[BCrosby]

Been out and about. I'm pleased to answer TMac's questions.

There are two possible reasons for the limited number of bunkers at ANGC. The reasons Mack and Jone actually gave. Or the purely speculative and evidence free reasons given by the Axis of MacWood, Whitten and Brauer.

Not that it needs to be repeated, but ANGC attracted a membership composed of the titans of industry. It was not a private course with a local membership; it was not a state owned course. It was underwritten by the most wealthly men in America at the time of  its founding. Tell me again why an economical design would have been a selling point to that group? Not that there is any evidence the Jones made that sort of pitch. Because he didn't.

Like all other clubs, ANGC suffered during the Depression. But it was neither conceived nor designed with a depression era mindset.

It was designed using principles that had evolved in ways that were entirely consistent with design principles MacK had espoused since the time he started writing about gca. That's why he made "pleasurable" golf the centerpiece of his theories. And that's why an evolution to using fewer bunkers is both logical and natural. That's certainly how MacK himself saw it. A fact that doesn't seem to impress the Axis.

I guess what amazes me is that anyone with even a passing familiarity of the literature would need to be reminded of any of this.

But there's another, more important methodological point involved. When doing history, if you have a set of reliable historical statements, that is the record you must begin with and account for. If you don't have that record, then speculation might be appropriate.

It is, however, out of bounds for a historian is to simply ignore the clear, unambiguous historical record and indulge in speculation that (a) has  no connection with that historical record and (b) fails to account for why the clear historical record must be wrong or a fabrication or a lie or whatever.

You do not need the Great Depression to explain ANGC. There are lots of better reasons that explain it, reasons that MacK and Jones gave themselves, reasons that are consistent with the existing documents and reasons that tie in with MacK's long-stated design theories about making golf more fun for the average player. 

Bob

 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom MacW:

Of course, I believe it took both Jones AND MacKenzie to create Augusta National.

But the reason I am not sure whose genius is more responsible, is because I think by the time it was built the two men had been discussing architecture for a few years, so Bayside and The Jockey Club may also have been influenced by those conversations.

Jones wrote well and succinctly in "Golf Is My Game" about the design of Augusta National and about four ways to reward a good drive (only one of which involved bunkering).  MacKenzie wrote "The Spirit of St. Andrews" not long before he died, but he did not write about that ideal so succinctly.  [He did have a sub-heading entitled "Too Many Bunkers," but that was also in his 1920 book when he was still building 100 bunkers per course himself.]

So, I believe that Jones clearly had some influence on the original style of Augusta National.  I would not go so far as to insist he was the sole genius behind it.

[TEPaul]

BobC:

That is another one of your excellent posts that explains your points crystal clear!

Maybe I am wrong about the crux of this thread but from some on here it seems to be that economic considerations (the depresson) were the sole (only) driving force behind a design philosophy shift from the likes of Mackenzie that included far fewer bunkers. And not just that but it seems from those same few on here he has been accused of being hypocritical with his own architectural principles or of abandoning them for economic reasons ONLY!

I'm with you, particularly with ANGG----eg that is just not an accurate reading of history or ANGC!

On the other hand, perhaps this smallish point about fewer bunkering is just making a mountain out of a molehill. It wouldn't be the first time on here!

[Tom MacWood]

Bob
You asked for proof that economics played into Mackenzie's minimal bunker scheme and when given the proof, what do you do, you completely ignore it. Just as you completely ignore the fact that Jockey and Bayside were precursors to ANGC, both from an architectural and a construction perspective. You are so invested in your theory that the (supposed) Crane-Behr debate lead directly to Mackenzie & Jones' creation of ANGC that you are ignoring everything else, including the Great Depression.

You paint a very rosy picture of the ANGC's economic situation. David Owen, who had access to the club's internal documents, referred to the membership drive as a crisis and a disaster. Right before the project was announced the members gathered to make final decision on wether they could or should move forward under their shaky financial situation. The project was considerably pared down from its original budget of $250000, which included 36 holes, tennis courts and new clubhouse - 18 holes was the only thing that survived the cut. Mackenzie was only paid $2000 of his $5000 fee, and his widow eventually sued the club. ANGC may not have been conceived with Depression era mindset, but it soon developed a depression era mindset, and their architect brought his own depression era mindset with him to the project.

All one needs to do his read the Spirit of St. Andrews to understand how the architecture of ANGC came about. The system that Mackenzie and Wendell Miller devised was one based on economics and modern technology while at the same time giving pleasure to the greatest number of golfers. Mackenzie goes into great detail about how and why Bayside was built, and how that experience assisted them at ANGC. He also discusses Jockey, which predated Bayside, and how that course came about. In that book he states St. Andrews was the model for both Jockey and Bayside. ANGC was a continuation of that system. For some reason you have lost sight of that.

While I appreciate your lecture about the proper methodology when doing history, and your reference to the clear, unambiguous historical record that is being ignored, I don't quite understand why your post is completely devoid of any factual information. Instead of lecturing why not just produce that clear, unambiguous record and put the question posed to rest once for all.

As far your Axis is concerned you might want to ask Neil Crafter his analysis of the Mackenzie-Miller methodology. Neil has probably conducted more research on Mackenzie then all of us combined.  

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacW:

Of course, I believe it took both Jones AND MacKenzie to create Augusta National.

But the reason I am not sure whose genius is more responsible, is because I think by the time it was built the two men had been discussing architecture for a few years, so Bayside and The Jockey Club may also have been influenced by those conversations.

Jones wrote well and succinctly in "Golf Is My Game" about the design of Augusta National and about four ways to reward a good drive (only one of which involved bunkering).  MacKenzie wrote "The Spirit of St. Andrews" not long before he died, but he did not write about that ideal so succinctly.  [He did have a sub-heading entitled "Too Many Bunkers," but that was also in his 1920 book when he was still building 100 bunkers per course himself.]

So, I believe that Jones clearly had some influence on the original style of Augusta National.  I would not go so far as to insist he was the sole genius behind it.

TD
That is very interesting theory about Jones possibly helping to form Mackenzie's ideas for Jockey and Bayside, but is there any evidence to support it? When did they begin discussing architecture?

I found Mackenzie's article about too many bunkers a little ironic too. I've got believe he was referring to courses with a few hundred bunkers, although I cannot imagine there were too many of those. I do know Royal Sydney had a ridiculous number and eliminated about 100, but I don't think anyone would consider his Australian courses minimally bunkered.

[BCrosby]

TomMac -

My point is a very simple one. Mack and Jones told us - unambiguously - what they were trying to do at ANGC. We should take heed. If you think we shouldn't pay attention to what they said, then you need to tell us why we shouldn't.

Of course people want to build golf courses as economically as possible. But that's not the relevant question.

The relevant question is whether those considerations drove design choices. There is no evidence they did. To the contrary, according to the historical record, MacK and Jones built the course at ANGC that they wanted to build. Or as Jones said numerous times, he had built at ANGC "his ideal course."

Bob

[Tom MacWood]

Bob
There is no evidence economics affected design choices? Have read the Spirit of St. Andrews? There is an entire chapter devoted to the subject of economical golf architecture.

Why did Mackenzie go from designing some of the most heavily bunkered to the least bunkered courses overnight in 1930 (prior to his collaboration with Jones)? Do you think economics and his collaboration with Wendell Miller had anything to do with it?

And speaking of ideal courses, in the Spirit of St. Andrews Mackenzie referenced an article Jones wrote regarding his ideal eclectic course, Mackenzie's said it showed Jones' understanding of golf architecture. Have you seen Jones' eclectic course, and if so what do you take from it?

IMO you place far too much emphasis on Jones' contribution while at the same time ignoring what Mackenzie was doing at Jockey and Bayside with Wendell Miller prior to ANGC.

[BCrosby]

TomMac -

You are conflating MacK's self-promotional notion that using a professional architect like him will save money (a long running theme with MacK and many other architects) with the notion that MacK didn't build the course he wanted to build at ANGC because of money issues. The first is true. The second is false.

Bob

[Tom MacWood]

Mackenzie was not beyond self-promoting - that was one of his strengths, but what he, and Wendell Miller, did at Jockey, Bayside and ANGC, by any measurement, was revolutionary in comparison to what had been going on previously architecturally, technologically and economically. It was a system created to address the severe economic situation and the potential disaster facing golf as a popular sport during the Great Depression.

By the way you again ignored all my questions.

[BCrosby]

TommyMac -

I have answered all of your questions. You don't want to hear the answers. The courses that MacK designed towards the end of his life reflect a natural and logical extention of his idea that golf courses should be designed to be fun for the average player and a challenge to the better player.

Or do you think it impossible that MacK's ideas might have evolved on their own? Because if you do, you need to explain to me why what MacK said himself on the topic was... wrong, misguided, confused?

Bob 

[Tom MacWood]

Bob
Here are the questions you have yet to address:

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?

Do you think economics and his collaboration with Wendell Miller had anything to do with it?

Do you think Mackenzie's appreciation for TOC intensified for some reason after 1930?

Have you seen Jones' eclectic course, and if so what do you take from it?

Here are some new ones...

Mackenzie wrote in his letter, "As an indication of the low cost of construction and maintenance of my golf courses there are only twenty two bunkers on the Augusta National and only nineteen at Bayside." Is this not an indication economics were a major consideration in those styles of courses?

Regarding Mack's ideas evolving without the economic realities of the time (which is what you seem to think occured) why is it at the end of his life (after ANGC, Jockey & Bayside) Mackenzie considered Cypress Point his greatest, most enjoyable design?

[BCrosby]

TommyMac -

Let's focus on the issue. The claim made by the Axis of Whitten/Brauer and MacWood is that - but for economic contingencies - the design of ANGC would be different than the one that was actually built. Right? The claim is that they skimped on bunkers for that reason. And more ominously, that the paucity of bunkers at ANGC was forced on MacK and that it was somehow a betrayal of MacK's real beliefs.

It follows, I take it, that the Axis view is that but for the Great Depression, ANGC would have been desigined very differently. With a lot more bunkers? Maybe a 100? (This is part and parcel of Whitten's larger claim that MacK really wasn't all that involved with the design of ANGC. Which I find equally preposterous.)

The Axis claim about ANGC is contradicted by the historical record. MacK and Jones built exactly the course they wanted to build at Augusta. Their final product was not constrained by any economic concerns. It was also a design that was entirely consistent with their oft-stated design theories expressed at the time.

(BTW, you need to be more careful about making causal claims. Mack's quote in your last post is not that economics caused his design choices. Which is the heart of the Axis claim about ANGC. MacK's statement is that one of the consequences of his design choices is that there are construction savings. That's somethng very different. Mack's statement is the mantra of every architect from time immemorial looking for new commissions. It is a main theme of his 1920 book. You still hear it today.)  

Bob

 

[Lou_Duran]

TommyMac -

 Mack's quote in your last post is not that economics caused his design choices. Which is the heart of the Axis claim about ANGC. MacK's statement is that one of the consequences of his design choices is that there are construction savings. That's somethng very different. Mack's statement is the mantra of every architect from time immemorial looking for new commissions. It is a main theme of his 1920 book. You still hear it today.)  

Bob
 

While your main points remain valid, I think that Fazio, Nicklaus, Jones, and a couple of others trade not on building on the cheap, but the opposite instead.  I remember hearing Fazio tell the story to prospective members at Dallas National that his client was concerned about the non-descript nature of the 17th hole, but after ripping a canyon from tee to green at a cost of $1 Million, he no longer worries about the hole.

I loved MacKenzie's attitude about frugality and economics.  Those long, time-tested values will likely make a comeback by necessity if nothing else.  Fortunately, there are a bunch of architects who only lack clients to bring the traditional values back to the game.  I do wonder whether if MacKenzie grew up in an era of peace and prosperity if he would have indulged his artistic talents to the extent that an amply generous budget would allow.

[Sean_A]

TommyMac -

Let's focus on the issue. The claim made by the Axis of Whitten/Brauer and MacWood is that - but for economic contingencies - the design of ANGC would be different than the one that was actually built. Right? The claim is that they skimped on bunkers for that reason. And more ominously, that the paucity of bunkers at ANGC was forced on MacK and that it was somehow a betrayal of MacK's real beliefs.

It follows, I take it, that the Axis view is that but for the Great Depression, ANGC would have been desigined very differently. With a lot more bunkers? Maybe a 100? (This is part and parcel of Whitten's larger claim that MacK really wasn't all that involved with the design of ANGC. Which I find equally preposterous.)

The Axis claim about ANGC is contradicted by the historical record. MacK and Jones built exactly the course they wanted to build at Augusta. Their final product was not constrained by any economic concerns. It was also a design that was entirely consistent with their oft-stated design theories expressed at the time.

(BTW, you need to be more careful about making causal claims. Mack's quote in your last post is not that economics caused his design choices. Which is the heart of the Axis claim about ANGC. MacK's statement is that one of the consequences of his design choices is that there are construction savings. That's somethng very different. Mack's statement is the mantra of every architect from time immemorial looking for new commissions. It is a main theme of his 1920 book. You still hear it today.)  

Bob

 

Bob

I may be wrong, but I don't think the so-called axis is stating that economics was the sole driving force behind the design of ANGC.  My interpretation is frugal design was in part influenced by the times.  We do know the Augusta project was scaled WAY back.  Was this decision by choice rather than at least in some part due to circumstances?  I gotta believe, as is ALWAYS the case, that money impacts decision-making.  It may well be true that Dr Mac got the course he was looking for, but I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that Dr Mac got the course he was looking for given the circumstances.  If Dr Mac was anything, he was a realist and willing to work with what was given to him - especially given his own financial state of affairs.   

I still haven't gotten any answers as to how Augusta used TOC as its role model.  These two courses seem like chalk and cheese to me. 

Ciao

[TEPaul]

"Let's focus on the issue. The claim made by the Axis of Whitten/Brauer and MacWood is that - but for economic contingencies - the design of ANGC would be different than the one that was actually built. Right? The claim is that they skimped on bunkers for that reason. And more ominously, that the paucity of bunkers at ANGC was forced on MacK and that it was somehow a betrayal of MacK's real beliefs.


Bob:

That does indeed seem to be the claim made by what is referred to as "The Axis." At the very least, that does seem to be the claim Tom MacWood is making. Matter of fact, I think the claim he is making might be even better explained by changing your 'but for economic contigencies' to "but for economic exigencies."

[Tom MacWood]

Bob
If you don't want to answer my question thats fine, but lets not pretend you have been answering all along and I don't like the answers.

As far as your attempting to group me with the Axis powers of Whitten and Brauer (or is it Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin, its hard to say), thats fine with me. It is a common ploy to place an adversary in the most negative light, but I think most see through that attempt and I have absolutely no problem being placed in their company. I really don't know if Whitten and Brauer and I are on the same page or not. I do believe Mackenzie deserves the bulk of the credit for ANGC, and Jones very minimal credit.  

I have no idea what Mackenzie would have done had the economics been different. Its impossible to say. I do know across town from ANGC his redesign of an existing golf course turned out approximately 60 bunkers, a much more conventional number for Mackenzie, and much more conventional design in general. So perhaps his minimal bunkering system was tailored for new construction, in conjunction with Wendell Millers highly mechanized construction methods.

Sean is right, there were many factors that went into the TOC system - economics, new technology, new architectural ideas and trying to appeal to the maximum number of golfers at time when golf was losing steam. ANGC does seem to be the worst possible site to recreate TOC, but one must remember the TOC system was developed on two very flat, featureless sites - Jockey and Bayside. One can see how the idea came to Mackenzie, he had featureless blank canvas, a boat load of mechanized equipment, a need to appeal to all golfers and economic pressures. And one can also see why the idea appealed to Jones.

BTW, you need to be more careful about making causal claims. Mack's quote in your last post is not that economics caused his design choices. Which is the heart of the Axis claim about ANGC. MacK's statement is that one of the consequences of his design choices is that there are construction savings. That's somethng very different. Mack's statement is the mantra of every architect from time immemorial looking for new commissions. It is a main theme of his 1920 book. You still hear it today.  

You must have your head in the ground if you don't think economics played a part in the decision to minimize the number of bunkers at Bayside and ANGC. Not only did Mackenzie and Miller come up with construction method that was economical, they produced golf courses that were relatively inexpensive to maintain. Don't design choices and construction and maintenance costs go hand and hand. I assume most competent architects consider everything before going forward especially in economic depression.  That is the point of the letter to St. John, Mack is trying to convince him to go ahead with the project. I agree with you all architects preach cost savings, but what Mackenzie & Miller came up with was dramatically different than any system developed before. It was truly revolutionary, and trying to right it off or right off Mack comments as business as usual is perplexing.

[TEPaul]

"We do know the Augusta project was scaled WAY back.  Was this decision by choice rather than at least in some part due to circumstances?"


Bob:

It seems to me arguably you know as much about the history of ANGC's beginnings (and the history of Jones) as anyone on this website. Is it true, in your opinion, that the Augusta project was scaled WAY back and if so, how so? On the subject of the amount of original bunkers on the course (reputedly 22) and the economic exigencies of the time are you aware of any preconstruction design iterations (drawings or anything else) that indicated the designers (Mackenzie and Jones) ever intended to have more bunkers (than 22) on that course before it went into construction?

[john_stiles]

Tom,

Maybe economics was an issue at other courses, and maybe a few plans were canceled at ANGC,  but it would seem the ANGC course was designed and constructed without being limited by economics.

While having a few bunkers,  the bunkers were enormous.  The bunkers required excavation of the sticky Georgia clay, and as mentioned in Byrdy's book, sand was imported from the Atlantic coast.   Look at the fairway bunker on the 14th that I previously mentioned in this thread.  I often post this nice oblique aerial, and it was nicked last year by national publications.

How much larger would the 14th bunker have been if economics was not a problem ?  

Also consider that the bunkers on 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 14th, and 18th were also very large.  The centerline bunkers for the 2nd and 8th were not small either.

Now consider the size of the greens.  The greens were enormous, and would have cost much more to build, and then grass, and maintain.  The greens had the massive undulations adding to the cost.  Not to mention the cost of building the surrounds of the 8th green.

And the fairways were very wide as discussed elsewhere and shown in the photograph.  This required a lot of work to seed and maintain.

The greens and fairways were twice the size of the typical course as mentioned in Byrdy's book.

Then the club installed a 'state of the art' sprinkler system.  

Where is the economy of the design and construction ?

The wide fairways, large undulating greens, and a few more centerline bunkers in the early days do remind you of the TOC.  Having to be in the proper fairway location for the day's hole location does strike a chord of the old course.

The other plans for another course or tennis may have been axed.  

Where was the economy of the construction of the ANGC course ?

From Byrdy's book,  the  'as constructed' bunkers are more numerous or larger than shown in the more finished 1932 golf course plan.
This 1932 plan did not have centerline bunkers at the 2nd and 8th.  A bunker was added at the 9th.  The bunker at the 14th was greatly enlarged.  Given this was a 1932 plan, and looks rudimentary to a certain extent for such detail,  the differences mentioned are there to see.





Others,  nick away.

[Tom MacWood]

Originally the project was to be 36 holes, tennis courts, a new clubhouse, etc. The budget was originally $250,000. When it became apparent they didn't have the funds because the membership drive was not going well the budget was cut in half (at least). There would be no new clubhouse, no tennis and one 18-hole golf course.

Its also a little known fact that the original design had 36 bunkers; at some point Mackenzie suggested to Jones that number should be cut down to 22.

[Bill_McBride]

Why are you guys wasting valuable air arguing with Mr. MacWood?

[TEPaul]

"From Byrdy's book,  the  'as constructed' bunkers are more numerous or larger than shown in the more finished 1932 golf course plan."


John:

What is 'the more finished 1932 golf course plan?' Is that a preconstruction course drawing? If the "as constructed" bunkers of the original course numbered 22 are you saying 'the more finished 1932 golf course plan' (drawing?) had less than 22?

[Tom MacWood]

John
They didn't even pay their architect in full.

You have made that point before about the size of the bunkers, as if Mackenzie's bunkers at Melbourne and California were puny. Many of Mackenzie's courses had huge bunkers (and lots of them), therefore it is all relative.

Jockey, Bayside and ANGC were built very rapidly with very little labor costs. The quicker the golf course is in play the quicker one can realize a return. They also had state of the art hoseless systems (Miller's speciality) and minimal bunkers, resulting in ongoing labor savings for maintenance. And last but not least at a time when there were fewer golfers who could afford golf, these golf courses were designed to attract the maximum number of golfers of all skill levels. They were very friendly designs. It all makes perfect sense under the circumstances.

[john_stiles]

Tom,

I amended my post after your next post it appears.

Byrdy's book has those figures you mention.  It was noted in Byrdy's book that the $250,000 was from a newspaper article.  The cost information seems to be conflicting as the original plans were much larger, it was noted Depression wages would be much lower, etc.   So was it $250,00 for one course only ?  Or $250,000 for one 'large' course, a smaller course, a clubhouse, tennis courts, etc. and all based on higher 'pre-depression' wages  ?   The cost figures in Byrdy's seem to be a bit scattered to me from one page to the next.  Like implications of trying to save (cutting out a second course), and then saying the club actually paid much better than the prevailing wage for labor for the course construction.

Byrdy's book implies the scale back in number of bunkers, 36 to 22, occurred after the course was opened.  " The course remained in that configuration for two years, including for the Invitational, then was changed permanently back to the way Mackenzie and Jones had originally  planned the layout.  They also later decided to scale back (from 36 to 22) the already sparse number of bunkers in the original plan. Bunkers were costly and they did not fit well with the plan for a pleasurable course for the largest number of golfers. "

This sounds like a maintenance issue after design and construction.   Maybe poor drainage ?   Also, as others sometimes write,  Jones' father detested the blind centerline bunker at the 11th.

Did you read they also overseeded the wide fairways with 'Italian' rye.  Overseeding sounds like another cost cutting economic measure ?    Make the fairways wide and then you overseed.

John

[john_stiles]

Tom,

Sounds like it may have been, could have been   'Thank your for your design and construction input.   It is excellent and we are making great progress in the construction.   It is almost complete and we'll forward your last payments by the end of the next month.'
Not much has changed, eh ?

Still do not see any savings in the design or construction.  They saved by using the old house, one course, and no tennis.

Where do you see savings in course construction ?  Greens, fairways, bunkers or all three ?   I see an old clubhouse.    Double the normal size of greens, double the size of normal fairways,  large bunkers which would have amounted to  twice or three times the normal size for a course.

Just cannot imagine carving the 14th fairway bunker (see photo) in the Georgia clay.

John

[Tom MacWood]

John
Have you read David Owen's book on the making of the Masters? If you haven't I would strongly recommend it. It was authorized by the club and he had access to the club's internal documents. Mackenzie was desperate and near the end of his rope, and they certainly didn't send a life line. They owed Mack more than $2000 of his $5000 fee when he died. His original fee was $10,000, but that was for 36 holes, so it was reduced to $5000. Regarding construction savings Mackenzie can explain better than I can.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()