[Neil_Crafter]

Here is an article I have just found from The Pittsburgh Press of August 3, 1929.
Some interesting quotes on strategy and the purpose of hazards by Mackenzie. Hope you find it interesting.
Neil

[Rob Rigg]

Neil,

Great article - he basically writes the same thing in "Golf architecture" which I have been reading recently.

When I walked off Pasatiempo a few weeks ago I could not help but wonder why more GCAs have not implemented A Mac's thoughts and designs in regards to bunkers. Fewer and Better makes total sense. Get the bunkers in play where they impact strategy, not out of the way where they penalize misses, that is what the rough is for and/or greenside bunkers that make it challenging to come in from the wrong line.

I really like his idea of creating some "fun" bunkers that look large and daunting but should be fairly easily cleared from the tee - they are there to create excitement and enjoyment for all levels of player - the 4th at Pasa has a couple of bunkers like that in the fairway which are a blast to hit over (although the left side of the fairway is a more ideal line into the green). Imagine that, FUN on a golf course.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Neil,

I have a copy of an excellent article discussing the over-use of sand hazards written by Dr. Mackenzie, somewhere (I'll have to look through my files). Perhaps you've seen it, too? If memory serves correctly, I think this particular article appears in The Fairway magazine (c. 1920s). I've read it, and re-read it recently. 

If I remember, I'll dig out my copy of this article over the coming days, scan it, and post; knowing many participants of this discussion group will enjoy Dr. Mackenzie's own writings on this very subject... if they haven't already read the article I reference.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Neil one day soon I'll post some original pictures of Thurlestone where Colt did deliniate the fairways with Bunkers.   I do feel Mac could have been reacting against some of Colt's bolder experiments with bunkers. 

[Neil_Crafter]

Rob
Thanks. he does say similar things in Golf Architecture, but in the case of Cypress and Pasatiempo I'm not sure he practiced what he preached! By the thirties, with his designs for bayside Links, Augusta and the unrealised El Boqueron, he had pared back the bunkering considerably.

Jeff
The article by Mac you are thinking of is I think this one: "Too Many Bunkers: Too Liberal Use of Artificial Hazards May Harm, Not Help the Value of a Hole" from The American Golfer from April 1933.

Tony
Love to see your Thurlestone pics in due course!

[Dale Jackson]

I read the article with interest (and copied it for my files), then started to think how closely the thoughts in it mirrored AV Macan's, and finally realized how much both Mac and Macan borrowed from John Low.  Consider the following three principles from Low.

1. A golf course should provide entertainment for the high and medium handicapper while at the same time present a searching and difficult test for the accomplished golfer.

2. The shortest, most direct line to the hole, even if it be the centre of the fairway, should be fraught with danger.

3. Bunkers should be used sparingly by the architect. (more to this one not included)

Both Mac and Macan listed their own principles and both lists are not much more than rewrites of Low's.

I continue to think Mac and Macan had some common linkage, as yet undiscovered, and that the linkage involves John Low.

[BCrosby]

Dale -

There is no question but that MacK took ideas from Low. Look again at SofSA where MacK credits Low as the first to articulate the basics of strategic archtiecture.

Neil -

Thanks for posting the MacK article. Very interesting. Given that the Pittsburgh Press would not normally have sought out Mack for an exclusive interview, my guess is that much of this article was either taken from a syndicted news wire or an article that had appeared elsewhere earlier. Any of that make sense? Any idea where the interview might have first appeared?

Bob

[RSLivingston_III]

Didn't Ross also write something similar about this same time? As I recall it started his minimal bunker trend of the 30s.

[Neil_Crafter]

Bob
I'd be inclined to agree with you that he didn't get interviewed by the Pittsburgh Press for this article. It would seem they took it from somewhere else, but where I don't know as I have not seen those exact quotes in any other article.

[Sean_A]

There is no question that Mac and Behr were influenced by Low/Paton.  Their later writings on central hazards make this quite clear.

What I find strange about Dr Mac is (as Neil notes) he doesn't seem to follow his own advice in Oz and California.  Though this could be a sandy site "exemption", but I am not sure courses like Pasa & Montecito qualify as sandy.  I have long believed that Dr Mac got wrapped up so much in the aesthetics that he "forgot" some of his principles for a spell.

Ciao 

[BCrosby]

Sean -

I think there is something to your last point. MacK built a gracious plenty of bunkers at Cypress whose sole purpose is to look good. And they do.

Bob 

[Rob Rigg]

Neil,

I have not seen CPC, only read Shacks book, and only been to Pasa once, while some of the bunkering is pretty intense, I wonder if it is wasteful or beneficial? I thought that the bunkering was beneficial and purposeful - at CPC some of it seemed more artistic while at Pasa it seemed more strategic but there was purpose.

I guess my thought was that many modern courses seem to have bunkers for the sake of having them - hanging out on the sides of the holes for no good reason - the bunkers around the 13th green at Pasa and the huge one on 16 are brilliant, spectacular and frightening. Especially when combined with those front to back sloping greens.

You are probably correct though, Mac tends to get a pass from himself bc his work is so artistic

[Sean_A]

Sean -

I think there is something to your last point. MacK built a gracious plenty of bunkers at Cypress whose sole purpose is to look good. And they do.

Bob 

Bob

My sense about CPC is Dr Mac had to build more bunkers if he wanted to properly incorprorate the existing sandy dunes.  How much more is a matter of debate.  One thing is for sure, the bunkering as it exists now has a large disconnect from the original scheme.  Many of the bunkers look awkward and unecessary to me, but I think that is because the club has gone away from the natural look that Dr Mac intended. 

All that said, I think CPC is a "sandy exception" to Dr Mac's principle.  I would love to know what happened at Pasa and Montecito.  Furthermore, it would be interesting to know the California Timeline, because if I am not mistaken, Dr Mac was working outside of California as well at the time and he seems to revert back to his original principle.  There was something going on in California that stands out as unusual for Dr Mac and I don't think it was merely sandy exceptions.  Anybody more knowledgable about Dr Mac, please pipe up with your opinions!

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

I read the article with interest (and copied it for my files), then started to think how closely the thoughts in it mirrored AV Macan's, and finally realized how much both Mac and Macan borrowed from John Low.  Consider the following three principles from Low.

1. A golf course should provide entertainment for the high and medium handicapper while at the same time present a searching and difficult test for the accomplished golfer.

2. The shortest, most direct line to the hole, even if it be the centre of the fairway, should be fraught with danger.

3. Bunkers should be used sparingly by the architect. (more to this one not included)

Both Mac and Macan listed their own principles and both lists are not much more than rewrites of Low's.

I continue to think Mac and Macan had some common linkage, as yet undiscovered, and that the linkage involves John Low.

And when you don't read Low, what do you get?

Oakmont!

[Tom MacWood]

I believe AM was out spoken in his criticism of some of the heavily bunkered Australian courses...Royal Sydney comes to mind, and heavily bunkered may be an understatement in that case. Neil has posted some articles that appeared in Australian newspapers. That being said is the title of this article an accurate portrayal of AM's comments within the article?

What do you make of the statement about Mackenzie collaborating with Egan at Pebble Beach?

[Neil_Crafter]

Tom
I believe it was primarily the Sydney courses that Mac commented on being overbunkered - the Australian and Royal Sydney, although I think he also mentioned Royal Adelaide in that. While this article is headlined that way there really isn't all that much in it condemning overbunkered courses.

Well he did collaborate with Hunter at PB a few years earlier but this is obviously referring to the work done there in the leadup to the 29 Amateur. Unsubstantiated I guess would be one word.

[Tom MacWood]

Neil
To my knowledge Mackenzie never worked in Western Pennsylvania. Do you think this article was generated in Pittsburgh or was taken off the wire, or possible based on a recent golf magazine article? Where was Mac in August 1929?

[Neil_Crafter]

Tom
Not to our knowledge either. I am more inclined to think that it was "taken off the wire" but I have never seen the original article it came from then either! So its hard to say. But it doesn't sound like he is being interviewed in Pittsburgh.

In the summer of 1929 Mac was back in the US, having arrived in NYC by ship from the UK on 26 July 1929. In early August he was at Pasatiempo and Cypress Point, and later in San Francisco at the Union League club.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()