Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?

[BCrosby]

Jeff -

I am impressed by the persistence of the Whitten/Brauer myth that limiting the number of bunkers at ANGC was driven by economic considerations.  Please provide cites where MacK or Jones suggest that was the case. Should we simply dismiss the reasons actually given by MacK and Jones for the limited number of bunkers there?

I believe it was 22 not 28 original bunkers.

That's - by an order of magnitude - fewer bunkers than the number at TOC. Which proves what exactly? That the oft repeated statements by MacK and Jones that they wanted to emulate some of the shot qualities of TOC were lies? Should be dismissed as fabrications? Errors of fact? Maybe they were just confused?

Sheesh.

Bob  

[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."


JeffB:

It seems to me there were a number of inter-related reasons that influenced the likes Mackenzie, Bob Jones and Max Behr and some others here and abroad in the 1920s and into the early 1930s. I also think to get a pretty clear picture of what-all was on their minds one only has to read what they wrote and said about any of it. It isn't all that hard to tell if one just reads it and considers it all.

Of course one can look at most of what they were saying and doing and accuse them of being hypocrites and selling out their previous architectural principles or whatever but I, for one, do not buy that argument or implication. Frankly, I think what some of them were experimenting with and conceptualizing and actually doing with the likes of ANGC was incredibly exciting even if it appears to have been somewhat misunderstood at the time or underappreciated and underutilized over time.

It is probably true to say that in some of those articles which constituted what we call the "Crane Debates" that some such as Behr really did pull a few pretty slick debating ploys on Crane (as Bob Crosby's essay reflects and explains) but I don't think that implies that the likes of Behr or Jones or certainly Mackenzie did not have something on their minds and were not being hypocritical with what a Crane may've been proposing or even unknowingly promoting that very much concerned them and that strenuously disagreed with. And I think it had to do with a whole lot more than just the number and arrangement of bunkering.

But on the subject of bunkering----eg strategic vs penal (or at least what Behr called redundant or sometimes "direct tax") one really only needs to analyze a single hole drawing and explanation in his article "The Nature and Use of Penalty in Golf Architecture" to understand what strategic bunkering essentially is compared to penal or redundant bunkering. It really isn't quite so complicated or confusing as some have apparently tried to make it.  

[Tom MacWood]

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.

TEP
By definition a penologist is someone who places bunkers to penalize poorly struck shots. Mackenzie accused Crane of being a penologist. He also accused Crane of advocating the top shot bunker, which Crane never did, and ironically Mackenzie used often, though his were planted to produce pleasurable excitement. By the way they do produce pleasurable excitement; they are one of the features I love about Mackenzie courses.

[Tom MacWood]

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?

I agree, the Depression was at the root of both Mackenzie and Tilly's conversion. I alluded to that in my post at the top of this page.

That is a good point about TOC being loaded with bunkers. Obviously his vision of TOC included the heaving ground, very wide corridors, strategically placed mounds and large undulating greens, but without all the bunkers. Mackenzie's first experiment into this style of golf course was Jockey (which he also compared to TOC) and originally he claimed that course was built with no bunkers at all. He added them later at the suggestion of the locals, I believe.

[Tom MacWood]

Jeff -

I am impressed by the persistence of the Whitten/Brauer myth that limiting the number of bunkers at ANGC was driven by economic considerations.  Please provide cites where MacK or Jones suggest that was the case. Should we simply dismiss the reasons actually given by MacK and Jones for the limited number of bunkers there?

I believe it was 22 not 28 original bunkers.

That's - by an order of magnitude - fewer bunkers than the number at TOC. Which proves what exactly? That the oft repeated statements by MacK and Jones that they wanted to emulate some of the shot qualities of TOC were lies? Should be dismissed as fabrications? Errors of fact? Maybe they were just confused?

Sheesh.

Bob  

Bob
Is it just a coincidence that Mackenzie's courses prior to the Crash were among the most heavily bunkered of the golden age and his courses after the Crash were among the most sparsely bunkered of that era? It seems to be the entire system he developed (in the 30s) from its architectural principals to its construction method was based on economics. Do you think his appreciation for TOC intensified for some reason after 1930?

[TEPaul]

I think Bob Crosby's point about the limited amount of bunkers ANGC was designed with is not that economic considerations had nothing whatsoever to do with the evolving philosophies of a number of these architects such as Jones, Behr, Hunter, Thomas etc, just that economic considerations may not have been the only reason for their evolving philosophies about bunkers and such.

Too many on here seem to look at every issue and every subject as being all black or all white or ALL just one thing (like economic considerations only) or ALL some other thing (that had nothing to do with economics). I think a reasonable and logical golf architecture analyst will see that some of these evolving architectural philosophies were done for a number of evolving reasons and not just one single reason such as economic considerations.

Furthermore, all those architects throughout their careers understood that their various clients wanted perhaps some quite different things and consequently none of those architects ever tried to lay some completely standardized design type or style on any of them.

This is certainly the way William Flynn saw it and he explained it very clearly in some articles he wrote for the USGA Bulletin in the late 1920s. And more specifically interesting to this particular thread is he explained it very much in the context of bunkers and bunker arrangements! 

All most of us have to do is simply read what these men actually wrote and appreciate it for what they said. It seems to me the danger that arises on here with understanding is when some of the participants on here just automatically assume they were being dishonest, acting the part of a hypocrite or selling out their architectural principles without admitting it! 

Have you ever noticed that almost anything and everything Tom MacWood says or implies on this website has always had to do with the fact that some club or some architect or some historian or analyst was not telling the truth somehow and for some reason?    I sure have. I don't mean that as any kind of personal criticism either; it just seems like it has become a fact.

[BCrosby]

I await evidence that MacK or Jones said that economics figured into their ideas about the bunkering at ANGC.

OTOH, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. They stated early and often their actual theory for why they built a limited number of bunkers at ANGC. It was a theory consistent with MacK's ideas about "pleasurable" golf designs that predated ANGC by at least a decade.

I would think that a serious historian of the era might give a fair degree of weight to what Mack and Jones actually said.

But maybe that's just me.

Bob





 

[Jim_Kennedy]

Furthermore, all those architects throughout their careers understood that their various clients wanted perhaps some quite different things and consequently none of those architects ever tried to lay some completely standardized design type or style on any of them.

Then why would anyone choose a specific architect? If I wanted the type of course Flynn gave I'd ask for him.

Have you ever noticed that almost anything and everything Tom MacWood says or implies on this website has always had to do with the fact that some club or some architect or some historian or analyst was not telling the truth somehow and for some reason?    I sure have. I don't mean that as any kind of personal criticism either; it just seems like it has become a fact.


No, I haven't noticed that. I have noticed that he questions conventional wisdom when he finds potentially new sources of information that may or may not have been in the possession of those presenting their theories, but that's the role of a researcher, isn't it?

[TEPaul]

“I would think that a serious historian of the era might give a fair degree of weight to what Mack and Jones actually said.”


Bob:

One would think that wouldn’t one? But perhaps not if that historian at first approached the subject and issue with an automatic mindset as reflected below!




"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."



I'm still looking for that evidence of where Mackenzie criticized Crane for proposing too much bunkering. He very well may have, and I'm not saying he didn't; I'm just wondering where he said it. I asked the one on here who implied that but as usual I got no response. What Mackenzie criticized Crane for in his book "The Spirit of St. Andrews" doesn't seem to be about bunkering. It is about Mackenzie's opinion of Crane's opinion about rough, about contouring on fairways vs flatter lies in fairways and the ability to play a hole with a putter, for instance, and about such things as specific defining of certain areas such as rough and fairway etc.  I don't see anything on bunkering from Mackenzie regarding Crane but perhaps I missed it. I probably did. However, to prove it I would like to see where Mackenzie said it.  

[BCrosby]

BTW, I think the Crane thing is a bit off track. Crane didn't advocate adding bunkers so much a making sure that shots were "controlled". Bunkering was one way to do that, but only one of many ways that goal might be accomplished.

MacK objected vehemently to the importance Crane attached to "controlling" shots. Another bit of evidence that MacK had long held and principled reasons for minimizing bunkering - and that he didn't betray nothin' at ANGC. To the contrary, the record is clear that for Mack and Jones the design of ANGC represented something of a culmination of ideas they thought important.

Bob 

[TEPaul]

"Then why would anyone choose a specific architect? If I wanted the type of course Flynn gave I'd ask for him."



And if you think Flynn thought of himself as producing just one standardized type and style of design (and particularly bunkering arrangement) for each and all his clients perhaps what you should do is begin to read what Flynn himself actually said on that subject. I'd be glad to point you to where you can read it but perhaps you would rather not. But even if you do I suspect you will find some way to rationalize it away simply so you can maintain the point you made quoted above.


"No, I haven't noticed that. I have noticed that he questions conventional wisdom when he finds potentially new sources of information that may or may not have been in the possession of those presenting their theories, but that's the role of a researcher, isn't it?"



I wouldn't have expected you to notice. Questioning conventional wisdom certainly can be a role of a researcher but I wouldn't expect that to be something a good researcher would try to do in every case and particularly when those sources of information are not new at all to those whose theories he's questioning (he only thought they were in a number of cases).

[TEPaul]

"Another bit of evidence that MacK had long held and principled reasons for minimizing bunkering - and that he didn't betray nothin' at ANGC. To the contrary, the record is clear that for Mack and Jones the design of ANGC represented something of a culmination of ideas they thought important."



But Bob, are you suggesting we should NOT automatically QUESTION that MacKenzie (and perhaps Bob Jones too) was in fact a HYPOCRITE with their architectural philosophies? Isn't that what all good researchers should always do? 

[Jim_Kennedy]

And if you think Flynn thought of himself as producing just one standardized type and style of design (and particularly bunkering arrangement) for each and all his clients perhaps what you should do is begin to read what Flynn himself actually said on that subject. I'd be glad to point you to where you can read it but perhaps you would rather not. But even if you do I suspect you will find some way to rationalize it away simply so you can maintain the point you made quoted above.

A little touchy today Tom? No one, including you, ever said 'one style' The quote was "none of those architects ever tried to lay some completely standardized design type or style on any of them".
I asked what I thought was a legitimate question. Are you saying that there is no way to recognize the style of a course built by Flynn? Wouldn't a client have chosen him because he had his 'style'. Are you saying that he never recycled some tried and true hole designs? Or are you just saying that Flynn, like all the other top architects of the day, looked at each individual property as unique, and used his repertoire of knowledge to craft something special?

[Tom MacWood]

I await evidence that MacK or Jones said that economics figured into their ideas about the bunkering at ANGC.

OTOH, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. They stated early and often their actual theory for why they built a limited number of bunkers at ANGC. It was a theory consistent with MacK's ideas about "pleasurable" golf designs that predated ANGC by at least a decade.

I would think that a serious historian of the era might give a fair degree of weight to what Mack and Jones actually said.

But maybe that's just me.

Bob

Bob
You didn't answer my questions.

By the way, Mackenzie wrote his article on pleasurable golf in 1926, at a time when he was building some of his most heavily bunkered golf courses.

[TEPaul]

"I asked what I thought was a legitimate question."


Good for you and I gave you an answer I think is legitimate.




"Are you saying that there is no way to recognize the style of a course built by Flynn?"
 
I'm not saying that.
 

"Wouldn't a client have chosen him because he had his 'style'."


I'm quite sure there were numerous and varied reasons why Flynn's clients chose him.


"Are you saying that he never recycled some tried and true hole designs?"


I'm not saying anything like that.


"Or are you just saying that Flynn, like all the other top architects of the day, looked at each individual property as unique, and used his repertoire of knowledge to craft something special?"


I'm not saying that either.


This is what I'm saying to your remark in your post #57:

"And if you think Flynn thought of himself as producing just one standardized type and style of design (and particularly bunkering arrangement) for each and all his clients perhaps what you should do is begin to read what Flynn himself actually said on that subject. I'd be glad to point you to where you can read it but perhaps you would rather not. But even if you do I suspect you will find some way to rationalize it away simply so you can maintain the point you made quoted above."

[TEPaul]

"Bob
You didn't answer my questions."


And you haven't provided Bob with any evidence that Mackenzie and Jones said that economics figured into their ideas about bunkering at ANGC either. You have also not provided me with any evidence, despite my questions, that MacKenzie ever criticized Crane for proposing more bunkering in architecture, despite the fact you have claimed that Mackenzie did exactly that. Perhaps he did say that but could you show me where he said that? Or is it just another of your "assumptions" that you sometimes claim are so obvious?   

[Jim_Kennedy]

That's fine Tom. The smart ass approach works for you.

[TEPaul]

Typical

[Jim_Kennedy]

What's 'typical' Tom is the snit you get into when you don't like the questions you've been asked and the inevitable sniping remark that you shoot back with.

[Sean_A]

I must say that I am very perplexed by the whole idea of ANGC emulating TOC design principles.  The land is VERY different both in elevation changes and turf.  The green sites are drastically different.  The bunkering quantity and placement are very different.  What exactly did ANGC take from TOC?  I hear folks talk about width.  Maybe thats true, but courses were wider back then - that wasn't a ANGC phenomena.  The one other aspect that may have been intentional is a relative lack of trees at ANGC so wind can play a relatively similar part as it does at TOC. 

I would like some sort proof for this whole ANGC-TOC connection because on the surface it sounds about as far fetched as bunkers being shaped to emulate clouds, or was it mountains? 

Ciao

[Tom MacWood]

"Bob
You didn't answer my questions."

And you haven't provided Bob with any evidence that Mackenzie and Jones said that economics figured into their ideas about bunkering at ANGC either.

[john_stiles]

The original ANGC bunkering was quite large in scale, and while few in number,  the construction and maintenance would not have been a small cost, would it ?

The bunker on the 14th was very large, enormous, and could have been the size of  10 green side bunkers.    Many of the large centerline bunkers were eliminated in the early years.  I have not seen a photo of the bunker eliminated at the 11th.  But the centerlines at 2nd and 8th were not insignificant.  

As to TOC,  it seems many of the bunkers were closer to line of play in the beginning, possibly requiring more of an aspect of playing around and past the bunkers.  No ?

The devil in the details of the promotional letter was the size and extent of the 22 bunkers in reference to ANGC.

[Tom MacWood]

John
Large bunkers were not new to Mackenzie. His typically well bunkered course (like Royal Melbourne, CPC & Pasatiempo) had their fair share of large to very large bunkers too, so relative to those courses ANGC would have been much more economical. The largest bunkers at ANGC were at #2 and #17, the fairway bunker at #11 was relatively small.

[john_stiles]

Tom,

Guess I realize that.  But it is not clear how economics figured into ideas about the construction or bunkering to any great extent.

The thread was wandering into bunkering and economics.    Just can't see Bobby Jones putting economics into the discussion of his dream course to any great extent, such as dictating key elements of a course such as greens, bunkering, tees, etc.

The work for the 14th fairway bunker alone would been very substantial.   The largest bunker at ANGC was the fairway bunker at the 14th !!  

The green side bunker at the 4th was very large as well.

The scale of the bunkering seemed to fit the scale of the course and the large rolling terrain.

John

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Thanks for providing that letter from Mackenzie that mentions less bunkering and economic considerations in the same paragraph. I'm not sure one should conclude though that was the only reason Mackenzie and others evolved to a architectural concept of less bunkering and greater fairway area.

I still see no evidence of Mackenzie criticizing Crane for proposing more bunkers in architecture. Accusing him of advocating greater penology in architecture had to do with other things Crane was proposing it would seem if one is to believe what Mackenzie said about his (and Behr's) issues with Crane in his book "The Spirit of St. Andrews." And I still see no convincing reason why you said Mackenzie was both abandoning his own architectural principles as well as being a hyopcrite for criticizing Crane for ideas involving too much penology while later evolving his own architecture to a style of less bunkers.

On the other hand, I certainly am aware that many many architects came to appreciate that too many bunkers were not economically viable for numerous clubs and clients to pay for the construction and on-going maintenance of. That was a true economic reality for sure, certainly during the economic depression of the 1930s. And as such I think it is pretty unfair for someone today to accuse those architects of abandoning their architectural principles or being hypocrites for designing less bunkers or for the removal of some of them and that those clubs and such may've been corrupting their architecture by doing that. After-all what is the highest architectural principle of all but to create the most pleasure for the most amount of golfers and certainly one way to do that is to insure that those clubs stay economically viable rather than going out of business and potentially closing whereby there would certainly be less golf courses for America's golfers?