News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Tim_Weiman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mark, as I said, I don't trust that an artist's influences will show up clearly in his work, and I believe Jones and Mackenzie saw the influence of links courses where no one else would. Grantland Rice was Augusta's most noted propagandist during its early years and was prone to making wildly inaccurate claims about the course (he overestimated the attendance of Augusta National's first Masters by the heretofore only-seen-on-Maury-Povich 2000%, for instance).

You told Colin that Augusta used template holes. Can you explain six holes at Augusta, how they fulfilled the requirements of a template hole when the course opened, and offer their counterparts from The Old Course or other noted links courses? I'm open to the idea. I just don't see it myself and need someone to explain it with some specific examples.

Jason,

I will agree with you that artists can see things others can't. If you look at the Road Hole Tom Doak built at Cape Kidnappers, you will see a classic example. It's brilliant and seems so obvious after it has been built, but I would hardly claim I would have come up with the idea at that site.
Tim Weiman

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bob and David, we're not far from agreement.  I just think intent and influence are more descriptive.  Model and template are a stretch and perhaps mask the nuanced genius of The Good Doctor and the original Sir Bob.

I do think my primary issue is the wholesale invocation of this intent and influence to detract from the great golf course that exists today.

Cheers.

Boges

Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Peter Pallotta

I was going to say that it would be interesting to know/read what the early Masters participants thought about how well Jones and Mackenzie had realized their intentions; but then it struck me that perhaps very few of those golfers had ever actually been to St. Andrews (I can think of Tommy Armour and Gene Sarazen as exceptions - were there many more?), and fewer still would have understood and appreciated The Old Course as much as Dr Mac (first) and Bobby Jones (second).

Peter

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bob and David, we're not far from agreement.  I just think intent and influence are more descriptive.  Model and template are a stretch and perhaps mask the nuanced genius of The Good Doctor and the original Sir Bob.

I do think my primary issue is the wholesale invocation of this intent and influence to detract from the great golf course that exists today.

Cheers.

Boges



Bogey:

And now we're back to my point, which is just because we like to discuss the history and the changes and the reasons for those changes, that doesn't necessarily mean we are detracting from what the course is today.

But it seems that others read it that way.  My guess this has more to do with the sensitivities and/or perceptions of the readers, and not the intentions of the writers.

Sven
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Peter -

A number of early Masters participants would have played TOC. Most of the better pros and amateurs traveled to Britain for Ryder Cup and Walker Cup matches. Most of them used the free boat ticket to tour Britain playing golf either on their own or in exhibitions. TOC would have been a stop. Many used the trip to play in the Open and the British Am.

The 1926 Walker Cup was played at TOC, for example.  (It's my guess that Jones first got to know MacK there.) So when MacK talked about the 4th at ANGC as being based on the Eden hole, the 5th on the Road, the 6th on the Redan, the 7th on the 18th at TOC, and so forth, the references would have been familiar.

Bob

Peter Pallotta

Thanks, Bob - I simply didn't know that. And that means that Jones and Mac, in expressing their intentions is such detail, knew that there'd be many golfers there in the early years who'd know if they'd succeed or not.

PS Thanks for the IM, abnd for the good humour; I was about to write to say that even life-long Torontonians like me have to strain to remember a longer and greyer and colder winter.

Peter

Mike Hendren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bob, with respect to "intent" what do you make of the relatively quick and dramatic changes made by Maxwell under Jones' stewardship?  Do those changes, coupled with the pine sapplings visible in most early photographs in any way reflect a disagreement with or disappointment over Mackenzie's original design?

Bogey
Two Corinthians walk into a bar ....

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0

Mark, perhaps they were in cahoots?

As for facts, look no further than the original 7th green and explain to me how that "models" (to use Ron Whitten's term) the home hole at The Old Course.  I'll even spot you disregarding OB right.

Bogey

I'll take a stab, not just of the green but the entire hole.  That is what Mackenzie said inspired #7.  

Both holes were of similar length.  Both had pretty wide open tee shots.  Both had zero bunkers.  Both had trenches running in front, that encouraged similar approach shots.  

So: length on each, similar.  Drive on each, similar.  Approach on each, similar.  No bunkers, similar. Valley of Sin type trench guarding each, similar. 

That's a fair amount of similarities between two holes. 

Mackenzie was real clear that he was not trying to copy any holes.  He saw that as a recipe for failure.  I also haven't seen him claim he was building a links course.  He said he employed the basic principles of some of the best holes in the world, where they fit ANGC's site.    
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 02:30:57 PM by Jim Nugent »

Bill Brightly

  • Karma: +0/-0
And we should not judge it on the basis of Masters tees, and ultra firm greens which is 1 week a year.

Why not?  That "one week a year" is the only ANGC that 99.9999% of golfers know anything about.  So why not discuss it on those terms?

I believe everything you say about how the course plays for members, and agree that it sounds like a treat.  I've no doubt I'd love it.   But almost every only sees it for the one week a year, and that is the course that has all the influence.  Perhaps there is something to be learned about gca by comparing and contrasting our annual snapshots of the course over time.  

Your "warning" is great idea, but it isn't going to happen.  And even if it did, it would be ignored.

I find it interesting that you and all the others blame the influencer and not the influenced.

JC,

It is not abpout placing "blame" on ANGC. Rather, it is about understanding what happens to a golf course over time and why. I know for a fact that my club in northern New Jersey planted about one thousand white pines and spruces in the late 60's and early 70's and our club leaders thought they were doing a great thing. Of course these guys get the "blame" because they planted the trees.  They created "separation between holes" and "more demanding shots" and thought they were doing a great thing. They boasted "just like Augusta" and who could argue with that?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2014, 05:14:08 PM by Bill Brightly »

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bob, with respect to "intent" what do you make of the relatively quick and dramatic changes made by Maxwell under Jones' stewardship?  Do those changes, coupled with the pine sapplings visible in most early photographs in any way reflect a disagreement with or disappointment over Mackenzie's original design?

Maxwell's major changes were to the 7th and the 10th.

The 7th: Horton Smith and others complained that it was drivable. Stan Byrdy believes the green (in a slight bowl) also had drainage problems. So the green was moved about 20 yards back and slightly higher up the hill it is on now.

The 10th: Much the same story. Pros thought it was too short with the green adjacent to the surviving big bunker in the fairway.  The orignal green also had drainage issues, so it was moved back 50 or so yards to its present location.

ANGC was one of the few courses MacK designed in clay. If he made a mistake at ANGC, it was that he didn't fully appreciate the speical problems clay-based golf courses present.

I am not a fan of Maxwell's changes. The original 7th and 10th would be more fun for amateurs. But I get why Jones thought the holes needed to be changed. Partly for drainage reasons, partly for Masters competition reasons.  

Bob

 

Jim Nugent

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bob, do you think the original 7th at ANGC was easier than #18 at TOC?  The complaint you mention -- that the original 7th was drivable -- was true then of #18 at TOC. 

If Augusta's version was as hard, I wonder why that was ok at St. Andrews, but not Mac's course that was attempting to follow the same general principles?


Peter Pallotta

Just fyi, here's a sharp-as-a-tack Gene Sarazen at 94 years old, thinking back to when he first played Agusta-The Masters.

"No, I wasn't impressed [by the design]. I didn't care for it. It was not a good course when Jones and Mackenzie finished it -- a very poor design. Hell, number eleven was a drive and a pitch. They used to drive the seventeenth hole. Sixteen was a terrible hole, one hundred yards over a ditch. And the first hole should've been like St Andrews' [wide open] first, but it wasn't anything like it....[Years later] I remember going out for drinks with Roberts one evening and I told him that number sixteen is a terrible hole. One hundred yards over a ditch. 'Now go get Trent Jones', I said".

Peter

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jim -

I'd guess it's down to two different mindsets. Until Peter Dawson last year, TOC didn't care much about how it held up against the best professionals. (Dawson changed all that. TOC's unique historic status no longer weighs in the balance.)  

ANGC, to assure its survival in the 1930's, worried about how Masters participants saw the course. It matterred when players thought some holes were too easy. It could affect the reputation of the Masters, the club's financial lifeline. Combine that with chronic drainage headaches on 7 and 10 ....

As much as I regret those changes, it should be noted that Jones picked Maxwell on the basis of his prior association with MacK. So Jones was at least trying to maintain the architectural bloodlines of the course.

Bob

Bob

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Thanks, Bob - I simply didn't know that. And that means that Jones and Mac, in expressing their intentions is such detail, knew that there'd be many golfers there in the early years who'd know if they'd succeed or not.

PS Thanks for the IM, abnd for the good humour; I was about to write to say that even life-long Torontonians like me have to strain to remember a longer and greyer and colder winter.

Peter

I would love to have a drink with Bob Crosby and Peter Pallotta some time.   I figure I would be about twenty minutes behind ten minutes into the conversation. 

Joe Hancock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Thanks, Bob - I simply didn't know that. And that means that Jones and Mac, in expressing their intentions is such detail, knew that there'd be many golfers there in the early years who'd know if they'd succeed or not.

PS Thanks for the IM, abnd for the good humour; I was about to write to say that even life-long Torontonians like me have to strain to remember a longer and greyer and colder winter.

Peter

I would love to have a drink with Bob Crosby and Peter Pallotta some time.   I figure I would be about twenty minutes behind ten minutes into the conversation. 

How about if you abstained from the drink and let those two guys have more? Would that level the field?

You'd be fine, Bill. You'd probably have to find a way to out-polite them though.

Joe
" What the hell is the point of architecture and excellence in design if a "clever" set up trumps it all?" Peter Pallotta, June 21, 2016

"People aren't picking a side of the fairway off a tee because of a randomly internally contoured green ."  jeffwarne, February 24, 2017

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Regardless of how much any of you drink...count me in for a back seat and a smile...

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Peter -

A number of early Masters participants would have played TOC. Most of the better pros and amateurs traveled to Britain for Ryder Cup and Walker Cup matches. Most of them used the free boat ticket to tour Britain playing golf either on their own or in exhibitions. TOC would have been a stop. Many used the trip to play in the Open and the British Am.

The 1926 Walker Cup was played at TOC, for example.  (It's my guess that Jones first got to know MacK there.) So when MacK talked about the 4th at ANGC as being based on the Eden hole, the 5th on the Road, the 6th on the Redan, the 7th on the 18th at TOC, and so forth, the references would have been familiar.

Bob

Bob

I am thinking this is still a small percentage of pros on the "circuit".  I reckon pros back then were like pros today. They play golf for money and pay very little attention to history and design.  The viewpoints we get in mags then and now is from a small percentage of pros.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Thanks, Bob - I simply didn't know that. And that means that Jones and Mac, in expressing their intentions is such detail, knew that there'd be many golfers there in the early years who'd know if they'd succeed or not.

PS Thanks for the IM, abnd for the good humour; I was about to write to say that even life-long Torontonians like me have to strain to remember a longer and greyer and colder winter.

Peter

I would love to have a drink with Bob Crosby and Peter Pallotta some time.   I figure I would be about twenty minutes behind ten minutes into the conversation. 

How about if you abstained from the drink and let those two guys have more? Would that level the field?

You'd be fine, Bill. You'd probably have to find a way to out-polite them though.

Joe

Abstain?  You talking to me?   Not likely! ;D

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Jim -

I'd guess it's down to two different mindsets. Until Peter Dawson last year, TOC didn't care much about how it held up against the best professionals. (Dawson changed all that. TOC's unique historic status no longer weighs in the balance.)  

ANGC, to assure its survival in the 1930's, worried about how Masters participants saw the course. It matterred when players thought some holes were too easy. It could affect the reputation of the Masters, the club's financial lifeline. Combine that with chronic drainage headaches on 7 and 10 ....

As much as I regret those changes, it should be noted that Jones picked Maxwell on the basis of his prior association with MacK. So Jones was at least trying to maintain the architectural bloodlines of the course.

Bob

Bob

Bob

Who exactly is TOC ? If you are referring to the R&A then I think it a fallacy that they were unconcerned about how the course played to the top am's and pro's and wrong also to say they never did anything about it.

As an aside I'd also suggest that MacK did his fair share of work in clay.

Niall

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Niall -

I was using 'TOC' as shorthand for the R&A and/or The Links Trust (depending on the era). I think my meaning was reasonably clear.

To retrace an old argument, Dawson (without public comment or consultation) is now vested with the authority to "improve" TOC. He is confident that he best knows how to do that. The first phase of his changes will be completed over the next several years. There's no reason to think he won't make more changes thereafter. Given the unique position TOC holds in the history of golf and golf architecture, his presumption gives new depth and breadth to the word.      

As for concerns about the pros, other than extending some tees, what changes were made to TOC from, say, 1905 through 2012 in response to their game? 

Bob
« Last Edit: March 27, 2014, 03:16:42 PM by BCrosby »

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0

I am thinking this is still a small percentage of pros on the "circuit".  I reckon pros back then were like pros today. They play golf for money and pay very little attention to history and design.  The viewpoints we get in mags then and now is from a small percentage of pros.

Ciao

"They play golf for money and pay very little attention to history and design."

A former European Ryder Cup player is supposed to have once said something akin to "I don't give a ........... about course architecture and all that stuff. I play for money, and if the money's right, I'll play on an airport runway".

atb

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Niall and Bob,

I don't know the history of all the changes at TOC, but I am always surprised about much criticism by top golfers there was about certain famous holes, particularly the Eden hole and the Road Hole.  To me it is impressive that in the face of this criticism that the holes managed to keep their character (although there were probably some changes along the way.)   Perhaps this is a because TOC (whatever that means) didn't care about the opinions of top players, or perhaps it was because there criticisms were countered by the many other top figures who love the holes the way they were. 

Niall, Maybe this is the wrong thread, but I am curious as to the examples of MacKenzie working in clay?
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mark Bourgeois

  • Karma: +0/-0
Niall and Bob,

I don't know the history of all the changes at TOC, but I am always surprised about much criticism by top golfers there was about certain famous holes, particularly the Eden hole and the Road Hole.  To me it is impressive that in the face of this criticism that the holes managed to keep their character (although there were probably some changes along the way.)   Perhaps this is a because TOC (whatever that means) didn't care about the opinions of top players, or perhaps it was because there criticisms were countered by the many other top figures who love the holes the way they were. 


Huh, I just posted a question relating to this thought over on the "controversy" thread -- a little synchronicity on a Thursday night.
Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
David writes:

"To me it is impressive that in the face of this criticism that the holes managed to keep their character (although there were probably some changes along the way.)   Perhaps this is a because TOC (whatever that means) didn't care about the opinions of top players, or perhaps it was because there criticisms were countered by the many other top figures who love the holes the way they were."

Your observation is one that goes to an important turning point in the history of golf architecture, I think.

Circa 1900 Vardon, Taylor, Hilton, Garden Smith, Hutchinson and others criticized those holes, mostly on the grounds that they lacked cross bunkers ("... you could play Eden Hole with a putter..."), and on the grounds that there was inadequate room to hold the green after you carried what was, in effect a cross bunker (the Road Hole bunker).  That is, even with a well struck approach hit over the Road Hole bunker wouldn't hold the green, ergo the 17th was "unfair". Taylor lost an Open when that happened to him in the final round. He ended by doubling the hole. He never forgot it.

There were lots of critics circa 1900 who marked down not just those holes, but the TOC more broadly for its paucity of good cross hazards. In that regard, Sandwich was thought to be a better model and generally preferred by those same critics.

Opposing such ideas were John Low, Herb Fowler and other R&A members (I suspect, but without clear evidence, the Colt was involved. He was Low's classmate from Cambridge days and a friend.) who had very different ideas about how hazards ought to function. They liked the how the old hazards on TOC affected play. Better yet, they were in a position to preserve them and that's just what they did.

At different points over the first years of the 20th century, Low and Fowler served on the R&A Green Committee. They, Colt, Alison, Hutchings, Hutchinson, Hall Blyth and others involved in golf design also served on the powerful R&A Committee on the Rules. Low was the most prominent voice on both committees. He pushed back against the kinds of criticisms noted above.  Thank goodness.

Low and Fowler did add about 13 bunkers to TOC from about 1899 to 1904, most at the sides of holes 2 through 7. (The why and wherefore of those new bunkers is a longer, interesting story.) They were not the kind of bunkers that Taylor, Hilton et al. wanted to see added. For that reason they created a firestorm when built. The arguments they triggered gave rise, I think, to some of the earliest articulations of the basics of strategic golf architecture. Low was at the center of that back and forth. A remarkable moment.

All of which is just one of many reasons why it is important to retain as much of the historic character of TOC as possible. And why trying to "improve" it now, more than a century on, is so frightening.

Bob     

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Bob,  Recently I went back and reread the influential "Best Golf Holes" articles from Golf Illustrated, where some of these ideas were being hashed out, albeit sometimes indirectly.  It was certainly an interesting period in the development of gca.com.  One aspect I find fascinating is that the discussion actually started out as a 'Most Difficult Golf Holes' discussion, but quickly morphed into a best holes debate.  In some ways the tension between to two sides was even present in the way they framed the debate.

It is difficult to imagine today that many high profile courses would have the wherewithal to sustain the criticisms of the modern day equivalents of Taylor, Hilton, et al. and I wonder if in some ways that is because of the change in relative golfing prowess between the top golfers and the club golfers.  What I mean is that, while some were obviously more accomplished, back then it seems like they were all playing the same game, on the same course, and often with each other.  Whereas today the top golfers seem to occupy a different world ability wise.  They are so superior as players that their perceived perspective seems to carry more weight when it comes to courses like ANGC and, unfortunately, TOC. Who is the modern equivalent of a Low who can stand up to the real or perceived pressures the modern professional game puts on these courses?  There doesn't seem to be anyone who is up to the task.  
« Last Edit: March 28, 2014, 01:02:02 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)