[David_Elvins]

In comparing the shape of the front left bunkers in both photographs, they appear to be quite different.

TK

Tyler,  if they were two photos of the same green, I would assume they were different bunkers, one to the left of the green and one short of the green. 


Niall,  Robin,

The 16th at Pasatiempo is anotehr example of a similar Mackenzie green. 

[Neil_Crafter]

David
A couple of points:
1. Mackenzie would not have made a mistake of the level of putting two photographs of the same green in his book and the labelling them as two different greens.
2. The greens are obviously different with different bunkering patterns, as Robin has explained.
Two greens, not one.

Niall
I said in my post that I thought the other 15 greens, apart from the three dramatic ones, must have had a reasonable level of undulation in them otherwise they would have looked totally out of place. At this stage in Mackenzie's career, 1913, he was clearly experimenting to see what was achievable and what he could get away with. Guess he just went over the edge a bit at Sitwell, despite his arguments to the contrary.

[Neil_Crafter]

James
Further to your post about the Buxton putting green, here's a period postcard of the putting green.

[Robin_Hiseman]

With much thanks to my brother Andy, who some of you may remember joined us at the Painswick BUDA, here are, for what may be the first time, before and after pics of Mackenzie's iconic 12th and 18th greens at Sitwell Park.   

I've added Andy's emailed comments to me, which clear up once and for all which green is which and that there are inded two separate greens.

 The two old b/w photos are clearly of two different greens. I showed them to the two senior greenkeepers, and both agreed that the 'very wild' green is now the 12th, and the slightly less wild green is the 18th.

THE 18TH

I think photo 18th01_small is taken pretty close to where the 'HOME GREEN AT SITWELL PARK' photographer was standing. 18th02_small gives you a slightly more close-up view of the now-flat green.


Mackenzie's Original 18th green


2011:  Taken from approximately the same position.


A slightly closer view.


THE 12TH

I've given you three views of the 12th. The key challenge was: where was the photographer standing when he took the iconic view of Mackenzie's 12th green? For the iconic photo seems to have been taken from an impossible place. The ground slopes very sharply up a hill towards the green (you can see this best in 12th03_small), and there's seemingly no way to take the 'iconic' photo without the aid of a cherry picker! Rob I'll leave you to decide. You can see sheds and fences etc behind and to the right of the green, but they are now obscured by bushes and trees.


One of the most famous pictures in golf architectural history


Approximately the same view today


The view from the forward tee.


From the front left of the old green.

It seems to me that, for the most part, Mackenzie's original contouring is still there, but has just been grown in.  The winter green is a new addition, the terrace of the current green has been extended and the bunkering is long gone. It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility to recreate that photo in the current day, if it could just be worked out exactly where the original shot was taken.

If Andy's photos do anything they show very clearly just how steep the greensite was and how it was the case that Mackenzie emphasised form over function with his design in this instance.  Another thing that strikes me is how dry the grass faces must have been.  It had to have been extremely difficult to keep those slopes in a playable condition.

Well, I hope this thread ties up a loose end about what became of these greens.  Who'd like to join me in recreating the photo?

[Niall C]

Robin

Great stuff. A couple of suggestions, it might be an idea to get a photo when all the leaves are down from the trees to see if you can compare ridgelines behind to help with angles etc. The other idea I had was maybe trying to work out from the original photos roughly the extent of the greens and applying that to a modern day aerial to see how much of the undulating ground in front was part of the green. I don't know if that can be done but maybe one for your students to try 

Niall

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Is there a better reason for the existence of GCA? Scholarship examined in public.

[Neil_Crafter]

Dredging up Robin's old thread from the depths.......

I  have come across a postcard of Sitwell Park that is described as 'Sitwell Park Golf Club - Green Making' and is a side view of one of these greens, which one I am not sure. Thoughts anyone? What it does show is the size of the greenside mounding and the depths of the hollows and slopes within the green.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Neil

What an excellent find and thanks for having the presence of mind to link it into this thread.

I wonder if you've found a picture of the 'other' green, the 5th? The backdrop doesn't match either the 12th or the 18th, both of which were more wooded.  It can't be 12 because 18 would be in the background and 18 was set entirely within tall trees.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Neil

Thanks to a quick web search and happening upon our very own Andy Levett's website, i'd reckon that you've found a photo of the previously unseen 5th green.

Rather than pinch the photo from Andy's site, just follow this link to read his piece on Sitwell and look at the recent 5th hole photo.  The steepness of the hillside behind the green and the hedgerow species makes me thinks this is it.

http://www.designmentor.co.uk/golf/sitwell_park.htm

[Jon Wiggett]

Having looked at it again I think the old photo of the 12th green was taken from left of the left hand bunker. So at 8 or 9 o'clock to the line of play. This would account for the high angle

Jon

[Neil_Crafter]

Robin
Your conclusion is interesting as I sent the photo to someone who knows Sitwell and they said:

from the look of the background and the boundary fence I'd think this was not the 12th or 18th, but one at the other end of the course near the 3rd green

So we could have a photograph of one of the other greens which would be very nice.

[Michael Essig]

First, let's remember that they didn't have telephoto lenses in those days, so the camera lens was probably very similar even if taken with different equipment at a different time.

Second, The picture of the "12th" has a irregular shaped bunker with tounge in the middle.  In contrast, the "18th" photo has a kidney shaped bunker. The only way to explain this away, is that the kidney shaped green on the "18th" photo is off-camera on the photo of the "12th", and the same thing for the bunker in the "12th" photo - the "18th" bunker is cut off from the left hand side of the photo or obscured by the mounding on the upper left of the "12th" photo.

Also, despite the different angles on which the photos were taken, the distance between the bunker and the narrow green entrance is very tight on the "12th" photo.  Although difficult to see on the 18th photo due to the angle, it appears much wider on the "18th".

Also, doesn't the depth and width of the "12th" green look substantially greater than on the photo of the "18th?"  To my eye, the "18th" photo looks significantly smaller.  Maybe that is just the lens compressing the depth, but using the people as a measuring stick of 6', the "18th" green looks thinner.

Also, I don't see a way for the obvious bunker on the back of the "18th" not being visible, despite the angle change, from being visible in the "12th".  Although David's lime green circle around the white thing gives one pause.  The front edge of the back bunker cuts the gentleman circled by David in blue at his waist.  How could we not see that same bunker on the "12th" photo?  Or do we?  In Neil's photo, does the back bunker appear about waist-high of the man furthest up the hill?  To me, the large face of the back bunker on the "18th" cannot be explained away in the "12th" photo.

Who votes to play the old green over the new one?  I love them big and crazy.

Lastly, did Hawtree/Dawson also have a go at these to make them more pinable for an Open?

[Robin_Hiseman]

Thanks for that Michael, but we have already concluded that they are two different greens.

[Neil_Crafter]

3rd green? 4th green? 5th green? Any takers?

[Jon Wiggett]

3rd green? 4th green? 5th green? Any takers?

The last find is almost certainly the 5th green IMO.

Jon

[Neil_Crafter]

Jon
I've looked at the aerial of Sitwell Park and I am fairly certain that the side-on photo was of the 4th green. This is the shortish par 4 and is at the top in the aerial I have attached. The setting for this green appears to be in a bit of amphitheatre with enclosing ridges either side and the photo and aerial seem to match up. The 5th green doesn't seem to do it so well for me.

Also, there is a remnant bunker front left of the 4th green where Mackenzie had one in the photo. Green 5 has all its bunkers down the right. While they could have changes my suspicion is that they haven't changed much.

I'm going for Hole 4.

[Neil Regan]

.

Surely that is Mackenzie in the postcard ?

[Robin_Hiseman]

Yep, could concede that one to you Neil.

[Marty Bonnar]

I'm not so sure. Not nearly enough moustacheness or plus-fourness...?

F.

[Robin_Hiseman]

Whoops!  Too many Neil's.  I meant Neil Crafter's ident of Green 4. 

[Ally Mcintosh]

Wouldn't it be great if a golf course like this threw caution to the wind and just did a full scale restoration?... All-in to playing conditions, clubs, balls et al....

It would just be fantastic to see a full length golf course with a bunch of REALLY crazy greens...

We can but hope....

[Neil_Crafter]

Whoops!  Too many Neil's.  I meant Neil Crafter's ident of Green 4. 

Thanks Robin, I knew you meant me 

Neil R., that's almost certainly not Mackenzie. As Marty B said.

Ally, yes it would be throwing caution to the wind indeed, but would be great to see. As private clubs are often having difficulty hanging on to members I could see it going one of two ways - an exodus or an influx. Not sure which.

My suspicion is that a lot of his other greens at Sitwell must have been fairly wild otherwise those three would stand out like dog's balls  in one lot of correspondence regarding the controversy over the Sitwell greens, the 15th was mentioned by Mackenzie, in addition to the 12th and 18th greens. To this collection I think we can add the 4th. One golf writer said that the 16th had an excellent undulating green but was less severe than the 12th and 18th.

[Thomas Dai]

Bumping this old thread, shame so many of the previously posted photos have now 'disappeared', as a place to showcase in colour photos of a couple of MacKenzie's famously contoured original Sitwell Park greens.
atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Thomas,


what a difference a bit of colour makes. Great work!!!


I am surprised how much less severe the green looks in the bottom photo though it is undoubtedly still on the edge. What a shame it is no more. Bet the greenkeeper was glad though as it must have been quite a challenge to mow.

[Duncan Cheslett]

Outstanding work, Dai!


I came across a couple of interesting articles on the Sitwell Park greens authored by the two main contributors to this very thread.


Robin   https://www.egd.com/?p=1150


Neil      https://sagca.org.au/sitwell-park-mackenzies-flirtation-with-the-eccentric/

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()