News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Charlie Goerges

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #100 on: October 13, 2009, 11:37:44 PM »
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),

Actually Stalin was one of the Allies. True Fact  ;). I believe it was Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito in the axis.
Severally on the occasion of everything that thou doest, pause and ask thyself, if death is a dreadful thing because it deprives thee of this. - Marcus Aurelius

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #101 on: October 14, 2009, 03:11:23 AM »
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),

Actually Stalin was one of the Allies. True Fact  ;). I believe it was Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito in the axis.

Charlie

It may have been true, but it wasn't possible.


Anybody

Please outline the features of Augusta which are modeled on TOC?  Additionally, could you please give me your opinion on what was successful in tems of how Augusta plays compared to TOC and what was not.  I am not trying to be obtuse, but this is one of those old stories that never really sat well with me.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #102 on: October 14, 2009, 06:37:03 AM »
Wide fairways, large undulating greens and a quite a few internal hazards - the idea was to provide multiple lines of play a la TOC. It would depend how firm the course played as to how successful it would have been back then. I suspect the member enjoyed the course, but some of the pros didn't and they began to redesign it almost immediately. Being a hilly site it would be have been more difficult to emulate TOC as compared to Jockey or Bayside where the concept was first tested. The system Mackenzie and Miller came up with was probably better suited for flat featureless sites, on the other hand ANGC is still considered to be one of the world's great designs.

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #103 on: October 14, 2009, 09:16:31 AM »
Tom,

The article posted spoke about economy of construction using machines and how well machines were now being used for golf courses. 

It isn't that the the ANGC was not economically completed or money tossed out car windows.   Implications that the design and completion of ANGC was less because of economic restraints just do not ring true.   

It appears the course was planned, designed, and constructed as 'they' wanted.  They did not constraint themselves from building very large greens, enormous bunkers, wide fairways and all that these features would later entail in maintenance.  They installed a state of the art sprinkler system.

It appears the 18 holes was constructed to fit their every desire and dream. 

It would seem the stronger argument is that nothing was cut from the design and construction of the original 18 holes.

And to follow that up,  maybe one could state that 'everything else' was cut so the course could be completed as they desired.  So they eliminated a second course, tennis courts, and a new clubhouse. 

And in the end, they had a dispute with the architect about his payment, as the architect has so stated.

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #104 on: October 14, 2009, 09:59:44 AM »
"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?


TEP,

The Byrdy book has two golf course plans prepared by MacKenzie on page 34 and 32. The plan on page 34 was the earlier plan prepared in 1931.  It has more a hand drawn, first draft appearance,  with the title roughly penciled in, etc.   The 1931 plan has the holes numbered as it is played today.  The other plan circa 1932 has a more formalized title, lettering, etc. and has the holes numbered in reverse to today's scheme as the nines were reversed. 

The 1932 drawing could be a post construction drawing as it is dated June 1932.  Bunkering is similar to as constructed but there are still differences.  The 1932 plan has much more of a nice artistic rendering then a hard 'as constructed' drawing.  I squinted and noticed the bunkers at 2nd and 8th,  but the scale of the bunkering and a few bunkers are not shown on the artist's (MacKenzie) rendering June 1932.  It could be a matter of the reproduction for the book.   Byrdy's hand drawn sketches  (drawn by Byrdy)  of each hole's original configuration has more than 22 bunkers. I count 28 but do not know his source for his hole sketches.  Number of bunkers doesn't matter much in my thinking,  as the 22 or 28 or 36 constructed were enormous, easily reaching the same square footage as heavily bunkered courses of the era.   The bunker size really fits the scale of the large open rolling terrain in my eye.

TomMac / BobC ,

Have you seen any other golf course plans other than the two (1931, June 1932)  in Byrdy ?

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #105 on: October 14, 2009, 12:43:55 PM »
John
I'm confused. You say over and over you don't see any savings in the design or construction, when I post Mackenzie's own words about how they saved money in construction, you say the excerpt only said how they used machines. Have you been following this thread? Of course they used machines. That was a point of emphasis near the beginning of this tread when I posted the Bayside article and the Caterpiller advertisements. Mackenzie & Miller devised a system of designing and building courses during the Depression that was economically efficient.

You are correct the 18 holes were constructed as they wanted, has anyone claimed differently. The course was designed and built along the lines of Jockey & Bayside. Again all those courses featured wide fairways, minimal bunkers, bold mounding, large undulating greens and rapid highly mechanized construction. In his letter to St. John Mackenzie wrote: "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."

Again I'm confused, are you doubting the accuracy of Mackenzie's comments when he claimed his system resulted in cost savings? Is it your contention the Depression had no effect on the development of Mackenzie & Miller's system of design and construction?

I believe I've only seen those two maps. There is another map done by Olmsted Brothers of the course as built which is also very interesting.

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #106 on: October 14, 2009, 01:31:12 PM »

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,

I confused as well.  There are many alluding that the Depression altered or affected MacKenzie's ideas and by inference, the design and construction of ANGC.

How did the Depression or economics affect the ideas of MacKenzie and specifically the design  for the 18 holes at August National ?

The organizers obviously dropped building a second course, new clubhouse, and tennis courts.

However,   it appears the construction of ANGC spared little expense, if any,  in building a course as Jones dreamed and MacKenzie designed.

It wasn't  22  or  28  or 36 bunkers because of economics or the Depression.

The 18 hole course at ANGC was built as they desired,  and MacKenzie designed.  Damn the depression. 

John

TEPaul

Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #107 on: October 14, 2009, 03:30:35 PM »
"I confused as well.  There are many alluding that the Depression altered or affected MacKenzie's ideas and by inference, the design and construction of ANGC.

How did the Depression or economics affect the ideas of MacKenzie and specifically the design  for the 18 holes at August National ?

The organizers obviously dropped building a second course, new clubhouse, and tennis courts.

However,   it appears the construction of ANGC spared little expense, if any,  in building a course as Jones dreamed and MacKenzie designed.

It wasn't  22  or  28  or 36 bunkers because of economics or the Depression.

The 18 hole course at ANGC was built as they desired,  and MacKenzie designed.  Damn the depression."



John:

Good explanation and summation there. It seems that what is being assumed by at least Tom MacWood is that the economic exigencies of the depression were pretty much the sole or primary reasons for a change of design approach or direction with ANGC and some others by him just before it (Bayside and The Jockey Club). Economic considerations were probably not inconsequential but it appears to me the design direction of ANGC with mimimal bunkers and prevalent use of width and extremely bold undulations and contours (both existing and manufactured) as well as a critical look at penology (strategic vs penal) was a philosophy that had been in the works and developing from a number of architects (Behr et al) for a number of years before the depression. Behr's own article "The Nature and Use of Penalty in Golf Architecture" is a fine and detailed explanation of this kind of new desgin direction. Behr published that article in June 1925, by the way. There is no question Mackenzie, Behr and Jones had been talking about this kind of thing long before the economic depression which began in late 1929 and did not become entrenched for at least a year or so later. ;)  

TEPaul

Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #108 on: October 14, 2009, 03:33:43 PM »
Sean Arble:

It seems your questions in Post #69 about architectural similarities or similarities of architectural principles between ANGC and TOC sort of got missed. I think they are very good questions and should be considered and answered.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #109 on: October 14, 2009, 05:05:24 PM »
Tom,

I confused as well.  There are many alluding that the Depression altered or affected MacKenzie's ideas and by inference, the design and construction of ANGC.

How did the Depression or economics affect the ideas of MacKenzie and specifically the design  for the 18 holes at August National ?

The organizers obviously dropped building a second course, new clubhouse, and tennis courts.

However,   it appears the construction of ANGC spared little expense, if any,  in building a course as Jones dreamed and MacKenzie designed.

It wasn't  22  or  28  or 36 bunkers because of economics or the Depression.

The 18 hole course at ANGC was built as they desired,  and MacKenzie designed.  Damn the depression.  

John

John
Didn't Mackenzie's style change dramatically in the Depression? 

His courses in the mid- and late-20s (R. Melbourne, Kingston Heath, R. Adelaide, CPC, Valley, Lake Merced, Pasatiempo, etc) were very well bunkered, and that may be an understatement. The fairways were of a conventional width, with a few exceptions, and mounding was not a major design component. His courses in the 30s (Jockey, Bayside & ANGC) were dramtically different as we have already discussed. He went from one extreme to another.

He had already developed his Depression style by the time he was engaged by ANGC. He didn't alter anything for ANGC, he had already altered his style with Jockey & Bayside.

You keep saying they spared no expense...they did not even pay their architect in full. Have you read Owen's book? If anyone is interested in the history of ANGC they should read it.
« Last Edit: October 14, 2009, 05:12:38 PM by Tom MacWood »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #110 on: October 14, 2009, 05:20:10 PM »

John:

Good explanation and summation there. It seems that what is being assumed by at least Tom MacWood is that the economic exigencies of the depression were pretty much the sole or primary reasons for a change of design approach or direction with ANGC and some others by him just before it (Bayside and The Jockey Club). Economic considerations were probably not inconsequential but it appears to me the design direction of ANGC with mimimal bunkers and prevalent use of width and extremely bold undulations and contours (both existing and manufactured) as well as a critical look at penology (strategic vs penal) was a philosophy that had been in the works and developing from a number of architects (Behr et al) for a number of years before the depression. Behr's own article "The Nature and Use of Penalty in Golf Architecture" is a fine and detailed explanation of this kind of new desgin direction. Behr published that article in June 1925, by the way. There is no question Mackenzie, Behr and Jones had been talking about this kind of thing long before the economic depression which began in late 1929 and did not become entrenched for at least a year or so later. ;)  


I don't doubt Behr and Mackenzie discussed golf architecture prior to 1929, but what evidence is there that Jones was involved in those discussions?

When did Behr and Mackenzie first meet, and when did Mackenzie's architecture change?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #111 on: October 14, 2009, 06:13:57 PM »
This thread is great.  Everyone wants to credit their own guy with something great about the design at Augusta. Surely if Cirba was still around it would be a Hugh Wilson course.  So I guess it had to be Macdonald, for M&J were following in his footsteps by designing a course that was not so much simply copying the great holes, but was applying their best principles in a unique setting.

Seriously, according to Jones it was MacKenzie's design with Mackenzie even choosing the land.  Jones identifies himself as a consultant.   Funny the different ways we read "consultant" depending upon the result we are determined to reach.  

As for this business of whether the economics of the time impacted the design, this was the great depression!  How could it not have impacted the design?  

John Styles,

1. Immediately before the opening of Augusta National, the Augusta Chronicle reported that the course had only 22 bunkers.

2. You keep coming back to the big bunkers like the one located on 14 and seem to be making the case that expensive bunkers like this must mean that they spared no expense.   However, your argument cuts against you.    If these bunkers were so expensive then it is no wonder there were only 22 of them on opening day!   You wouldn't expect them to have built zero bunkers would you?    Or for Mackenzie to completely abandon his style or ignore the scale of the property?     Building around 1/4 or 1/5 of the usual number of bunkers seems a good way to save money, doesn't it?   Especially if they were as expensive as you imply?

3. I don't think that Tom MacWood suggested that the design would be lesser for not having many bunkers.  Perhaps Mackenzie and Jones produced a better product precisely because of the economic times and a constrained budget.    Necessity is often the mother of invention, isn't it.  

4. I've often thought that we'd get much better golf courses if designers were forced to work in shoe string budgets.  So perhaps that happened here.  

5. There are numerous articles in the local paper discussing the lead-up to the course.  None of them mention any specific design idea leading to a course with a relatively small number of bunkers.    One early article mentions that the hazards would be placed in order to create strategy and challenges that would bring the golfer back again and again.  

Bob Crosby,

Would you really have expected either Mackenzie or Jones to write that they only built 22 bunkers because they were concerned with saving money?    If they had they would have been about the first and last to admit that a design choice was dictated by economic concerns!  

Jim Engh recently built a course called Four Corners, a course without bunkers.    He wrote that he decided the property was unique enough without bunkers.    Yet his plan, and even the digitally enhanced flyover on their website has bunkers throughout the course.    While I don't doubt that Jim Engh meant what he wrote, given the economic downturn and the fact that the course was reportedly built on a shoe string budget and might be suffering, don't you think it is a safe bet that the financial times might have aided Mr. Engh in coming to that conclusion?  

  

« Last Edit: October 14, 2009, 06:15:32 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

TEPaul

Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #112 on: October 14, 2009, 11:53:47 PM »
"Jim Engh recently built a course called Four Corners, a course without bunkers.    He wrote that he decided the property was unique enough without bunkers.    Yet his plan, and even the digitally enhanced flyover on their website has bunkers throughout the course.    While I don't doubt that Jim Engh meant what he wrote, given the economic downturn and the fact that the course was reportedly built on a shoe string budget and might be suffering, don't you think it is a safe bet that the financial times might have aided Mr. Engh in coming to that conclusion?"


Moriarty:


Why don't you, at the very least, try to hazard an answer, or even a guess at an answer to your own question?  ;) 

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #113 on: October 15, 2009, 05:27:50 AM »
Wide fairways, large undulating greens and a quite a few internal hazards - the idea was to provide multiple lines of play a la TOC. It would depend how firm the course played as to how successful it would have been back then. I suspect the member enjoyed the course, but some of the pros didn't and they began to redesign it almost immediately. Being a hilly site it would be have been more difficult to emulate TOC as compared to Jockey or Bayside where the concept was first tested. The system Mackenzie and Miller came up with was probably better suited for flat featureless sites, on the other hand ANGC is still considered to be one of the world's great designs.

Thanks Tom. 

I can buy the large greens aspect (especially from a relative perpsective) and maybe the "internal hazards" (though I am not sure what these are), but wide fairways were common back in the day - nothing unusual there.  Plus, TOC had shitloads of bunkers, many of which were centre-line.  I would hazard a guess that TOC had more centre-line bunkers than all of the bunkers on Augusta.  To me, one of the key elements of TOC is its humpty bumpty land - especially just short of greens.  This aspect is not even close to being replicated at Augusta.  Additionally, as has been pointed out previously - Augusta is bloody hilly whereas TOC has barely any elevation change.  In all honesty, if I had to pick a coruse which TOC seems to emulate it would be Woking after Patton's face-lifting. Given the connections of Patton and Low, I am surprised that the parallel has never been drawn, but then of course, Patton used ideas from TOC at Woking!

Again, I don't think Tommy Mac is saying the depression overtly changed Dr Mac's design ideas.  I think he is saying that it was difficult not to be effected by the depression in terms of efficiency and economy of design.  Given the circumstances, perhaps ANGC was the ideal product and all Dr Mac could hope for.  In others, ANGC is a product of its time and its time was the Great Depression.  These circumstances had to effect what would be built.  We know that ANGC looks VERY different to his earlier great courses.  We also know that to build the number of bunkers at ANGC as he did on the sandy sites which would in anyway reflect TOC's design style, it would have cost a fortune. 

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #114 on: October 15, 2009, 06:10:11 AM »
Wide fairways and minimal rough were common in the US in the 1920s? Bayside has no rough, Jockey & ANGC very minimal rough. Bayside and ANGC were very un-American.

It is mistake IMO to look solely at ANGC when judging the TOC comparison. Mackenzie designed Jockey, Bayside and ANGC along the same lines. Creating the humpty dumpty contours were easier at the first two than the latter due to the terrain. I do think the Depression had a major effect on Mackenzie. I can't think of an architect who made a more dramatic transition in such a short period.

I agree Paton & Low did borrow ideas from the TOC, but weren't there others who did the same.  Woking was an existing golf course that was redesigned along those lines over a long period as opposed to a completely new design. And there are number of aspects of Woking that very un-TOC too, including the trees and ravines.

TEPaul

Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #115 on: October 15, 2009, 09:41:19 AM »
"If, as I firmly believe, the Augusta National becomes the World's Wonderland Golf Course, this will be due to the original ideas that were contributed by Bob Jones."------Alister MacKenzie


Sean:

I think most appreciate that the economic depression following the Crash of 1929 was of considerable consequence to a lot of things but the question here seems to be if the economic depression was the primary reason for a change in type and style of golf architecture represented by ANGC via MacKenzie and Jones. I'd say it was one of a number of contributing factors, including some that had been brewing for a number of years (with others such as Max Behr, Low, Colt etc) before the Crash of 1929 and the economic depression that followed it.

Also in MacKenzie's book "The Spirit of St. Andrews" in the section entitled "Pioneer Architects" he goes to good length in explaining who it was who developed some of the best ideas in golf architecture, when, and what they were. A thorough reading of that section of his book should answer most of the questions on this thread unless one is inclined not to believe what Alister MacKenzie said himself about it all.

MacKenzie based much of what he said about architecture in the "Spirit of St Andrews" on a concept he referred to as "Finality" which was extremely similar to Behr's developed philosophy he referred to as "Permanent Architecture." The philosophy was based on the idea that if a club went about designing a course correctly with an educated and intelligent architect the course itself would be inured against the inclination of others to change it in the future.

Of course MacKenzie wrote about that philosophy in "The Spirit of St. Andrews" in 1933 (and Behr wrote on his philosophy of "Permanent Architecture" earlier in the 1920s and 1930s) and so one would have to admit that it is pretty ironic what happened in the future to most of the courses that represented that philosophy of MacKenzie's "Finality" and Behr's "Permanent Architecture."  ;)

The point is many of those courses representing that philosophy ("Finality and "Permanent Architecture") were as much changed in the future by both man and the forces of nature as any we are aware of.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 10:10:56 AM by TEPaul »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #116 on: October 15, 2009, 10:23:10 AM »
TEP
Did Mackenzie address finality in his 1920 book?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #117 on: October 15, 2009, 10:57:05 AM »
"If, as I firmly believe, the Augusta National becomes the World's Wonderland Golf Course, this will be due to the original ideas that were contributed by Bob Jones."------Alister MacKenzie


Sean:

I think most appreciate that the economic depression following the Crash of 1929 was of considerable consequence to a lot of things but the question here seems to be if the economic depression was the primary reason for a change in type and style of golf architecture represented by ANGC via MacKenzie and Jones. I'd say it was one of a number of contributing factors, including some that had been brewing for a number of years (with others such as Max Behr, Low, Colt etc) before the Crash of 1929 and the economic depression that followed it.

Also in MacKenzie's book "The Spirit of St. Andrews" in the section entitled "Pioneer Architects" he goes to good length in explaining who it was who developed some of the best ideas in golf architecture, when, and what they were. A thorough reading of that section of his book should answer most of the questions on this thread unless one is inclined not to believe what Alister MacKenzie said himself about it all.

MacKenzie based much of what he said about architecture in the "Spirit of St Andrews" on a concept he referred to as "Finality" which was extremely similar to Behr's developed philosophy he referred to as "Permanent Architecture." The philosophy was based on the idea that if a club went about designing a course correctly with an educated and intelligent architect the course itself would be inured against the inclination of others to change it in the future.

Of course MacKenzie wrote about that philosophy in "The Spirit of St. Andrews" in 1933 (and Behr wrote on his philosophy of "Permanent Architecture" earlier in the 1920s and 1930s) and so one would have to admit that it is pretty ironic what happened in the future to most of the courses that represented that philosophy of MacKenzie's "Finality" and Behr's "Permanent Architecture."  ;)

The point is many of those courses representing that philosophy ("Finality and "Permanent Architecture") were as much changed in the future by both man and the forces of nature as any we are aware of.

Tom P

As I stated earlier, I believe the Great Depression was a contributing factor toward Dr Mac's new-found idea of the ideal golf course as manifested at Augusta.  How much of a factor it was I cannot say, but just attracting business during this time would have involved an understanding of frugality and getting the most for least - something which I think Dr Mac was inclined toward anyway.  I could be that we (or more accurately I) misunderstand Dr Mac with his creations during the Oz and California periods.  He seemed much flashier than before or later, but that may be down to the sites he was able to work on - many of which were ideal for creating challenging and visual feasts of golf - mainly (it seems to me) by bunkering and natural beauty of the sites.

I don't seem to have a section titled Pioneer Architects.  Could you give me a page number?

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #118 on: October 15, 2009, 09:54:32 PM »
DMoriarti,

It doesn’t matter as to the number of  'bunkers' per se,  as I tried to explain.

You said   “ You keep coming back to the big bunkers like the one located on 14 and seem to be making the case that expensive bunkers like this must mean that they spared no expense. However, your argument cuts against you. If these bunkers were so expensive then it is no wonder there were only 22 of them on opening day! You wouldn't expect them to have built zero bunkers would you? Or for Mackenzie to completely abandon his style or ignore the scale of the property? Building around 1/4 or 1/5 of the usual number of bunkers seems a good way to save money, doesn't it?   Especially if they were as expensive as you imply?  “

It isn’t clear if you have looked at the photos of the bunkers,  as to size and extent of the bunkers.  It is a low number but most of the bunkers were very large, requiring quite a bit of excavation in stiff Georgia clay, and a large amount of sand.  They used sand from the Atlantic coast rather than any of the sand outcroppings and pits around Aiken.  

The size of the bunkers is part of my point, in addition to the size of the fairways and greens.   22 of the style executed at ANGC, dug out of stiff Georgia clay,    is  100 or 150 bunkers at other courses.

If I had wanted to save on bunker expense,  I would have had small strategic bunkers, perhaps 120 normal size bunkers, placed in fairways and greenside.  That would have been a big savings over the design at ANGC.   Building  1/4 or 1/5 the number but making the bunkers extremely large isn’t an economical decision.

Look at the photos of the bunkers at the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 18th, etc.    Building the 22 very large bunkers at ANGC wasn’t a good way to save money.   Might also consider the extravagant mounding at the 8th and elsewhere.

You said........” I don't think that Tom MacWood suggested that the design would be lesser for not having many bunkers. Perhaps Mackenzie and Jones produced a better product precisely because of the economic times and a constrained budget. Necessity is often the mother of invention, isn't it.  “

Money was the father of ANGC and Jones’ charisma, records, and fame came before money.  

The course desired was designed by the famous architect selected and the desired design was constructed.

Some have implied that costs somehow might have influenced the design including yourself.  You  said ........”  I've often thought that we'd get much better golf courses if designers were forced to work in shoe string budgets. So perhaps that happened here. “    It seems you just implied it again.    You implied the same by saying   " Perhaps Mackenzie and Jones produced a better product precisely because of the economic times and a constrained budget."  

That wasn’t the case for the 18 hole course at ANGC.    It wasn’t a shoe string budget.  A state of the art sprinkler system was installed.  The fairways were twice as large as the normal course. Arguably that might take twice as much preparation and seeding and money.    And in the winter,  the ‘twice as large as normal’  fairways were over seeded with rye.

The greens were twice as large, again requiring twice as much grading, seeding, labor and therefore money.

Granted they envisioned a second course, a new clubhouse, tennis courts and those items were cut,  but  ANGC as opened was the design desired.

In the depression men were working for 50 cents.  That is 50 cents a day as noted in some discussion of the labor costs at that time.  My guess is that laborers didn’t show up late or leave early more than once.  
« Last Edit: October 15, 2009, 10:07:54 PM by john_stiles »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #119 on: October 15, 2009, 11:07:48 PM »
John,

Mackenzie was using large bunkers before the depression, but was building a lot more than 22.   Surely we can agree that building 22 bunkers (some of which were large) in the Augusta clay would have been much cheaper than building four or five times that number of bunkers,  sized similarly the 22. 

Quote
If I had wanted to save on bunker expense,  I would have had small strategic bunkers, perhaps 120 normal size bunkers, placed in fairways and greenside.  That would have been a big savings over the design at ANGC.   Building  1/4 or 1/5 the number but making the bunkers extremely large isn’t an economical decision.

It is an "economical decision."   It is more economical to build 22 large bunkers than 122 large bunkers, isn't it?   And this is really the relevant comparison:  Mackenzie's approach before the depression as compared to his approach once the depression hit.   

Plus,  I am not sure it is reasonable to conclude that Macdonald was not trying to save money based on your observation that he did not build the course as you would have if you were trying to save money, especially because this would have required him to abandon his style and aesthetic and to ignore the scale of the property.

Also, I'm not sure the record supports your conclusion about money being plentiful for the project.   Not even the super rich like to spend money in tough times.  Tom MacWood has described some of the cutbacks that took place concerning the project.  Wasn't the budget cut in half?  (Someone suggested that this included cutting out a second course, but as I read the early reports the $250,000 was not intended to cover a second course.)  If "money was the father of ANGC" then it sounds like it may have been a bit of a fair weather father.   Didn't they even stiff Mackenzie out of the support payments he was due from good ol' Pop?   

As for the size of the fairways and greens and the creation of the mounding, see the articles and advertisements produced by MacWood above.  Mackenzie had figured out how to automate this process, and was creating these things at a fraction of their prior cost.   Plus, if the bunker work was as expensive as you imply, they had already saved a bundle by only building 22.

Quote
Look at the photos of the bunkers at the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 9th, 10th, 14th, 18th, etc.    Building the 22 very large bunkers at ANGC wasn’t a good way to save money.   Might also consider the extravagant mounding at the 8th and elsewhere.

Again, as compared to 4x or 5x the number of these big bunkers, it was a terrific way to save money.

______________________________

Look John, I honestly don't know specifically what budget constraints Augusta was under, and I don't think you do either.  But this was the early 1930's and it seems naive to think that somehow Mackenzie and the men behind the club (and the potential members) were completely immune from the financial difficulties and worries that much of the nation faced.   Mackenzie was faced with trying to make a living designing courses in this harsh economic environment.  Even setting Augusta's finances aside, it is impossible for me to imagine that the economic downturn did not play a role in Mackenzie's alteration of this approach to design, especially because so many of the changes seem geared toward economic efficiency. 

This is one of those strange threads where the validity of MacWood's hypothesis seems rather obvious, yet people are fighting tooth and nail to deny it.   Mackenzie would have had to have been fool not to react to the economic times.   As for Jones and Augusta, even if they could afford it, I am not so sure that a "cost-be-damned" approach would have been a prudent way to attract members or establish a positive reputation.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #120 on: October 16, 2009, 08:36:16 AM »
David,

To save money you would build 60 normal size bunkers, used sand from the Carolina midlands, halved the size of the fairways, and halved the size of the greens.

Agreed,   with cheap labor and use of machines,  they were able to build exactly the course desired and didn't compromise any ideas of building the ideal course.     

You keep on about the number of bunkers and forget the size and scope of the bunkering.

And then those who imply the  Depression affected the design considerations,  have ignored the expense of doubling the size of fairways and greens (ANGC compared to other courses) and all the maintenance that goes with those large features to be watered, mowed and fertilized.    Other little desires of Jones and MacKenzie did not reduce costs either, such as 'added costs' for shipping sand from the coast and a state of the art sprinkler system.

Their ideal course was built and nothing was compromised save the second course, new clubhouse, tennis courts, etc. and by half of the story,  MacKenzie's account,  his fee.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #121 on: October 16, 2009, 08:57:34 AM »
John
How do the largest bunkers at ANGC compare to the largest bunkers at Royal Melbourne, Cypress Point, Kingston Heath, Pastiempo, Lake Merced, etc.?

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #122 on: October 16, 2009, 11:44:14 AM »
Tom,

By some accounts,    ANGC accidently paid  50 cents per day for labor by one contract, the going rate in the depression by local accounts.     ANGC  normally paid $1 a day for labor,  twice the going rate for labor.

As to costs,  to a limited extent,  it might be summed by three words,  greens, fairways, and bunkers.     All three account for costs and expenses.     

If they had desired 44 large bunkers, or 11 large bunkers by their design or desires, that is what it would have been.     Likewise, if they wanted sand from the Carolina midlands, it would have been that sand as well. They shipped from the coast.

22 was the number of extremely large bunkers (for the most part) desired.

Mind you they were not throwing twenties out the window.    But they were not so concerned as to lessen their ideal design as it was some effort to build very large bunkers, as well as spend the capital and pay future maintenance for greens and fairways twice the size of a normal course.

Their ideal course was built.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #123 on: October 16, 2009, 12:14:13 PM »

John
How did the largest bunkers at ANGC compare to the largest bunkers at Royal Melbourne, Cypress Point, Kingston Heath, Pastiempo, Lake Merced, etc. as far their size is concerned?

john_stiles

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?
« Reply #124 on: October 16, 2009, 05:34:22 PM »
Tom,

How did the ANGC bunkers compare to another almost Depression era American course by MacKenzie ?

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.

And the land was somewhat similar to ANGC with large rolling grounds, but with a few tighter features here and there.

The most photos, hole by hole, I have seen are of Cypress.    While certainly greater in number at CP,    I'm not so sure about sq footage or cost as compared to ANGC.     Those were seaside bunkers in sandy soil, and I'm not sure where the bunker sand was derived.  

" There are two ways of widening the gap between the good tee shot and the bad one.  One is to inflict punishment upon the bad shot, to place its perpetrator in a bunker or in some other trouble which will demand the sacrifice of a stroke in recovering. The other, is to reward the good shot by making the second shot simplier in proportion to the excellence of the drive. In this way, upon the long well placed drive - possibly the one which has dared an impressive bunker - is conferred the greatest benefit;  but shots of less excellance are still left with the opportunity to retrieve their fortune by bringing off an exceptionally fine second. " -  Bobby Jones

The quote seems to speak 'generally' to fewer bunkers in GCA,  or maybe his wallet.    Not sure which, but I have a feeling it isn't his wallet.   ;)
« Last Edit: October 16, 2009, 05:49:41 PM by john_stiles »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back