[Sven Nilsen]

What are the best examples of collaborations that have produced quality results (either one off or architects who worked together on multiple projects)?  What was it about the pairing that made the collaboration so successful?

I suppose it would help to define what is meant by "collaboration," which is two or more people willing to work together in the pursuit of a common goal.  I happen to believe that a collaboration does not require equal roles or participation, but rather the fact that all parties involved contributed in some important way to the final result.

I'll start with MacKenzie and Jones -

Although no one would contend that Jones played an equal role in the design process, there was a mutual respect between the two that showed in the final product at Augusta National.

"I suppose no two people ever agreed better -- on a golf course," Jones said. "Doctor MacKenzie and I tried each other out thoroughly. Our ideas seem to be synonymous."

"There was never any question that he (MacKenzie) was the architect and I his advisor and consultant. No man learns to design a course simply by playing golf."

"He rendered me assistance of incalculable value. I am convinced that from no one else could I have obtained such help," MacKenzie wrote in his description of Augusta National that appeared in the first program. "Bob is not only a student of golf, but of golf courses as well, and while I had known him for years, I was amazed at his knowledge and clear recollection of almost all of the particularly famous golf holes in England and Scotland, as well as America."

[David_Tepper]

Sven -

Are you asking about design firms that are/were partnerships (i.e. Coore & Crenshaw or Morrish & Wieskopf) or collaborations between two independent GCAs (i.e. Nicklaus & Doak at Sebonack)?

DT

[Sven Nilsen]

David:

Any and all. 

I'm more interested in discussing why the team aspect worked.  Was there an Alpha Dog?  Did the parties bring different skills to the table?  What did they learn from each other? etc.

Sven



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

What are the best examples of collaborations that have produced quality results (either one off or architects who worked together on multiple projects)?  What was it about the pairing that made the collaboration so successful?

I suppose it would help to define what is meant by "collaboration," which is two or more people willing to work together in the pursuit of a common goal.  I happen to believe that a collaboration does not require equal roles or participation, but rather the fact that all parties involved contributed in some important way to the final result.

I'll start with MacKenzie and Jones -

Although no one would contend that Jones played an equal role in the design process, there was a mutual respect between the two that showed in the final product at Augusta National.

Specifically, exactly how did there mutual respect for each other show in the final product


"I suppose no two people ever agreed better -- on a golf course," Jones said. "Doctor MacKenzie and I tried each other out thoroughly. Our ideas seem to be synonymous."

"There was never any question that he (MacKenzie) was the architect and I his advisor and consultant. No man learns to design a course simply by playing golf."

"He rendered me assistance of incalculable value. I am convinced that from no one else could I have obtained such help," MacKenzie wrote in his description of Augusta National that appeared in the first program. "Bob is not only a student of golf, but of golf courses as well, and while I had known him for years, I was amazed at his knowledge and clear recollection of almost all of the particularly famous golf holes in England and Scotland, as well as America."

These are all nice post project accolades, not dissimilar from what Doak and Nicklaus had to say about each other, post Sebonack.

The fact is, that the wonderful "colaboration" you allude to is highly questionable.

MacKenzie only visited the site once between the start and completion of construction in 1932.

In July of 1931 he visited briefly and staked out the tees and greens.
He then returned in September.
Clearing the property didn't begin until November and the "club" still hadn't decided to proceed with the project as of New Year's Eve.
Roberts, in December of 1931 told MacKenzie that he wanted specific plan details, drawn to exact scale, which never materialized.

The club voted to proceed with construction in February of 1932.

MacKenzie visited the site once during construction, in March, to supervise the last of the contour work on the greens, 15 of which had already been built by the time he arrived.

Prior to his March visit, Cliff Roberts wrote that MacKenzie was not devoting sufficient time to ANGC, that he was spending all his time in California on courses that wouldn't be as significant as ANGC.

So when did all the collaboration you claim, take place ?

Perhaps, like so many other issues, Sebonack for example, you just don't have your facts right.

I note, that you made no mention of the roles that Cliff Roberts and Marion Hollins played.
After all it was Marion Hollins who introduced Jones to her project and MacKenzie's work in California at Pasatiempo.
In addition she founded "Women's National Golf Club" in Glen Head, NY, now known as "Glen Head"
She also assisted Emmett, Raynor and Macdonald with it's design.  She also founded and assisted with the design of Cypress Point.

She had been associated with MacKenzie on three courses.

MacKenzie told Roberts, when MacKenzie suggested that she, not MacKenzie visit ANGC, that her ideas were valuable and that she was thoroughly conversant in regard to the character of the work MacKenzie liked.  And further, that MacKenzie wanted her views and her personal impressions as to how the work was being carried out.

Marion Hollins visited ANGC just prior to construction.
Many believe that it's highly likely that some of Jones's and Robert's ideas were adapted from hers.

Perhaps,  before you try to craft a thread to counter one of my positions, you should take the time to engage in adequate, not half assed research, in order to factually structure your premise.   If you need help in this regard, just let me know, but so far, it appears that you know very little about the efforts to design and build ANGC.  

[Keith OHalloran]

Sven,
Can Pione Valley be considered  a collaboration?

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

Let me get this straight, you're claiming that Jones and MacKenzie did not collaborate on the design of Augusta National Golf Club?  Before I agree to rewrite history, let's take a look at some of the facts.

Here's the history of MacKenzie and Augusta taken from the Alister MacKenzie Society's Timeline:

July 2, 1931 - Clifford Roberts writes to Olmstead Brothers and indicates "we intend using Dr. Alister MacKenzie as the golf architect."

July 14-16, 1931 - On site with Jones.  [There are photos of Jones and MacKenzie looking at drawings and walking the grounds of the proposed site.]

September and October 1931 - visits to the site. 

October 3, 1931 - Arrives in Augusta.  Augusta Chronicle article from the next day notes MacKenzie had gone over the plans with Jones in NYC a few days ago.

October 6, 1931 - Evening Independent reported MacKenzie and Jones were on the site laying out the routing for the golf course.

November 31, 1931 - coloured plan of Augusta drawn, signed and dated by MacKenzie.

March 1932, 1932 - MacKenzie on site overseeing the shaping of the greens and stayed into April.

March 13, 1932 - New York Times reports MacKenzie "is here for a month's stay to see the finishing and to put his stamp of approval upon the course."  Recently inspected the course with Jones.

March 15-16, 1932 - O.B. Keeler writes about a meeting with MacKenzie at Augusta.

Late March, 1932 - On site with Jones who was hitting shots to the short holes on the partly constructed course.

April, 1932 - On site.

April 6, 1932 - Photo of MacKenzie with Jones, Grantland Rice and Roberts.  Photo possibly taken off site.

April 7, 1932 - Photo of Jones teeing up on the course while the course is under construction.  MacKenzie is watching.

April 8, 1932 - Attends a dinner in Augusta.

June 1932 - Black & white plan of Augusta drawn, signed and dated by MacKenzie.

In addition, the Jones/MacKenzie relationship predates the Augusta related events:

July 14, 1927 - The two men meet.

August 29, 1929 - The two men spend time together at Cypress Point.

September 9, 1929 - MacKenzie attends an exhibition match featuring Jones at Pasatiempo.

May 28, 1930 - MacKenzie walks with O.B. Keeler to watch Jones play in the British Amateur.

From this timeline, and from the events you noted in your post, it is indisputable that Jones and MacKenzie:

1.  Toured the proposed site together and shared notes offsite regarding the course;

2.  Spent time together on site routing the course; and

3.  Worked together on site during construction, including Jones hitting shots with MacKenzie observing the results.

That is enough for me to consider the pairing a collaboration, and that the two had time share ideas and develop the mutual understanding that was the crux of their working relationship.  There is a photo on p. 88 of The Spirit of St. Andrew's of the two them walking the ANGC property, Mac carrying drawings under his arm.  The caption for the photo includes a quote from the MacKenzie:

"If, as I firmly believe, Augusta National becomes the World's Wonder Inland Golf Course, this will be due to the original ideas that were contributed by Bob Jones."

You are correct that I did not mention Roberts or Hollins in this lead in.  I also did not mention the prior owner of the nursery, the guy who served them dinner or the valet that took MacKenzie's bags to his room every time he checked into the Bon-Air Vanderbilt.  Reason being, I was discussing the relationship between MacKenzie and Jones, not the relationship between either of them and anyone else that may have had an influence on the creation of the course.

If you still want to maintain that this was not an effective collaboration, I'd suggest you go sell crazy somewhere else.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven,
Can Pione Valley be considered  a collaboration?

In more ways than one.

Sven

[Keith OHalloran]

I thought so too. Came out pretty well.

[Mark Saltzman]

Peachtree?

[Tim Martin]

Yale
Creek Club
Fox Chapel
Taconic

[Paul Jones]

I think a good team would be when one can bring something to the table that the other cannot.  Are there good examples where an architect and a Professional golfer teamed up to build a course - not just use a players name?

I don't know the history of how Coore and Crenshaw team formed, but it is a good one - obviously Crenshaw was a great golfer, but was Coore always an architect?

[Gary Slatter]

1963/64    Lucayan Country Club   Grand Bahama Island         Dick Wilson and Craig Wood        great results!    and Craig Wood was very involved on all 18 holes.

[Paul Jones]

I started a thread recently and got hardly any responses on how much did Bobby Jones contribute to the design and ANGC and Peachtree.  I wonder how much did MacKenzie and RTJ Sr. learn from Bobby Jones and vice versa.  I have always been interested in how much did Bobby Jones contribute.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

Let me get this straight, you're claiming that Jones and MacKenzie did not collaborate on the design of Augusta National Golf Club? 
Define collaborate ?
And, define exactly who did what at ANGC ?
Absent the ability to define roles/contributions/concepts, you don't know who did what.

Why do I think that you never had this information at your disposal when I replied on this post and why do I think others have supplied you with much of the data that appears below, some of which I question.

And, why is there no mention of Robert's complaint that MacKenzie wasn't spending sufficient time at ANGC ?

Before I agree to rewrite history, let's take a look at some of the facts.

Here's the history of MacKenzie and Augusta taken from the Alister MacKenzie Society's Timeline:


July 2, 1931 - Clifford Roberts writes to Olmstead Brothers and indicates "we intend using Dr. Alister MacKenzie as the golf architect."

Irrelevant

July 14-16, 1931 - On site with Jones.  [There are photos of Jones and MacKenzie looking at drawings and walking the grounds of the proposed site.]

I cited that date

September and October 1931 - visits to the site.  I cited that date as well, and this was one visit, arrived in Sept, departed in Oct 

October 3, 1931 - Arrives in Augusta.  Augusta Chronicle article from the next day notes MacKenzie had gone over the plans with Jones in NYC a few days ago.

Dispute the claim.
He was in Augusta earlier having arrived in Sept

October 6, 1931 - Evening Independent reported MacKenzie and Jones were on the site laying out the routing for the golf course.

He had staked the golf course out in July, ergo I dispute the "Evening Independent" report.

November 31, 1931 - coloured plan of Augusta drawn, signed and dated by MacKenzie.

MacKenzie was in California, not Augusta in November

March 1932, 1932 - MacKenzie on site overseeing the shaping of the greens and stayed into April.

I cited that date as well
15 greens already completed when MacKenzie arrives

March 13, 1932 - New York Times reports MacKenzie "is here for a month's stay to see the finishing and to put his stamp of approval upon the course."  Recently inspected the course with Jones.

Most of the course was already done, save for 3 greens when he arrives.

March 15-16, 1932 - O.B. Keeler writes about a meeting with MacKenzie at Augusta.

So what

Late March, 1932 - On site with Jones who was hitting shots to the short holes on the partly constructed course.

15 greens already done.

April, 1932 - On site.

He arrived in March after most of the course had been completed, left in April

April 6, 1932 - Photo of MacKenzie with Jones, Grantland Rice and Roberts.  Photo possibly taken off site.

Irrelevant

April 7, 1932 - Photo of Jones teeing up on the course while the course is under construction.  MacKenzie is watching.

Irrelevant

April 8, 1932 - Attends a dinner in Augusta.

Irrelevant

June 1932 - Black & white plan of Augusta drawn, signed and dated by MacKenzie.

MacKenzie sent it from California, he wasn't back on site until August.

In addition, the Jones/MacKenzie relationship predates the Augusta related events:

July 14, 1927 - The two men meet.

What's your source, reliable sources indicate that they didn't meet until at least two years later in California in 1929

August 29, 1929 - The two men spend time together at Cypress Point.

What's your source, reliable sources indicate that Jone's first introduction to MacKenzie's designs was after the 1929 Amateur at Del Monte/Pebble Beach.  How much time did they spend together ?  And, they most certainly didn't discuss the design of ANGC

September 9, 1929 - MacKenzie attends an exhibition match featuring Jones at Pasatiempo.

Isn't that the first time they met ?
Wasn't it Hollins that introduced them ?

May 28, 1930 - MacKenzie walks with O.B. Keeler to watch Jones play in the British Amateur.

What's that got to do with ANGC

From this timeline, and from the events you noted in your post, it is indisputable that Jones and MacKenzie:

1.  Toured the proposed site together and shared notes offsite regarding the course;

You don't know that they shared notes and there's no evidence of Jones's direct design

2.  Spent time together on site routing the course; and

You don't know of the extent of work, if any, that Jones contributed to routing the golf course.

3.  Worked together on site during construction, including Jones hitting shots with MacKenzie observing the results.

Not to diminish Jones's contribution to ANGC, but, in terms of design and design principles, you don't know the specifics or extent of Jones's contribution.  You do have sketches and drawings from MacKenzie, nothing from Jones.  And, why is Roberts demanding more time on site from MacKenzie if Jones was contributing to the routing and design of the golf course ?

Why did MacKenzie send Hollins if in fact Jones was doing the design and construction work ?

That is enough for me to consider the pairing a collaboration, and that the two had time share ideas and develop the mutual understanding that was the crux of their working relationship. 

I disagree.
There's evidence of MacKenzie's documented contributions to the design, in the form of sketches and detailed drawings
Where's the documented evidence of Jones's contributions ?

There is a photo on p. 88 of The Spirit of St. Andrew's of the two them walking the ANGC property, Mac carrying drawings under his arm.  The caption for the photo includes a quote from the MacKenzie:

"If, as I firmly believe, Augusta National becomes the World's Wonder Inland Golf Course, this will be due to the original ideas that were contributed by Bob Jones."

Are you certain that the caption refers to specific design ideas/concepts or the creation of ANGC.
Please show me the documented evidence reflecting Jones's specific design contributions

You are correct that I did not mention Roberts or Hollins in this lead in.  I also did not mention the prior owner of the nursery, the guy who served them dinner or the valet that took MacKenzie's bags to his room every time he checked into the Bon-Air Vanderbilt.  Reason being, I was discussing the relationship between MacKenzie and Jones, not the relationship between either of them and anyone else that may have had an influence on the creation of the course.

I don't think so.  I don't think you had a clue as to the extent of Hollins's involvement at ANGC when you initiated this thread.
To equate her work to that of waiters and valets is an indication of how little you knew about ANGC.

And, if a surrogate was responsible for a portion, small or large, of the design of ANGC, it would undermine the very core of your premise, for any work that she was responsible for, couldn't be attributed to MacKenzie, therefore minimizing the perceived collaborative effort.

If you still want to maintain that this was not an effective collaboration, I'd suggest you go sell crazy somewhere else.

Myths, even charming myths, or often difficult to dispel.

There are ample unanswered questions that could lead a prudent person to challenge Jones's involvement in the actual design of the golf course.
And there's sufficient evidence to suggest that MacKenzie's lack of onsite visits, as documented by Cliff Roberts, and Marion Hollins's visit, could be construed as "mailing it in".

Now I happen to be a great fan of ANGC, I think it's a great, really great golf course, but, until someone provides documented evidence, substantiating Jones's specific design contributions, I'm not prepared to state that the golf course was a collaborative effort.

Jones and Roberts certainly created ANGC, but, with regard to the routing, hole and feature design, I see documented evidence of MacKenzie's contributions, but, I don't see any of Jones's.

Could you produce that evidence ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,
Can Pione Valley be considered  a collaboration?

Keith,

I think you have to differentiate between a collaboration and a consultation.

And, in some instances, perhaps they start to look alike.

In Pine Valley's case, some give Colt full credit.
Others give Crump full credit.
Still others say that AWT, Colt and others assisted /consulted.

Since Crump never kept a detailed diary/log, we'll never know, even with Crump's friends providing their recollection, as those recollections, influenced by their friendship, might be skewed.

[Gary Slatter]

Patrick Mucci:   you are brilliant!

[Tom_Doak]

Sven:

Very few golf courses are designed and built by one man.  The "lead architect" always gets a bit too much credit for the final result.

The hardest part of collaborating with Jack Nicklaus at Sebonack, was finding the right roles for all the other people we normally collaborate with, from Jim Lipe and Jim Urbina on down the line to my associates and interns.  All of them had to take a bit of a step back from their normal roles, and in some cases, that meant using less of their input than we might have.  The high profile nature of the job and the fact that the owner wanted to be so involved, meant that there were a lot more executive decisions than a normal job would require.  And you know what happens when the executives try to manage everything!

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

I defined "collaboration" back in the first post of this thread.  

As for the information I provided, it is information that I have studied prior to this exchange which is readily available from the appropriate bookmark on my computer.  No one else was involved with providing the facts noted, other than those whose hard work went into preparing the source documentation.

In response to your questions/assertions:

1.  Cliff Roberts - Roberts was a bulldog.  It should be of no surprise that the man demanded service above and beyond the call of duty.  That was his way and is very much the reason why the club and the tournament are what they are today.  I would bet the house that Alister MacKenzie was not the first or last person hired by Roberts that was hounded with demands for more.  I'd also suggest that Roberts was the rare bread of man who deemed it appropriate to tell others how to do their job.  Where he thought MacKenzie should have been on site for the entire duration, MacKenzie knew, based on having gone through the process many times before, when he would be needed.  It is interesting to note that the same complaints were not voiced by Jones.  In addition, please remember that this was during a time when a man could not just hop on a plane and show up on site when requested.  MacKenzie lived in California, the course was in Georgia.  He had work in California and in other parts of the country during the same time frame that he was working on Augusta.  Perhaps if Roberts had wanted someone on site for the majority of the project, he should have hired someone from the area who was a bit less in demand.

As for Roberts' request for a to scale plan, MacKenzie delivered his November 1931 plan.  Why would he prepare a to scale plan of a course that was not yet completed, as evidenced by the adjustments that were made during the time MacKenzie spent on site with Jones in the Spring.  MacKenzie knew the process, knew that there were still design aspects to be completed and knew that the idea of a to scale plan at that point was a waste of time.  Roberts, the layman, would not have appreciated this point. Whether the plan was prepared while he was in California of Georgia is, as you say, irrelevant.  [You are going to call this speculation, which is fine.  But its a very reasonable bit of speculation.]

2.  Marion Hollins - Have you considered that there may have been reasons outside of the design of the course for why MacKenzie would have wanted Roberts to meet Hollins.  Hollins had vast experience with the endeavor that Roberts was undertaking for the first time, namely building and starting a golf club.  Perhaps MacKenzie thought the two would have a lot to talk about.  Perhaps he knew that Hollins had the personality and base of knowledge to "get Cliff on board." (Those are my quotes, so don't look for a citation.)  It may have been the savviest move in the early days of architect/client relations.

3.  MacKenzie and Jones First Meeting - in 1927, MacKenzie attended the British Open at St. Andrews.  He met Jones there and spent a day watching his play over the course with O.B. Keeler.  The Keeler connection is key, as he is most likely the nexus of the connection between the two men.  The subsequent dates, including Jones seeing Cypress, are key to understanding the relationship between the two men.  Prior to engaging MacKenzie for ANGC, Jones had a degree of familiarity with his design principles.  And on the other side of the equation, MacKenzie knew first hand that Jones would be able to contribute the insight of a world class player.  These meetings and experiences were most likely the key reasons why Roberts and Jones went with MacKenzie over his peers, including Ross.  As for the sources for these meetings, I'd suggest you review the 16th edition of the MacKenzie Chronology provided by the MacKenzie Society.

4.  September/October 1931 - MacKenzie was on site in September and October of 1932.  With the evidence of the trip with Jones to New York at the end of September, the thought is that there were two separate visits broken up by the trip to NYC, with a return to Augusta on October 3.

5.  The Collaboration - Your obsession with documentation is fascinating.  What has been documented is that the two men spent time on the site, walked the land together, were together when the course was routed and worked together during construction.  It is of no surprise that the sketches and drawings were done by MacKenzie.  He was an architect by trade.  None of this is evidence that Jones did not participate in the decisions, thought processes, brainstorming sessions and/or critical analysis that formulated the subject of those sketches and drawings.  

Whether Hollins, Roberts or anyone else had a hand in any aspect of the design of the course is of little consequence.  This conversation was started in an attempt (no matter how much you want to sidetrack it) to discuss the relationship between the two key players.  If you want, I'd be happy to make this a conversation of the collaboration between Mac, Jones and Marion, as long as you can provide suitable documentation of her involvement.  

Eagerly awaiting your bombastic response,

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

1.  I seem to recall that Ross wanted the commission.
     I think Roberts had a reasonable expectation for Mac to be on site most of the time given
     The concept behind ANGC
     Most developers want and receive detailed plans prior to embarking on a golf course project.
     and that was Roberts's nature.  Pete Dye may be one of the exceptions to the rule.
     When Mac visited in March, the bones of the course were in place, Mac's visit was to fine tune,
     not to make changes to the routing and holes.
     If Mac is in CA and RTJ in GA, they'd hardly be collaborating, especially when Mac had several projects
     in progress in CA

2.   There's no evidence that Hollins ever met Roberts.
       Had the purpose of her visit been to meet with Roberts, surely it would have been recorded.
      Mac specifically stated that her purpose for visiting was purely architectural.
      Your theory on Hollins is pure speculation absent concrete evidence

3.   Watching him play golf hardly qualifies as meeting in person
      Marion Hollins, not OB is the connection.
      She and she alone introduced RTJ to CPC and Pasa
      RTJ was immediately enamored with what he saw
      Mac didn't need Jones to instruct him on how the better golfer played, he wasn't a neophyte
      when it came to designing world class golf courses for every level of golfer.
       CPC & Pasa and Mac's rep were the probable factors, not following him on the golf course.

4.   I think ANGC's archives indicate it was one trip overlapping the two months.

5.    Ditto the March visit

6.    Pure speculation on your part.
       If you can't document active and specific participation how can you make the claim that Jones
       collaborated ?

Collaboration, to me, in the context of "architects" connotes equal participation in the creative process.
Owners/developers are the project visionaries, architects are the creative professionals retained by the owner/developer who in turn convert the owner/developer's intangible, general vision or concept into a tangible golf course.

In terms of ANGC I see no documented evidence attributing routing, individual holes and/or features to Jones's creative architectural efforts.

As to Marion Hollins, written documentation from Mac detailing her mission to ANGC exists.

Co-operation vis a vis consulting, seems to have been prevalent at the turn of the 20th century.
I don't see it happening to any sizable degree today
     

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

I am highly impressed, I believe that is the first post of yours directed my way without an ad hominem attack.

I think you've got the timeline of the Jones/MacKenzie relationship a bit off.  The two had been friends for a few years prior to the time they spent together in California in 1929.  1929 may have been the first time Jones saw any of the Doctor's work in person, but there is the chance that he may have played a Mac course in Great Britain during one of his many trips overseas.  I've read differing accounts on when they actually met for the first time.  One account has it around the time of the 1926 Walker Cup, with the two playing a number of rounds on The Old Course together after Jones had extended his travel plans.  The other account is the one I noted from 1927.  In either case, it appears that by 1927 the two had struck up a friendship.  I'd also posit that Jones was very well aware of MacKenzie's work in California prior to his visit in 1929.  Golf was a small world back then and quite well covered in the press, and a man like Bobby Jones would have been up to date on the activities of the preeminent architects of his day, especially if he had already struck up a friendship with one of them.

Probably the major factor in the hiring of MacKenzie was Jones intention to "borrow" concepts from St. Andrews in his ideal golf course.  He knew that MacKenzie was the renowned expert of his day on that course, and I believe it was H.H. Wind who noted that Jones had the MacKenzie Old Course Plan in his office.  As much as Ross may have wanted the job, he just wasn't as qualified as Mackenzie.  This St. Andrews influence is one of the major reasons (admittedly without any documentation) why I believe that the two men collaborated.  I think the time they spent on site was time spent discussing what they had learned from St. Andrews, where it would go and how it would work.  MacKenzie may have been the primary driving force behind the final decisions, but I believe those decisions were reached with the input of Jones playing a key role.  Since we disagree on the balance of work required for a collaboration, I can appreciate that you may see this as a consultation or more simply as a "developer/owner" passing on his wishes.  Under my view of the term, and in light of the many quotes from the two men discussing their shared interest in the Old Course and in light of the time they spent together on the initial site visits, during the routing process and during construction, I believe the two men collaborated.

One aspect of the timeline of MacKenzie's work that I find very interesting is that it is very similar to how many architects work today.  Of course, the modern designer has the benefits of technology.  But as been noted elsewhere on this site, when you track the travel schedules of many of the guys from the golden age, they were never in the same place for very long.  Sounds a lot like some of the travel schedules we read about here today.  All that being said, I don't agree with you on the "reasonableness" of Roberts' demands regarding time on site.  As for the reasonableness of the request for detailed plans, I don't know what MacKenzie's normal practice was in this regard.  Perhaps someone else can chime in to let us know if it was tendency to produce these types of plans prior to the initiation of course construction (and in this case, prior to the February 1932 board approval of construction).  My guess (and we're back to speculation) is that in this case MacKenzie viewed Roberts as a thorn in his side and considered Jones to be the party worthy of his time, patience and attention.

As for Hollins offering up any design advice at Augusta, I'd buy that story but for one fact.  The course as built is the course depicted in the November 1931 plans drawn up MacKenzie.  Go back and take another look at those plans and note the detail, down to the shape of the greens and the location of the bunkers.  The design work was done in November of 1931, based on the work put in by MacKenzie and Jones during the prior summer and in September and October.  It is of no surprise to me that MacKenzie did not deem it necessary to be on site until the detail work was necessary.  He already knew what was being built, he had mapped it out with Jones, and when he showed up on site the only thing he needed to do was add the fine tuning that couldn't be conveyed on paper alone.

Speaking of Hollins, how much credit would you give her for 16 at Cypress Point?  If you believe the story of her noting the hole should be played as a par 3 (and proving that it could be), would you consider her involvement there to be worthy of consideration as a "collaboration?"

Cheers,

Sven

[Sean_A]

The Trinity of Majors at Pulborough, although I think this project broke the three up.

I would sure like to know how the Fowler/Simpson pair worked. 

I would also like to know how the Fowler, Abercrombie, Simpson & Croome partnership worked. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

The Trinity of Majors at Pulborough, although I think this project broke the three up.

I would sure like to know how the Fowler/Simpson pair worked. 

I would also like to know how the Fowler, Abercrombie, Simpson & Croome partnership worked. 

Sean,

There are a significant number of partnerships, but that doesn't mean there as any collaboration on the creative end.

There's a unique talent, mostly innate in artists/creative people and often that talent can't be transferred from the talented to the untalented

Ciao

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

One last point on MacKenzie and Jones.  The 1932 Plan for ANGC drawn up by the Olmstead Brothers (a contemporaneous source) has the following attribution for the course:

"Dr. Alister MacKenzie
Golf Architect

In Collaboration With
Mr. Robert Tyre Jones Jr."

I'll go check my 1932 copy of Websters, but I'm pretty sure the definition of the word hasn't changed over the years.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

One last point on MacKenzie and Jones.  The 1932 Plan for ANGC drawn up by the Olmstead Brothers (a contemporaneous source) has the following attribution for the course:

"Dr. Alister MacKenzie
Golf Architect

In Collaboration With
Mr. Robert Tyre Jones Jr."

I'll go check my 1932 copy of Websters, but I'm pretty sure the definition of the word hasn't changed over the years.

Sven,

You still don't get it.

Who was THE STATED GOLF ARCHITECT ?   MacKenzie and NO ONE ELSE

A collaboration doesn't mean that the same  "responsibilities" are shared.

Have you ever heard of the term "division of labor" where as you say, different parties have separate, "defined roles"

There's no documented evidence substantiating Jones's specific contributions to the design of the golf course.

Ken Bakst collaborated with C&C
Roger Hansen collaborated with C&C
Lowell Schulman collaborated with Rees Jones
Mike Keiser collaborated with David Kidd
Mike Keiser collaborated with C&C
Mike Keiser collaborated with Tom Doak
Dick Youngscap collaborated with C&C

In each and every case, who was the architect of record ?
Whose design concepts were laid upon the land ?

RTJ Jr collaborated with MacKezie, who as you cited above, was THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat:

I am highly impressed, I believe that is the first post of yours directed my way without an ad hominem attack.

It must have been an oversight

I think you've got the timeline of the Jones/MacKenzie relationship a bit off.  The two had been friends for a few years prior to the time they spent together in California in 1929.  1929 may have been the first time Jones saw any of the Doctor's work in person, but there is the chance that he may have played a Mac course in Great Britain during one of his many trips overseas.  I've read differing accounts on when they actually met for the first time.  One account has it around the time of the 1926 Walker Cup, with the two playing a number of rounds on The Old Course together after Jones had extended his travel plans.  The other account is the one I noted from 1927.  In either case, it appears that by 1927 the two had struck up a friendship.  I'd also posit that Jones was very well aware of MacKenzie's work in California prior to his visit in 1929.  Golf was a small world back then and quite well covered in the press, and a man like Bobby Jones would have been up to date on the activities of the preeminent architects of his day, especially if he had already struck up a friendship with one of them.

Being "aware" of it and seeing it and playing it are two enormously distinctive differences

Probably the major factor in the hiring of MacKenzie was Jones intention to "borrow" concepts from St. Andrews in his ideal golf course.  He knew that MacKenzie was the renowned expert of his day on that course, and I believe it was H.H. Wind who noted that Jones had the MacKenzie Old Course Plan in his office.  As much as Ross may have wanted the job, he just wasn't as qualified as Mackenzie.  This St. Andrews influence is one of the major reasons (admittedly without any documentation) why I believe that the two men collaborated.  I think the time they spent on site was time spent discussing what they had learned from St. Andrews, where it would go and how it would work.  MacKenzie may have been the primary driving force behind the final decisions, but I believe those decisions were reached with the input of Jones playing a key role.  Since we disagree on the balance of work required for a collaboration, I can appreciate that you may see this as a consultation or more simply as a "developer/owner" passing on his wishes.  Under my view of the term, and in light of the many quotes from the two men discussing their shared interest in the Old Course and in light of the time they spent together on the initial site visits, during the routing process and during construction, I believe the two men collaborated.

MacKenzie had nothing to do with TOC
Jones was very impressed by what he saw and experienced at CPC and Pasatiempo.

MacKenzie was THE ARCHITECT, a preeminent world class architect.
Jones was a golfer

One aspect of the timeline of MacKenzie's work that I find very interesting is that it is very similar to how many architects work today.  Of course, the modern designer has the benefits of technology.  But as been noted elsewhere on this site, when you track the travel schedules of many of the guys from the golden age, they were never in the same place for very long.  Sounds a lot like some of the travel schedules we read about here today.  All that being said, I don't agree with you on the "reasonableness" of Roberts' demands regarding time on site.  As for the reasonableness of the request for detailed plans, I don't know what MacKenzie's normal practice was in this regard.  Perhaps someone else can chime in to let us know if it was tendency to produce these types of plans prior to the initiation of course construction (and in this case, prior to the February 1932 board approval of construction).  My guess (and we're back to speculation) is that in this case MacKenzie viewed Roberts as a thorn in his side and considered Jones to be the party worthy of his time, patience and attention.

Sven,

People don't commit substantial sums of money, in 1932 and today, without knowing what's being proposed/planned.

Roberts had every reasonable expectation for Mac to be on site.
And, every reasonable expectation to receive detailed plans that he could show to prospective members

Mac left the site in it's natural form in early October and hadn't returned prior to approval and the beginning of construction in Feb.
That's a 4 month gap

As for Hollins offering up any design advice at Augusta, I'd buy that story but for one fact.  The course as built is the course depicted in the November 1931 plans drawn up MacKenzie.  Go back and take another look at those plans and note the detail, down to the shape of the greens and the location of the bunkers.  The design work was done in November of 1931, based on the work put in by MacKenzie and Jones during the prior summer and in September and October.  It is of no surprise to me that MacKenzie did not deem it necessary to be on site until the detail work was necessary.  He already knew what was being built, he had mapped it out with Jones, and when he showed up on site the only thing he needed to do was add the fine tuning that couldn't be conveyed on paper alone.

How can you ignore Mac's written word ?
He explicitly outlined Hollins's reason for visiting and her role
He stated that she worked with him on 3 other golf course and knew what to do.
She was Mac's alter ego and surrogate and performed the duties Mac abdicated/delegated to her

Speaking of Hollins, how much credit would you give her for 16 at Cypress Point?  If you believe the story of her noting the hole should be played as a par 3 (and proving that it could be), would you consider her involvement there to be worthy of consideration as a "collaboration?"

I believe the conceptualizing of the hole, which is a contribution to the design.

I don't believe the execution (proving) story

Have you ever played # 16 at CPC ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()