proctor used a different motiff at Wild horse utilizing blindness to the aggressive LZ's while most every other line is right in front of you. In both cases the concept rewards those who have the knowledge of where to go and the ability to get there.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Steve Lang

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #20 on: January 04, 2009, 09:04:18 AM »
 8)

Perhaps blind shots are not so bad when you have forecaddies.. but otherwise they seem a great way to back up players on a course

or perhaps Mackensie didn't like building those periscopes or hanging bells to signal folks when areas had been cleared..
Inverness (Toledo, OH) cathedral clock inscription: "God measures men by what they are. Not what they in wealth possess.  That vibrant message chimes afar.
The voice of Inverness"

Rich Goodale

Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #21 on: January 04, 2009, 09:07:12 AM »
To me, the most interesting paradox relating to this conundrum is MacKenzie's love for The Old Course and the fact that it "features" blind tee shots on holes 2 through 7 and 17.  If you add 12--where the fairway bunkers are completely hidden from view (due to their being designed when the course was reversed)--fully one half of all the driving holes are effectively "blind."

If the good Doctor really beleived in Principle #6, why did he express such unconditional love for The Old Course and St. Andrews?

Confused in Fife

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #22 on: January 04, 2009, 09:20:14 AM »
Rich,

Many people have said for years that TOC is great, but you would never build it again.  Mac probably felt the same.  He did write a book called the "Spirit of St. Andrews." He didn't write "The replica of St. Andrews"

I think he loved the idea of strategy, and that is the spirit.  But, his generation also realized that strategy is best when you can plan.

BTW, he doesn't mind blind tee shots, but avoids them on approaches.  Couldn't this jive with what happens at TOC where some tee shots are blind, but the approaches are visible?
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Mark Bourgeois

Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #23 on: January 04, 2009, 09:33:54 AM »
Great points, Sean and Rich. Didn't John K write that Mac hated The Old Course?

Mark

Rich Goodale

Re: The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6
« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2009, 09:39:29 AM »
Good points, Jeff, but as Bart mentions above.....

'And later he becomes even more firmly against blindness of all sorts:

"The greater the experience the writer has of designing golf courses, the more certain he is that blindness of all kinds should be avoided."'

.....and I am of the firm opinion that any shots (including tee shots) which are blind diminish the degree of strategic thinking required by the player as well as vitiate the ability of the designer to create features of strategic interest to the golfer.  I also am growing to believe that strategic interest from the tee is one of the defining characteristics of the very best golf courses, whose mottos should be:  "Drive and approach and recover and putt for both show and dough."

Rich



Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back