Mackenzie 1920 passage

[Joe Sponcia]

My wife was kind enough to surprise me with Mackenzie's "Economy in Course Construction and Green-Keeping" for Christmas.  I have lots of yellow highlighter marks in it, but I can't get over this excellent passage:

"Narrow fairways bordered by long grass make bad golfers.  They do so by destroying the harmony and continuity of the game, and in causing a stilted and cramped style by destroying all freedom to play.

There is no defined line between the fairways in the great schools of golf like St. Andrews or Hoylake.

It is a common error to cut the rough in straight lines.  It should be in irregular, natural-looking curves.  The fairways should gradually widen out where a long drive goes;  in this way a long driver is given a little more latitude in pulling and slicing".

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, Joe. Interesting in several ways. For me, a couple that stand out:

1 - it reminds me of articles I've read from around that time (i.e. over 10 years leading up to it) in golf journals from the UK and America. They went back and forth - first American journals arguing that the US' best golfers couldn't compete against the British best because courses over here weren't as good as over there and so weren't properly developing the talent; and then years later articles in British journals arguing that the UK's best golfers were at a disadvantage against their American counterparts because the newest US courses were really tough tests (and tougher than the great old links courses) and so the US was producing better golfers used to playing challenging courses.

2 - how even mr. strategic and playable by all architect Dr. Mac seems to want to give the long hitter a distinct (and even greater advantage than length alone already gives him) by widening fairways further out instead of narrowing them (with the latter approach supporting the notion that the shorter hitter shouldn't be doubly disadvantaged by the longer hitter having even more room to 'miss).  Which again brings to mind a feeling I have that the strict strategic-penal divide we've come to believe in and use to describe courses is too black and white.

3 - how quickly Dr Mac moves in that quote from a philosophical aspect of design (i.e. width encouraging 'freedom' - eg in choice, in lines of play etc) to an aesthetic aspect (i.e. mowing lines shouldn't be straight, but curving and irregular as in a natural fashion) -- as if they two necessaruily went hand in hand...which maybe they do.

Peter

[Tom_Doak]

The important part of that is to understand that while Dr. MacKenzie was trying to make life difficult for the scratch golfer, he did not want to do it by restricting how far they could hit the ball ... he did it with angles and green contours, and by tempting them to their own destruction.

That said, the gap between the best players and the average golfer has grown since Dr. MacKenzie's day.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Joe,

I get the impression (if that is the full quote) that Mac says the Old Course had no definition, but then goes on to seemingly presume it is necessary now, and if so, then do it right, with flowing lines, and keep it short, etc. 

If he was advocating for no definition in America (or elsewhere) wouldn't the second sentence just say don't have rough?

Do I have that wrong?

As to the widening out, Gary Player and other good players have written over the years that the FW ought to be wider at 300 than 200 out, on the theory that a 10 degree off line 300 shot misses further than a 10 degree off line 200 yard shot.  One of the flaws of that argument (as proven by the Broadie stats recently referenced on the PGA tour site) is that that degree of mis-hit rarely goes over 225 yards, so what's the point?  You are providing fairway for shots that will never see them.

Also, as TD notes, the differential has grown.  Tour players routinely expect their shots to stay within 10 degrees total (5 per side, or 4-6 depending on shot pattern, maybe) where as ams are closer to 20 degree total for 50% of shots, and 19-20 degrees dispersion for all shots (actually 19 degrees left, 23 degrees right)

Add in fairway maintenance costs (where the differential between FW and rough maintenance costs has grown about as much as the accuracy differential) and wider fairways that far out begin making even less sense today.

Again, for historical perspective, when Mac and Tillie wrote all those great marketing quotes (face it, their books were marketing tools) it was in the 20's.  By the 30's, they had changed their tune in many respects.  Right now is more like the 30's than 20's and that would factor in to making any design decision we make right now.  We should be looking at Tillie's PGA reports for guidance, now, and maybe nearly forever, except at the highest end courses.

[Tom_Doak]

Joe,

I get the impression (if that is the full quote) that Mac says the Old Course had no definition, but then goes on to seemingly presume it is necessary now, and if so, then do it right, with flowing lines, and keep it short, etc. 

If he was advocating for no definition in America (or elsewhere) wouldn't the second sentence just say don't have rough?

Do I have that wrong?

I think almost everyone has that wrong.  Dr. MacKenzie's idea of definition was just very different than yours, because of what he observed at The Old Course.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Which was what?  2 fairways wide, no rough, and then some gorse?

I see a lot of writings about adapting golf in America about a century ago.  At TOC, they naturally got an even sward, because of sand and rainfall.  Even starting in America at NGLA, sand and some irrigation was necessary.  That single row system probably provided gradually decreasing conditions and turf density most of they ear, and scallops and turf death at the edges in droughts.  I wonder when they realized that it was easier to keep slightly longer grasses at the edges of the irrigation?

It had to have varied with different soils, turf, etc.  The irrigation industry went on a mission for more consistent water application, first going to smaller double row systems, which made fairways consistent, and kept the roughs better, but also gradually decreasing in quality, just a little further out.  In the Midwest in the 70's those double rows were usually spaced at 70 feet, and you got perfect coverage (more or less) for the inside 100-120 feet and gradually lesser coverage on the outer 50-60 feet on either side.  It was kind of a cleaner version of things, enhanced by better mowing, etc.

But, I am old enough to recall roughs before they could rightfully be called the "smooths."

[Joe Sponcia]

Thanks, Joe. Interesting in several ways. For me, a couple that stand out:

1 - it reminds me of articles I've read from around that time (i.e. over 10 years leading up to it) in golf journals from the UK and America. They went back and forth - first American journals arguing that the US' best golfers couldn't compete against the British best because courses over here weren't as good as over there and so weren't properly developing the talent; and then years later articles in British journals arguing that the UK's best golfers were at a disadvantage against their American counterparts because the newest US courses were really tough tests (and tougher than the great old links courses) and so the US was producing better golfers used to playing challenging courses.

2 - how even mr. strategic and playable by all architect Dr. Mac seems to want to give the long hitter a distinct (and even greater advantage than length alone already gives him) by widening fairways further out instead of narrowing them (with the latter approach supporting the notion that the shorter hitter shouldn't be doubly disadvantaged by the longer hitter having even more room to 'miss).  Which again brings to mind a feeling I have that the strict strategic-penal divide we've come to believe in and use to describe courses is too black and white.

3 - how quickly Dr Mac moves in that quote from a philosophical aspect of design (i.e. width encouraging 'freedom' - eg in choice, in lines of play etc) to an aesthetic aspect (i.e. mowing lines shouldn't be straight, but curving and irregular as in a natural fashion) -- as if they two necessaruily went hand in hand...which maybe they do.

Peter

Peter,

To your 2nd point, Mackenzie’s quote seems to fly in the face of ‘conventional’ wisdom huh?

In a way, it makes sense in that many people that can crank the ball struggle with direction so why pinch it in?  Their 1 degree shut face is much more penal than their slower swinging counterparts.

[Joe Sponcia]

Joe,

I get the impression (if that is the full quote) that Mac says the Old Course had no definition, but then goes on to seemingly presume it is necessary now, and if so, then do it right, with flowing lines, and keep it short, etc. 

Jeff,

Believe it or not, that is a full, flowing quote posted exactly as it was written.  I had to read it a few times for it to sink in.

[Frank Giordano]

3 - how quickly Dr Mac moves in that quote from a philosophical aspect of design (i.e. width encouraging 'freedom' - eg in choice, in lines of play etc) to an aesthetic aspect (i.e. mowing lines shouldn't be straight, but curving and irregular as in a natural fashion) -- as if they two necessaruily went hand in hand...which maybe they do.

Peter,

To the last comment of your point #3, quoted above,  when the strategic and aesthetic components go hand in hand, you're probably playing a very fine golf course.

[Tom_Doak]

3 - how quickly Dr Mac moves in that quote from a philosophical aspect of design (i.e. width encouraging 'freedom' - eg in choice, in lines of play etc) to an aesthetic aspect (i.e. mowing lines shouldn't be straight, but curving and irregular as in a natural fashion) -- as if they two necessaruily went hand in hand...which maybe they do.

Peter,

To the last comment of your point #3, quoted above,  when the strategic and aesthetic components go hand in hand, you're probably playing a very fine golf course.

The reason the aesthetic aspect of that is so important is that if you get it wrong, then the golfer will see what you are intending for him, and his "freedom" is reduced to choices that have been defined by someone else.

The Old Course is so good visually because it is so unlike what we build today:

 - Some of the hazards are completely blind, as opposed to modern designs which are obliged to make them visible and even highlight them to the player's eye.  The landscape is not manipulated to help the golfer's view. 
 - Some of the hazards are right in the middle of the short grass, which screws with the idea that there is any fairway at all, as one hole bleeds into the other.
 - There is no left side of the fairway on the many double fairways, or it's so wide that you don't ever look down the line of it. 
 - There are mowing lines, but they keep disappearing behind the contours, so you don't pick up on the "defined line" even on the right side, in direct opposition to modern designs where the contours are designed to reinforce the shape of the fairway.
 - Instead of burning in a mowing line at an exact spot alongside or behind a bunker, they change the edge every time they mow, so there is no edge!
 - The other plants (gorse and heather) are naturally, spottily arranged, which further dissolves any "line" on the outside of the playing area, at the same time giving the holes much more definition than the fairway-and-rough we rely on.

[Joe Sponcia]

[/quote]

The reason the aesthetic aspect of that is so important is that if you get it wrong, then the golfer will see what you are intending for him, and his "freedom" is reduced to choices that have been defined by someone else.

The Old Course is so good visually because it is so unlike what we build today:

 - Some of the hazards are completely blind, as opposed to modern designs which are obliged to make them visible and even highlight them to the player's eye.  The landscape is not manipulated to help the golfer's view. 
 - Some of the hazards are right in the middle of the short grass, which screws with the idea that there is any fairway at all, as one hole bleeds into the other.
 - There is no left side of the fairway on the many double fairways, or it's so wide that you don't ever look down the line of it. 
 - There are mowing lines, but they keep disappearing behind the contours, so you don't pick up on the "defined line" even on the right side, in direct opposition to modern designs where the contours are designed to reinforce the shape of the fairway.
 - Instead of burning in a mowing line at an exact spot alongside or behind a bunker, they change the edge every time they mow, so there is no edge!
 - The other plants (gorse and heather) are naturally, spottily arranged, which further dissolves any "line" on the outside of the playing area, at the same time giving the holes much more definition than the fairway-and-rough we rely on.
[/quote]

Tom,

I hope to experience what you have described with my son when he turns 18.  That may be the most succinct description I have read of what the Old Course gives you visually. 

When you describe, "instead of burning in a mowing line...", how many feet/yards are we talking different each day?  And do most American courses as we know them just not have the sheer space the Old Course does to do the same? 
 
The first thing that came to mind when I read that description was a visual of what Pete Dye gives the player to some degree.  I know with more hilly terrain, it is nearly impossible to visually 'hide' hazards and blend fairways as you described, but I think he does as good a job as anyone can with a modern twist.  With Dye, the second you finish, you immediately say, "if I would have been able to see that angle, I would have scored better".  He always makes me want to play 36!

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - yes, a particularly good post from you, thanks.

Frank - you're right, and I'd never really put two and two together before like that, i.e. that those two aspects working together will likely produce a great course. (My mind goes to a place like Ballyneal). But might we then have to be open to the possibility that when another kind of philosophy (anti-freedom) is meshed perfectly with another kind of aesthetic (dictatorial in its mowing/rough lines) it might produce a great course as well? (What comes to mind?)

Peter

[Frank Giordano]

 But might we then have to be open to the possibility that when another kind of philosophy (anti-freedom) is meshed perfectly with another kind of aesthetic (dictatorial in its mowing/rough lines) it might produce a great course as well? (What comes to mind?)

Peter,

My first response is that we should always be open to the artist's ability to  produce great art out of unusual, unconventional, even apparently incompatible elements.   But a philosophy that constrains the artist to a rigid aesthetic is more likely to produce a healthy revolution, ultimately, even though the combination might yield, in the short term, just another conventionally satisfying product.  This latter situation seems to be what so many on this board object to in the tried-and-true products of many of our most prolific, successful architects.

[Peter Pallotta]

Frank, again, you may be right - but what if I replaced the word anti-freedom with "penal" and the word dictatorial with "severe", in the context of a masterfully achieved marriage/balance of philosophy and aesthetic, as in a classically challenging and varied course that unabashedly aims to test top-flight players. Wouldn't we have to say that this could be a great course too? I think we would have to -- unless, unless we are assuming that freedom and choice are not only A characteristic/element of the 'spirit of the game' but actually the DEFINING characteristic/element of that spirit. There are some who would make it so (and I completely understand why) --- but I can't find myself willing to be so sure/absolute.   

Peter

[Frank Giordano]

Good morning Peter.  It's "Another Perfect Day in Pinehurst," in case you were wondering.  About 6 inches of snow on the ground, 30 degrees outdoors -- not so bad inside -- ans snow showers forecast lter today.  Are you packed up and ready to travel?

I think we're pretty close to agreement about your terminology.  Penal and severe strike me as strategic terms chiefly, and surely there are great courses that are both penal and severe.  I got on board this discussion by commenting that the location of a finely designed course -- strategic or penal course as well -- in a beautiful environment, was likely to be a very fine one.  Your observations seem chiefly about the design, without emphasizing the beauty of the locale in which the design is placed.  For me, beauty is a key quality in the elevation of a fine design into the top rank of courses.