What would MacKenzie have done ?

[Niall C]

During all the threads on the changes at TOC, Dr MacKenzie's quote re not making any changes has been given a wide airing. Now even allowing for the fact that he made statements and later (partially) retracted them ie. two loops of nine, it seems to me that some if not all of the work at TOC is the sort of thing that in principle he would be against. I wonder if he were alive to day whether he would be so set against the changes as some would think.

For instance he was a great advocate of courses looking natural. Whats so natural about completely level land on a links, surely a modest degree of rumple to disguise where the hand of man went before might have been something he would approve of ? Back in his day I suspect that some of the flat areas round the greens that are getting the rumple treatment might still have been in play the odd time as tees however given that the teeing areas have moved further away from the greens over time, these areas are maybe more in play as green surrounds. I suspect therefore he might actually be in favour of a modest degree of changes in that respect.

Its also well documented his support for better greenkeeping and improvements in agronomy. A consequence of that is increased green speeds. Would MacKenzie be arguing for green speeds to be kept down or would he see it as an opportunity to show up existing contours ? If he were to accept faster greens and therefore the subsequent loss of pinable areas on greens, might he not also consider the softening of green contours to recapture lost pin positions ? After all, MacKenzie was hardly a conservationist by nature.

He must have played the left hand pin position on the 11th numerous times and surely if he were alive today he would be sorely tempted to soften the green as they are doing now to bring that pin position into play, no ?

As for the new bunkers on the second................well, no defence your honour.

Thoughts ?

Niall   

[Paul_Turner]

Niall

Do you think the areas that are getting the rumpled treatment are allold tees? 

Is it really dead flat to the right of the 2nd green or does it tilt away slightly?

Given that rumpled areas were added to Muirfield by Hawtree, I think it's just something he likes to do. 

[Neil_Crafter]

Niall
Mackenzie also said that he would not touch one blade of grass on TOC, as did Colt.
If you extend your argument about the flattish land right of the 2nd green further afield, what about the Elysian Fields? They are rather flat and could be "alpinized" surely? Then this area could be renamed the Elysian Moguls. Far more catchy than the original.
Neil

[Rick Shefchik]

Its also well documented his support for better greenkeeping and improvements in agronomy. A consequence of that is increased green speeds.

I think this is a false premise. A potential consequence of improved agronomy is increased green speeds. It still depends on the level at which you set the mower.

[Tom_Doak]

Niall:

Your post is a great example of why I mistrust so many "restoration" projects.  When people start ignoring what the architect DID DO for what he "might have done," they are allowing their own biases to take over from being really faithful to the original work.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Niall,

First, there's plenty natural about flat pieces of ground on a links; and, while they may not be the most interesting parts of a golf course, flattish sections of ground are natural and certainly enhance variety of terrain. Just think about the difference in problems presented by the left side of the 2nd green at St. Andrews versus the right side. There's a side you do mind missing the green on and another you don't want want to miss on. That's more interesting in many instances than missing to either side and simply being penailzed by architecture.

Perhaps Mackenzie would consider softening the left side of the green at the 11th, to restore the so-called Bobby Jones hole location there. I don't know for sure. But, as for green speeds in general, my guess would be that Mackenzie would (also) see a threshold. In other words, as soon as green speeds reach(ed) a point where some of the most interesting contour and slopes on any golf course need to be significantly altered, I think he'd point out that things need to be re-thought.  

[Jeff_Mingay]

So many people fail to recognize, too, that so many of the best golf courses aren't set-up and altered for play by man as per how certain acceptable situations for golf are perceived by man. Instead they present interesting, often unusual, problems that golfers need to figure out how to deal with. Often it's the unusual-ness, the flattish sections of ground, the severe slopes, etc that make these courses so interesting and admired.

See St. Andrews.

[BCrosby]

Niall writes:

"[MacK] must have played the left hand pin position on the 11th numerous times and surely if he were alive today he would be sorely tempted to soften the green as they are doing now to bring that pin position into play, no ?"

The answer is a resounding "No". For all sorts of reasons, the first and most obvious being that TOC sometimes played very firm and very fast in MacK's day. Indeed, Jones talked about it. Second, a main theme of MacK's SofSA is the importance of contours to the greatness of TOC and to good gca more generally. Given the central importance MacK placed on contouring, it is inconceivable that he would change the contour of a  green whose fame largely rested on its extreme contours. Third, highly contoured greens were a staple of MacK's designs. Fourth, if the Dawson axis wants to make a needs-based argument that the hole as it was just last month was too easy for the pros, then he should check scoring averages on the hole over the most recent Opens. The Eden has held up quite well without a back left pin.

Bob  

[Frank Pont]

Its also well documented his support for better greenkeeping and improvements in agronomy. A consequence of that is increased green speeds.

  

I would say a consequence of better greenkeeping and improvements in agronomy would be OPTIMAL green speeds, depending on the EXISTING shapes of the green

[Jeb Bearer]

One of the tenets of golf course design espoused on this site is to use what Mother Nature gives you. If you have a sloping green site that wont allow the greens to run at 11 then you have two options: don't roll the greens that fast, or flatten the terrain. The former is both cheaper and better architecture, and really doesn't have a downside. By contrast, with the latter you run the risk of not adequately blending the new work in with the surrounding land. I don't think Mackenzie would have seen any reason to soften the green.

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall:

Your post is a great example of why I mistrust so many "restoration" projects.  When people start ignoring what the architect DID DO for what he "might have done," they are allowing their own biases to take over from being really faithful to the original work.

This one I've seen a little too readily of late...

Redesign & renovation dressed up as restoration.... It sells, that's the trouble.

[Niall C]

Niall:

Your post is a great example of why I mistrust so many "restoration" projects.  When people start ignoring what the architect DID DO for what he "might have done," they are allowing their own biases to take over from being really faithful to the original work.

Tom

Agreed. Restoration is about restoring faithfully what was previously there while on the other hand projects that making allowances for modern issues such as increased safety or agronomy issues etc are at best an interpretation of what the original architect might have done in the same circumstances. Both approaches are fine by me although clearly it is misleading to claim certain work is a restoration when its not.

Niall

[Niall C]

Its also well documented his support for better greenkeeping and improvements in agronomy. A consequence of that is increased green speeds.

I think this is a false premise. A potential consequence of improved agronomy is increased green speeds. It still depends on the level at which you set the mower.

Rick

That of course is true however I did ask the question as to whether Mac would have kept the green speeds down or whether he would have softened the contours to bring back a pinable area. What do you think he would have done in general and whether he would have made an exception for a green like the 11th ?

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall:

Your post is a great example of why I mistrust so many "restoration" projects.  When people start ignoring what the architect DID DO for what he "might have done," they are allowing their own biases to take over from being really faithful to the original work.

Tom

Agreed. Restoration is about restoring faithfully what was previously there while on the other hand projects that making allowances for modern issues such as increased safety or agronomy issues etc are at best an interpretation of what the original architect might have done in the same circumstances. Both approaches are fine by me although clearly it is misleading to claim certain work is a restoration when its not.

Niall

Niall,

If it were only genuine safety and agronomy issues...

What I usually see is:

"MacKenzie liked undulating greens so I will build my own set of undulating greens in my own style and say that they are a restoration of MacKenzie. In the meantime, I will re-route areas of the course that have been changed since MacKenzie was there. But I'll re-route them my way and say that I am undoing work that undid MacKenzie. Then I'll change to a completely different bunker style and call them MacKenzie-like. Finally, I'll reposition a few of them wherever I feel like it to add strategy - just like MacKenzie would have done"

[Niall C]

Jeff

Many thanks for your response. After a couple of weeks of acting as Peter Dawsons wingman the intention of this thread was a bit of fun and to try and engender some chat on the merits of the individual changes at TOC as opposed to endless discussions on the validity of the process. In that vein, your comments are most welcome.

Re flat area of ground on links. The story goes that when the 3rd green at Silloth got moved back and to the left of its original position (as proposed by MacKenzie btw) the contractor (who wasn't supervised by Mac) was told by the club to make the green flat. What he produced was a green that has a fairly prominent tilt from back to front. When challenged by the greens committee his response was that the green was flat, it just wasn't level !

That story always comes to mind whenever the topic of contours comes up. Quite a lot of Scottish links are generally what you could call flat however there are very few parts of the course where the ground is completely level and if they are it is usually because they are old tee or green sites. I can't recall any areas on links that I know where the ground is completely level naturally.

Generally speaking though I agree with your thoughts on flattish areas although some contour is better than none. FWIW I wouldn't have gone with bunkering at the 2nd. A Braid style pimple or some sort of shallow depression would have fitted in better and would have been a more interesting "hazard" IMO.

Niall  

[Niall C]

Ally

I daresay you're right. I wonder if the problem however is that clients generally either don't know the difference or simply don't care. Perhaps the distinction is artificial in any case in that all the client/club wants is a course that is better. After all there would be no point in a restoration project that made the course worse than it was.

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall writes:

"[MacK] must have played the left hand pin position on the 11th numerous times and surely if he were alive today he would be sorely tempted to soften the green as they are doing now to bring that pin position into play, no ?"

The answer is a resounding "No". For all sorts of reasons, the first and most obvious being that TOC sometimes played very firm and very fast in MacK's day. Indeed, Jones talked about it. Second, a main theme of MacK's SofSA is the importance of contours to the greatness of TOC and to good gca more generally. Given the central importance MacK placed on contouring, it is inconceivable that he would change the contour of a  green whose fame largely rested on its extreme contours. Third, highly contoured greens were a staple of MacK's designs. Fourth, if the Dawson axis wants to make a needs-based argument that the hole as it was just last month was too easy for the pros, then he should check scoring averages on the hole over the most recent Opens. The Eden has held up quite well without a back left pin.

Bob  

Bob

MacKenzie certainly made some wild greens but surely he did so with green speeds in mind. Transport him 80 or 90 years into the present day and would he be designing the same greens given that green speeds now are generally quicker than in his day ? Indeed, how did green speeds improve during his design period ie. 1907 to 1933 ? I can't recall him designing any more Sitwell style greens after WWI so either his style evolved or designs evolved in response to changing conditions such as quicker green speeds. I can't recall reading anything from him where he criticises improvements in greenkeeping, in fact just the opposite, he was a great proponent of better greenkeeping giving lectures to greenkeeper assoc's and even being Honourary VP if memory serves me right. I even recall he allowed his name to be used to promote a make of lawn mower. That doesn't sond like a man who was scared to embrace "better" playing conditions.

Its all conjecture but I suspect if MacKenzie was alive today he might have softened in his "no change to TOC" views.

Niall

[Niall C]

One of the tenets of golf course design espoused on this site is to use what Mother Nature gives you. If you have a sloping green site that wont allow the greens to run at 11 then you have two options: don't roll the greens that fast, or flatten the terrain. The former is both cheaper and better architecture, and really doesn't have a downside. By contrast, with the latter you run the risk of not adequately blending the new work in with the surrounding land. I don't think Mackenzie would have seen any reason to soften the green.

Jeb

Are you assuming that the 11th green is entirely natural ?

Niall

[Rich Goodale]

Given Mackenzie's rap sheet of dozens of "remodelings or expansions" (aka Cornish and Whitten), he would have taken the gig.  In fact, the final amongst those "renovations" which he undertook listed in C&W is "St. Andrews (Old Course)."

Maybe it's time to give Dr. MacK the same perp walk that many of us have given Hawtree......

[Niall C]

Its also well documented his support for better greenkeeping and improvements in agronomy. A consequence of that is increased green speeds.

  

I would say a consequence of better greenkeeping and improvements in agronomy would be OPTIMAL green speeds, depending on the EXISTING shapes of the green

Frank

Thats an interesting point. What would be the optimal green speed on a classic course such as TOC ? Would it equate to say the speed where all the pin positions from when the course opened were still pinable or would you be happy to lose some ? Indeed, would you have a standard green speed throughout the course or woudl you be quite happy to vary it from green to green ?

Niall  

[Ally Mcintosh]

Given Mackenzie's rap sheet of dozens of "remodelings or expansions" (aka Cornish and Whitten), he would have taken the gig.  In fact, the final amongst those "renovations" which he undertook listed in C&W is "St. Andrews (Old Course)."

Maybe it's time to give Dr. MacK the same perp walk that many of us have given Hawtree......

He may well of done, Rich. Guess we'll never know.

I - for one - don't think it matters whether he would have or not. It wouldn't suddenly change my view and the fact remains that he isn't here, wasn't offered and therefore hasn't taken any gig. Therefore he hasn't changed the course. Neither has Colt, Simpson, Ross, Fred Hawtree, Pennink, MacKenzie-Ross, Fowler or any other....

In other words we are looking at something that pre-dates the mass alterations of almost all other British links courses that happened post-1900.... And they were mass alterations in almost all examples....

[BCrosby]

Niall -

Again, I don't follow. What does embracing "better" playing conditions have to do with one's opinions about the changes to the Eden Hole? No one I know opposes "better" playing conditions. All thngs being equal, I love playing on fast greens. But things are not equal at TOC. Do I need to point out that there are other factors at work here? And that those other factors should be given considerable weight? That history matters? Particularly when balanced against the fact that the Eden has functioned quite well at Open green speeds? That these changes are not needed?

Let me be as clear as I know how to be. MacK, Colt, Abercromby, Simpson, Jones, Behr and Darwin opposed changing TOC in any material way. Note that golf then faced enormous pressures at the time. The longer ball meant that ideas were floated the change TOC to match the length players were then hitting it. The best architects of the Golden Age opposed any such schanges (other thant stretching some tees) -  because of TOC's unique historical status.

They were all brilliant men who could have concoted all manner of "improvements" to TOC to meet the longer ball. But they restrained themselves. They understood that the issue is not more "good ideas". They had a humility about TOC that the Dawson/Hawtree axis lacks. Which is what is most shocking.  

A side note. Over his career, Mack advocated dramatic, extreme green contours. Have you see the greens at one of his last courses, ANGC? Are you and the Dawson axis aware that there are any number of unpinnable places on the greens at ANGC? Might that have something to do with the excitiment of playing the course?

Since some time in the 1920's, no one has had the arrogance to suppose that they could improve TOC with material structural changes. No one had the arrogance to change the historic playing strategies of a hole (the 2nd and 9th). No one had the arrognace to "fix" flukey fw ridges, swales and cavities (the 4th and 7th). And no one had the arrogance to reshape the contours of a world famous green whose fame rested largely on its difficult contours.

No one, that is, until last month.

Bob  

[Adam Lawrence]

Niall -

Again, I don't follow. What does embracing "better" playing conditions have to do with one's opinions about the changes to the Eden Hole? No one I know opposes "better" playing conditions. All thngs being equal, I love playing on fast greens. But things are not equal at TOC. Do I need to point out that there are other factors at work here? And that those other factors should be given considerable weight? That history matters? Particularly when balanced against the fact that the Eden has functioned quite well at Open green speeds? That these changes are not needed?

Let me be as clear as I know how to be. MacK, Colt, Abercromby, Simpson, Jones, Behr and Darwin opposed changing TOC in any material way. Mack in particular advocated dramatic, extreme green contours over his entire career. Have you see the greens at one of his last courses, ANGC? Are you and the Dawson axis aware that there are any number of unpinnable places on the greens at ANGC? Might that have something to do with the excitiment of playing the course?

Devil's advocate, but are there any places at Augusta where iconic pin locations have been lost because of increasing green speed (I don't know the answer to that question, but it struck me as particularly apposite given the pin location we're discussing became iconic because of the founder of Augusta).

[BCrosby]

Adam -

This "lost pin" thing is a red herring.

First, it's not an "iconic" pin position. I would be pleased to see historical evidence on that point. For example, I am unaware of cites to a "Jones pin" that I keep reading about. Perhaps you can educate me on that point. If the Eden has an iconic pin postion, it is the position directly behind Strath.

Second, the pin is lost only at Open green speeds.

Third, there is no inidication that scoring on the hole over decades of Opens has been affected. It was always a very hard hole for even the best players in the world. (See earlier posts on the field scoring aerages on the Eden in the last two Opens.)

Bob

 

[Niall C]

Bob

As Melvyn pointed out in an email to me, the off quoted MacKenzie remark is from Golf Architecture which was published in 1919/1920 and largely based on lecture notes and articles from before the war. Or in other words before he became a member of the R&A, before he became consulting architect and then reputedly made changes to the course.

There's no doubt MacKenzie continued to design greens with some interesting contours but the point I'm making is that he likely did so taking into account increased green speeds.

Niall