[Sean_A]

It was not that TOC had no rough at all that got their attention and perhaps led to their "no rough" concept but that the demarcations between fairway and rough at TOC was fairly indistinguishable and apparently for quite a distance (or width).

TomP

To your knowledge, was Augusta ever maintained in this manner - fairway and rough lines being seamless? 

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Jones and MacKenzie were both geniuses.  There is plenty of support for their stature prior to Augusta National being anything but a glimmer in Jones' eye.

As to which one was responsible for what, you are all just guessing, aren't you?  Was it Tillinghast?  Where is Wayne M. to tell us it was Flynn?  Or maybe it was Willie Watson!

New ideas are a dime a dozen, because most of them aren't really new.  Knowing how to use them = priceless.

Tom
If Mackenzie was carrying out Augusta like designs prior to Augusta and his collaboration with Jones, why is it a guess who was the genius?

[TEPaul]

"TomP
To your knowledge, was Augusta ever maintained in this manner - fairway and rough lines being seamless?"


Sean:

Not to my knowledge but I'm not exactly an expert on ANGC or its desgin history. It's been my understanding that ANGC was basically designed without the use of rough or rough grass as we tend to think of it as one of many basic hazard features (not in a Rules defnition sense of "Hazard" but in the sense of a form of penality). On the other hand, I'd assume the place may not have been designed as one massive fairway throughout (not considering the trees); just that areas that were not exactly fairway were always very low mown so as not to exactly play as rough.  

It is a different animal altogether but some forget Pine Valley was also designed without the use of rough or rough grass as we tend to think of it and is still that way today with the exception of narrow bands of rough grass (about three paces wide) on the sides of fairways that is only there to facilitate the turning of mowing equipment. Frankly, if PV decided to go back to the old-fashioned up and back fairway cuts they could probably just despense with those narrow bands of rough to turn mowers and restore it to just fairway area that transitions immediately in what is wide of those fairways that is not rough grass as we tend to think of it.

[BCrosby]

Sean's question is a good one. About both TOC and ANGC. It raises the question of what "rough" is.

On both courses there are wide, "through the green" corridors. Are the extreme edges that are unmaintained rough? For example, at TOC is the gorse right of the 2nd fw or the gunge left of the 12th fw "rough"?

Or should we understand rough to be only grass that is intentionally cut higher than grass in the fw?

(Slightly off track is that the issue at ANGC is further confused by the overseeding. I don't know if they overseed with the fw's with the same grass that is used in the "second cut" areas. My guess is that its different. But I'm not sure. I'd guess that to some extent the second cut at ANGC during Masters week is not just cut higher, it is also a different turf mix.)

I don't know if there was a time when ANGC was devoted to cutting all grass to the same height. Ditto for TOC. I'd guess there were always patches that weren't cut. For a variety of reasons. Some would have been hard to get at with mowers, for example.

Back to TOC. Before the 1905 Open there were a series of debates about how to strengthen the course against the onslaught of the Haskell. One of the ideas considered, but rejected, was to add rough. (Crane, btw, was a big advocate for more rough at TOC.) But, again, it is not clear that there was zero rough at the time.

At the end of the day I'm not sure it matters much if in some absolute sense either course was ever totally free of rough. But it is clear that rough - until recently - was not thought to have any bearing on the architectural brilliance of either course. To the contrary, part of their brilliance was predicated on the paucity of rough.

As TEP notes, rough is rare at PV today. As with TOC and ANGC, that rarity is a testament to the quality of its design.   

Bob
   

[Niall C]

Just a thought on the question of rough.

Jones, MacKenzie, Tilly, Crane etc would have been of an age where they would have probabaly learned there golf at a time when mowing equipment was at best rudimentary. I believe that a lot of courses didn't have proper mowing equipment until the 1900's so, perhaps that was more so in the UK, and maybe there wasn't the same definition that we tend to expect on a golf hole between fairway and rough. Perhaps fairways were more defined by the passage of play and the trampling of grass under foot.

Could it be that they were looking to get back to a time when line of play was determined by the layout of the hole rather than the various lengths of grass between tee and green ?

Niall

[TEPaul]

"Just a thought on the question of rough.

Jones, MacKenzie, Tilly, Crane etc would have been of an age where they would have probabaly learned there golf at a time when mowing equipment was at best rudimentary. I believe that a lot of courses didn't have proper mowing equipment until the 1900's so, perhaps that was more so in the UK, and maybe there wasn't the same definition that we tend to expect on a golf hole between fairway and rough. Perhaps fairways were more defined by the passage of play and the trampling of grass under foot.

Could it be that they were looking to get back to a time when line of play was determined by the layout of the hole rather than the various lengths of grass between tee and green ?"



Bob and Niall:


Good thoughts and good points there about rough and apparently the evolution of it as well as some of the philosophical and architectural thinking about it in the early days.

I find some of the best descriptions of the way it once was and the way it eventually became are from Max Behr in a few of his seminal articles from the early to mid-1920s including, "Principles in Golf Architecture" (May, 1923), "Art in Golf Architecture" (May 1925) and "The Nature and Use of Penalty in Golf Architecture" (June. 1925).

Max being Max obviously those articles and some of his explanations are sort of ethereal, moral, labryrinthine etc but if one really takes the time to filter through all that, what he says is not just incisive but frankly brilliant too.

On the point of your mention of the onset of the mowing machine in golf, Niall, Behr had this to say:

"Unfortunately, the mowing machine has made the fairgreen an area of interest by itself. But should we look upon this as a definitive area and deal with it as we do in games? It would seem that if we allow such an idea to prevail we must inevitably destroy the sense of freedom and choice which is the very essence of such a sport as golf. In golf, nature, more or less modified, is our opponent; there can be no set limitations to space and time."


Apparently what Behr resisted the most is that golf and golf architecture should or would take on some philosophy or application of specifically defined and standardized areas and formulaics such as sharp divsions throughout of "good" and "bad" places to go (he looked at that as the work of "moralists" and not the work of Nature itself). That is obviously why he liked courses like TOC where those areas (between rough and fairway) were both wide and amorphous. He obviously felt that was the way nature was on her own I guess.

Apparently, the idea of prevalently mowing golf courses was anathema to Old Tom Morris as well.

[Sean_A]

Sean's question is a good one. About both TOC and ANGC. It raises the question of what "rough" is.

On both courses there are wide, "through the green" corridors. Are the extreme edges that are unmaintained rough? For example, at TOC is the gorse right of the 2nd fw or the gunge left of the 12th fw "rough"?

Or should we understand rough to be only grass that is intentionally cut higher than grass in the fw?

(Slightly off track is that the issue at ANGC is further confused by the overseeding. I don't know if they overseed with the fw's with the same grass that is used in the "second cut" areas. My guess is that its different. But I'm not sure. I'd guess that to some extent the second cut at ANGC during Masters week is not just cut higher, it is also a different turf mix.)

I don't know if there was a time when ANGC was devoted to cutting all grass to the same height. Ditto for TOC. I'd guess there were always patches that weren't cut. For a variety of reasons. Some would have been hard to get at with mowers, for example.

Back to TOC. Before the 1905 Open there were a series of debates about how to strengthen the course against the onslaught of the Haskell. One of the ideas considered, but rejected, was to add rough. (Crane, btw, was a big advocate for more rough at TOC.) But, again, it is not clear that there was zero rough at the time.

At the end of the day I'm not sure it matters much if in some absolute sense either course was ever totally free of rough. But it is clear that rough - until recently - was not thought to have any bearing on the architectural brilliance of either course. To the contrary, part of their brilliance was predicated on the paucity of rough.

As TEP notes, rough is rare at PV today. As with TOC and ANGC, that rarity is a testament to the quality of its design.   

Bob
   

Bob

I asked specifically about TOC because I don't know the answer - though I strongly suspect there was rough.  Just the fact that there was/is gorse points to the existence of harsh rough.  I forget why, but I do recall that there is something about gorse which encourages meadowy, thick rough to grow near it and this stuff will spread if not kept in check.  I also think rough was a common form of hazard even back in the day for many championship links.  It is written about in old pieces.  Whether or not the ideal back then was to have inconsistent rough where one may draw a good or horrid lie, I don't know.  I suspect much of it was down to the luck of weather, much like it is for non-championship/non-watered links today.  Remember, the Open wasn't always played in the heart of summer.  The nearest thing I can think of which may emulate what conditions were like back then is Kington.  There is fairway, but it does flow into rough areas (bits the sheep will eat) and rough areas flow into the fairway.  So one could be in area which may look like it should be fairway and yet be in a wee gorse thing no bigger than a few feet across with short grass all around it.  I spose in a way its sort of like catching a divot lie ine the middle of the fairway - dems the breaks.  I would also add that some courses have their own particular brand of "rough" such as the sea rushes at Westward Ho!  Is it or is it not rough?  Personally, I don't think it matters.  What matters is that this stuff, along with gorse, rough, sand etc serve to restrict play and that was and certainly remains the case at TOC.   

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

Well defined rough as we know it today is an American idea. There was rough in Britain but it was less well defined, more inconsistent and sparse. As irrigation began to become more and more prevalent in the US I suspect the differences in rough became even more pronounced. Jones, Behr and Crane would have products of the American mentality, especially Crane who took up the game late in life (around 1917).

Mackenzie obviously would have been exposed to a game where rough was more ambiguous. He wrote about playing in the early years at Machrihanish when the course was more or less kept by rabbits, and how the condition of the course then was far superior to what the course had become with modern technology.

Berh had some kind of conversion when he moved to California; I'm not sure what or who sparked it. By the way I don't recall Behr ever mentioning or writing about the Old Course. Jones' conversion took place after playing the British links, but I believe it was a gradual process. All signs point to Crane having a similar conversion after being exposed to the best of British golf.

Getting back to the original question, Behr did write about freedom and some have suggested he was the person who first came with the idea of a course with minimal rough or no rough at all. Which of his designs reflected this philosophy?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mackenzie began to experiment with the minimal bunkers, maximum mounding, expansive fairways, and large undulating greens at Jockey and Bayside prior to ANGC. ANGC was a continuation of his architectural experiment. The other thing he developed with those three courses was heavily mechanized construction method (which resulted in a very rapid turn around) - the perfect system for the economic reality.

Tom,

Good morning! I really, really don't mean to be difficult or argumentative, but I wonder how you jive that statement with your thread a few months back asking if Tillie abandoned his principles when recommending many bunker removals on his PGA Tour?

Thanks in advance for a reasoned answer, as its a legit question (at least I hope)

[TEPaul]

"Getting back to the original question, Behr did write about freedom and some have suggested he was the person who first came with the idea of a course with minimal rough or no rough at all. Which of his designs reflected this philosophy?"


Good question but one should recognize that someone (such as Behr) would not necessarily have to have created a course with no rough to have come up with the idea of no rough or to have been one of the first to promote the idea as some kind of architectural concept.

But it's pretty clear to see that the issue Behr articulated most clearly about the issue of rough (amongst other hazard features) was not exactly the issue of no rough at all but just that it should not be presented on a golf course in such a specifically defined manner as to create distinct and highly defined areas where one should go and not go:

This part from his 1925 article ("The Nature and Use of Penalty in Golf Architecture") pretty specifically articulates that: (For all I know the June 15, 1925 issue of the United States Golf Association Bulletin may not have been the first iteration of that article by Behr as he did tend to publish iterations of the same subject (and the same basic article) in various publications over the years).

"Machinery may, on the whole, have benefited mankind but, in some respects, it has done irreparable harm. The invention of the grass mower permitted the transporting of golf from its original habitat to what otherwise would have been impossible country for its playing. For this we must be thankful. But, whereas, upon links land the fairgreen passed so imperceptibly into inhospitable country that it would have been difficult to draw a line where the one ended and the other commenced, upon our manufactured courses the mower drew the line for us. At the same time, it drew a line in our minds and, with it, the inception of a creed. The fairgreen became all that was good, and the rough all that was bad. Seeing no further than this, it must need be that we must enhance the good, and how else than by making the bad worse? In fact, there exists today the fatuous belief that the excellence of a golf course is in some way bound up with the number of bunkers and difficulties it possesses."  
 
 
 

[TEPaul]

JeffB:

Regarding your post #33 that touches on the subject of more or less bunkers on a golf course (as well as Tillinghast's PGA Tour bunker removal program), I think it is pretty plain to see that there was a push along the way in the evolution of golf architecture, particularly into the 1920s, from various architects to create less bunkers on golf courses for a number of reasons (strategy, economics etc). The ones who seemed to be calling for less rather than more certainly included the likes of Max Behr in his articles and George Thomas in his book "Golf Architecture in America" and perhaps even Robert Hunter in his book "The Links" in the 1920s and Bob Jones and Mackenzie around the late 1920s or 1930. Tillinghast also seemed to be on this bandwagon when his PGA Tour happened in the 1930s. The reasons for less rather than more again seemed to be for reasons of more refined strategies and less penal courses (particularly for  the less able player) as well as for basic all around economic reasons (both construction and maintenance costs).

[Tom MacWood]

They both abandoned their principals to a certain extent, and the reasons are obvious.

Mackenzie was not beyond being a hypocrite himself. Take his brief exchange with Joshua Crane. Mackenzie was in the midst of his most heavily bunkered period, producing some of the most well bunkered golf courses of the entire golden age (Pasatiempo, CPC, Royal Melbourne, etc). During this very same period he is calling poor Crane a penologist for among other things placing too much emphasis on bunkering. If Crane would have ever rated one of Mackenzie's courses during this period I suspect they would finished at or near the top of his list.

You have to acknowledge there was a difference in their two approaches and the results of those approaches. Mackenzie's approach was revolutionary on a number of fronts and was focused on new designs. Tilly's approach was reactionary and was focused on existing designs. One approach resulted in several brilliant new designs and the other in the removal of hundreds (if not thousands) of bunkers from previously brilliant designs. One resulted in some new commissions and the other in no new commissions. One architect charged for his services while participating in the free market and other gave his services away for free.

If one's abandonment of principals results in brilliant designs would it be more accurate to say that person's principals evolved? Along those lines did Tilly produce anything noteworthy architecturally after his principals changed?

[TEPaul]

"If one's abandonment of principals results in brilliant designs would it be more accurate to say that person's principals evolved? Along those lines did Tilly produce anything noteworthy architecturally after his principals changed?"



Good questions but before anyone tries to begin an attempt at logical and accurate answers or a discussion on the subject, I believe a little grammatical housekeeping is probably in order.

I think you mean "principles" and not "principals," correct? You are the same Tom MacWood who is the often self-professed "expert researcher/writer," are you not? 

[Niall C]

Tom Mac,

I recall reading the Machrihanish passage a few years ago although if you had pressed me to say I would have said it was MacDonald who said but happy to go with MacKenzie. However unless we are talking about different passages I seem to recall the point of the Machrihanish story was that it was about the use of fertilisers and such like spoiling the course rather than machinery.

Tom P,

Maybe they were using fewer bunkers in the 1920's and perhaps more "scientifically" arranged to better define strategy however I was under the impression that these guys were going for big bold bunkers and that perhaps therefore there was just as much sand but in fewer bunkers ?

Niall

[Tom MacWood]

I recall reading the Machrihanish passage a few years ago although if you had pressed me to say I would have said it was MacDonald who said but happy to go with MacKenzie. However unless we are talking about different passages I seem to recall the point of the Machrihanish story was that it was about the use of fertilisers and such like spoiling the course rather than machinery.

It was Macdonald who said what? I don't follow you. My point in bringing up the Machrihanish story was the fact the course was kept by rabbits. I doubt the rabbits differentiated between fairway and rough.

[Jim Nugent]

Mackenzie was not beyond being a hypocrite himself. Take his brief exchange with Joshua Crane. Mackenzie was in the midst of his most heavily bunkered period, producing some of the most well bunkered golf courses of the entire golden age (Pasatiempo, CPC, Royal Melbourne, etc). During this very same period he is calling poor Crane a penologist for among other things placing too much emphasis on bunkering. If Crane would have ever rated one of Mackenzie's courses during this period I suspect they would finished at or near the top of his list.

I don't know Crane's designs.  Were they penal?  I thought Mackenzie's were not. 

[TEPaul]

"Maybe they were using fewer bunkers in the 1920's and perhaps more "scientifically" arranged to better define strategy however I was under the impression that these guys were going for big bold bunkers and that perhaps therefore there was just as much sand but in fewer bunkers ?"


Niall:

The use of the terms "scientific" or its sort of synonym "modern" architecture was prevalently used from the teens on and those terms can be somewhat confusing as to what different people meant by them.

As to the number and type and placement of bunker arrangements throughout that era, perhaps the clearest articulation of it came from William Flynn in an article he wrote for the USGA's bulletin in the late 1920s. A good deal about what most of those architects produced and how and why was a reflection of what kind of golf course a club or client was asking for. Flynn was pretty clear that the bunkers and bunker arrangements could be very different depending depending on whether the client or club was calling for essentially a "members" course or what was referred to as a "championship" course and design. Flynn and others even advocated that various courses should get into play for a time before this kind of thing was finally determined if the client would allow for that. Most certainly Merion East allowed for that bigtime and over many many years.

[TEPaul]

"I don't know Crane's designs.  Were they penal?  I thought Mackenzie's were not."


Jim:

Joshua Crane was not really a designer (even though he did eventually offer about four hole redesigns for TOC); he was more of an architectural critic or architectural philosopher. The term "penal" in the context of Crane or any of the others has always been pretty hard to define and pin down and that is why I think the recent article on here entitled "Joshua Crane" is totally brilliant in that among other things Bob Crosby redefined what Crane was after by referring to it not as "Penal Architecture" but as "Equitable Architecture."  Read it an you will see why that term so much more accurately captures what Crane was after as well as why some others so strenuously resisted his ideas.

[Niall C]

I recall reading the Machrihanish passage a few years ago although if you had pressed me to say I would have said it was MacDonald who said but happy to go with MacKenzie. However unless we are talking about different passages I seem to recall the point of the Machrihanish story was that it was about the use of fertilisers and such like spoiling the course rather than machinery.

It was Macdonald who said what? I don't follow you. My point in bringing up the Machrihanish story was the fact the course was kept by rabbits. I doubt the rabbits differentiated between fairway and rough.

Re-reading post number 32 you quoted MacKenzie as saying the course deteriorated due to modern technology which I took you to mean mowing machinery as that was what was under discussion. My recollection, assuming we are talking about the same quote, was that he was referring to the use of fertilisers and that whether rabbits cut the grass or whether it was the latest bit John Deere equipment was irrelevant. That was the point I was making. I'll need to try and find the quote sometime as theres been a lot of balls hit and beers drunk since I last read it.

Niall

[Niall C]

"Maybe they were using fewer bunkers in the 1920's and perhaps more "scientifically" arranged to better define strategy however I was under the impression that these guys were going for big bold bunkers and that perhaps therefore there was just as much sand but in fewer bunkers ?"


Niall:

The use of the terms "scientific" or its sort of synonym "modern" architecture was prevalently used from the teens on and those terms can be somewhat confusing as to what different people meant by them.

As to the number and type and placement of bunker arrangements throughout that era, perhaps the clearest articulation of it came from William Flynn in an article he wrote for the USGA's bulletin in the late 1920s. A good deal about what most of those architects produced and how and why was a reflection of what kind of golf course a club or client was asking for. Flynn was pretty clear that the bunkers and bunker arrangements could be very different depending depending on whether the client or club was calling for essentially a "members" course or what was referred to as a "championship" course and design. Flynn and others even advocated that various courses should get into play for a time before this kind of thing was finally determined if the client would allow for that. Most certainly Merion East allowed for that bigtime and over many many years.

Tom

I'm wondering if there was two different schools of thought on this between the UK and the US as some of the more recent articles I'm coming across about Scottish courses is about them being "featured" which is generally a euphynism for more bunkers.

Niall

[TEPaul]

"They both abandoned their principals to a certain extent, and the reasons are obvious.

Mackenzie was not beyond being a hypocrite himself. Take his brief exchange with Joshua Crane. Mackenzie was in the midst of his most heavily bunkered period, producing some of the most well bunkered golf courses of the entire golden age (Pasatiempo, CPC, Royal Melbourne, etc). During this very same period he is calling poor Crane a penologist for among other things placing too much emphasis on bunkering."




Tom MacWood:

Where exactly did Mackenzie criticize Crane specifically as a penologist for placing too much emphasis on bunkering? I see in Mackenzie's book "The Spirit of St Andrews" that he admits he (and Behr) criticized him earlier for his emphasis on rough and an insistence on more equitable architecture but I didn't see where Mackenzie mentioned bunkering or the amount of it regarding Crane.

[Chuck Brown]

I love the myth of the Old Course created in a very hilly terrain of clay soils.  I suspect this is just a marketing ploy, a very successful one.  How many doglegs are on the Old Course, how many on the Augusta National course.   Marketing I say, marketing!

The genius was indeed Bobby Jones, but for recognizing this British kilted doctor as the best architect of his day after seeing Cypress Point and Pasatiempo, two courses that had more to do with Augusta topographically than the Old Course.

Bill's answer is the one I like the best.  Augusta is simply one of a bunch of really great Mackenzie designs; I don't see any great addition by Jones from the aspect of original architecture.

To add to what Bill said, the enduring genius of Jones was to have created the Augusta National Golf Club and the annual Masters Tournament, which, together, which have attracted the attention of just about every great architect post-WWII, such that Augusta has had all kinds of changes made --- reversing the nines, changing the use of the creek at 12 and 16, changing 10 so that Mackenzie wouldn't recognize it today, and on and on.  Some architectural changes that might not count as "genius," to be sure, I'd confess.

It just seems to me that the golf course itself doesn't seem to bear any particular "genius" of Bobby Jones; then again, ANGC isn't exactly Pasatiempo, or Crystal Downs or Univ. of Michigan, either.

[Neil_Crafter]

Chuck
I'm not sure that Mackenzie would not recognise Hole 10 at ANGC - at least his bunker is still there and I'm sure he would have understood why his old partner Maxwell moved the green back. I know he wouldn't recognise No 16 !

[Niall C]

I recall reading the Machrihanish passage a few years ago although if you had pressed me to say I would have said it was MacDonald who said but happy to go with MacKenzie. However unless we are talking about different passages I seem to recall the point of the Machrihanish story was that it was about the use of fertilisers and such like spoiling the course rather than machinery.

It was Macdonald who said what? I don't follow you. My point in bringing up the Machrihanish story was the fact the course was kept by rabbits. I doubt the rabbits differentiated between fairway and rough.

Re-reading post number 32 you quoted MacKenzie as saying the course deteriorated due to modern technology which I took you to mean mowing machinery as that was what was under discussion. My recollection, assuming we are talking about the same quote, was that he was referring to the use of fertilisers and that whether rabbits cut the grass or whether it was the latest bit John Deere equipment was irrelevant. That was the point I was making. I'll need to try and find the quote sometime as theres been a lot of balls hit and beers drunk since I last read it.

Niall

Tom

You were quite correct it was indeed MacKenzie. For some reason he seems to be quite fond of rabbits but I think he underestimates the damage they do. I've yet to see a rabbit that could distinguish between fairway and rough the way he suggests.

Niall

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom Mac and TePaul,

I agree it appears that MacK's principles seemed to have emerged, rather than been forced, although I do think they were influenced by the depression in both cases.

If you look at the original ANGC in Purdy's book, Alister seems to have taken his "freak green" concept again to replace bunkers, wouldn't you say?  Many had small tongues, etc., and weird shapes, not to mention the legendary tough contours.  The original 9th (actually then the 18th) is the same as Pasa's 5th, a boomerang green, for example.

But certainly, if one was emulating TOC, it wouldn't be done by using only 28 bunkers, would it?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()