[David Stamm]

If MacKenzie and Joe Mayo had not had their run in's that cost AM the chance to redo the rest of Pebble Beach himself directly (it was done by his associate, Egan, with input from Hunter), how much different do you think Pebble would be today? It's all speculation of course, but would Pebble be even more highly regarded? Would it have been measurably "better"? And if so, why?

[Jed Peters]

Bigger greens and probably more obscene bunkering.

The routing probably wouldn't have changed.

[Bill_McBride]

Bigger greens and probably more obscene bunkering.

The routing probably wouldn't have changed.

More "obscene" bunkering like at Cypress Point, Pasatiempo and the Meadow Club?   

[Bob Jenkins]

He would not have left 14 as it is (and I assume it was then) with the extreme elevation change between the lower and upper parts of the green. Also, the greens at Pebble are pretty tiny and I suspect they would have been much larger had the good doctor had his way. That would especially apply to 14.

I also suspect he would have found a way to make 2 more interesting. Maybe a bunker in the middle front of the green, which had to be a large green with considerable movement leading to lots of 3 putts. I have never understood no. 2 at Pebble and have always thought that Egan and the others simply gave up and put it in as a "filler".

He would have left 13 as it is.

David, there you go. Any other questions?

Bob J

[David Stamm]

Bigger greens and probably more obscene bunkering.

The routing probably wouldn't have changed.

Yeah, his bunkering was so over the top.

[David_Elvins]

I believe that a big name respected architect would have meant that the course would have been given more respect over the years and not been subject to so many changes.

THe biggest change would therefor not be what Mackenzie had done, but what others wouldn't dare to do.   The major weakness of the course at the moment is the complete mish-mash of architectural styles, in particular wit hthe bunkers.  There aren't many MacKenzie courses that have sufferred that fate.

[David Stamm]

I believe that a big name respected architect would have meant that the course would have been given more respect over the years and not been subject to so many changes.

THe biggest change would therefor not be what Mackenzie had done, but what others wouldn't dare to do.   The major weakness of the course at the moment is the complete mish-mash of architectural styles, in particular wit hthe bunkers.  There aren't many MacKenzie courses that have sufferred that fate.

An excellent observation, David. It's funny you even mentioned this. Samuel Morse was reluctant to have work done after Neville and Grant initially layed out the course because he felt that it would be 1, second guessing his decision to go with amatuers to design the course, and 2, for some reason, he wanted to promote an image that his course was done by amatuers (perhaps he felt that this was a valuable marketing ploy?). When talking about the changes Egan had done, Morse had said that it was really only 2 or 3 changes and the course was basically the same. Hardly!

[Bill_McBride]

I also suspect he would have found a way to make 2 more interesting. Maybe a bunker in the middle front of the green, which had to be a large green with considerable movement leading to lots of 3 putts. I have never understood no. 2 at Pebble and have always thought that Egan and the others simply gave up and put it in as a "filler".

Bob, when the course was first built, I suspect the cross bunker / ravine had a much greater impact on how #2 played than later.  Just another example of how the longer ball has neutered old courses.

[Adam Clayman]

I believe that a big name respected architect would have meant that the course would have been given more respect over the years and not been subject to so many changes.

THe biggest change would therefor not be what Mackenzie had done, but what others wouldn't dare to do.   The major weakness of the course at the moment is the complete mish-mash of architectural styles, in particular wit hthe bunkers.  There aren't many MacKenzie courses that have sufferred that fate.

An excellent observation, David. It's funny you even mentioned this. Samuel Morse was reluctant to have work done after Neville and Grant initially layed out the course because he felt that it would be 1, second guessing his decision to go with amatuers to design the course, and 2, for some reason, he wanted to promote an image that his course was done by amatuers (perhaps he felt that this was a valuable marketing ploy?). When talking about the changes Egan had done, Morse had said that it was really only 2 or 3 changes and the course was basically the same. Hardly!

David's, That was my first instinct, until you run into...Augusta nat'l.

I've sensed for awhile that there's a connection between ANGC and PB in their respective attitudes towards the GCA. Specifically how it relates to the re-appreciation of Dr. Mackenzie's, and others, principles.

As for the assumption that Mackenzies bunkers would be over the top... Judging from the old pictures the faux dunes look of the early PB was all bunker. So, having the good doctor change the course might not be as straight forward as those who speculated. Who knows maybe he would've made the course more Aussie sandbelty.

[Tom MacWood]

If MacKenzie and Joe Mayo had not had their run in's that cost AM the chance to redo the rest of Pebble Beach himself directly (it was done by his associate, Egan, with input from Hunter), how much different do you think Pebble would be today? It's all speculation of course, but would Pebble be even more highly regarded? Would it have been measurably "better"? And if so, why?

I'm not convinced he didn't redo PBGL. His current partner (Hunter), his future partner (Egan) and his construction company (American Golf) were the primary parties. If you read what Egan wrote about the project, and you read between the lines, he basically admits the ideas for the bunkering were not his own. And few years later SFB Morse wrote that Mackenzie redesigned the course.

[Neil_Crafter]

David and Tom
There was a third member of the trio engaged to get the course ready for the 1929 US Amateur and that was Roger Lapham, certainly more than an acquaintance of Mackenzie from Cypress Point days. So could Mackenzie have been pulling the strings from behind the curtain? Interesting idea.

[David Stamm]

Tom and Neil, that's sort of what I'm driving at here. In all likely hood, AM was the puppet master in this, and as Tom pointed out, Morse admitted as much. Where eventually I was trying to go with this is would the course have been better "preserved" with MacKenzie's name as the official architect on the course, as Elvins pointed out. But as Adam stated, it didn't stop ANGC from redoing it. The only difference I see is that it took PB much longer to start making changes than ANGC.

[Pete Lavallee]

david,

Are you saying that it was The Good Dr who concieved of the artificial dunes effect for the '29 Am? We do know he is resposible for the 8th and 13th greensites, neither of which featured the atrificial dunes. I have asked repeatedly why the artificial dunes were abandoned and who exactly is resposible for the formalized bunkers now present; I'm still waiting for an answer to that question. 

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I agree with the concept that 32 green would be more interesting..
some other ideas..
number 3

big flash bunkers on the corner..ie right side of the fairway and a green with a high right side, low left side that collects balls into a bunker complex on that side of the green.

Number 4........bunkers that would hace crossed the entire fairway..and again a green that would have been heavily contoured towards the cove

Number 6
huge bunkers in the face of the hill, and more definition around the green complex.
I would imagine very little change on numbers 7-9 with the exception of more visible bunkering.


got to get back to patients, let me tyhink about the rest.

[Sean_Tully]

If MacKenzie and Joe Mayo had not had their run in's that cost AM the chance to redo the rest of Pebble Beach himself directly (it was done by his associate, Egan, with input from Hunter), how much different do you think Pebble would be today? It's all speculation of course, but would Pebble be even more highly regarded? Would it have been measurably "better"? And if so, why?

David --

This letter that you mention is from 1932 more than three years after the work was completed. The letter had to do with possible work at the Shore course that was never finalized.

There is much more to this than what we have learned to date. Hunter, Egan, and Lapham where the three major players involved in the work done prior to the US am. Of the three Lapham gets the least credit for any of the work done at PB. In my opinion he deserves all the credit for the work, because if it were not for his work with the USGA (he represented the Western states) the Am would never had made it out West. There were other sites most notably SFGC as another option.

I believe that a big name respected architect would have meant that the course would have been given more respect over the years and not been subject to so many changes.

THe biggest change would therefor not be what Mackenzie had done, but what others wouldn't dare to do.   The major weakness of the course at the moment is the complete mish-mash of architectural styles, in particular wit hthe bunkers.  There aren't many MacKenzie courses that have sufferred that fate.

An excellent observation, David. It's funny you even mentioned this. Samuel Morse was reluctant to have work done after Neville and Grant initially layed out the course because he felt that it would be 1, second guessing his decision to go with amatuers to design the course, and 2, for some reason, he wanted to promote an image that his course was done by amatuers (perhaps he felt that this was a valuable marketing ploy?). When talking about the changes Egan had done, Morse had said that it was really only 2 or 3 changes and the course was basically the same. Hardly!

David

Not trying to pick on you.

Less than one year after the second course was open for play they had Herbert Fowler out and proposing major changes to the course. The course took a  bit of criticism from the start and needed some much needed help.

I don't think that Morse was promoting Neville and Grant over others as during this time frame there really weren't many actual architects in the West at the time. It wasn't until 1920 with Fowler and Tillinghast rolling into town that professional architects had finally stepped onto the scene.

When the work proposed by Fowler was done they actually did another reopening. So they weren't very shy about it.

If MacKenzie and Joe Mayo had not had their run in's that cost AM the chance to redo the rest of Pebble Beach himself directly (it was done by his associate, Egan, with input from Hunter), how much different do you think Pebble would be today? It's all speculation of course, but would Pebble be even more highly regarded? Would it have been measurably "better"? And if so, why?

I'm not convinced he didn't redo PBGL. His current partner (Hunter), his future partner (Egan) and his construction company (American Golf) were the primary parties. If you read what Egan wrote about the project, and you read between the lines, he basically admits the ideas for the bunkering were not his own. And few years later SFB Morse wrote that Mackenzie redesigned the course.

Tom- I agree to a point that it looks like an inside job, but lacking finger prints

Egan having written what he did can just as simply be tipping his hat to Hunter and more importantly to Lapham as he was responsible for the work being done in the first place.

In all of the AGCCC adverts that I have seen they make no mention of working at Pebble. There is more research to be done on this for sure.

Tom and Neil, that's sort of what I'm driving at here. In all likely hood, AM was the puppet master in this, and as Tom pointed out, Morse admitted as much. Where eventually I was trying to go with this is would the course have been better "preserved" with MacKenzie's name as the official architect on the course, as Elvins pointed out. But as Adam stated, it didn't stop ANGC from redoing it. The only difference I see is that it took PB much longer to start making changes than ANGC.

Not true...even less time as I have noted above. By March of 1920 plans were already drawn up.

david,

Are you saying that it was The Good Dr who concieved of the artificial dunes effect for the '29 Am? We do know he is resposible for the 8th and 13th greensites, neither of which featured the atrificial dunes. I have asked repeatedly why the artificial dunes were abandoned and who exactly is resposible for the formalized bunkers now present; I'm still waiting for an answer to that question. 

Pete-

I too agree with your reasoning. The bunker work at 8&13 are different from the rest of the course work done by Egan/Hunter/Lapham.




Tully

[David Stamm]

david,

Are you saying that it was The Good Dr who concieved of the artificial dunes effect for the '29 Am? We do know he is resposible for the 8th and 13th greensites, neither of which featured the atrificial dunes. I have asked repeatedly why the artificial dunes were abandoned and who exactly is resposible for the formalized bunkers now present; I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.  

Pete, as you may or may not already know, it wasn't just the green on 8 that he redid, but the greensite bunkers as well. He wanted to give the whole course a more "seaside, linksy" look. In addition, and this just speculation on my part, I can't help but think that the back tee that was installed on the rocks behind the present tee on 18 served as inspiration for the possibility of a similiar tee on 18 at CPC. Egan is given credit for it, but I wonder if this mere coincidence. I don't know Egan's solo work well enough, but this was a very bold and flamboyant concept, something AM was well known for. To answer your question, I think it's likely AM had direct influence on the dunes being constructed, but I don't have proof other than Tom pointing out the credit Morse gave AM later.

[David Stamm]

If MacKenzie and Joe Mayo had not had their run in's that cost AM the chance to redo the rest of Pebble Beach himself directly (it was done by his associate, Egan, with input from Hunter), how much different do you think Pebble would be today? It's all speculation of course, but would Pebble be even more highly regarded? Would it have been measurably "better"? And if so, why?

David --

This letter that you mention is from 1932 more than three years after the work was completed. The letter had to do with possible work at the Shore course that was never finalized.

Sean, I understand what you're saying, but in a letter written by Egan, he cites Mayo as the construction supervisor at Pebble. I never mentioned the letter. It seems there was a hisotry with these two, and perhaps it started at Pebble.

There is much more to this than what we have learned to date. Hunter, Egan, and Lapham where the three major players involved in the work done prior to the US am. Of the three Lapham gets the least credit for any of the work done at PB. In my opinion he deserves all the credit for the work, because if it were not for his work with the USGA (he represented the Western states) the Am would never had made it out West. There were other sites most notably SFGC as another option.

Lapham was the chairman of the '29 championship and his advisors for the course were Hunter and Egan. I'm not sure I would give Lapham all the credit.

I believe that a big name respected architect would have meant that the course would have been given more respect over the years and not been subject to so many changes.

THe biggest change would therefor not be what Mackenzie had done, but what others wouldn't dare to do.   The major weakness of the course at the moment is the complete mish-mash of architectural styles, in particular wit hthe bunkers.  There aren't many MacKenzie courses that have sufferred that fate.

An excellent observation, David. It's funny you even mentioned this. Samuel Morse was reluctant to have work done after Neville and Grant initially layed out the course because he felt that it would be 1, second guessing his decision to go with amatuers to design the course, and 2, for some reason, he wanted to promote an image that his course was done by amatuers (perhaps he felt that this was a valuable marketing ploy?). When talking about the changes Egan had done, Morse had said that it was really only 2 or 3 changes and the course was basically the same. Hardly!

David

Not trying to pick on you.

Less than one year after the second course was open for play they had Herbert Fowler out and proposing major changes to the course. The course took a  bit of criticism from the start and needed some much needed help.

I don't think that Morse was promoting Neville and Grant over others as during this time frame there really weren't many actual architects in the West at the time. It wasn't until 1920 with Fowler and Tillinghast rolling into town that professional architects had finally stepped onto the scene.

According to Pebbles history, Morse "insisted on downplaying the changes, even years after the fact. He was apparently intent on preserving the legacy of having selected Neville and Grant, unporoven entities, to create on of the the classic courses in golf."

From the Peninsula Daily Herald, October 6, 1928:

"Only two or three very minor changes will be made in the Pebble Beach Links this winter in further preparation for next September's National Amatuer Tournament."


I think you would agree, this an understatement.

When the work proposed by Fowler was done they actually did another reopening. So they weren't very shy about it.

If MacKenzie and Joe Mayo had not had their run in's that cost AM the chance to redo the rest of Pebble Beach himself directly (it was done by his associate, Egan, with input from Hunter), how much different do you think Pebble would be today? It's all speculation of course, but would Pebble be even more highly regarded? Would it have been measurably "better"? And if so, why?

I'm not convinced he didn't redo PBGL. His current partner (Hunter), his future partner (Egan) and his construction company (American Golf) were the primary parties. If you read what Egan wrote about the project, and you read between the lines, he basically admits the ideas for the bunkering were not his own. And few years later SFB Morse wrote that Mackenzie redesigned the course.

Tom- I agree to a point that it looks like an inside job, but lacking finger prints

Egan having written what he did can just as simply be tipping his hat to Hunter and more importantly to Lapham as he was responsible for the work being done in the first place.

In all of the AGCCC adverts that I have seen they make no mention of working at Pebble. There is more research to be done on this for sure.

Tom and Neil, that's sort of what I'm driving at here. In all likely hood, AM was the puppet master in this, and as Tom pointed out, Morse admitted as much. Where eventually I was trying to go with this is would the course have been better "preserved" with MacKenzie's name as the official architect on the course, as Elvins pointed out. But as Adam stated, it didn't stop ANGC from redoing it. The only difference I see is that it took PB much longer to start making changes than ANGC.

Not true...even less time as I have noted above. By March of 1920 plans were already drawn up.

Sean, my reference was to when MACKENZIE HAD PERFORMED HIS WORK, not when the course was first layed out. Pebble was a redo, ANGC was an original.
david,

Are you saying that it was The Good Dr who concieved of the artificial dunes effect for the '29 Am? We do know he is resposible for the 8th and 13th greensites, neither of which featured the atrificial dunes. I have asked repeatedly why the artificial dunes were abandoned and who exactly is resposible for the formalized bunkers now present; I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.  

Pete-

I too agree with your reasoning. The bunker work at 8&13 are different from the rest of the course work done by Egan/Hunter/Lapham.




Tully

[TEPaul]

I thought that letter (or letters) where AM sort of goes ballistic to Morse over Mayo had more to do with whether or not AM was going to do Monterrey Peninsula. (At the date of that letter (letters?) PB was already redone, right?).

I have that letter (letters?) around here somewhere but it seems like Hunter (or maybe Egan and Lapham too) were the ones who sort of smoothed things over with Morse when AM went ballistic to him about Mayo. It sounds to me like Mayo didn't want to be responsible for maintaining such elaborate bunkering.

[Sean_Tully]

If MacKenzie and Joe Mayo had not had their run in's that cost AM the chance to redo the rest of Pebble Beach himself directly (it was done by his associate, Egan, with input from Hunter), how much different do you think Pebble would be today? It's all speculation of course, but would Pebble be even more highly regarded? Would it have been measurably "better"? And if so, why?

David --

This letter that you mention is from 1932 more than three years after the work was completed. The letter had to do with possible work at the Shore course that was never finalized.

Sean, I understand what you're saying, but in a letter written by Egan, he cites Mayo as the construction supervisor at Pebble. I never mentioned the letter. It seems there was a hisotry with these two, and perhaps it started at Pebble.

David, Wow that was easy to read between the lines. I assumed that you were referring to the other letter. Mayo and MacKenzie actually were having issues prior to that at the Dunes course. Mayo was involved with the work there with Raynor and  it can be said that he did not agree with the changes made to the course by Hunter/MacKenzie/Egan. Mayo was called in to finish the work at Wailiea(SP?) so he showed noticeable appreciation for Raynor's work.

There is much more to this than what we have learned to date. Hunter, Egan, and Lapham where the three major players involved in the work done prior to the US am. Of the three Lapham gets the least credit for any of the work done at PB. In my opinion he deserves all the credit for the work, because if it were not for his work with the USGA (he represented the Western states) the Am would never had made it out West. There were other sites most notably SFGC as another option.

Lapham was the chairman of the '29 championship and his advisors for the course were Hunter and Egan. I'm not sure I would give Lapham all the credit.


David, I was playing pretty loose with the term "all the credit," my attempt at saying that if it were not for his tireless effort the tournament may not even have crossed the Mississippi.  There was talk as early as 1924-5 for having a USGA championship out west and it was Lapham that worked the hardest to bring it about. Lapham was engaged in the architecture of day and even wrote an article talking about the bunkering on a hole at SFGC. Of all the people to read and add commentary to it, was none other than Max Behr.

I believe that a big name respected architect would have meant that the course would have been given more respect over the years and not been subject to so many changes.

THe biggest change would therefor not be what Mackenzie had done, but what others wouldn't dare to do.   The major weakness of the course at the moment is the complete mish-mash of architectural styles, in particular wit hthe bunkers.  There aren't many MacKenzie courses that have sufferred that fate.

An excellent observation, David. It's funny you even mentioned this. Samuel Morse was reluctant to have work done after Neville and Grant initially layed out the course because he felt that it would be 1, second guessing his decision to go with amatuers to design the course, and 2, for some reason, he wanted to promote an image that his course was done by amatuers (perhaps he felt that this was a valuable marketing ploy?). When talking about the changes Egan had done, Morse had said that it was really only 2 or 3 changes and the course was basically the same. Hardly!

David

Not trying to pick on you.

Less than one year after the second course was open for play they had Herbert Fowler out and proposing major changes to the course. The course took a  bit of criticism from the start and needed some much needed help.

I don't think that Morse was promoting Neville and Grant over others as during this time frame there really weren't many actual architects in the West at the time. It wasn't until 1920 with Fowler and Tillinghast rolling into town that professional architects had finally stepped onto the scene.

According to Pebbles history, Morse "insisted on downplaying the changes, even years after the fact. He was apparently intent on preserving the legacy of having selected Neville and Grant, unporoven entities, to create on of the the classic courses in golf."

From the Peninsula Daily Herald, October 6, 1928:

"Only two or three very minor changes will be made in the Pebble Beach Links this winter in further preparation for next September's National Amatuer Tournament."


I think you would agree, this an understatement.

One can't always read a club history and take it at face value. I've been in contact with Neal Hoteling and have a number of new items on the course that I recently found.

When the work proposed by Fowler was done they actually did another reopening. So they weren't very shy about it.

If MacKenzie and Joe Mayo had not had their run in's that cost AM the chance to redo the rest of Pebble Beach himself directly (it was done by his associate, Egan, with input from Hunter), how much different do you think Pebble would be today? It's all speculation of course, but would Pebble be even more highly regarded? Would it have been measurably "better"? And if so, why?

I'm not convinced he didn't redo PBGL. His current partner (Hunter), his future partner (Egan) and his construction company (American Golf) were the primary parties. If you read what Egan wrote about the project, and you read between the lines, he basically admits the ideas for the bunkering were not his own. And few years later SFB Morse wrote that Mackenzie redesigned the course.

Tom- I agree to a point that it looks like an inside job, but lacking finger prints

Egan having written what he did can just as simply be tipping his hat to Hunter and more importantly to Lapham as he was responsible for the work being done in the first place.

In all of the AGCCC adverts that I have seen they make no mention of working at Pebble. There is more research to be done on this for sure.

Tom and Neil, that's sort of what I'm driving at here. In all likely hood, AM was the puppet master in this, and as Tom pointed out, Morse admitted as much. Where eventually I was trying to go with this is would the course have been better "preserved" with MacKenzie's name as the official architect on the course, as Elvins pointed out. But as Adam stated, it didn't stop ANGC from redoing it. The only difference I see is that it took PB much longer to start making changes than ANGC.

Not true...even less time as I have noted above. By March of 1920 plans were already drawn up.

Sean, my reference was to when MACKENZIE HAD PERFORMED HIS WORK, not when the course was first layed out. Pebble was a redo, ANGC was an original.


I was reading that a different way as you had used the mention of Morse citing the work of Neville and Grant. I read it as changes to the original course.  

That was more work that I expected. I will stick to the not changing colors.

Like I said before there is more info out there and we should be able to tighten up what happened at some point.


Tully

/color]
 
david,

Are you saying that it was The Good Dr who concieved of the artificial dunes effect for the '29 Am? We do know he is resposible for the 8th and 13th greensites, neither of which featured the atrificial dunes. I have asked repeatedly why the artificial dunes were abandoned and who exactly is resposible for the formalized bunkers now present; I'm still waiting for an answer to that question.  

Pete-

I too agree with your reasoning. The bunker work at 8&13 are different from the rest of the course work done by Egan/Hunter/Lapham.




Tully

[David Stamm]

Thanks, Sean. Please share with us when you're ready about what you have found out.

[Tom MacWood]

This is from American Golfer February 1934.

[Bob_Huntley]

I thought that letter (or letters) where AM sort of goes ballistic to Morse over Mayo had more to do with whether or not AM was going to do Monterrey Peninsula. (At the date of that letter (letters?) PB was already redone, right?).

I have that letter (letters?) around here somewhere but it seems like Hunter (or maybe Egan and Lapham too) were the ones who sort of smoothed things over with Morse when AM went ballistic to him about Mayo. It sounds to me like Mayo didn't want to be responsible for maintaining such elaborate bunkering.

I thought that letter (or letters) where AM sort of goes ballistic to Morse over Mayo had more to do with whether or not AM was going to do Monterrey Peninsula. (At the date of that letter (letters?) PB was already redone, right?).

I have that letter (letters?) around here somewhere but it seems like Hunter (or maybe Egan and Lapham too) were the ones who sort of smoothed things over with Morse when AM went ballistic to him about Mayo. It sounds to me like Mayo didn't want to be responsible for maintaining such elaborate bunkering.

Tom,

Here is the letter to which you refer,


Santa Cruz, California
January 26th, 1932


Mr.S.F.B. Morse
Del Monte Properties Company
Del Monte, California.

My dear Morse,

In view of the understanding that has arisen between myself and Joe Mayo, I should like to know what my position is in regard to the Shore Course of the Monterey Peninsula Country Club.

As you know, I did the designing and plans for the Shore Course some years ago and since then I have made many inspections of the ground with the view of obtaining ideas for the lessening of the cost of construction of the Course and increasing its popularity.

I have made further inquiries and there can be little  doubt of Joe Mayo's opposition to working with me. I was informed not only by one, but several people both before and after the selection of an architect that Joe Mayo's opposition to working with me had considerable influence on the views of the Committee. They felt that the Del Monte Properties Company had done so much for Pacific Grove that they must have an architect who would work in harmony with the Del Monte employees. I heard this several days before the election so I telephoned Joe Mayo to ask him if this were true; he said it was and that he refused to work with me. I asked him why hw was opposed to me and he said that I had criticised his work

He also expressed his disinclination to meet me and discuss the matter. It is quite true that I have criticised the work he has dione for me, not only at the Monterey Peninsula Course but at Pebble Beach, and that I shall continue to criticise any work he does under my supervision until his work compares favorably with the other Courses we have done in California.

                                                                             -2-

On the other hand, I have no objection to working with Joe Mayo. I like him. He is an enthusiast, a hard worker and an excellent superintendent of labor and euipment. If he could only once get it into his head that goulf course constuction work is an artist's and not an engineer's job and would not resent constructive criticism. I believe he could do as god work as anyone

The trouble with Joe is that he thinks he knows. He also likes to work from plasticene models. I am opposed to plasticene models for the reasons expressed in my book and in articles written over twenty years ago-greens constructed from plasticene models lool like plasticene models dumped on the ground, and have no artistic relationship to the suroundings.

Tom Simpson, at one time Herbert Fowler's partner, has become one of the best golf architects in Europe since he gave up plasticene models and used artistic drawings.When he relied on plasticene models his work was most unsatisfacory.I want to make it quite clear that I have had no difference of opinion with Mora and that as afar as I know he has shown no opposition to me. I never met him until recently--his consultations regarding the irrigation at Cypress Point, Monterey Peninsula and the Meadow Course were entirly with Robert Hunter.

You have raised the point that all golf courses show a tendency to become weedier year by year.This is an opinion held by many prominent people in the golf world and it is true that most of the best known courses in Europe and America have deteriorated year by year. On the other hand I do not know of a single course where our advice has been taken in regard to seeding, fertilizing and upkeep which has not improved every year.

Most green Committees and green-keepers make the mistake of overfeeding their Courses with the wring kind of fertilizers. The more money thay spend, the worse their Course become. This is largely owing to the fact they feed courses similarly to agricultural land and the result is their fairways become a mass of weeds, daisies, clover and worms.

I have witten you at considerable length, but feel that the success of Del Monte depends to no small degree on its Golf Courses.

The solid test of a Golf Course is its poularity with all classes of players. Nearly thirty years of experience of constructing and reconstructing Golf Courses has enabled me to speak with considerable confidence on the subject. I know that every Golf Course we have reconstructed has increased in popularity as evidenced by the large increase of members and green fees I see, for example, that according to the San Francisco Examiner even in these hard times, Lake Merced has forty new members, notwithstanding the fact that we only spent $12,000 in reconstructing it and most of the money was expended in filling up over one hundred unnecessary bunkers.

In conclusion, I wish to thank you personally for all you have done for me not only lately but iin the past.

Very sincerely yours.



AM/CM


SFB Morse's response follows

[Bob_Huntley]

I couldn't scan the letter from MacKenzie so I re-typed it in great haste, the typos are mine not the good Doctor's.

Bob

[Bob_Huntley]

SFB Morse's reply.

Dr. Aliistair Mackenzie,
Pasatiempo Country Club
Santa Cruz, California.

My dear Doctor:

I have been led to believe that Joe Mayo had not, in any way, opposed you as far as golf course designing was concerned. He has always been perfectly honest with me and this is his statement.

As far as the Shore Course is concerned it has always been my idea that you should finish that course, although I would not make any binding obligations on something so far in the distance, and frankly, owing to the recent bad times, the necessary membership will probably not be reached for a matter of two or three years, I should judge.

Thank you for your suggestions regarding weeds, etc. I think there is a great deal of truth in what you say and I am calling your ideas to Mr. Stanley.

Very sincerely yours,

SFB Morse


Morse's comment on "the necessary membership'  was off by almost forty years, The Shore Course, designed by Bob Baldock, opened in 1960.

[Bill_McBride]

Bob, "the Shore course designed by Bob Baldock" was a completely different course from the one Mackenzie said he routed in his letter above?

I guess between 1932 and 1960 most of the original players had left the scene, one way or another!

I had a great time playing Mike Stranz' Shore course, thanks again!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()