Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?

[Tom MacWood]

John
Since it appears you are not very familiar with Mackenzie's pre-ANGC work beyond CPC, may I ask where you have seen the photos of Cypress Point?

[TEPaul]

I will try to find somebody to help me attach or post an Aug 7, 1932 N.Y. Times article by reporter William Richardson entitled "A Golf Course for the Forgotten Man" (unless someone else can find it and post it).

The theme of it essentially reflects on Jones's reasoning for a minimal amount of bunkers at ANGC.

Of course some on here can simply claim it is inaccurate and does not reflect the truth of Jones's reasoning and that in fact his reasons must be something else he did not say or did not want to admit (God knows that sure happens on here frequently).

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
Were the minimal bunkers, ultra-wide fairways, bold mounding and large greens Jones' idea or Mackenzie's?

[Tom MacWood]

While, again, a lower number were built at ANGC  the work and expense for the ANGC bunkers would have been greater.    And this course had a few large bunkers itself, and also a greater number of bunkers.   However,  the ANGC bunker work,  in roughly the same time frame,  was much greater.   And the greens and fairways at this course were much smaller.   It is a very magnificant course at Crytsal Downs with smaller fairway and greenside bunkering, and smaller fairways and greens.

John
Here are some photos from Shackelford's wonderful book on CPC. In these few photos I reckon you have more square feet of sand to maintain than the entire 18 holes at ANGC circa 1933, so I'm not sure I follow your logic. Not only were there a great number of bunkers at CPC, many were quite large.

You are correct there was more fairway and green to cut at ANGC, but I'm not sure the cost of maintaining would be all that much greater. ANGC had a state of the art hoseless system (Wendell Miller's specialty) that required less manpower.  Doesn't Bermuda go dormant in the winter?

To me Crystal Down is more of a Perry Maxwell course than a Mackenzie course. To my knowledge Mackenzie never once mentioned Crystal Downs in his writing, nor did he ever take credit for the design.  

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Were the minimal bunkers, ultra-wide fairways, bold mounding and large greens Jones' idea or Mackenize's?"


Tom MacWood:

You should just read that article I mentioned yourself and like anyone else try to decide the answer to your question for yourself. In my opinion, in that particular article, and others like it, they seem to suggest the idea was Jones's and I see no particular reasons to doubt that.

However, if you read it differently or if you imply that the article or Jones is inaccurate, as you have on many of these same types of subjects, then I will just take that as your opinion.

I was considering responding to post #119 but decided against it. I look at that post as pretty much just another example of what I consider to be specious reasoning but at this juncture it just seems pointless to even get into it.

[Tom MacWood]

I've read that article and many others written by Jones and Mackenzie. I'm asking you, were the minimal bunkers, ultra-wide fairways, bold mounding and large greens Jones' idea or Mackenzie's?

[TEPaul]

"I'm asking you, were the minimal bunkers, ultra-wide fairways, bold mounding and large greens Jones' idea or Mackenzie's?"


For ANGC? Read my post above. If you can't find an answer to your question in the first paragraph I'm not sure what else to tell you.



"I've read that article and many others written by Jones and Mackenzie."


Then why don't you post it and let others see what they think it says and means about what was and wasn't Bob Jones's idea? Why haven't you posted it before? Would it be that it doesn't exactly make or support your point on here?

[Tom MacWood]

I was considering responding to post #119 but decided against it. I look at that post as pretty much just another example of what I consider to be specious reasoning but at this juncture it just seems pointless to even get into it.

TEP
I think your non-answer just answered my question. Thank you.

[TEPaul]

Shackelford's book on CPC, particularly the comparative pre-construction/post construction photographs really is wonderful. Check them out as it's pretty plain to tell that CPC was naturally basically a massive "sand" site, completely unlike ANGC which was a long time fruit tree nursery! 

[TEPaul]

"TEP
I think your non-answer just answered my question. Thank you."


It's hard to tell how many times I've seen that response from you on this website over the years but it's been a helluva lot. It's the primary reason it is just about impossible for anyone to carry on an intelligent discussion on any subject with you or frankly, Moriarty!

But as to the larger question on this particular subject, if it is-----Was the economic realities of the depression the sole or primary reason ANGC had so few bunkers, my opinion would be and has been, no it was not----there were other important architectural reasons as well! Hope that helps.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
I'll be glad to post that article as soon as you answer the question I posed in post #119. By the way I'm happy to see you now find value in newspaper articles.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
I'll be glad to post that article as soon as you answer the question I posed in post #119."


Tom MacWood:


I don't see the point, and if I think that article should be posted I'll find somebody else to post it for me. The truth is I really don't think you are  capable of reading, considering, appreciating or understanding anything on here that doesn't completely conform to your preconceived, unbending opinions, assumptions and conclusions.

As I have on here in the past, I again stress READING (of these posts). For Christ's Sake, man, you didn't even write or POST the post #119! Or maybe I've been mistaken on here for years into thinking that Moriarty is NOT the same person as MacWood!  

[TEPaul]

"By the way I'm happy to see you now find value in newspaper articles."


On this particular subject what I really find some value in (architecturally) are some of Max Behr's articles! For starters, they are not indirect, as what is written by William D. Richardson is with Bob Jones (even if there are prevalent direct quotations from Bob Jones) in that Aug 7, 1932 N.Y. Times article.

[Bill_McBride]

Shackelford's book on CPC, particularly the comparative pre-construction/post construction photographs really is wonderful. Check them out as it's pretty plain to tell that CPC was naturally basically a massive "sand" site, completely unlike ANGC which was a long time fruit tree nursery! 

One look at the immense dune behind #11 in the photo above shows all that sand.  Unlike dunes on older courses that are overgrown with grasses, the dunes at early Cypress Point must have been magnificent.

And a lot different from the clay hills of Augusta.

It's pretty easy to see that a lot of the sand at Cypress Point was there already and perhaps just coralled into bunker status.

[Bryan Drennon]

I assume, since money is no object, they could go in and cap the entire property with a layer of sand like was done at Sawgrass. Would that be enough to bring back the ground game at Augusta or would it even work? It just stays so wet there it is hard to imagine it ever playing fast and firm.

[TEPaul]

Bill McB:

One of the true fascinations to me (and I think to most serious GCA analysts) of Shackelford's CPC book is those "preconstruction" photos in the front of the book! Of them all the most remarkable is the "preconstruction" photo from where the tee would be of #9. When you compare it in detail to the finished product it is just remarkable what MacKenzie used and how very little he did on that hole as far as moving anything. There was an absolute ton of sandy/dunsy area on that site before they did anything on it for golf. Certainly there was no such thing in the Hegemann's Fruit Nursery in Georgia before ANGC was built.


"It's pretty easy to see that a lot of the sand at Cypress Point was there already and perhaps just coralled into bunker status."


It has been my opinion, Bill, that perhaps far too much of it was corralled into bunker status, as you say, a bit too easily and certainly a lot too low profile to be expected to have not created some serious maintenance problems early on! I had a brief discussion on here some years ago with Tom D about that very thing at CPC and perhaps some of the other Monterrey Peninsula work of MacKenzie et al and the American Construction Co. Part of the conversation involved the question of whether or not MacKenzie really understood just how much of a maintenance problem that kind of thing might be. As I recall, Tom D said something to the effect that MacKenzie may've realized it and just not cared under the philosophy that if HE designed it THEY could damn well figure out how to maintain it properly.

THAT very thing I believe may've been responsible for his argument with Mayo that Morse had to step in and eventually resolve. Matter of fact, how to maintain some of the very early design work (particularly bunkers and sand areas) on some of the most significant courses and architecture in America seems to have been an early problem very much affecting courses such as NGLA and Pine Valley as well as some of their later West Coast counterparts!
 

[TEPaul]

Bryan Drennon:

The thing that really amazes me about ANGC, at least these days, is not just how they can shift through the degrees of F&F they can produce but how quickly they can do it, particularly with their greens, but I think we know why that is doable today.

[DMoriarty]

- In the spring of 1932 Augusta National was apparently having cash-flow problems significant enough that they went to the Water Department and requested that they be allowed to pay a flat rate ($100) for all their water needs from then until mid February of 1933.  The reason was that while they had "just about been able to balance [their] budget so far, they did not expect to bring in any money for memberships until January and February.
- Tom Doak wrote that Augusta did not provide MacKenzie his advance as promised.   Was this information incorrect?
- He also that Augusta National was close to bankruptcy in 1933.  Was this information not correct? 

It hardly sounds like money was no object.   How could it have been?  This was 1932!

____________________________________________

John Styles,   

If money was no object then what does it matter that Augusta's bunkers were more expensive to build?  They could have built 80 - 100 bunkers, many very large,  like MacKenzie had done at some of his other excellent courses.   Let's assume that building 22 cost as much as building 100 on better soil.  So what?   What does the cost of a bunker have to do with whether or not the course was "ideal?"

If it was not the depression, then why was Mackenzie suddenly building courses with far less bunkers than before the depression?   

If economic efficiency had nothing to do with Mackenzie's change in approach, then why was he touting economic efficiency in his ads and in his book?    In his book he brags about having done a "better and more economical" job at ANGC than at Bayside.

[Tom MacWood]

It's pretty easy to see that a lot of the sand at Cypress Point was there already and perhaps just coralled into bunker status.

Bill
At CPC and the Sandbelt at Melbourne I agree it is easy to see why there was so much sand, but why do you think Mackenzie used so much sand at Pasatiempo, Lake Merced, Green Hills, Valley Club, Claremont, Alwoodley, Moortown, Headingly, Fulford and Palmetto? And why so little sand at Bayside on LI?

[DMoriarty]

The talk of golf as a result of Augusta:

[Tom MacWood]

 In my opinion, in that particular article, and others like it, they seem to suggest the idea was Jones's and I see no particular reasons to doubt that.

TEP
Mackenzie introduced the idea at Jockey, which was followed by Bayside and then ANGC. Clearly it was Mackenzie's idea.

[john_stiles]

- In the spring of 1932 Augusta National was apparently having cash-flow problems significant enough that they went to the Water Department and requested that they be allowed to pay a flat rate ($100) for all their water needs from then until mid February of 1933.  The reason was that while they had "just about been able to balance [their] budget so far, they did not expect to bring in any money for memberships until January and February.
- Tom Doak wrote that Augusta did not provide MacKenzie his advance as promised.   Was this information incorrect?
- He also that Augusta National was close to bankruptcy in 1933.  Was this information not correct?  

It hardly sounds like money was no object.   How could it have been?  This was 1932!

If money was no object then what does it matter that Augusta's bunkers were more expensive to build?  They could have built 80 - 100 bunkers, many very large,  like MacKenzie had done at some of his other excellent courses.   Let's assume that building 22 cost as much as building 100 on better soil.  So what?   What does the cost of a bunker have to do with whether or not the course was "ideal?"

If it was not the depression, then why was Mackenzie suddenly building courses with far less bunkers than before the depression?  

If economic efficiency had nothing to do with Mackenzie's change in approach, then why was he touting economic efficiency in his ads and in his book?    In his book he brags about having done a "better and more economical" job at ANGC than at Bayside.

___________________________________________

David,

Money was not being thrown out the window.

Plans for a second course, new clubhouse, etc. were canceled.

But,   TWICE the going rate for labor was paid by the club.
Very large and very costly bunkers were built with sand imported from the Atlantic beach.
Very wide fairways,  expensive to seed, water, maintain, and then overseed were built.
Very large greens, with a good bit of contouring, expensive to seed, water, and maintain were built.
They build a 19th hole as a 'bye' hole.
A state of the art sprinkler system was installed.

I never said they were not economical.

You are implying the design of ANGC was somehow affected, and you have said maybe positively affected, by the lack of money, by the Depression, by a limited number of bunkers.

My contention is Jones/MacKenzie built the course they dreamed of and desired.
And the limited number of bunkers is explained in part by Bobby Jones' quote.

The number of bunkers were few, but the bunkers built were very large as mentioned,  and which you can see from the photographs.  Any number of the bunkers far exceed any dimension associated with economics.  Most can see that from the one photo posted of the 14th,  but many other photos in many different books show the same for the many bunkers previously mentioned.

And the newspaper writer, John D, forget to mention the size and extent of the bunkers they did build, and by the way, forgot to mention about the economical    use of very large greens, very large fairways, ship sand from the coast, modern sprinkler system, a 19th hole, and so on.

Despite  Tom Mac desription of  MacKenzie's design CD work,   there was a great course built with many more bunkers than ANGC and in the depression.

[DMoriarty]

John, a few basic points that to me address the issue:

1.  Before the depression, Mackenzie was building courses with close to (or more than) 100 bunkers, including many very large bunkers.
2.  With the coming of the depression, Mackenzie started focusing on cost cutting measures, such as using machines for shaping and hoseless watering systems.  This was before ANGC on projects where Jones was not involved. 
3.  At this exact same time, Mackenzie drastically cut back on the number (although not necessarily the size) of the bunkers, and his own advertising and writing heralds the cost saving advantages of courses with fewer bunkers.
4.  According to Doak, ANGC was having trouble getting members and was in dire straights financially.  Their concern about being able to pay the water bill seems to confirm this, as does ANGC's failure to pay Mackenzie the up front money owed to him. 

You seem to ignore all of this.

Again, if not the economy, what prompted Mackenzie to drastically cut back on the number of bunkers he was building?
 

[john_stiles]

David,

I'm not ignoring that.  It is two bills, one asking for relief or a bargain,  the other for non-payment by MacKenzie's account.   They bargained for the water bill, and skipped, by MacKenzie's account, on part of his fee.

You are not considering Jones' quote, what was built at ANGC, and the large scope and expanse of the bunkers , greens, and fairways.

In terms of ANGC, is it all about the number,  or the size, depth, and extent of the bunkers (cost) ?

It was not inexpensive to build the bunkers at ANGC.

Maybe we should consider the laborers being paid twice the going rate during the many months of construction.

Or maybe they spent the money on the sprinkler system, or the 19th hole, or buying and shipping beach sand,  or probably underwriting some of the cost of bringing down members and potential members from New York, Baltimore, and Phildelphia by special private Pullman cars with everyone staying at the Bon-Air for the opening of the course.

They were not flush with money,   but if you read what Jones wrote, you can see it wasn't about having a large number of bunkers.

At ANGC, MacKenzie had much fewer number but the size and extent David, wow !

MacKenzie was also building the other coures for other 'clients' and not Jones.

Maybe Jones had a bit of input on the ANGC course design.

If not for the depression and economy,  how much larger would the greens and fairways have been at ANGC ?
 
You are exactly correct.  Fairways and greens (I hope) would not have been any larger.

If not for the depression and economy,  how many more bunkers of the same size (cost) would they have been at ANGC ?

Correct again.  Probably no more bunkers than built,  if you believe Bobby Jones' statement.

[Tom MacWood]

Despite  Tom Mac desription of  MacKenzie's design CD work,   there was a great course built with many more bunkers than ANGC and in the depression.

John
The original nine Crystal Downs was laid out in 1926-27 by a local landscape architect. Maxwell or Maxwell/Mackenzie, depending on what you believe, redesigned the course in 1928, the year before The Crash. The rebuilding of the original nine was finished in the summer of '29 and the second nine a couple of years later. The course was built by Dean Wood, who built all Maxwell's high profile courses. If I'm not mistaken he was Maxwell's brother-in-law.

What is the point in comparing this likely Maxwell pre-Depression design to ANGC?