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.


Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #25 on: December 01, 2009, 10:43:57 PM »
Warwick,

Interesting re MacKenzie.  John Lovell in his book actually calls out MacKenzie as having visited in 1902.  Strange he changed his mind.  There was also a history of the Flinders Golf Club that I have seen that also has MacKenzie visiting in 1902.  Interesting that if it was JB Mackenzie he obviously had an interest in golf course architecture as well.

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #26 on: December 01, 2009, 10:54:03 PM »
Has anyone been able to document any influence Mackenzie had on the Morcoms' bunkers? Are there any before AM and after AM photographs in Melbourne?

Warwick Loton

Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #27 on: December 01, 2009, 11:31:37 PM »
Warwick,

Interesting re MacKenzie.  John Lovell in his book actually calls out MacKenzie as having visited in 1902.  Strange he changed his mind.  There was also a history of the Flinders Golf Club that I have seen that also has MacKenzie visiting in 1902.  Interesting that if it was JB Mackenzie he obviously had an interest in golf course architecture as well.

Brian,

You're quite right that various documentary accounts have been published along those lines. John Lovell believes that he learned the truth after putting his book to press.

John advised me that Royal Melbourne's inaugural club champion, David M Maxwell esq. owned the Guest House at Flinders, and was friends with J.B. Mackenzie. This J.B. Mackenzie visited him at Flinders and redesigned the course there. Somehow the story later developed that Maxwell's wife, nee Rebecca Valantine, had been a cousin of our Dr Alister Mackenzie, and that it was this MacKenzie who had visited in 1902.

All of that detail aside, I can give you the names of people to contact at RM and at Flinders GC if you want verification. (Email or PM me if you want this.)

Let me add that while I've never met John in person, I understand that we all owe him a great debt of gratitude. He worked like a Trojan researching Alister MacKenzie's time in Australia, the Morcoms etc, and has been extremely generous in sharing his knowledge and documentary finds with interested researchers. Although he gets little credit, stuff he unearthed has traveled to far flung parts of the globe, and been valuable to many researchers.
« Last Edit: December 01, 2009, 11:34:16 PM by Warwick Loton »

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #28 on: December 02, 2009, 01:18:19 AM »
Mackenzie spent the better part of a week down at Flinders, he stayed at the St Andrews Guest House there. He consulted for 2 days to the Flinders club and it is believed he spent the remainder of the week having R&R. A rumour from down that way even suggests Mackenzie spent the R&R with a "lady friend". I am pretty certain he never visited any of the other courses down that way.

I do not know what bunkers Mick Morcom might have built prior to Mackenzie's visit apart from Royal Melbourne's Sandringham course. As the "curator" he had been involved naturally in the many changes that had taken place to the Sandringham course, including bunkers prior to 1926. He would have built these but probably only had a small say in how they were to look - knowing committees, or in RM's case "The Council". Of course Morcom built Kingston Heath but it was unbunkered when Mackenzie arrived so there is no pre-Mac Morcom bunkering there. I think it is a bit of a futile chase really to try and see if there was a "Morcom" bunkering style prior to Oct 1926. I doubt if there is anything really to compare to apart from Sandringham.

As for Mac's supposed visit to Flinders in 1902, the thought was that he travelled as a ship's doctor out to Australia. I have not seen any evidence at all to support this, it was certainly a nice story but that may be all it was. I wasn't able to find any evidence in the British arrivals of him coming back, doesn't mean he didn't go of course.

Anyway, here's a few pics of RM 5 West over the years from 1933, 1960 and 2002. Interesting to see the changes to the bunkering. A lot of modifications to the bunkering at RM were done by Claude Crockford over his time there.
Neil






Mike_Clayton

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2009, 01:55:15 AM »
Brian,

All the courses were designed well after MacKenzie's visit.
Spring Valley was about 1950
Rosanna and Grange East were in the 60s.

J.B Mackenzie is credited with the original design of Metropolitan.


Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2009, 02:46:42 AM »
Neil,

Clayts has the "Shell's Wonderful World of Golf" tape of the match at Royal between Peter Thompson and Gary Player.  It's very interesting to look at the differences in the course and particularly the bunkering in that.  It appears a fair bit shallower in many places, which is perhaps to be expected given we've had 47 years of guys digging sand out of them with wedges since it was filmed.

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2009, 02:49:41 AM »
Brian
I have seen bits of that but never the whole thing. Nice. Is it on DVD?

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #32 on: December 02, 2009, 03:21:35 AM »
Mackenzie spent the better part of a week down at Flinders, he stayed at the St Andrews Guest House there. He consulted for 2 days to the Flinders club and it is believed he spent the remainder of the week having R&R. A rumour from down that way even suggests Mackenzie spent the R&R with a "lady friend". I am pretty certain he never visited any of the other courses down that way.

I do not know what bunkers Mick Morcom might have built prior to Mackenzie's visit apart from Royal Melbourne's Sandringham course. As the "curator" he had been involved naturally in the many changes that had taken place to the Sandringham course, including bunkers prior to 1926. He would have built these but probably only had a small say in how they were to look - knowing committees, or in RM's case "The Council". Of course Morcom built Kingston Heath but it was unbunkered when Mackenzie arrived so there is no pre-Mac Morcom bunkering there. I think it is a bit of a futile chase really to try and see if there was a "Morcom" bunkering style prior to Oct 1926. I doubt if there is anything really to compare to apart from Sandringham.

As for Mac's supposed visit to Flinders in 1902, the thought was that he travelled as a ship's doctor out to Australia. I have not seen any evidence at all to support this, it was certainly a nice story but that may be all it was. I wasn't able to find any evidence in the British arrivals of him coming back, doesn't mean he didn't go of course.

Anyway, here's a few pics of RM 5 West over the years from 1933, 1960 and 2002. Interesting to see the changes to the bunkering. A lot of modifications to the bunkering at RM were done by Claude Crockford over his time there.
Neil







Neil

The difference between the three photos is incredible.  There appears to be serious differences in depth of the bunkers - the faces look far more steep today than the '33 version.  The other big difference is vegetation.  That entire waste area to the rear of the green is buried and we can no longer see up the hill to the left or parts of the left bunkers.  Sadly, that path cutting through the current version really doesn't look good.  I spose this tidy look explains the loss of whispy grass as well.  I know the boxed presentation of photos makes these things look much worse than they are, but ...  Interestingly, the actual shaping style looks quite consistent throughout all the versions. 

Thanks all, this is an excellent conversation!

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Brian Walshe

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #33 on: December 02, 2009, 03:25:49 AM »
Neil,

Clayts had it on VHS and there is a site on the web where you can order all the episodes, but they appear to still be VHS.  It wouldn't be hard to burn a DVD off the tape...........

Leo Barber

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #34 on: December 02, 2009, 03:37:24 AM »
Russell had relatively few new 18 hole courses in his resume - as follows:

RM West (with Mackenzie)
RM East (solo)
Yarra Yarra (solo)
Lake Karrinyup (solo)
Paraparaumu Beach NZ (solo)



Neil

You have emitted Cottesloe amongst Russells credits.  Have I been mislead to understand that this was one of his albeit unrecognisable these days due to the influence of the clubs favourtite son?

Leo Barber

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #35 on: December 02, 2009, 04:39:15 AM »


Anyway, here's a few pics of RM 5 West over the years from 1933, 1960 and 2002. Interesting to see the changes to the bunkering. A lot of modifications to the bunkering at RM were done by Claude Crockford over his time there.
Neil








Neil, good to see Crockford has popped up in the discussion.  If these photos show anything (and they are fantastic) its that a golf course evolves with time assisted by the various influences of both man and nature.  It often poses an interesting question when considering so called restoration projects - who's work does one restore to and to what degree or period.  If you were to restore Morcoms original bunkers here on 5w would you remove Crockfords tongues, splash some sand around outside of the edges like a youthful Steve Britton over exuberant with his rake or even perhaps return some of that sand that was lost via natural erosion in the course of its function during the Williams and Porter years thus raising the base several feet?  Possibly not.  RM has been blest with some wonderful individuals over its evolution, many of those who fortunately spent more than three weeks in attendance.

Danny Goss

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #36 on: December 02, 2009, 05:42:16 AM »

I have a sneaking suspicion that only 200 were printed and I know where at least 4 are  :)

I only know of 2 people with copies of Crockford's book and my guess is there are only about 200 of those as well.  Matty???


Brian, My copy (signed) of Crockfords book states it is number 67 of 1000 printed - wonder where the rest are?

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #37 on: December 02, 2009, 06:05:50 AM »
Thanks to one and all for a wonderful discussion.
The comments and images are great and very educational.

No doubt the Morcoms were instrumental in delivering what we love about the Sandbelt. Perhaps the best indication of the family's skill and effort is the presence of 3 names, MacKenzie, Russell and Morcom, one after the other, in same font and size, on the plaque outside Royal Melbourne, beside the horse drawn scoop and plough used to build the course.

Brian Walshe - You're right - The John Scarth Book is either limited to 500 or 1000. The book by Claude Crockford is similarly rare, with 1000 copies (I think?). John Scarth's contact details are listed inside the book, and he might have a final few copies left. Perhaps you could post the details here, so interested parties could buy a copy?

Indeed, both texts are wonderful, and a valuable edition to an serious Melbourne archie nerd's library :)

Ian Andrews -

Others will no doubt chime in here, but although we agree that the Sandbelt is a wonderful region of study for bunkering, there are quite different bunkering styles throughout the original construction examples remaining on the sandbelt. It's difficult to assign a tag to the bunkering style, be it "Morcom", "Melbourne", "Sandbelt", or something else, as they do differ considerably, both within individual courses, and across courses in the region. Some similarities exist between Charles Lane's construction of some Commonwealth bunkers, and the odd bunker at Kingston Heath, as well as a number at RM (East and West). Yet, there's considerable difference between bunkering at Royal Melbourne, Victoria, Woodlands, and Metropolitan.

While Kingston Heath's bunkering is wonderful, I feel the zenith is Royal Melbourne's best examples, especially where bunker edges are integrated with the adjacent flora, merging seamlessly into the landscape (right side of 17 is the poster child).

Matthew
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #38 on: December 02, 2009, 07:56:55 AM »

Vern Morcom was a prolific architect and worked a lot in South Australia too - he redesigned Glenelg when the club lost the land to the new airport immediately post WW2. He designed the Grange east course in the 1960s and also the Blackwood GC course in the 1950s. As Clayts said, his dogleg holes were definitely his weakness and the angles are too sharp and usually bend too close to the tee.  He was in the good but not great category. But the bunkers he built at Kingston Heath - he was the man on the ground for his father who had the responsibility for implementing Mac's bunker plan (and varying from it where he thought fit) - are perhaps his finest legacy.

Blackwood was built in the early 1960's (land purchase in 1961 for 7,500 pounds less the cost of a life membership, course design was in June 1961) .  Vern's hand-drawn and painted routing is hanging in the clubhouse - rescued from the bowels of the clubhouse a few years ago.  It is a thing of beauty, and it is a pity that the Club was not able to follow the original design, and to maintain the bunkers (not easy, given heavy winter rains and heavy clay soil).  Whilst the comments on Vern's designs generally hold true (particularly about doglegs), his strategy was sound.  Often, his courses were routed over very small acreages, with peculiar landforms which limited routing options.

Hole #7 could have been (still could be) a good one as a par 4, or as a legitimate 2-shot hole.  Instead, it is a tricked-up approach to masquerade as a par-5.  The drawing is spectacular, but alas the hole was never quite built as designed.  Apparently there were also hand-drawn sketches of the original greens that were works of art, but the Club has been unable to locate them.  

The last of the original greens went under after nearly 50 years service, just 12 months ago.  Note that Vern designed the course, but it was built (literally) by the members.  It is truly a herculean effort by the founders, just a pity that Vern was in Melbourne 450 miles away and distance was a tyrant then, so he couldn't give guidance as the actual course construction occurred.  For obvious reasons, Vern's bunkers were better in his home state in Victoria.

Vern was paid 110 Pounds plus hotel accomodation plus travelling expenses for his work.  A contour map was sent to him before his visit, and he pegged tees, shot points and green positions (unfortunately, not bunker locations apparently), and supplied an overall layout showing tee shapes, fairways, greens, bunkers, mounds, grassy hollows and necessary tree plantations.  That layout is the plan now hanging in the clubhouse.  I suspect the founders misplaced the plan when the tree planting occurred, just as they misplaced it on a couple of other decisions.  Separate plans were to be provided for each green with sketches showing the finished appearance, and a report oin the method of construction, grassing etc.  These latter green sketches and construction report seem to still be hiding somewhere, hopefully to be revealed one day.

James B

PS note that #15 was only in pencil on the map.  Apparently, that was Vern's 'swing hole' which he would fit depending on what and how the land fell.  If you have visited Blackwood, you would probably understand the challenges Vern (and the founders) faced in routing the course through some 80 or so acres of usable ground, plus the peculiar issues of having prime land taken up as an oval.  Doglegs made the routing of 18 holes easier, with a par of 70.  The founders found a way to make a par 72 (7 and 18 became par 5's, although they would both be better holes (even today) as par 4's in my opinion.  The two holes where the members have the most challenge finding the fairway are 7 and 18 - not surprising given the tees were pushed back from the planned location!
« Last Edit: December 02, 2009, 08:07:49 AM by James Bennett »
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #39 on: December 02, 2009, 09:36:46 AM »
Is there an answer to my question about why the bunkers at Metropolitan are so cut so deeply into the greens while those at RM and KH are not quite the same?  Were all designed or inspired by Mackenzie and Russell and built by Morcom?  If so, why that difference?

I loved the look of those bunkers at Metropolitan when I saw them on TV a few years ago.

Thanks.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #40 on: December 02, 2009, 10:02:59 AM »
Neil:

You may be right that Mick Morcom did not spend as much time with Dr. MacKenzie as I stated.  I assumed that Morcom (father or son) might have accompanied him to Kingston Heath or Victoria or some of the other courses to walk through what they would build in the ensuing years, because that's the way I would have approached it with one of my own guys, but possibly not.

One thing you might be able to clear up is that description of Dr. MacKenzie taking about three days per course to do his consulting work at Kingston Heath, Victoria and others.  John Lovell described it that way, but I always assumed that he was just averaging based on the time MacKenzie was in Melbourne ... I wouldn't think MacKenzie actually spent three days over at Kingston Heath and never going back to Royal Melbourne (what is it, five or six miles between them?) on those days.  Heck, Victoria and Sandringham are ACROSS THE STREET from Royal Melbourne.

Also, do you have pictures of Charles Lane's work at Commonwealth which predates MacKenzie's visit to Australia?  Or is it possible those bunkers evolved similarly to Royal Melbourne over time.  That's what I've seen elsewhere in the world ... most of the bunkers in a given city evolve in imitation of the most prominent club in town, whether those bunkers are stylistically great or not.  Heck, all of the bunkers in Chicago evolved toward the big, blobby, flashed sand look of the bunkers at Medinah, whether the other courses were built by Ross or Colt or anyone else.  (Raynor's courses were the only ones to resist the trend.)

Ian Andrew

Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #41 on: December 02, 2009, 10:49:16 AM »
Matthew,

When you look at old aerials, often the bunkering was more than it became.

I agree that the bunkers are different, each course has it's own unique look.
But at the same time there are some striking similarities too.

Here is Victoria - you have to wonder what it was like:


Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #42 on: December 02, 2009, 02:47:32 PM »
Neil:

You may be right that Mick Morcom did not spend as much time with Dr. MacKenzie as I stated.  I assumed that Morcom (father or son) might have accompanied him to Kingston Heath or Victoria or some of the other courses to walk through what they would build in the ensuing years, because that's the way I would have approached it with one of my own guys, but possibly not.

One thing you might be able to clear up is that description of Dr. MacKenzie taking about three days per course to do his consulting work at Kingston Heath, Victoria and others.  John Lovell described it that way, but I always assumed that he was just averaging based on the time MacKenzie was in Melbourne ... I wouldn't think MacKenzie actually spent three days over at Kingston Heath and never going back to Royal Melbourne (what is it, five or six miles between them?) on those days.  Heck, Victoria and Sandringham are ACROSS THE STREET from Royal Melbourne.

Also, do you have pictures of Charles Lane's work at Commonwealth which predates MacKenzie's visit to Australia?  Or is it possible those bunkers evolved similarly to Royal Melbourne over time.  That's what I've seen elsewhere in the world ... most of the bunkers in a given city evolve in imitation of the most prominent club in town, whether those bunkers are stylistically great or not.  Heck, all of the bunkers in Chicago evolved toward the big, blobby, flashed sand look of the bunkers at Medinah, whether the other courses were built by Ross or Colt or anyone else.  (Raynor's courses were the only ones to resist the trend.)

Tom
I guess at the end of the day we don't exactly know whether Morcom accompanied Mac elsewhere in his travels. If I was to guess, I would say it was quite likely that Morcom was there when Mac inspected Kingston Heath, as Morcom had built it to Soutar's plans, and it was presumably pre arranged that Morcom would build the bunkers once Mac had planned them. But elsewhere, I'm not so sure, may have been seen to be treading on the toes of the curators at those courses such as Vic and Metro. It appears as if Russell likely accompanied him though, as in his letter of appointment of Russell as his partner he writes of him:

"since I have arrived here Mr. Russell has been continually associated with me while I have been advising golf clubs, and he has not only drawn some of my plans but has made many valuable suggestions".

Interesting the use of the word "continually", which I think indicates that Alex accompanied him wherever he went in Vic. The letter isn't dated as you know but the announcement that Russell was being taken into partnership came out in the newspapers right at the start of December 1926 so presumably the letter dates from then or late November, just before Mac left Melbourne for Sydney.

As for the three days per course thing, its John Lovell's idea to put it like that. But Im sure it was not so simple. What I have done is continue the Timeline project that the various guys from the Alister Mackenzie Society have been doing (and which I am a part) and extend that to his Australian and New Zealand sections of his 1926 round the world tour. It is pieced together from immigration records, shipping notices, newspaper and magazine articles and letters to the clubs etc., alot of which I got from John Lovell, but also a lot from the late Hedley Ham of Yarra Yarra who did a lot of research into Russell. But there is no (or very little) speculation as John was wont to do. I'd be more than happy to email you a copy of this if you'd like to see it - or anyone else who wants to see it. It will be included in our Version 15 of the timeline that Sean Tully is updating at the moment. I did a presentation on Mac's time in Australia based on this timeline to the visiting group of ASGCA and EIGCA architects that were out in Australia last month. I also have this as a PDF if anyone would like to see it.

What was most interesting for me to find was within a day or two of arriving he had seen both Metro and Kingston Heath and after about a week had gone back over to Adelaide. I can't imagine RM officials were too pleased to find Mac doing all this stuff when for them, the main game was their new course. And as Royal Adelaide did not sign up for Mac's services through them, but contacted him while he was passing through Ceylon on his way to Australia, RM saw not a penny from Mac's sojourn to Adelaide! Ha!

Charles Lane is a very interesting man, made quite a study of the British courses and only ever worked at his club Commonwealth. Seemed like he was more than knowledgeable enough to have made a profession of GCA but didn't, perhaps because he was loyal to his club and was fairly old I think. I believe Matthew Mollica mentioned him earlier in this thread. No I don't personally have any photos of Commonwealth's bunkering pre 1926 but I do have one or two newspaper articles about Lane. If there is some interest I might start a thread based on those articles. Interesting notion about the bunkering in a city morphing towards the same general look. Here in Adelaide, where the four main courses were all laid out by "Cargie" Rymill, there is a fair explanation for that! Not that they look the same today after other architects have reworked all 4 of these courses.

Ian, nice pic, shame about the reflection! In the top right hand corner you can see two holes of Russell's east course at RM, the par 5 10th green is the higher of the two and the expanse of sand is the fairway bunkering on the par 4 11th.

Ian Andrew

Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #43 on: December 02, 2009, 05:32:28 PM »
I enjoyed your post Neil - the whole presentation to us on the tour was facinating.


Commonwealth from way back - don't know the date.



Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #44 on: December 02, 2009, 06:14:39 PM »
Thanks Ian - you are too kind. Thanks for the aerial of Commonwealth.

I just thought I'd post this larger scale aerial from 1945 that shows the proximity of four of the sandbelt courses.
From bottom left Yarra Yarra, centre bottom is Commonwealth, centre top is Metropolitan and top right is Huntingdale.


Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #45 on: December 04, 2009, 06:03:43 AM »
Bill, you asked -

Is there an answer to my question about why the bunkers at Metropolitan are so cut so deeply into the greens while those at RM and KH are not quite the same?  Were all designed or inspired by Mackenzie and Russell and built by Morcom?  If so, why that difference?

I loved the look of those bunkers at Metropolitan when I saw them on TV a few years ago.

I'm not sure anyone can answer that question for you, hence the absence of a discussion or direct reply on it. The Metropolitan course was open for play in 1908, and was designed by J B MacKenzie. I'm not sure who would have done the construction, and I'm equally unsure as to the presence, appearance and nature of the bunkering at that time. As you can now understand, it was in play for more than 15 years prior to Alister MacKenzie's visit. I doubt Mick Morcom was involved with Metro at the infancy of the course.

Whether bunkers with an 'appetite' were part of the original design, or if such a scheme later evolved, I don't know. Some old ground level photos would help. One thing that's certain, is that the topography at Metro is certainly more humble than that at Kingston Heath, and most definitely so in comparison to that at RM. Bunkering of grand appearance either wouldn't look right, or simply couldn't be done at Metro. Perhaps the powers that be elected for an alternate approach? Whatever the origins, the best examples of the greenside bunkering at Metro are really something.

MM
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Ian Andrew

Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #46 on: December 04, 2009, 08:00:35 AM »
For the benifit of others a picture of the bunkers.
The is my stymie putt, because of the bunker eating into the green.
I thought this was a really great three.

I noticed that the edge of every bunker directs the water back into the green, it's subtle but it's always there!
The irrigation heads are almost all on the green!


« Last Edit: December 04, 2009, 08:02:45 AM by Ian Andrew »

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2009, 05:50:54 AM »
I have just got my copy of John Scarth's book on The Morcoms back from a friend.
It seems the book is limited to 200 copies only, with mine (#172) purchased several years ago.

Also, it appears neither Mick nor Vern ever worked at Metropolitan Golf Club in any official capacity,
not at least according to Scarth's book.

Matthew
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2009, 05:59:26 AM »
Matthew
I'm pretty sure that is right that the Morcoms were not involved with implementing Mac's suggested alterations there. The club doesn't have Mackenzie's plan and so the best is this version drawn by a nwspaper artist and published in one of the Melb papers (forget which one at the moment.
And Ian, I too got behind that bunker on 11 and had to putt 15 ft right of the hole!! Bugger!!


Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: The Morcoms
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2009, 09:28:32 AM »
Bill, you asked -

Is there an answer to my question about why the bunkers at Metropolitan are so cut so deeply into the greens while those at RM and KH are not quite the same?  Were all designed or inspired by Mackenzie and Russell and built by Morcom?  If so, why that difference?

I loved the look of those bunkers at Metropolitan when I saw them on TV a few years ago.

I'm not sure anyone can answer that question for you, hence the absence of a discussion or direct reply on it. The Metropolitan course was open for play in 1908, and was designed by J B MacKenzie. I'm not sure who would have done the construction, and I'm equally unsure as to the presence, appearance and nature of the bunkering at that time. As you can now understand, it was in play for more than 15 years prior to Alister MacKenzie's visit. I doubt Mick Morcom was involved with Metro at the infancy of the course.

Whether bunkers with an 'appetite' were part of the original design, or if such a scheme later evolved, I don't know. Some old ground level photos would help. One thing that's certain, is that the topography at Metro is certainly more humble than that at Kingston Heath, and most definitely so in comparison to that at RM. Bunkering of grand appearance either wouldn't look right, or simply couldn't be done at Metro. Perhaps the powers that be elected for an alternate approach? Whatever the origins, the best examples of the greenside bunkering at Metro are really something.

MM

Thanks, Matthew and Neil and Ian, for the notes and photo and plan.  Those are some of the coolest greenside bunkers I've ever seen and the explanations about the Morcoms not being involved make sense with the regard to the difference between these and other Sandbelt bunkers.

Positively drool inspiring!   ;D