And all this time I thought that

[Bill_McBride]

 

So I guess the question is, why have you posed a straw man argument if not merely to generate a couple of argumentative pages of posts?


What's negative about the remarks above?   

Only a moron wouldn't understand what's negative about your remark above.

As far as posting new threads, I was posting photo tours of cool courses like Pennard and Painswick years before you figured out how to post photos. 

WOW, posting photos, alot of intellect required for that task huh.
How about creating threads that stimulate discussion, that challenge one's intellect, or haven't you learned how to do that yet ? 

I'm not as big a beard puller as you are so I'll just have to settle for enjoying yours. 

Then try to keep the whining and erroneous conclusions to a minimum

[Sven Nilsen]

On his Feb, 1926 visit to California it's recorded that he and Hunter spent time visiting courses in the Bay area, thus dismissing Sven's claim that there weren't many courses in California at the time. 

 

You're losing it old timer.  Please quote anything I've said in this thread that corresponds with this statement.

There were plenty of courses in California by 1926.   If you'd like I can give you a pretty good idea of how many, including how many were built and revised between 1920 and 1926.

So little time, so much to teach you.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

1. Do you think its possible that the Cali contingent saw photos of Dr Mac's British work pre-1926? 

    Possible ?  Yes      Probable ?  Maybe  But, let's extend the time line further to pre 1920.
    Then, I'd say it was improbable.

2. Do you think its possible that some of the Cali contingent saw some of Dr Mac's pre-1926 work in person? 

    Can't find any evidence of that.  Possible ?  Probable ?  Unlikely.

3. Do you think its possible the Cali contingent style of bunkering was developed simultaneously and completely independently of Dr Mac's style(s)? 
      More than likely, especially when courses with that bunker style were in evidence in California pre 1926 and 1920

      In addition, the notion that 1926 is a bellwether year is nonsense, MacKenzie was rarely in California in 1926 and didn't take up
      residence in California until November of 1930

[Tom_Doak]

Most of these Californian architects, being avid enthusiasts -- Tommy N. will back me up on this -- surely read MacKenzie's book and saw examples of his bunker style.

I'm not sure MacKenzie invented the style.  He himself said he was only trying to copy the forms he saw occurring naturally in sand dunes.  Maybe Billy Bell had the same idea, instead of seeing it in a book.  But I don't know how you could PROVE that.

Yes, 100% agreed!  Early California bunkering went from very natural to none, then to Geometric at some places and then even trench-like which could have been easily confused as Seth Raynor's.  Eventually Bell bunkering made its way on to a lot of course, but ironically, he had a style that was used later on that was very muscleback like. HUGE muscles!

The bunkers at Wilshire were much trench like and rugged until a later remodel, which its been speculated, could have been a Norman Macbeth trip to Cypress Point. (pictures of him and MacKenzie there, and there is always the Max Behr connection to MacKenzie for Macbeth. (Max and Mac were friends as we know)

Regardless, the artistic bunkering seen in the images I posted at Oakmont gave us that unrefined very natural look; You could also find it at early NGLA if some of you were looking! (Right Tom?!?!?)

From British Golf Links circa 1896 from the hired eye for Horace Hutchinson:




I think the important thing to note here is that Pat is meaning--I think he is meaning that he is seeing for the first time rugged bunkers in California architecture previous to MacKenzie being in California. I think he as well as everyone else knows what a bunker looked like in Great Britain, but then again......

I'D RATHER SEE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT LAND FORMS AND SHAPES IN THE APPROACHES IN AND AROUND THE GREEN!

Thanks, Tommy.  Since Patrick is not listening to anything any of us say anymore, I'll ask you the question I was going to ask him:

When exactly were all of those pictures that Patrick has latched onto, taken?  Are any of them really from before 1920?

Because, of course, I expect that once one or two of the courses started to build lacy-edged bunkers, and people liked them, the other courses in the area started to do the same ... maybe several years after the course was originally built.

In fact, I know one example where that happened -- San Francisco Golf Club!  The 1920 pictures of the course in the men's grill show deeper bunkers without the lacy edges.  Originally, I thought that must have been from the pre-Tillinghast course ... but Sean Tully's research indicates pretty conclusively that the lacy edges were added by a bunker re-do by Billy Bell in the mid- to late 1920's. 

So, the bunkers Tillie is famous for, aren't really even his.  But they didn't originate in 1915, when the course was built.  They happened in the mid 20's ... right about the time that MacKenzie started working in northern California, and definitely right when Billy Bell came up to do his thing.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,

Why are you fixated on 1920, six to ten years before MacKenzie sets foot in and resides in California ?

Oh, that's right, it's your claim that every architect in California had read his book cover to cover as of 1920, had the photos framed and adopted his bunker style on all of their courses.  I forgot that.  You wouldn't happen to have any proof of that would you ?

I am requesting photos from a pre-1920 course in California and will have someone post them when received, then we'll see if your "Golf Architecture" theory holds water or whether you're all wet.

[Neil_Crafter]

I've only just stumbled onto this thread, as the title of the thread says nothing at all about what the thread is about. Before I make any comments, could I ask this of Pat - please can you put what the thread is about in your title rather than the obscure half sentences that you are currently doing? Thankyou.

It is an interesting thread topic and it's not easy to give a definitive answer to what Pat has posed.

Pat has pulled out various references from our Chronology to Mackenzie visiting the US, the first of these was early in 1926. Why did he visit? For work foremost, as Robert Hunter had indicated he could get projects there for him, and secondly, Mackenzie was no doubt curious about America, its capitalist system and its sheer size.

Mackenzie's early work around Leeds, primarily Alwoodley and Moortown, saw the genesis of his bunkering style. These two courses in particular were delightfully natural looking, while others were rather artificial, such as some of his bunkering at Headingley. By the time of the First war, Mackenzie had completed a lot of work and had a lot about to start which the war put a stop to. After the war's end, he put out his little green book "Golf Architecture" which was based on lectures given before the war and contained pretty much photographs of his pre war work, with the exception I think of some shots of Grange-over-Sands in construction, which was a post war project.



Would architects in the US have seen his book in the early 20s? Given the dearth of books on this subject I'm confident that the answer would be yes. certainly Alex Russell had a copy, as did H L Rymill, to name two Australian architects, although Russell did not begin his career until Mackenzie's arrival later in 1926. Certainly Rymill was active and influenced by the book. I imagine some US architects were too.

Post WW1, Mackenzie's bunkering evolved somewhat, as you would expect, and perhaps there was more of an influence from his camouflage experiences during that war as well. generally though, my take is that Mackenzie's post WW1 bunkering style in the UK was more a cape and bay style than a 'frilly' style. Perhaps that has something to do with his constructors and that he was doing a lot of work where he struggled to give his projects the attention they perhaps deserved, especially in the 1920 to 1924 period when he was exceptionally busy. Perhaps the bunkers were simplified somewhat as a result.

Post WW1 Mac bunkering at Morecambe in the UK


But the first bunkers coming out of the Mackenzie and Hunter partnership in America, those at the Meadow Club, are quite unique in all of Mackenzie's work in my view, and they look different to the frilly bunkers that Bell and Thomas were doing. The shapes were generally ovoid/elongated with smallish undulating frills, with few if any large capes or bays.



This style was different again from the style utilised at the Valley Club, also Mackenzie and Hunter, and different again from the Cypress Point bunkers.

Valley Club bunkering 18th


Lake Merced's bunkering was somewhat different again, as was California GC.





As Tom correctly points out, Mackenzie imported Irish foremen and bunker men, names such as Jack Fleming, Dan Gormley, Paddy Cole and Michael McDonagh, to work for the American Golf Course Construction that he, his brother Charles and Robert Hunter set up to build the Californian courses. Hunter's son, Robert Jr was the managing director.

Mackenzie was in Australia in late 1926, but the bunkers built there, mostly by Morcom and Russell, were different again. This is the earliest known photograph of the 5th at Royal Melbourne West. No frills in sight.



This bears out what I think is important, that Mackenzie was not wedded to one particular look for every bunker everywhere, rather he went with the flow to some degree, allowing his partners to give some input and influence in this regard.

So the question is I guess, did Mackenzie copy what he saw the architects in California doing with bunkers? Was he influenced at all by them? We know he met on site at Riviera with Bell and Thomas while he was in LA in February 1926, so he certainly saw what they were up to. I don't believe he copied them. Did they copy him? I doubt it, but they would have been influenced to some degree by photos of some of Mackenzie's pre war UK work. Hunter's book The Links came out in 1926 and Thomas's book a year later, both included photos and drawings of Mackenzie's work.

My conclusions are:

1. Mackenzie had no consistent "Californian" style with his bunkering, all his Cal courses have bunkering that are different in some way or another.

2. He did not copy what other architects might have done before he arrived in California.

3. He was influenced to some degree by Robert Hunter, who as his partner "on the spot", had day to day oversight of the bunkering and other constructional aspects built by the AGCCCo's Irish constructors.

4. Whatever lacy/frilly style developed in Cal prior to 1926 grew somewhat independent of Mackenzie, but in response to the desire for natural looking courses with less artificiality, so its no surprise really that these sorts of eroded bunker edges came from that desire for naturalness.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Niall,

Thanks for your reply.

Could you date the photos you posted.

I've got to be up at 6:15 tomorrow, so i've got to go, but briefly, I always attributed the "California" or "Lace Edge" bunkering to Mackenzie, and I think many others did as well.  Hence I was surprised to see that style in photos of courses I visited in California in October, 2012, and again more recently.

Since MacKenzie only visited California briefly in 1926 he couldn't have been responsible for that style prior to 1926, despite Tom Doak's claim that the1920 edition of "Golf Architecture" became the "Bible" or "Bunkers for Dummies" manual for all California architects from 1920.

My belief is that the bunkering in the early California course was organic and not the product of an Imported style vis a vis MacKenzie.

In looking at photos of the site at CPC prior to the building of the course, one can understand how that style fit in and became popular.

In reading your timeline, and there are some conflicts, it seems that Hunters role in designing and constructing CPC is largely unrecognized.
And that perhaps MacKenzie's role is overstated.
I'd be interested in hearing your views on that.

But what really caught my non-golfing eye was MacKenzie's divorce and remarriage to Hilda shortly thereafter.
What's the real story behind that z?

[RJ_Daley]

Neil, can you say what the date of this photo was?


If the photo is pre-1926-8, then it isn't much of a stretch, at least not for me, to believe that what styling of bunker as shown on this very photo at Cal Club is exactly the look George Thomas sought to present at Riviera.  If Thomas just finished selecting a routing in 1926, and Bell commenced the construction sometime that year, it seems to me that they didn't have a "look" to the bunkers, and turf on the tongues, etc., until at least 1928-29.

http://www.therivieracountryclub.com/html/history.cfm

I believe one can assume that in this photo, Dr. MacKenzie has a sketchbook in his hands, and is drawing how the look of a tongue and capes and bays bunkering style can really zip up "the look" and Bell with hands on hips is saying "alright then, I'll get the crew to work on it pronto".


 Of course I am confident there are folks like you, Sean Tully and Tommy that can pin that time frame down, very precisely.  I'm just a sideline observer in the minutia about all this.  But, I feel pretty confident that the words I had read years ago, by the Good Dr., about his goals and techniques, bear out that the genre of natual edged bunkers, of irregular transition lines where fairway met bunker surrounds and also met rough, were pretty much defined by Dr. MacKenzie to emulate naturalness, and that most understandably as you note, it wasn't as if there were bookshelves full of how-to books on GCA and construction techniques in that era.   So, the Cali boys knew of these MacKenzie principles, and adapted them to the ground in Cali, adding their own interpretations.  But, it is like any other genre of art or design style; it has a genisis and then gets refined and often improved along the way as masters teach students.  And Dr. MacKenzie was a master.  Not the other way around when it comes to the Cali guys.

[Neil_Crafter]

RJ, the photo of the 10th at Cal Club appeared in an advert for the American Golf Course Construction Co in Fairway magazine in January 1928. So its a fair bet that the photo was very late 1927.

[Sven Nilsen]

Just to add to the conversation, MacKenzie's book was noted in the June 5, 1920 edition of American Golfer:

By the way, mentioning improvements on courses, a book on course
architecture has just been issued by
Dr. A. Mackenzie, the well-known
architect, who is now in partnership
with H. S. Colt, who has supplied an
introduction to the work. There are
many instructive points in the book,
and in general the author indicates to
us that the great thing in constructing golf courses is to insure variety,
to preserve existing natural features,
and, where new features must be
made, to shape them so that they will
be as far as possible in harmony with
the natural surroundings. Dr. Mackenzie is a good architect, and his
fine work in the north of England
first brought him into notice.

[RJ_Daley]

Neil, if the photo is early '28, and probably taken late '27, would that have been a new green, since MacKenzie was commissioned to do the FW bunkering and revise Macan's 10th green in '27.  That seems a bit tight of a grow-in for that era to me.  But then again, it IS California.  

I'm also interested to know, if Neil or others can say who Bell used at Riviera to do feature construction work.  Did he have any of the Irish contingent that Hunter and MacKenzie brought over to staff the American Golf Course Const., Co. who worked on CPC and CalClub?  Once again, IF that were the case, these constructors were following MacKenzie's techniques and directives of building and styling the bunkers primarily, and woud be an added advantage to be utilized by Bell/Thomas, Behr and these other Cal archies, it seems to me.  

When looking at techniques of bunkering construction, one simply can't say that they were a static style in any one period, as every course had variations, as demonstrated by the difference of the Meadow Club bunker with the Valley Club, to the Pasatiempo to Cal Club.  Bell/Thomas didn't really copy the Riviera bunkers without observable variation; did they?  I'll leave that to be answered by experts like you fellows, but after all this agrivation over Pat's endless contradictions and contumacy, he should give up the ghost and let TD, and the rest of you school this class.

BTW, isn't it really the same today when it comes to these constructors, following techniques and general principles to get a genre and brand identifiable 'look' to these archies who strive for a blended with nature presentation?  While each work product is slightly different, owing to climate and soils, don't we see the same sort of similarity we find between Dr. MacKenzie's design directives interpreted by his workers, and compare it with the loose gang of constructors that drift between Doak, Coore-Crenshaw, now Urbina and Hepner branching out, Mike DeVries, etc.?  And, aren't these modern archies using much they studied and observed going right back to Dr. MacKenzie, forming a lineage of design evolution within a genre?  

[Mark Bourgeois]

Further to the Timeline, Colt introduced Hunter to Mackenzie during Hunter's trip to the UK in August 1912. Additionally, Mackenzie and Hunter both were in attendance (Hunter as a player) at the 1923 British Amateur Championship, although it is not known if they met.

Regarding technology and the dissemination of knowledge in the early part of the 20th century:

1) Mackenzie's "Golf Architecture" regurgitates much of what he presented in lectures given in 1913 and 1914. These lectures were reported in the US, notably in a 1914 four-part series in the Christian Science Monitor.
2) Mackenzie oversaw his redesign of Castletown Golf Links during the winter of 1914 using photographs. Pictures of every feature were taken and the plates forwarded to him weekly.

[Sean_A]

1. Do you think its possible that the Cali contingent saw photos of Dr Mac's British work pre-1926? 

    Possible ?  Yes      Probable ?  Maybe  But, let's extend the time line further to pre 1920.
    Then, I'd say it was improbable.

2. Do you think its possible that some of the Cali contingent saw some of Dr Mac's pre-1926 work in person? 

    Can't find any evidence of that.  Possible ?  Probable ?  Unlikely.

3. Do you think its possible the Cali contingent style of bunkering was developed simultaneously and completely independently of Dr Mac's style(s)? 
      More than likely, especially when courses with that bunker style were in evidence in California pre 1926 and 1920

      In addition, the notion that 1926 is a bellwether year is nonsense, MacKenzie was rarely in California in 1926 and didn't take up
      residence in California until November of 1930

Pat

The answer to #1 is where we differ.  I think it highly likely that that most of the "inner circle" archies knew much of what was going on either side of the pond through photos, letters and articles.  This is a fairly small group of people where I believe info travelled rapidly for the time period. 

The answer to #1 means we come to a different conclusion to #3.  I don't think there would have been independent development of similar bunker styles.  Actually, I think the meeting point may well not have been Dr Mac, but links bunkers. 

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sean,

I don't know the number of books published in 1920, but, it couldn't have been voluminous.

What makes you think that Watson, MacBeth, Bell, Thomas and others were keenly aware of MacKenzie's work in the UK,
especially if none of them had ever visited the UK prior to 1920-1926 ?

Or that they had seen any photos of his work ?

You're applying the level of communications in 2013 to 1913.

You're also forgetting about WWI, the impact on travel across the Atlantic, and it's impact on news of the day.
From 1914 through 1918 I doubt that little of MacKenzie's work, including photos, was finding it's way to California

It used to take about half a month to get from Southampton to LA/SF.

So, I'm not buying into your premise that the California architects were intimately familiar with MacKenzie's work pre 1920 and pre 1926.

Your position is one of wishful thinking, primarily because you want to believe that MacKenzie influenced the California style.
You haven't taken a neutral academic position, you've predisposed yourself toward a conclusion absent proof.

If you have any proof that the California architects were intimately familiar with his work pre 1920 and pre 1926, please present it as it would be  a significant discovery.

[Sean_A]

Pat

As I am not a Mac Head I don't care if Dr Mac influenced the Cali bunker style or not. 

As I stated earlier, with an absence of evidence, I am going with what I think is a logical conclusion given the circumstances of the time.  That being the inner circle was a small group of men who were well connected, in general, well off, well educated and well travelled.  This info tells me that these guys likely found out what they wanted to know about other archies and their work.  Given a lack of evidence you choose to believe a conclusion which I think is highly improbable; independently developed styles of bunkers which look very similar to each other and in a more raw form, to what existed on links.  I don't buy that, but fair enough, we disagree.  

Ciao

[Steve Burrows]

Pat,

You should take a look at a book called Atlantic Crossings(a link is listed below).  The author, Daniel Rodgers, a historian at Princeton, discusses the exchange of ideas between the United States and mainland Europe (though more specifically Britain) in precisely the historical period in which you are all but discounting this possibility.  In spite of the physical distance, ideas about politics and city planning were being exchanged at this time, so it seems logical to believe that ideas about golf course design would be doing the same.  Thus, the "inner circle" that Sean Arble is speaking about likely did have much more information at their disposal about both construction techniques and aesthetic trends than you are giving them credit for.

http://www.amazon.com/Atlantic-Crossings-Social-Politics-Progressive/dp/0674002016

[Dave McCollum]

I can easily imagine that men like Hunter and Thomas were well connected with publishers, book sellers, and agents on both the East coast and in Europe.  They were golfers and architects and probably instructed agents to send them the latest books and periodicals on all things golf.  They were both wealthy, so cost wasn’t a concern.  Hunter was an academic and lived in a world of books.  He was also a socialist, not exactly provincial American politics, at a time when socialism was developing its principals and finding an intellectual foothold in Europe.  Thomas, the rose breeder, probably had global connections in that area as well. 

Some here in the treehouse, live and breathe this stuff for hours every day. These wealthy  ODG’s  were actually doing it in the dirt of a young Garden of Eden.  Imagine their delight when a bundle of golf books and magazines arrived from far off lands.  No proof, just speculation, but it seems more logical to me that these Californians weren’t as isolated from a larger world as might be implied.

[Sven Nilsen]

Thomas moved to CA in 1918.  He had a significant exposure to work being done on the east coast prior to that time.  It is possible he broadened his golf horizons while serving overseas during his time in the Air Force during WWI.

Hunter was also a recent transplant, moving to CA around the same time.

Behr followed Thomas from the east coast.  Having served as the editor of Golf Illustrated from 1914 to 1918, he undoubtedly had a breadth of exposure to work being done (and work that had already taken place) on both sides of the Atlantic.

Many of the other guys had their roots in other parts of the country and/or overseas (Watson, MacBeth, Dunn).

This school did not exist in a bubble, and their style did not develop without a multitude of influences.

Everything that was happening at this time in the U.S. was taking place under the umbrella of the general ongoing paradigm shift away from geometric design towards the ideals of naturalism.  There were leaders in the shift whose ideas and thoughts carried a great deal of weight.  One of the key aspects of naturalism was an attempt to replicate the features that existed on the great links courses.  There were not many people that had more of an influence in the replication of links features on non-links land than MacKenzie.

[David Ober]

Were there championships that were conducted on Mackenzie's courses from overseas in the early 1900's? If so, would there have been notices in the U.S. newspapers?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Steve, Dave & Sven,

I want you to take a step back and examine your views/posts, from an academic perspective.

You're each and collectively supporting the notion/theory that MacKenzie is solely responsible for the "California" or "Lace Edge" bunkers in California, pre 1926 and/or pre 1920.

But, from an academic perspective, what evidence have you supplied to support your notion/theory ?

None.

You rely on conjecture because you've already determined, without sufficient supporting evidence, that MacKenzie was repsonsible.

Your notion/theory is a notion/theory based on emotion, not facts and documentation.

Tell me that you understand that.

Your entire premise is based on "maybe"

Maybe, someone ventured overseas and saw his work:              but, to date, no one's evidenced that.
Maybe, someone read his book and looked at the pictures:        but, to date, no one's evidenced that
Maybe, someone saw some photos;                                       but, to date, no one's evidenced that

Your entire notion/theory is based on wishful thinking and maybe

Before I started this thread, how many of you had read MacKenzie's book, "Golf Architecture" ?

Having read his book, do you find the information in that book sufficient and compelling enough for you to radically tranform an existing bunker style to the "Lace Edge" bunker style ?       

In your experience, are artists and architects prone to copy the work of others ?

Your entire argument is based on supposition and conjecture, wishful thinking and emotion more than cold hard facts.

So, take a step back and ask yourself, if you had to determine how the "California" or "Lace Edge" bunkering appeared in California, how would you go about the task of proving what led to the genesis of that style ? 

Certainly a blind adherance to the notion/theory that attribution should solely be ascribed to MacKenzie isn't an academic exercise, is it ?

Certainly, listing a number of "maybes" isn't the academic protocol either.

Would you admit that the presence of that style, pre 1926 and pre 1920 would diminish the likelihood that MacKenzie had a significant role in creating that style ?

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

Where have I stated that MacKenzie was solely responsible for the "California Style?"  You have a nasty habit (and a moronic one at that) of misrepresenting the words of others.

Read this response from Neil Crafter again:  "Whatever lacy/frilly style developed in Cal prior to 1926 grew somewhat independent of Mackenzie, but in response to the desire for natural looking courses with less artificiality, so its no surprise really that these sorts of eroded bunker edges came from that desire for naturalness."

Its the concept of naturalism that lead to the creation of this style.  If you want to examine your little thesis from an academic perspective, I'd suggest you start examining the influences on the guys that built these bunkers.  I've given you some hints already in this thread. 

And yes, I had read Golf Architecture well before this silly exercise in mental masturbation that you call a thread was conceived.  You and I have discussed the book in other threads.  But seeing as you can't even recall what others have said in this thread, why should I expect you to have any recollection of things that happened elsewhere.

Cheers,

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sven,

I'm keenly aware of what Neil wrote, that's why I addressed my previous reply to "Steve, Dave & Sven"

Your most recent reply seems in conflict with your previous reply where you seem to lean toward MacKenzie

[Dave McCollum]

Pat,

I’m no academic.  I sit here with mud on my boots.  I concede all of your points.  I haven’t read Mackenzie’s “Golf Architecture,” but I did download a copy of it a few days ago, thanks to info from this site, and look forward to doing so.   

I’ll happily agree that my post was complete speculation.  I said “no proof, just speculation...”  I never said a word about Mackenzie’s influence on those working in California prior to his arrival.  I simply supported as more logical Sven’s and others’ contention that that the Californians were not working in isolation to what was happening in the rest of the golfing world.  Your observation that California-styled bunkers appeared there before the Good Doctor ever came west certainly seems true enough.  However, your conclusion that they were first created there without influence from any other design style or school, and particularly Dr. Mackenzie, is also, well, speculation.  You have no proof to back this conclusion because there is no primary source evidence for this in your arguments.  It may exist and you may be right.  Your case just isn’t convincing to me.

It seems worth saying that history is often a matter of interpretation of events and known facts and even may involve speculation and creative filling in of voids between what we know (and think we can prove) and what it means or is significant or interesting to other people.  You’ve done that and some of us have offered other opinions or questioned your arguments.  It’s a discussion of ideas, from which we’ll all draw our own conclusions and what we think is true, logical, probable, or not.

You can save your wind for other debates.  I’m not your opponent and I don’t have time for protracted semantics and endless argument.  You don’t have to brow-beat me into submission that you are right and I am wrong.  You might be right; you might be wrong.  So freaking what?  Does it really matter?  Not to me.  I come here for amusement, pleasure, and perhaps I may learn something useful along the way. 

I respect those that have made the site what it is.  You are certainly one of those guys that have been here a long time and contributed enormous amounts of your time to the discussions here.  I’m sure you have made many friends from your activities here.  Although a stranger to me, I’d bet that you are a fine, sensitive, and highly intelligent man.  Your passion oozes from your every green word.  You like to debate.  That’s great.  Keep up the good fight.  But I must admit, I skip most of what you write because of your aggressive, contentious, sometimes abusive, style of putting your points across.  That’s my loss.  It’s also no big deal because I’m nobody.  Just a guy that shares your passion.  But it may be your loss as well.  There are many fine minds here.  Granted, we are talking about stuff of relatively minor significance in the overall scheme of things and, perhaps, some of those fine minds should not be wasting their talents amusing the rest of us.  But if folks aren’t listening to you and the effort you are putting into it, and, in turn, you are not listening to them, it seems a great waste of opportunity and time.

Just a bed time thought.  Enjoy your golf.  I'll be back when I can.

[Sven Nilsen]

Not sure how you jump from my statement:

"This school did not exist in a bubble, and their style did not develop without a multitude of influences."

to your skewed interpretation:

"You're each and collectively supporting the notion/theory that MacKenzie is solely responsible for the "California" or "Lace Edge" bunkers in California, pre 1926 and/or pre 1920."

I happen to think that MacKenzie was one of many influences, but I never said he was the sole influence.  His work was widely covered in the golf magazines of the day, including a write-up of his contest winning design and his thoughts on camouflage (take a moment to search for MacKenzie in the digitized versions of American Golfer and Golf Illustrated that are available online).  These American magazines contained sections written by their "Foreign Correspondents."  There was a free exchange of information regarding who was doing what and where from both sides of the pond.  Also, as others have noted, and has been widely discussed on this site, MacKenzie was one of a number of architects that took the time to write about his work and his thoughts on the trade.  

I also think that Fowler was another influential figure in the work being done during the boom in golf course construction that took place in the early 1920's.  He was a big name at the time, and the courses he built as noted in this thread would have greatly influenced others working in the state at that time.

But to note every influence would be an exhausting proposition.  Read the thanks that Thomas gives in the "An Appreciation" section of his book.  The names he notes include Tillinghast, Ross, Watson, Bell, Behr, MacKenzie, Hunter, MacBeth, Egan, Fowler, Tufts, Heebner, Sargent, Leeds, Crump, Wilson, Duncan and Harban (some of these mentions are for assistance with the book itself, but many of them are in regards to their influence on the development of his thoughts on design).

You could go through the same process for the rest of the guys you noted as part of this school.  For MacBeth and Watson, you'd have to go all the way back to their early days in Scotland.  For Behr and Hunter, you'd need to track back to their days in other parts of the United States prior to moving to California (and for Behr, the influences he gained during his time as the editor of Golf Illustrated).

And yes, these guys did share ideas allowing for the influences to foster further within the subset of Golf Architecture as a whole that were the golf pioneers of the Pacific Slope (as dubbed by Thomas).  They worked together, both creatively and practically.  Golf design, after all, is both an art and a science, and the "canvas" they worked on was large enough for more than one guy to be wielding the paint brush.

As for whether or not artists and architects copy the work of others, the answer is that they don't copy, they borrow.

Sven

[Rick Baril]

Pat,

I’m no academic.  I sit here with mud on my boots.  I concede all of your points.  I haven’t read Mackenzie’s “Golf Architecture,” but I did download a copy of it a few days ago, thanks to info from this site, and look forward to doing so.   

I’ll happily agree....

....Just a bed time thought.  Enjoy your golf.  I'll be back when I can.

Thank you Dave!!  I innocently waded into this thread and, at a certain moment, feeling dirty, couldn't pull myself away.  Although compelling (particularly the photos and some of the details), the banter seemed to digress.  I continued reading.  I'm not really sure why.  Thankfully, your post arrived, which provided some balance and recompense in an otherwise turbulant thread.  Faith has been restored and I can now go on with life, even though the origin of frilly edge bunkers seems to remain a mystery....