[Kalen Braley]

I think unless there is any concrete evidence that Mr. Jones was either :

1) <Insert high profile name, dog-and-pony show, shows up for opening ceremonies golfer here> architect.

or

2)  A Ben Crenshaw, hands-in-the-dirt, lives and breathes this stuff, type of architect.

.....All of this is just speculation.  I've seen a lot of posts so far but nothing to really cement firmly that that he was either/or.

[TEPaul]

"And by the way the question on this thread is who was responsible for the concept at ANGC - Jones or Mackenzie, not Jones or Mackenzie or Behr. If you want to discuss Berh you should start a new thread."


Not really. You have said on this thread a number of times that it is both very clear and very obvious that MacKenzie came up with this idea at ANGC of very minimal bunkering, and you use as your only reason his Jockey Club and Bayside.

I have only said that the idea was probably not originated by MacKenzie at The Jockey Club and Bayside, and that it appears to have come from others and before that and for that reason alone it could've been either MacKenzie OR Jones who got that idea for ANGC from someone else and decided to apply it at ANGC.

[TEPaul]

Kalen:

Your #175 and its points #1 and #2 is a good one.

What I am saying on here, and have said throughout, particularly to Tom MacWood, is that I do not believe that it is as 'obvious' and 'very clear' as MacWood has been saying it is that it was MacKenzie who brought this idea of very minimal bunkering to ANGC and also primarily for the reasons he (MacWood) has supplied (primarily only the economic realities of the depression of the 1930s). That may have been A reason but not necessarily a primary reason. I have always thought there are other reasons and some very fascinating ones than just that one.

Again, I'm not saying that the idea of minimal bunkering at ANGC was Jones' idea; I am only saying it could've been because it really isn't that "obvious" or "clear" that it was MacKenzie for a number of other reasons, including the reason that either MacKenzie OR Jones could've gotten the idea from others and perhaps at some point quite some time BEFORE ANGC and the economic depression of the 1930s.

If either of them had read Behr's June 1925 article "The Nature and Use of Penalty in Golf Architecture" which I'm pretty confident they would have considering where it was published as well as the fact they both knew him then, they could not have failed to understand what it was saying in this particular vein. Frankly, for all we know Behr might have picked up many of the ideas in his article "The Nature and Use of Penalty in Golf Architecture" including its ideas on the necessity of avoiding redundant bunkering or certain types of bunker arrangements, from Mackenzie OR Jones or a number of others at that time (1925)!

[Niall C]

I'm not sure about using the word genius to describe any golf course architect   but if I was looking for the genius of an architect between Jones and MacKenzie it would undoubtedly be Mackenzie. No doubt Jones would have some input and expressed some ideas but it would have been Mackenzie who would have made those ideas work and made the whole course work. From what I understand, ANGC didn't open as a work in progress, it was a fully functioning championship course which gathered good reviews from the outset. Could MacKenzie have done it without Jones, undoubtedly. It might have been a different course in some (small) ways but it would likely have been the very same high standard. Could Jones have done it without MacKenzie or indeed any other architect ? Not likely.

Niall

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul,  You ignored the questions in  my post from above.   If you have a case to make for Behr, then make it.   Quit reading us the same quote again and again as if Mackenzie's using Behr as an example in 1933 establishes whatever point you are trying to establish.   It is NOT Tom Macwood's job to disprove your baseless pontifications because there is nothing of substance to disprove.  

I've copied my post above and highlighted the questions which need answering if you want to support your theory.  

In 1933 Mackenzie gave Behr as an example of someone who was building quality courses with less bunkers.  So what?   You cannot conclude from this that Behr must have been behind Mackenzie's more economical approach toward creating golf courses.  As is often the case, you take what is barely the kernel of an idea, one more based on more of an allusion or an assumption than on any real support, and yet expect us to treat it like a full blown thesis that has been fully articulated and proven.   And so, we aren't ignoring your theory.  There isn't enough substance behind your theory for us to even ignore it.   Give us a theory supported by facts and we might not ignore it.    

Isn't it about time you realized that this is not really the place for pontificating wildly without bothering to even try to support your off-the-cuff notions?   Off-the-cuff pontifications add little value to the discussion, especially when you repeatedly demand that we acknowledge them.  If you have a case to make, make it.  If you have a theory to present, present it, with support.   But so far you haven't even remotely begun to do so.  Let me help:
- What courses of Max Behr's is Mackenzie referring to?  
- Were they alterations or originals?
- How many bunkers did they really have?
- What were the size of the bunkers?
- Why did they have so few bunkers?
- When were they built?
- When did Mackenzie see them?
- What did Mackenzie and others write about them elsewhere?  
- What did Behr write about these courses?
- How do you know it was Behr who was influencing Mackenzie, and not someone else or the other way around.
- What about all the others who had been advocating a judicious use of bunkers, from the turn of the century on?
- What about the fact that Mackenzie also points to his own work when talking about reducing the number of bunkers?
- What about the fact that Mackenzie had been writing about the judicious use of bunkers for decades?

Also, there appear to be more immediate explanations for Mackenzie's change.   The depression and his sudden focus on the economical creation and maintenance  for one thing.    A logical extension (in the extreme) of his own ideas on hazards, rough, and naturalism for another.   Plus their are others who may well have influenced him.   Take for example, his own design partner, Perry Maxwell.    Maxwell claimed their were only six man-made bunkers at his Holston Hills, and that the entire 18 hole course cost $3,000 per year to maintain.  He also claimed that courses needed only 20-25 artificial bunkers.   I may be mistaken but I believe that it preceded any of Behr's design work.   What of these influences?

So, Tom, if you want to make a case for Behr as the progenitor of all things good in golf design, then do some research and make your case.   Enough with the idle speculation and sonorous pontification.

By the way, Tom, I've read his work but I've only played a few Max Behr courses so I am not an expert on Max Behr like you.   How many Max Behr courses have you played?    The reason I ask is because there seems to be a disconnect between what you write about him and my understanding of what was actually in the ground.

[DMoriarty]

I think unless there is any concrete evidence that Mr. Jones was either :

1) <Insert high profile name, dog-and-pony show, shows up for opening ceremonies golfer here> architect.

or

2)  A Ben Crenshaw, hands-in-the-dirt, lives and breathes this stuff, type of architect.

.....All of this is just speculation.  I've seen a lot of posts so far but nothing to really cement firmly that that he was either/or.

Kalen, of course we will never know for sure, but such is the nature of historical research.   But it is not ALL speculation.   Tom MacWood has produced a number of documents and facts to support his theory, and I have contributed a few, and David Stamm and a few others have referenced us to many more.  Doak's book is also useful on the subject.  

On the other hand, we have what seems like little more than a stubborn desire to hang on to what has been the conventional wisdom with few if any facts offered.   There are a few quotes, one from Mackenzie and one from Jones, but both are being stretched well past any reasonable breaking point and nothing is being offered to support the speculative assumptions being drawn from these quotes.

Does this mean that Tom MacWood's theory is correct?  Of course not.  But as discussions go, this is about as lopsided as they get, with only one side actually attempting to prove up their position.    Of course the other side will never budge, regardless of the facts, but I have learned quite a bit from this thread, even if some have learned nothing.

[TEPaul]

"Does this mean that Tom MacWood's theory is correct?  Of course not."


If one is merely considering Tom MacWood's theory that it was MacKenzie who came up with the idea of the minimal bunkering ANGC was originally built with I could not agree more with the statement above. That is all I've been saying. I have not said I am sure it was Jones who came up with the idea of minimal bunkering for ANGC only that it could have been him. Tom MacWood, on the other hand, has said numerous times on here he thinks it is completely 'obvious' and 'very clear' that it was Mackenzie, so obviously he believes he is correct about that and that it virtually could not have been Jones.

The point of who first came up with minimal bunkering in golf architecture has also been discussed as certainly seems appropriate to me as it very well may've inspired MacKenzie or Jones at any point in time and perhaps considerably BEFORE ANGC was designed and constructed. If one gets an idea for a project there is certainly nothing in the history of golf and architecture to say they must or must have acted on it immediately!

That is basically the sum and substance of what I have been saying on here about JUST the issue of the minimal bunkering of ANGC or the concept and application of minimal bunkering in golf architecture period, particularly as some type of ideal!

It is interesting to me though that the initial post on this thread was from Tiger Bernhardt and clearly he meant to suggest more than just minimal bunkering at ANGC (which MacWood seems to have inserted onto this thread with his examples of The Jockey Club and Bayside and the economic realities of both as explained by Mackenzie in a letter or whatever to some man from the Scarlett Course of Ohio State).

It is also interesting that after his initial post I don't see that Tiger Bernhardt returned to this thread. I can't say I blame him!  

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,  You ignored the questions in  my post from above."


Yes, I did indeed. I read them and I am sorry to tell you, my boy, that I will continue to ignore them. As for the reasons why, that should be pretty clear to most, even including you. Why don't we just agree to a discussionary policy between us somewhat similiar to one in our US Military---eg "Don't Ask/Don't tell." If Obama decides to abolish that policy in our military maybe I will reconsider answering questions you ask me on here-----but perhaps not even then.  

[Kalen Braley]

I think unless there is any concrete evidence that Mr. Jones was either :

1) <Insert high profile name, dog-and-pony show, shows up for opening ceremonies golfer here> architect.

or

2)  A Ben Crenshaw, hands-in-the-dirt, lives and breathes this stuff, type of architect.

.....All of this is just speculation.  I've seen a lot of posts so far but nothing to really cement firmly that that he was either/or.

Kalen, of course we will never know for sure, but such is the nature of historical research.   But it is not ALL speculation.   Tom MacWood has produced a number of documents and facts to support his theory, and I have contributed a few, and David Stamm and a few others have referenced us to many more.  Doak's book is also useful on the subject.  

On the other hand, we have what seems like little more than a stubborn desire to hang on to what has been the conventional wisdom with few if any facts offered.   There are a few quotes, one from Mackenzie and one from Jones, but both are being stretched well past any reasonable breaking point and nothing is being offered to support the speculative assumptions being drawn from these quotes.

Does this mean that Tom MacWood's theory is correct?  Of course not.  But as discussions go, this is about as lopsided as they get, with only one side actually attempting to prove up their position.    Of course the other side will never budge, regardless of the facts, but I have learned quite a bit from this thread, even if some have learned nothing.

David,

I agree in principle with your last post.....and yes you are right, it hasn't all been speculative.  Forming theories based on solid facts is good process and even I think Dr. MacK probably had a higher % of input than did Mr. Jones, but thats only my opinion at best.  Its likely that what that % was is the real debate at play here.

Kalen

I think this is an interesting thread otherwise and

[DMoriarty]

"Does this mean that Tom MacWood's theory is correct?  Of course not."

If one is merely considering Tom MacWood's theory that it was MacKenzie who came up with the idea of the minimal bunkering ANGC was originally built with I could not agree more with the statement above.

Not surprisingly, you took my sentence out of context.   The fact that Tom MacWood is supporting his theory with facts does not necessarily mean that it is correct.  But it necessarily means that you are well overmatched in this discussion.   As for whether Tom MacWood is correct, that   depends upon the supporting facts.    And the facts indicate that Mackenzie had already gone into a cost saving mode and was using minimal bunkering BEFORE ANGC, and this is compelling evidence that his theory is correct.  

"Tom Paul,  You ignored the questions in  my post from above."


Yes, I did indeed. I read them and I am sorry to tell you, my boy, that I will continue to ignore them. As for the reasons why, that should be pretty clear to most, even including you. Why don't we just agree to a discussionary policy between us somewhat similiar to one in our US Military---eg "Don't Ask/Don't tell." If Obama decides to abolish that policy in our military maybe I will reconsider answering questions you ask me on here-----but perhaps not even then.  

Tom.  I am not your "boy."  

Keep ignoring my questions if you like, but I'll write what I want.   You are wasting space on this thread, and have absolutely nothing of substance to offer.   Why not step aside for those willing and capable of dealing in facts and supporting their positions?

_________________________________

Kalen,  It is not "only your opinion" it is your opinion based on the many facts that have been presented and whatever else you brought to the table.   Our opinions are all we deal in here, and the only opinions that should be ignored or disregarded are those that aren't based on anything tangible or factual.     We are all of course entitled to our opinions whether supported or not, but unsupported opinions have no place in an actual discussion aimed at achieving a better understanding.  

I think X. Why do you think X?  I just do.  I am entitled to my opinion.   Yes you are but upon what is your opinion based?   My opinion is my opinion.  But what about Y?   Not Y. I think X, and I am entitled to my opinion.    Why not Y?  Just not.

In my opinion that sort of discussion is unproductive.   For example, see TEPaul's opinions expressed in this thread.

[TEPaul]

My opinion on the over-all origination or evolution of the idea of minimal bunkering in golf course architecture is based on a statement of Alister MacKenzie in his own book, "The Spirit of St. Andrews."

Perhaps some or one on here thinks that is only my opinion and I'm not supporting it with anything but since this subject and thread has to do with Alister MacKenzie (among other things) I feel what I have offered about what he had to say on the subject in his own words in his own book is pretty relevent.  

Apparently some or at least one on here don't seem to think it is!    

Oh well.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,

In your opinion Max Behr as the progenitor of Mackenzie's approach at ANGC.  You've written that repeatedly.  But if all you have is that single quote as support, then it is hardly worthy of response.  The quote you offer doesn't support your opinion, at least not to any reasonable degree. Mackenzie didn't say the ideas came from Behr.  He merely held Behr up as an example of one who had designed good courses with limited use of bunkers.

So let's see you move beyond the quote and support your opinion.   Or try to support it.  

- What courses of Max Behr's is Mackenzie referring to?  
- Were they alterations or originals?
- How many bunkers did they really have?
- What were the size of the bunkers?
- Why did they have so few bunkers?
- When were they built?
- When did Mackenzie see them?
- What did Mackenzie and others write about them elsewhere?  
- What did Behr write about these courses?
- How do you know it was Behr who was influencing Mackenzie, and not someone else or the other way around.
- What about all the others who had been advocating a judicious use of bunkers, from the turn of the century on?
- What about the fact that Mackenzie also points to his own work when talking about reducing the number of bunkers?
- What about the fact that Mackenzie had been writing about the judicious use of bunkers for decades?
What of other influences? Maxwell for example?

How many Max Behr courses have you played?
Of the courses of Behr's you have played, are their any similarities to ANGC?

Quit pontificating and start discussing.   Quit speculating and start trying to offer support.

[Tom MacWood]

My opinion on the over-all origination or evolution of the idea of minimal bunkering in golf course architecture is based on a statement of Alister MacKenzie in his own book, "The Spirit of St. Andrews."

Perhaps some or one on here thinks that is only my opinion and I'm not supporting it with anything but since this subject and thread has to do with Alister MacKenzie (among other things) I feel what I have offered about what he had to say on the subject in his own words in his own book is pretty relevent.  

Apparently some or at least one on here don't seem to think it is!    

Oh well.

TEP
Yes you offered us a statement, a statement you took completely out of context. First you were telling us Jones was the genius, now you have shifted to Behr, next you'll be telling us Joshua Crane, and by the end of this I reckon Herbert Leeds, George Crump and Hugh Wilson will be given their just deserves.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Yes you offered us a statement, a statement you took completely out of context."


Tom MacWood:

I didn't take MacKenzie's statement from his own book on Behr and what MacKenzie said about him and minimal bunkering out of context at all. I offered Mackenzie's statement exactly and precisely as he said it in his own book (you are the one who added "IN QUOTES" to MacKenzie's STATEMENT from his own book your own interpretation of what YOU THINK he meant! If you want to try to shift your interpretation of what YOU think his context meant that is your good right and opninon but I do not agree with it at all or with you for trying to do something that deflective. If you are going to QUOTE MacKenzie, then do it EXACTLY as I did and YOU DID NOT!


"First you were telling us Jones was the genius,"

I never said a thing like that on this thread even if you tried to make it look like I did with your endless questions which have an interesting way of turning into statement from others such as myself.

"now you have shifted to Behr,"

I shifted to Behr because both MacKenzie and Jones knew him well as far back as some of Behr's seminal writing on this very subject which clearly they would have read, considered and probably discussed with him!

"next you'll be telling us Joshua Crane, and by the end of this I reckon Herbert Leeds, George Crump and Hugh Wilson will be given their just deserves."


WHICH, Tom MacWood, they ALL probably deserve to some extent in the entire tapestry of the evolution of golf architectural development.

AND, by the way, it is "their just deserts" not 'their just deserves.'  

Frankly, for a cat who tries to call himself an expert architectural researcher/historian/writer like you have constantly on this website your ability to write and express yourself on this website is nigh on ILLEGIBLE and ILLITERAL. What it definitely isn't is UNDERSTANDBLE! What is that all about Tom MacWood?      



"One of the problems you have (and frankly Bob does too) in interpreting these comments is your lack of knowledge of Mackenzie and Berh's design careers."


If you really want to make comments on here like that one, Tom MacWood, I'm going to have to tell you that you will never be in the same universe with actually ANALYZING this kind of stuff compared to Bob Crosby! Sorry Pal, you can dream and you can try to blatently promote yourself, which you surely have done and do, but that's about the size of it! Your ability to analyze is sophomoric at best. Crosby is in a whole different place in analytical ability than you are or ever have been!.

Sorry, guy, but that's the God's Honest Truth. 
 
 

[Tom MacWood]

On the idea, concept or application of minimal bunkering in golf architecture I wonder why this interesting remark from Alister MacKenzie HIMSLEF in his own manuscript from 1933 (same time as all the articles and opening referred to on here on ANGC and its minimal bunkering was taking place) is being ignored and overlooked on this thread and this discussion!  



"You might specify, for example, that a contractor should construct a couple of hundred bunkers, but the worth of a golf course is not measured in terms of sand traps.
          When we advised the Royal Sydney and Australian Golf Clubs, we suggested that they shoulld convert over one hundred sand hazards on each course into grassy hollows, and I do not think we put in more than ten new ones in their place. Since these alterations have been carried out I am informed these courses have not only become more pleasurable and interesting but also better tests of golf. Max Behr has succeeded in making better golf courses with a dozen bunkers than any contractor could hope to do with hundreds of them."



Obviously the appropriate question to this particular thread's subject (or one of them---eg the origination of minimal bunkering) is whether MacKenzie is referring to architectural work with very minimal bunkering Behr did BEFORE the economic depression of the 1930s and before MacKenzie's Jockey Club or Bayside? If so that would sort of take out MacKenzie as the originator of that particular idea as it would take out the economic depression of the 1930s as the primary REASON for that idea, concept and application!


"Timelining" is a real bitch, isn't it?  

TEP
Timelining? You thought you were on to something as a result of taking this quote completely out of context. You thought this was proof Mackenzie was practicing minimal bunkering before the Depression. But the truth is Mackenzie's Australian courses were among his most heavily bunkered, including Royal Sidney and the Australian GC.

Golf architecture history is really not your strength. You like to pretend that it is, but in reality your knowledge is very limited, which is why you are so often wrong. You don't know much about Mackenzie's architecture, or Behr's for that matter, and that is why you misunderstood the quote above and you've avoided addressing David's questions like the swine flu.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
By the way you may be interested to know I'm in the process of presenting an alternative view on Bob's Behr-Crane opinion piece. I'm adding quite a bit of new information in the way of my own footnotes to his essay -- a sort of essay within an essay -- and as a result, hopefully, I will be giving everyone a much different perspective of those events.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
By the way you may be interested to know I'm in the process of presenting an alternative view on Bob's Behr-Crane opinion piece. I'm adding quite a bit of new information in the way of my own footnotes to his essay -- a sort of essay within an essay -- and as a result, hopefully, I will be giving everyone a much different perspective of those events."


Tom MacWood:

Of course I'm interested. I think the so-called Crane-Behr debate was really seminal or certainly the subject of the debate was and is. I feel it was never particularly well joined and debated by the two of them (for reasons that are both understandable but nevertheless unfortunate) even though the fact of it probably did inspire some very important books and writing from Behr and others. I'm sure we all look forward to whatever new information you may produce. That area you have always been very good with; it is an accurate analysis of the subjects you deal with I have always felt you are not good with. It would probably be better for all if you just admitted up front to your often limited and slanted approach and outlook and then just run with it in your essays. Even if your approach and outlook I feel is generally limited and slanted it can nonetheless be an interesting presentation but only if you admit to it first. To date I don't believe you ever have or have been willing to. I think that's unfortunate.

[TEPaul]

"You thought this was proof Mackenzie was practicing minimal bunkering before the Depression. But the truth is Mackenzie's Australian courses were among his most heavily bunkered, including Royal Sidney and the Australian GC."


I never said or remotely implied MacKenzie was practicing minimal bunkering before the Depression. That you say that is just another in a long line of instances where you apparently either don't read what is written on here or you just don't understand it properly. What I did say is it appears from what MacKenzie said in his "The Spirit of St. Andrews" that others had come up with the idea of minimal bunkering and likely before the Depression. One he mentioned was Behr.


"and you've avoided addressing David's questions like the swine flu."


In my opinion, his questions are inconsequential and diversionary (certainly in his last post to me). They look to me like an hysterical "20 question set" of a frustrated semi-failed lawyer whose last gasp effort is to try to show someone he can actually make an argument. Responding to them or him with his anatagonism is a real waste of time and it serves no purpose other than to perpetuate thoroughly irrelevent arguments.

[DMoriarty]

Tom Paul, 

My questions are the kind and type that you ought to consider if you want to make a case that Behr was responsible for what you claim he was.    Your avoidance of the questions is not a surprise, because answering them would require more than just babbling.  I am not sure I remember the last time you bothered to go beyond hollow pontifications to actually offer anything of substance.  How did you ever manage to gather the Behr documents to even read them?  Let me guess . . . someone did all that for you, and all you have done is blow smoke? 

As for the rest, you prattle on about that which you know nothing.  Naturally.   But you shouldn't deflect your own self-loathing onto me.  Over a year ago you vowed to begin behaving more like your father.  How is that going for you? 

Here again are my questions. 

- What courses of Max Behr's is Mackenzie referring to? 
- Were they alterations or originals?
- How many bunkers did they really have?
- What were the size of the bunkers?
- Why did they have so few bunkers?
- When were they built?
- When did Mackenzie see them?
- What did Mackenzie and others write about them elsewhere? 
- What did Behr write about these courses?
- How do you know it was Behr who was influencing Mackenzie, and not someone else or the other way around.
- What about all the others who had been advocating a judicious use of bunkers, from the turn of the century on?
- What about the fact that Mackenzie also points to his own work when talking about reducing the number of bunkers?
- What about the fact that Mackenzie had been writing about the judicious use of bunkers for decades?
- What of other influences? Maxwell for example?
- How many Max Behr courses have you played?
- Of the courses of Behr's you have played, are their any similarities to ANGC?

Surely you ought to at least try to support your speculation.  Otherwise why are you here? 

[Tom MacWood]

"TEP
By the way you may be interested to know I'm in the process of presenting an alternative view on Bob's Behr-Crane opinion piece. I'm adding quite a bit of new information in the way of my own footnotes to his essay -- a sort of essay within an essay -- and as a result, hopefully, I will be giving everyone a much different perspective of those events."


Tom MacWood:

Of course I'm interested. I think the so-called Crane-Behr debate was really seminal or certainly the subject of the debate was and is. I feel it was never particularly well joined and debated by the two of them (for reasons that are both understandable but nevertheless unfortunate) even though the fact of it probably did inspire some very important books and writing from Behr and others. I'm sure we all look forward to whatever new information you may produce. That area you have always been very good with; it is an accurate analysis of the subjects you deal with I have always felt you are not good with. It would probably be better for all if you just admitted up front to your often limited and slanted approach and outlook and then just run with it in your essays. Even if your approach and outlook I feel is generally limited and slanted it can nonetheless be an interesting presentation but only if you admit to it first. To date I don't believe you ever have or have been willing to. I think that's unfortunate.

TEP
IMO the Crane-Behr debate was minor blip on the radar though it remains to be seen if my analysis will be more compelling than Bob's, but at least I will put my money where my mouth is (as did Bob). In other words I don't get on here and make blanket statements that someone's analysis is faulty, I produce something substantive that others can read and decide on their own. To my knowledge you have not produced anything, not a single essay or counter essay, and it is probably just as well.

Speaking of putting money where your mouth is are you going to be addressing David's questions?

[Tom MacWood]

"You thought this was proof Mackenzie was practicing minimal bunkering before the Depression. But the truth is Mackenzie's Australian courses were among his most heavily bunkered, including Royal Sidney and the Australian GC."


I never said or remotely implied MacKenzie was practicing minimal bunkering before the Depression. That you say that is just another in a long line of instances where you apparently either don't read what is written on here or you just don't understand it properly. What I did say is it appears from what MacKenzie said in his "The Spirit of St. Andrews" that others had come up with the idea of minimal bunkering and likely before the Depression. One he mentioned was Behr.

TEP
Were you under the impression Mackenzie was referring to a Behr design with a dozen bunkers?

[TEPaul]

“TEP
IMO the Crane-Behr debate was minor blip on the radar though it remains to be seen if my analysis will be more compelling than Bob's,….”


Tom MacWood:

I realize what your opinion is on the so-called Crane-Behr debate because you have expressed your opinion on it on this website before in the past and you said before you thought it was a minor blip on the radar and the thing was essentially nothing much more than a brouhaha over the low rating by Crane of TOC. I don’t agree with your opinion on that and judging from Bob Crosby’s excellent essay on here on the subject (which I very much do agree with) he doesn’t agree with you either.



“TEP
Were you under the impression Mackenzie was referring to a Behr design with a dozen bunkers?”


I was referring to the remark MacKenzie made in his own book “The Spirit of St. Andrews.”  I quoted it on here a few time but if you missed it or don’t understand it you can read it for yourself in his book. It’s towards the top of page 34.

About me answering Moriarty’s frustrated “20 question” response, I believe I already answered your question about that, probably a couple of times, and so I fail to see why you keep asking it.

[Neil_Crafter]

I have been away for a couple of weeks and have just read the continuation of what was only a 2 page thread when I left. I just thought I'd add a little more in the way of original source material - in this case it is Mackenzie's description of the course from the 1934 tournament program. He is lavish in his praise of Jones - as one would expect in a description of this sort - but also discusses the influence of TOC and other great holes. Reading the program in detail, with its hole descriptions by Mackenzie, he gives the holes that influenced the design, only a few of which are from TOC, with many from his own designs including holes at Cypress and his own ideal hole that won the Country Life competition. So TOC was not the only influence. Also interesting to note the names of the influential architects he lists - CB Macdonald, Max Behr and Robert Hunter.

While my name was intoned by David M as being some sort of an authority, yes I have done a lot of research on Mackenzie. My view is that Mackenzie's designs were altered by the circumstances of the depression and by his meeting up with Wendell Miller who could mechanize the construction process and deliver completed courses very rapidly. In fact in his designs for the two courses at the Jockey Club he would have preferred them to be bunkerless but threw in a few bunkers to keep the client happy because they expected some bunkers.

I have also included the plan of the course from the 1934 program as I think John S asked if there were any other plans from this period. It is difficult though given how the plan is drawn to clearly determine the number of bunkers. This plan was not drawn by Mackenzie.

[Phil_the_Author]

Neil,

Fabulous post of article and sketch. Would it be possible to also post the rest of the article that describes each of the holes?

[Neil_Crafter]

Thanks Philip
I will endeavour to do so when I get some time. There are quite a few pages of them. Perspective renderings of each green plus a small plan and Mackenzie's hole descriptions.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()