What would MacKenzie have done ?

[Ally Mcintosh]

Let's just design them all flat then, Niall....

Because agronomy allows us (and administrators want us) to run speeds at 14 on the stimpmeter...

[jeffwarne]

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).

Adam,
Many (if not all) of the greens at ANGC have had slope reduced within tiers due to increased speed,many/most of them quietly and without fanfare.

[Adam Lawrence]

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

Interesting on all three counts. As far as I am aware - Scott Macpherson will be the best source of confirmation - the pin in question is accepted as being the one in use when Jones hit into Hill in 1921 and tore up his card.

According to Scott and Peter Dawson, it is not true that the pin is lost only at Open speeds. Scott tells me the pin is very rare today, Dawson that it was only ever pinned there in winter, and that the green would need to stimp at six for it to be usable.

Third, the difficulty of a hole is not the only consideration (and yes, I know these changes were justified as tightening up the course, and yes, I'm aware that if a more general improvement agenda were on the table then the situation would be different). I will say that, having examined the green work closely, this is the bit I am most conflicted about. It is a great pin that has been recaptured. I wish they could have done so without digging up the green. The powers that be assure me they could not. Where does that leave us? I am still in two minds.

[BCrosby]

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.

Niall

Niall -

Melvyn is giving you bad information. MacK wrote in The Field in 1926 that he would not change TOC. He said very similar things in 1932 in SofSA.

If MacK "repeatedly made changes to the course" of any material nature I would be pleased to see your evidence for that. I know of none.

Bob  

[BCrosby]

Adam writes:

"... - the pin in question is accepted as being the one in use when Jones hit into Hill in 1921 and tore up his card."

I have heard this from several defenders of the changes to the 11th in the last couple of weeks. I have never read or heard that before.

Jones took 4 shots (some say 3) to get out of Hill Bunker. The issue in all accounts with which I am familiar was the difficulty of the bunker, not the pin position. In fact I have not seen an account that describes the pin position that day. If you have one, I would love to see it.

Bob

[Rich Goodale]

Bob

I have never heard that Jones (was trying to) hit to any other pin posiiton than back left on that sad day.  Have you?  I find it hard for even a hot-headed wee boy failing to get out of Hill if the pin were behind Strath.  From there, all it would take is the simplest of splashes and the ball would naturally settle down near the pin.  On the other hand, if the task were more difficult (i.e. trying to get to a back left position where overhitting would mean death and underhitting mean a difficult two-putt for a bogie) I can see why he failed to get out and tore up his card.

Is this theory not more reasonable than yours?

Rich

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I could come up with any number of not implausible explanations. The issue here, however, is that the restored pin is purported to be a "Jones pin" by the Dawson axis. It is supposed to be the one that caused all the bother in 1921. Cute story. But I've seen nothing to confirm it in the historical record.

What I have seen in the historical record is that Jones was having a bad day, took 4 (or 3) shots to get out of Hill and then lost his cool.

Bob

[Adam Lawrence]

Jones himself (in 'Golf is my Game') writes, of his speech on receiving the Freedom of the City in 1958:

'... had started home with a sixth at the tenth and had put my tee shot into the Hill Bunker at the eleventh. Here, I wanted to correct a bit of their history recited in a guidebook I had read. I had not played two shots in the bunker and then knocked my ball over the green into the Eden River. My ball had come out of the bunker only in my pocket, and it was my score card that found its way into the river'.

[Rich Goodale]

Rich -

I could come up with any number of not implausible explanations. The issue here, however, is that the restored pin is purported to be a "Jones pin" by the Dawson axis. It is supposed to be the one that caused all the bother in 1921. Cute story. But I've seen nothing to confirm it in the historical record.

What I have seen in the historical record is that Jones was having a bad day, took 4 (or 3) shots to get out of Hill and then lost his cool.

Bob

Thanks Bob

Does the quote from the other Bob (Jones) that Adam cites above not support my argument?  How could he possibly hit his 3rd try into the Eden estuary if the pin were behind Strath?

Rich

[Adam Lawrence]

Rich - that isn't what Jones says. He is saying the ball only left the bunker in his pocket!

[BCrosby]

Adam -

I've read other similar accounts. I am unable to infer anything from them about at "Jones pin".

Jones makes it clear here and elsewhere that what had stumped him was Hill Bunker, not some undescribed, difficult pin postion. Jones was an articulate guy. He was able to say what he meant to say.

As I noted to Rich, we can come up with any number of not implausible reasons for Jones' struggles that day. But if you are going to rest your case by reference to an "iconic Jones pin", evidence for it, as my grandmother used to say, better be clear as a goat's nose. (Her expression never made sense to me either, but her point was obvious enough.)  

Bob

[Adam Lawrence]

However, Scott Mac's book quotes Jones from 'On Golf' as saying:

'... finally goaded me into the disgraceful act of picking up my ball after taking a pair of sixes at the tenth and eleventh holes....'

So he may not be the most reliable witness!

[BCrosby]

Adam -

You got anyone else in mind as a better witness??

Bob

[Rick Shefchik]

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

And that point has nothing to do with what should be done with today's Old Course. What MacKenzie would or would not have done to TOC is something none of us can ever know.Why not take him at his word that TOC was the one course in existence that should have been left alone, while the rest of golf was free to go on developing and advancing, even with MacKenzie's help?

[Paul_Turner]

Interesting on all three counts. As far as I am aware - Scott Macpherson will be the best source of confirmation - the pin in question is accepted as being the one in use when Jones hit into Hill in 1921 and tore up his card.

According to Scott and Peter Dawson, it is not true that the pin is lost only at Open speeds. Scott tells me the pin is very rare today, Dawson that it was only ever pinned there in winter, and that the green would need to stimp at six for it to be usable.
Adam

I'm sceptical of this,  since Dawson himself claimed that they had contemplated using the left pin position for the 2010 Open i.e. stimping at 10 or so but had deemed it "unfair".   And yet now he's stating that it was only usable at 6-7?  It doesn't add up.

[Neil_Crafter]

A couple of points. While Mackenzie included in his brochure of 1923 that he "has advised the Royal and Ancient, St. Andrews" there is no evidence that this involved any work on TOC. We asked the R&A some time back and they had no information about any design work. This most likely refers to the famous map of TOC that Mackenzie prepared in 1923.

I get sick of reading conjecture about what Mackenzie would have done with today's green speeds and if he came back. He's not!

He was very clear that he would not change a blade of grass on TOC though.

As for Jones and the Eden, it seems there are lots of versions floating around. This account is in the lead up to the 1927 Open at St Andrews, and refers to the previous time the Open was there when Jones blew up at the 11th. From the golf columnist at the Evening telegraph in Glasgow:



So it would seem from this account, if correct, that Jones overhit possibly to a back left pin but the article doesn't say exactly, but that is the assumption is he overhit just a little.

[Neil_Crafter]

It would seem there many conflicting versions of what exactly happened on the 11th in the third round of the 1921 Open. Here is the discussion in the book "The Immortal Bobby". We can now add to that the version I posted above from 1928.

[Niall C]

Let's just design them all flat then, Niall....

Because agronomy allows us (and administrators want us) to run speeds at 14 on the stimpmeter...

Ally

Why on earth would you make them flat ?!? Who's advocating that, certainly not me. If you think I am I'd be very happy for you to point out where I've said that.

I doubt any links greenkeeper would go to the bother of getting his greens above 10 or 10.5 given that beyond that the wind is going to move the ball. However I've never heard of a greenkeeper deliberately slowing his greens to bring certain pin positions into play. Perhaps it happens and I'm not aware of it. Equally I've never heard of a greenkeeper cut his greens at different heights for anything other than pure agronomy reasons but again maybe I'm wrong. Do you believe that to be the case ?

Niall

[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.

Niall

Niall -

Melvyn is giving you bad information. MacK wrote in The Field in 1926 that he would not change TOC. He said very similar things in 1932 in SofSA.

If MacK "repeatedly made changes to the course" of any material nature I would be pleased to see your evidence for that. I know of none.

Bob  

Bob

Very happy to be corrected with regards his comments in the Field. Is that where that quote came from ? My understanding of SofSA is that its a compilation of articles that MacKenzie had written over the years but accept if he included it within his manuscript in 1932 then perhaps that was his thoughts then too.

Niall

[Ally Mcintosh]

Let's just design them all flat then, Niall....

Because agronomy allows us (and administrators want us) to run speeds at 14 on the stimpmeter...

Ally

Why on earth would you make them flat ?!? Who's advocating that, certainly not me. If you think I am I'd be very happy for you to point out where I've said that.

I doubt any links greenkeeper would go to the bother of getting his greens above 10 or 10.5 given that beyond that the wind is going to move the ball. However I've never heard of a greenkeeper deliberately slowing his greens to bring certain pin positions into play. Perhaps it happens and I'm not aware of it. Equally I've never heard of a greenkeeper cut his greens at different heights for anything other than pure agronomy reasons but again maybe I'm wrong. Do you believe that to be the case ?

Niall

Niall,

You speculated that MacKenzie would design his greens with agronomy and green speeds of the day in mind. You inferred that he would take the severe undulation out of them because of this.

Says you: "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."

I'm saying that green speeds, capablity to increase green speeds and desire to increase them has continued unabated since. If greens are to be run at higher speeds, they have to be built flatter. I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Is it not better to have a discussion with your client about what green speeds are optimal for your design and then run them at that?

I've no doubt MacKenzie wouldn't have built another Sitwell Park... But seeing as numerous architects of the current day have said they believe the slope on the back left of 11 green at TOC was quite adequate as was, tell me - what makes you think MacKenzie would have watered down his principles to such a degree that he wouldn't agree?

In other words, if we continue to improve agronomy and continue to let what we can run green speeds at determine what we do run them at, then we will all be building completely flat marble floors to putt on sometime in the future.

[Niall C]

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

And that point has nothing to do with what should be done with today's Old Course. What MacKenzie would or would not have done to TOC is something none of us can ever know.Why not take him at his word that TOC was the one course in existence that should have been left alone, while the rest of golf was free to go on developing and advancing, even with MacKenzie's help?

Rick

I actually agree with you, what MacKenzie said back then should have no bearing on what should be done today but those opposing the changes keep providing that quote as exhibit A in their case against the changes. Personally I don't think any course should be set in stone which isn't to say that I'm personally in favour of all the changes being made or being contemplated at TOC. I just don't think we should be hamstrung in making any changes by the notion that the course is untouchable, which strikes me as a bit naive in any case given every winter the course goes through a nip and tuck programme anyway.

The reason I started the thread was to suggest that perhaps it wouldn't have been as black and white as far as MacKenzie was concerned and that it might be an interesting discussion to have. For instance we know that later in life he at least partially qualified one of his mantra's about two loops of nine starting and finishing near the clubhouse. It occurs to me therefore that he might have reconsidered his views given the current state of play.

Focusing specifically on the issue of the back left pin position on 11, if you decided that you wanted to bring that pin back into play, you have 3 choices as far as I see it a) reduce the green speeds such that the position becomes pinable again b) keep green speeds as they are but accept that golfers would have no chance of lagging putts and c) soften the contours to make it pinable given the accpted criteria for pinable pin positions.

Now on the first question of "if", I've got to think that MacKenzie would sorely lament the loss of that pin position and would at the very least consider ways of bringing it back into play. In terms of the options above, I can't see him or anyone else going for option b) as that would open the course to ridicule. That leaves either slowing down the speed on the green(s) or softening the contours. As someone who promoted and embraced better greenkeeping I'm not convinced he would have gone for the idea of different green speeds for different greens or keeping the green speeds down to keep one pin position. Of course he might have reached the conclusion that losing a pin position was better than making changes, who knows. Its interesting to contemplate, at least for me but each to their own.

Niall

[Niall C]

Ally

I still fail to see where I've even suggested that MacKenzie or anyone would be building flat greens. Even at todays greenspeeds their is plenty of contour. As I said in my previous post its no longer the limit of what we can do agronomically that determines the upper limit on greenspeeds but the wind factor. However the point remains that from 1907 when he designed his first course to January 1934 when he died, greenspeeds got faster with improvements in greenkeeping. I say that as an accepted fact and with no empirical evidence to hand but if you think I'm wrong in stating that I'd be interested to hear why.

My conjecture, and its only that, is that as his career progressed, his green designs became softer with Sitwell Park perhaps being the best demonstration of that. If you agree that his green designs did become softer (feel free to disagree) then ask yourself why. Was their some philosophical reason or was it soemthing more practical like increased greenspeeds ?

Niall

[BCrosby]

Niall -

Tom Doak has the details and can correct me if need be, but SofSA was written over the first couple of years of the 1930's. Indeed, it's opening chapter recounts an argument MacK had with Joshua Crane in 1929 at St Andrews about, among other things, Crane's ideas about improving to the Old Course. Need I note that MacK wasn't buying?

All through the book there are references to events, golf courses and people from the early 1930's. Notably for purposes of this thread, the book is larded with talk about the importance of both contouring in golf architecture and fluke and luck as essential aspects of the game.

Bob 

   

[Ally Mcintosh]

Ally

I still fail to see where I've even suggested that MacKenzie or anyone would be building flat greens. Even at todays greenspeeds their is plenty of contour. As I said in my previous post its no longer the limit of what we can do agronomically that determines the upper limit on greenspeeds but the wind factor. However the point remains that from 1907 when he designed his first course to January 1934 when he died, greenspeeds got faster with improvements in greenkeeping. I say that as an accepted fact and with no empirical evidence to hand but if you think I'm wrong in stating that I'd be interested to hear why.

My conjecture, and its only that, is that as his career progressed, his green designs became softer with Sitwell Park perhaps being the best demonstration of that. If you agree that his green designs did become softer (feel free to disagree) then ask yourself why. Was their some philosophical reason or was it soemthing more practical like increased greenspeeds ?

Niall

I've no idea if his greens became softer over time. In fact, I'd be pretty sure there wasn't a huge material difference given that Alwoodley and Moortown are two of his earliest designs I'm familiar with and they have less contouring than many of his later ones e.g. Augusta.

[Tom_Doak]

Ally

I still fail to see where I've even suggested that MacKenzie or anyone would be building flat greens. Even at todays greenspeeds their is plenty of contour. As I said in my previous post its no longer the limit of what we can do agronomically that determines the upper limit on greenspeeds but the wind factor. However the point remains that from 1907 when he designed his first course to January 1934 when he died, greenspeeds got faster with improvements in greenkeeping. I say that as an accepted fact and with no empirical evidence to hand but if you think I'm wrong in stating that I'd be interested to hear why.

My conjecture, and its only that, is that as his career progressed, his green designs became softer with Sitwell Park perhaps being the best demonstration of that. If you agree that his green designs did become softer (feel free to disagree) then ask yourself why. Was their some philosophical reason or was it soemthing more practical like increased greenspeeds ?

Niall

I've no idea if his greens became softer over time. In fact, I'd be pretty sure there wasn't a huge material difference given that Alwoodley and Moortown are two of his earliest designs I'm familiar with and they have less contouring than many of his later ones e.g. Augusta.

Though Dr. MacKenzie's most severe greens ever were at Sitwell Park, I would say that some of his other most severe sets of greens were among his last ... Pasatiempo and Augusta National in particular.  Of course, they were hilly properties, so that makes practical sense.  The Jockey Club was another late MacKenzie course where the greens were not as severe, but that was a really flat site.