The world's best architect--the world's best firm

[TEPaul]

I'm taking off for a while but I thought I would leave with a startling admission for me--that being who I think all in all the world's best architect really was and also the firm that may have been the best overall.

I've been thinking a lot about this through all the topics like the "Raynor Paradox" ones and all the discussion about what is and isn't naturalness and such in architecture. And I'm really trying to look at it in the exact context of the EVOLUTION OF ARCHITECTURE and all that that means. In other words, we have to be careful when looking at a really early era not to expect too much from the architects in today's perceptions and requirments! We have to be careful because it's obvious that in many cases some really good architects just hadn't gotten to certain stages in architecture yet for a variety of reasons, certainly some being that the equipment didn't allow them the ability to.

I'm trying to look at it in two separate contexts first and then how those two contexts started to combine. Those contexts  are, first, what was really good for golf--who built some really great courses and holes and when and secondly how well did those great holes for golf and those great courses start to meld their architecture in with nature really well? And who bridged those two contexts--started to really combine them, in other words!

Certainly the like of MacDonald and Raynor built some great golf courses in America but the manufactured look seemed not really a problem in their minds as the golf holes were great despite that look. It seems a bit earlier Colt and maybe even Parks, Fowler, Abercromby, Alison were beginning to bridge the gap between great holes and overcoming manufacturing and beginning to scratch the surface of naturalizing their features and their architecture.

Later Banks, Langford, Moreau, Strong keep the good golf holes coming but kept the manufactured look very much a part of it too. Even Ross's early work was sort of geometric and manufactured. Believe it or not Crump got quite manufactured on some of his green work too which was later amended! Even Thomas did this a bit too!

But the one who I think really bridged the gap between great golf holes and great golf courses and doing away with the manufactured look in his architecture and blending it in unbelievably well with natural lines and the natural look of sites was Alister Mackenzie!

I think he was the one that ushered in that natural blended look of architecture that everyone started to pick up on and do quite well. Flynn certainly did in the 1920s and Tillinghast was right there too. Ross's look evolved from his earlier work and followed the more blended look in the 1920s too but frankly never really did reach the extent of it that MacKenzie did! Thomas and Bell did too. The Monterey School in the late 1920s seemed to take it to new heights occasionally!

And so to me MacKenzie was probably the world's best architect all in all because he seems to be the one to bridge that important gap first and to certainly do it best. Frankly, the way he seemed to do it may not have been topped before, during or since!!

And the best firm I think was probably the partnership of Colt, Alison and MacKenzie, although in many cases they never actually worked together and many times where not even in the same parts of the world. Frankly the best firms may have also been MacKenzie and his partnering!! Mackenzie's constant partnering produced other great courses architecturally for real quality golf and natural blending--MacKenzie and Jones, MacKenzie and Maxwell, Mackenzie and Hunter and the entire team of Monterey architects that seemed to be around him from time to time.

MacKenzie was a super talent for great golf architecture, great holes and courses but the way he made them look--that seamless blending into nature and the look of nature makes him absolutely #1 to me!

Why was he the one to really bridge the gap between great holes and courses for golf and also that natural look too? Maybe it really did have something to do with his background in camouflage and the Boer War!!

I just love that look of making golf features just blend into the natural scheme of things and almost fade away so it becomes hard to tell where nature ends and man's hand begins. He obviously understood and became fascinated how the Boers did that out of necessity because had they not they were definitely more likely to get killed. And that natural blending in this way certainly covered even minute detail for the same necessary reason!

And I also like how MacKenzie actually strove sometimes to make the golf features, like bunkering, almost totally  disappear from view if you looked backwards down one of his holes.

But I just keeping looking at that Cypress Book of GeoffShac's and the look of Cypress on opening! Oh, my God, I've just never seen anything remotely like it for obviously great and beautiful golf and the amazing blend of all the architecture into naturalness. And how can anyone not be amazed by the before and after photos of hole #9. That just takes amazing talent to look at that natural rugged landform and just totally leave it as it was!!

MacKenzie seemed to be the first to bridge that all important gap between great golf and truly natural looking architecture and not only does he appear to have been first but he also appears to have been the best at it, and seemingly never topped in that natural look!

That combination and the extent of it makes him the world's best architect to me!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

What was your question ?    

Have a good trip and enjoy yourself.  I hope you get to Seminole and revisit those greens and their surrounds.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Question?? OK, who has ever topped Alister MacKenzie for both great golf courses and true naturalness in architecture, why and how?

If any of you have not gotten Geoff Shackelford's book on Cypress Point, I suggest you do so! As usual his writing is first rate but those photographs just after Cypress's opening (with MacKenzie in many of them)!!--they are something that all should see who really like the finer points of golf architecture!

That course is just something to see then--absolutely amazing generally speaking and also in every single minute detail! MacKenzie might have been a braggard, I don't know, but when he said that one had it all--it was a true statement!!

[THuckaby2]

WHEW!  Good, you're still here, Tom.  I'm with Dan Kelly - come on, you have four more posts in ya!  My over/under for you reaching 1000 was 2/28 and I did take the under... we're talking big money here....

 

By the way, I knew you belonged in California.  Come on out, you can gaze at MacKenzie's work every day.

As a certified Mac-Head, I am with you all the way on this, brother.

They just need to somehow solve the conundrum of too many of his masterfully sloped greens being unplayable at today's speeds.

TH

[JakaB]

Tom,

How would you rate Doak's restoration job at Pasatiempo...Is the course still a good representation of Mackenzie...and what features should I study to understand his greatness.

[THuckaby2]

JakaB - I'm certainly NOT the one to ask about that, we have real experts who weigh in here, the best of which being Tom Doak himself as well as Geoff Shackelford!

I hope I don't get Geoff in too much trouble, but discussing this several years ago pre-Doak involvement in the course, GS told me there wasn't much MacKenzie left, which I agreed with.  When you compare what Pasa was to what it is, which is easy to do, just go in the grill and look at the pictures or review Geoff's book, you can see that what was an open meadow is today a FOREST.  Obviously trees grow, but what amazes me is that the these trees seem to have been PLANTED long after the opening.  They just plain aren't there in the old pics of the opening with Jones, Hollins, etc.  Look particularly at 1 and 9 to see how it was.

Again, this is amateur Tom speaking so take what I say with an ocean of salt.  But what I'd LOOK FOR, for a first trip to Pasa, are:

1. Check out the pics in the clubhouse as you walk in re the renovation of #10 and then burn that into your mind, then such will be BLOWN at how PERFECTLY Renaissance did that hole.  It's even more mindblowing if you could have seen what the hole had become, but even seeing it now, man it's as if that picture just came to life on 10.  Absolutely freakin' incredible.

2. Look carefully as you play #1, picture it as it was... not sure if any good pics are there re that, but still, it was played for many years as a short par 5 with a bigger tree right in front... Same goes for #9 going the opposite direction... try to picture without the trees...

3. Just keep your eyes open for incredible bunkers all over the course.  This is where the Doak group seems to have done incredible work.  I just know I see a hell of a lot more resemblance to the old pics now than ever before... maybe it's my imagination, I don't know.  The experts need to weigh in here!

4. Try not to get pissed off if the pin is back on 11 or front on 16 - those are the "infinite putting" spots.  There are many others but those are the worst.  Be on the lookout for many, many other unpinnable positions on these fabulous greens.

5. HAVE FUN!  Oh, you're gonna be bombarded with MacKenzie memorabilia there... so they sure are trying to sell the Mac angle.  And what the hell, no matter what, the "design" hasn't changed all that much (though Geoff can elaborate on the changes to 7 & 8 as well as a few other minor tweaks) so in the end although a forest has arisen on Mac's former "meadow", it's still damn good MacKenzie.  No matter what, it's also one hell of a great golf course, although I bitch about it all the time.

TH

[Bill_McBride]

Tom Paul, a great call if one must pick the best of all the architects.  I could gladly play The Valley Club every day for the rest of my life, with a round at Pasatiempo from time to time.  And I've never played Cypress Point and can't remember much of The Meadow Club from caddying there as a kid.  Your insight into MacKenzie's natural look with minimum earthmoving (as compared to natural look with maximum earthmoving!) is the key.  The holes and the terrain just flow.....

[A_Clay_Man]

That has to be the first time in a while I finished one of tom's pieces.

Congrats, It was very well written and thought out. I doubt you will get anybody to argue, but if one of these fazioheads even tries, I'll lose this site.

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Jakab and Tom H,
Tom knew this was coming eventually, but I will hope to lent some pictures to Tom's text.
The tenth at Pasa is as follows:





As for some comparison to the trees on one, you can compare with the picture on this site in the Pasa feature.

[THuckaby2]

Ben - thanks for the pics.

And Rich, please do look at the photos in the entryway to the clubhouse before you bash those bunkers on 10.  Unless I'm blind it is an EXACT duplicate of how MacKenzie originally had this hole.  This has as much "Fazio" in it as I have Italian blood.  

PLEASE do comment after playing it Monday.  If you still think these bunkers are bad, then the blame goes on MacKenzie.  I'm also not sure what you find "bad" in the look of this... but to each his own.  I love the way those bunkers are now - they've even maintained the rough edges in the original photos, combined with the separation between each.

Try also to remember what that hole HAD BECOME before Renaissance's work... I believe they have pics of that as well.

This is one of the best "restoration" works I've ever seen.  Please do not knock it till you see it.  

TH

[THuckaby2]

Rich - that's how the land is, was, hopefully ever shall be left and short of that green.

I don't recall - you must have played Pasa before, right?  If so, remember how the hole was?

It had become bastardized to a horrible extent in recent years.  Renaissance did an incredible job.  Again, if you don't like it, the blame is on MacKenzie.

Interestingly, if that is the case, you won't be alone... I've had two other knowledgeable friends bitch about the hole.  I kinda like it, myself.  And given it reflects the 1930's reality, I'm not gonna complain if it looks like a half-pipe.  That's what Mackenzie put in and I'm damn glad that at least THIS PART of the course reflects that.  It sure as hell isn't that way on 1 and 9....

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

I played Pasa 5 or so times in the 80's.  Looking forward to seeing it again.

Rich

[THuckaby2]

Ok, cool.  Try and remember how it looked in the 80's, if you can.  That's when I did most of my play there also, with college stuff... and I can indeed remember 10 as being NOTHING like it is today.

TH

[RJ_Daley]

As misguided as it is to go by pictures, I would still have to say that the majority of pictures I have seen of Pasatiempo leaves me indifferent.  The picture of the 10th seems to indicate a really tough place to fit in a green and accomodate the natural drainage down through that trough.  Mac seems to have built a green that drains from front left to back right, then forward across front and into a grass swale that enters that trough about half way down.  But the segmented manner of that bunker within that trough drainway combined with what appears to be really bleached screened white sand just makes it look unappealing.  As for the before and after of 1 fairway, it still seems like a green bowling alley and is begging for the McCullaugh man to visit and stay awhile.  Would anyne say that Pasa just doesn't present well due to maintenance practices?

[THuckaby2]

Would anyne say that Pasa just doesn't present well due to maintenance practices?

YES YES YES YES YES!

While you kinda need to see 10 in person to get that exactly right, boy did you hit the nail on the head re 1!  Ever see the pics of what that originally was?

The way Pasa "presents" today is indeed odd for GCA enthusiasts.  But that being said, if you don't know how it was, or don't care, then it still presents quite well.  And the bottom line is the course is very "beloved" no matter what I or anyone else posting here says.  Ask shivas or Ben how they liked it!

Dick, you do need to see more of it - I'm sure Ben has more pics!  But just looking at these, I can absolutely see your impression.

In person I doubt you'd say this though... 1 is the weakest hole on the course, primarily because they let the forest grow on the right (between 1 and 9 fairways) and they put in a range on the left.  That being said, if you saw a pic looking at the green approach, you'd likely LOVE IT.

TH

[JakaB]

Tom,

Is the range left on one OB cause I want to hit a fade over those short trees and sometimes she don't fade....

[THuckaby2]

Sorry my friend.  Range is definitely OB.  The drive off 1 is indeed a tight one.  Right trees are a VERY common spot!

TH

[Mike_Cirba]

What's wrong with cutting the bunkers into the natural concave slopes?

Or, do we just think that breaking it into 7 distinct bunkers is overly fussy?

Or, are we just hoping for something in an "off-white"?

[JakaB]

At 460 yds is number one at Pasa tougher than number one at Oakmont....is there a tougher starting hole in California...

[Peter Galea]

JakaB,
"The shot" on #1 is a low draw, right center, finishing left center. Tom's right about the trees, right, years ago they were very dense and they used to station a marshall in on the right about 200 off the tee. When you got there he had your ball spotted.
Tom, talk about tight, how about 7? Nothing a jar of vasaline wouldn't fix.
  

[THuckaby2]

I'd say the key on #1 is to just IGNORE THE SCORECARD.  it's very funny, but back in the college days, we used to consider this a cupcake start, because it was so short... Oh, it's always been that tight since I've been playing the course, but back then it was 2-iron off tee, then maybe go for green (it's very downhill off the tee) or most times layup to whatever you want, pitch on. The card told us it's a par 5, so we thought it was easy.

Now it's the toughest starter in the state, because we basically play the former white tee and the card says its a par 4?  

This is a lesson in the value of "par" indeed.

BTW, there are other improvements Doak's people did on 1... but distance-wise, all that's happened is the blue tee is really where the white was before.

And Pete, right on brother re 7... same can be said for 6... tight mothers indeed.  Picture that with NO TREES...  And you have the drive correct on 1 - problem is actually pulling that off! They have also thinned considerably the trees between 1 and 9.  I'm with Dick, I'd love to get a team in their with chainsaws, but as is the case with 6-7-8, the current litigious state of our nation prohibits that.

TH

[Ben Cowan-Dewar]

Lots of good posts.

Rich,
I was not reminded of Fazio either, in fact I thought that bunkering looked cool, which is why I took that picture.  I hope  that I do not lose my GCA status for that admission.

Jakab,
Pasa #1 is not as hard as Oakmont 1 (both as fours), because I do not think the green complex is as hard at Pasa.  
I hit three wood off the tee and had a 5 iron in, not impossible with the elevation.

RJ,
I have plenty of more pictures I will try to change your mind with.  As Tom made mention of, I loved it!  I cannot remember how many times I commented on how great it was.

Pete,
Full agreement on 7, your terminology was perfect  

Tom,
Would you thin the trees on 8?  I did not think they encroached that much.  I guess they eliminate the fade option, but I thought that is what the bunker was trying to do anyway.  Also, do they really put the pin down below on 16??

[THuckaby2]

Ben - at one point in time there were no trees period between 6-7-8.  The story is that a wild hook off 7 tee killed a man standing on 8 green, thus the forest planting occurred.  Those trees make sense.  Oh, in a perfect world I'd thin them, leave some to protect 8 green, but cut back both those on the left of 7 fairway and on the right, between 6-7.  The effect today - making 6 and 7 both play single file - to me does not seem to be what MacKenzie intended for either hole.

I'm not a big fan of forested golf courses anyway....

And they sure as hell do put the pin on the front of 16 - when they want to be EVIL.  I personally witnessed Tiger Woods land his 2nd on the green on the tier above the bottom tier, only to have it spin back nearly to the creek... 2 chips later from there, he walked off with a 7 and nearly broke his wedge slamming it against his bag.  He was not alone... It was indeed goofy golf to the max.  You nearly basically had to hole it going up from the fringe or else try again from the same spot.

TH

[Peter Galea]

Next time y'all play "Pastime" notice all the divots from the front center collar on 16. These are caused by balls hitting the green and rolling back down. Then, wedging back up. Gravity-it's the law! I think the best pin postion is center tier, right side. Many times the flag will be cut on the upper tier, no bargain either, with out of bounds looming rear and left. Whew! I get the "willies" just thinkng about it.
About 7, from the "original" tee way up by the red pad, it's not nearly so claustrophobic, it actually opens up in the landing area. But, from the way back, the task is daunting.
2 & 4 are my favorite holes on the course. Great tee shots and superb green sites. This is a course where the closer you get to the green, the harder the course gets.
I can read greens pretty well, I just can't read French. It seems ALL the greens at Pasatiempo are "written" in that romance language.
It is also the longest "60-some" hundred yards you'll ever play.  

[THuckaby2]

All right on, Pete!

Re 16, the greens have gotten so silly fast that even that center tier placement you favor is borderline goofy.  In any case to me it's sad - that and back tier are the only pinnable spots on that huge green today.  I really think ole Alistair is spinning in his grave at what that's become.  The same could be said for 11.

Re 7, heck yeah, from the up tee it's fine... but unfortunately I don't have the "brains over ego" to ever play that tee!  From the back tee I just punt and recognize my fading limitations (pun intended) and hit an iron.  Leaves a long second, but that's a heck of a lot better than the punch out of the trees my driver would leave!

And I'm with ya on 2 and 4 - both great holes... there are so many on the course... I kinda dig 14 - Tommy N. fave - love how that little valley befuddles the tee shot and I also really like that green.  15 is also in perfect shape now... And well said re the romance language greens!

BTW, a little birdie told me we may get to discuss this in person Monday... oh yeah, I'm weaseling into that esteemed gathering... my life priorities (don't miss fun golf chances) mandate my attendance.

Th