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.


Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« on: January 23, 2021, 12:52:26 PM »
Adam Lawrence raises a very interesting question in his editorial in this month's edition of Golf Course Architecture.


Did MacKenzie's use of extravagant and purely visual bunkering at his celebrated Californian courses have a malign effect on the golf course architecture of following decades?


Adam Editorial by Duncan Cheslett, on Flickr


https://www.golfcoursearchitecture.net/digital/magazine/issue63/IFC/
« Last Edit: January 23, 2021, 12:56:40 PM by Duncan Cheslett »

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2021, 01:02:04 PM »
Not one word about the land those courses were built on.


Seems to be a very simplistic and flawed theory. 


It probably works better if you find another culprit other than MacKenzie.



"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

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2021, 01:24:55 PM »
Not one word about the land those courses were built on.


Seems to be a very simplistic and flawed theory. 


It probably works better if you find another culprit other than MacKenzie.


The fact that the bunkers at Pasatiempo and Cypress Point have survived nearly 100 years suggests that the land was indeed suitable. I think Adam's point is that such ideas were then imposed by lesser architects on completely unsuitable land.


Even MacKenzie himself had form in this area. His fancy back bunkers at Cavendish lasted barely a decade before they were grassed over. The wet and windy moors of Derbyshire are not ideal terrain for such flights of fancy.


14 by Duncan Cheslett, on Flickr

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2021, 02:05:04 PM »
Lack of money and manpower due to WW1, the economic depression and WW2 would have contributed significantly to the reduction over time in the number of bunkers MacKenzie originally constructed at his U.K. courses still being used.
Dozens were taken out of play or simply left to grass over at the MacKenzie I most often play. Even back in time when manicured bunker expectations weren’t what they are now bunkers still required manpower and thus money to upkeep.
As to the land he worked on would it be reasonable to suggest in overall terms that it was far more often clay/parkland type terrain rather than sand based heathland or seaside?
Atb

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2021, 02:39:36 PM »
Not one word about the land those courses were built on.


Seems to be a very simplistic and flawed theory. 


It probably works better if you find another culprit other than MacKenzie.


The fact that the bunkers at Pasatiempo and Cypress Point have survived nearly 100 years suggests that the land was indeed suitable. I think Adam's point is that such ideas were then imposed by lesser architects on completely unsuitable land.


Even MacKenzie himself had form in this area. His fancy back bunkers at Cavendish lasted barely a decade before they were grassed over. The wet and windy moors of Derbyshire are not ideal terrain for such flights of fancy.


14 by Duncan Cheslett, on Flickr


Why is that player turned sideways?  Was there green down on that ground level portion? 

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2021, 03:04:27 PM »
Not one word about the land those courses were built on.

Seems to be a very simplistic and flawed theory.



Easier to blame the guy who was famous, even if he did it well.


I am not at all sure that it was Pasatiempo and Cypress Point that made everyone want to build big, flashy bunkers.  Pasatiempo was so off the radar at one point that Herbert Warren Wind wrote in the early 1970's that based on MacKenzie's involvement, "It must be a fine course, but it has been years since I heard anyone mention it."


It was probably more likely some combination of Winged Foot, Riviera, Oakland Hills, and the "white faces of Merion" [TM Hugh Wilson 1911] that made flashy bunkers the standard.  They're the places that were on TV.  Oh, and the back nine at Augusta National, of course.




I am not a believer that the market is always right, but this idea has been around forever, and there are very few examples of bunkerless or even bunker-light courses that people love.  [When we did a course in Houston with 19 bunkers that hosted a Tour event, there was hardly any press about the number of bunkers, that I saw.]


I do believe there should be fewer bunkers on most courses, especially if the new standard is to spend a fortune to build each one.  But the idea that we are going to find some better way to replace them kinda depends on someone showing a better way to replace them, instead of writing an editorial about it. ;)  


P.S.  I know that the top 100 lists are not what golf is all about, yada yada, but people do look up to those courses and desire something that looks like them.  So, which top-100 courses have the fewest bunkers?  I have never thought to do the math on that question.  By coincidence, I'm guessing that one of my entries is in the top ten of that.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2021, 03:41:15 PM »
Wow . . . this was an interesting exercise.  I went through the U.S. top 50 really quickly and picked out the courses I thought would have the fewest bunkers, but even a lot of those have 75-100 bunkers on them!


Only two courses with less than 50 bunkers of the ones I looked at, and I'd be surprised if I missed one.


Then I started looking at overseas courses and gave up pretty quickly there, too.  I remembered that Julian Robertson gave me crap for the relatively few bunkers on the back nine at Cape Kidnappers, but there are nearly 100 total on the course, because we built them in clusters to combat the wind.


I thought, okay the Sacred Nine doesn't have too many bunkers, and there were ten of them on the first hole alone!  [36 for the nine]

Peter Pallotta

Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2021, 03:56:57 PM »
To me, 'in lessor hands' is the key idea in Adam's article.
To my eyes, there are architects who've  used bunkers to highlight & reflect scale, and those who've used them to create & mimic scale; the former is better. And there are architects who've used bunkers to accentuate & complicate strategic choices, and those who've used them to supplant or replicate it; again, the former is better. Some architects are just more talented and care more than others.


Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2021, 04:01:13 PM »
Tom,


I did an exercise a while ago to count the number of bunkers at all the GB&I links courses of note. Of course, a lot of very good ones have very few (Carne, Machrie for example) but World Top 100 with the least are probably Portrush (57), Ballybunion (61) and - depending on rankings - St Enodoc (42) and Cruden Bay (53). North Berwick has 70.


Troon, Trump Aberdeen, Dornoch are in the 80’s.


Carnoustie, Portmarnock, Sandwich all around 102-115.


Muirfield 140ish. Lythym 200ish


These are all sand based though. Not sure how many bunkers the best non-sand courses have.

Jeff Schley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2021, 04:38:33 PM »
I know ANGC originally had about 20 bunkers, not sure how many are there now, but probably at least twice that number and they are big.
Not top 100 but Painswick and Kington have no bunkers.
My guesses for least...with total shots in the dark.

PeachtreeMayacama
"To give anything less than your best, is to sacrifice your gifts."
- Steve Prefontaine

James Reader

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2021, 05:01:00 PM »
There are five courses in Golf World’s recently published England Top 100 without any bunkers. The previously mentioned Painswick and Kington, plus Royal Ashdown Forest, Berkhamstead and Piltdown. Of the other 95, I suspect that Huntercombe has by far the least - can’t be many more than a dozen or so from memory.

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #11 on: January 23, 2021, 06:11:14 PM »
There are five courses in Golf World’s recently published England Top 100 without any bunkers. The previously mentioned Painswick and Kington, plus Royal Ashdown Forest, Berkhamstead and Piltdown. Of the other 95, I suspect that Huntercombe has by far the least - can’t be many more than a dozen or so from memory.


Huntercombe has eleven bunkers according to the most recent photo on Google Earth.  Good call there!  But did it not have many more in the old days that have been grassed over to save $ ?


I have visited four of the five English courses cited and thought each of them was very cool, but they are not even on the ballot for top 100 in the world, and I would guess that the lack of bunkers is one reason why not.


Arrowtown in NZ is my favorite bunkerless course, but it is not only bunkerless but pretty short, so also no top-100 support.

Duncan Cheslett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #12 on: January 24, 2021, 03:09:04 AM »
Adam wasn't necessarily advocating bunkerless courses - just positing that overly extravagant bunkers have blighted golf architecture for most of the last century.


MacKenzie's most famous hole is notable not only for the heroic 230 yard carry over the Pacific Ocean, but also for the splendour of the green surrounds - particularly the back bunkers which are out of play for everyone except possibly "The Guy Who Laid up at Cypress Point"!


Pebble04_025a by Duncan Cheslett, on Flickr

Pasietempo is another example.

Pasa by Duncan Cheslett, on Flickr

In the context of CPC or Pasa such bunkering works absolutely. On a lesser site in the hands of a lesser architect however, and you potentially have an unsustainable white elephant. Unfortunately too many have tried.

That is the point...
« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 03:10:51 AM by Duncan Cheslett »

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #13 on: January 24, 2021, 05:08:33 AM »
Whilst they may not usually be as busy it is curious how the greenside bunkers that have disappeared over the years tend to be the ones behind greens and above greens, ie the ones that usually present the most difficult recovery shot.
The bunkers that usually remain though are the ones short and below greens, the ones that are easiest for a better player to recover from whereas all bunkers present a difficult recovery for the lessor player. Another example of the game becoming easier for the better player?
Atb

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #14 on: January 24, 2021, 08:34:35 AM »
I have no idea if Dr Mac instigated future over-bunkering, but I have no doubt in my mind that he was a bunker slut.  The man loved sticking bunkers all over the place. Its almost as if he was hard wired to do so. His generous use of bunkers is partly why the original (or close to it) very light ANGC bunker scheme is so fascinating.

Ciao
« Last Edit: January 24, 2021, 08:54:09 AM by Sean_A »
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Ira Fishman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #15 on: January 24, 2021, 08:44:34 AM »
Tom,


I did an exercise a while ago to count the number of bunkers at all the GB&I links courses of note. Of course, a lot of very good ones have very few (Carne, Machrie for example) but World Top 100 with the least are probably Portrush (57), Ballybunion (61) and - depending on rankings - St Enodoc (42) and Cruden Bay (53). North Berwick has 70.


Troon, Trump Aberdeen, Dornoch are in the 80’s.


Carnoustie, Portmarnock, Sandwich all around 102-115.


Muirfield 140ish. Lythym 200ish


These are all sand based though. Not sure how many bunkers the best non-sand courses have.


Ally,


I think Lahinch has around 65 bunkers. And although not Top 100, Woking and Brora seem to have around 50.


It strikes me that anything less than 3-4 per hole probably is pretty modest.


Ira

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #16 on: January 24, 2021, 09:04:42 AM »
What about Morfontaine?  From memory Swinley has about 60ish, I think the same is true for West Sussex.

Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

jeffwarne

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #17 on: January 24, 2021, 11:01:24 AM »
I have no idea if Dr Mac instigated future over-bunkering, but I have no doubt in my mind that he was a bunker slut.  The man loved sticking bunkers all over the place. Its almost as if he was hard wired to do so. His generous use of bunkers is partly why the original (or close to it) very light ANGC bunker scheme is so fascinating.

Ciao


I agree that I've always thought he was a bunker slut.
Easy to do on great sandy sites or with high-lightable land features and who's to say it's wrong.
ANGC would demonstrate he also could exercise restraint when site or mandate dictated.


Peter,
I'm assuming that was green down there.
A lot more green and terrain was useable/pinnable when the greens rolled as if they had grass on them.
"Let's slow the damned greens down a bit, not take the character out of them." Tom Doak
"Take their focus off the grass and put it squarely on interesting golf." Don Mahaffey

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #18 on: January 24, 2021, 12:35:53 PM »
I have no idea if Dr Mac instigated future over-bunkering, but I have no doubt in my mind that he was a bunker slut.  The man loved sticking bunkers all over the place. Its almost as if he was hard wired to do so. His generous use of bunkers is partly why the original (or close to it) very light ANGC bunker scheme is so fascinating.

Ciao


Definitely. Many of his bunkers were for aesthetic impact first and foremost. Although anything with a big aesthetic impact usually gets in to a golfers head. And didn’t he do it well?

Peter Flory

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #19 on: January 24, 2021, 01:07:42 PM »
If he was a bunker slut, then consider me to be Charlie Sheen.

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #20 on: January 24, 2021, 01:32:47 PM »
You guys are throwing around the term Bunker Slut like its a bad thing!  ;D

P.S.  I know CPC is sandy, so the bunkers almost seems like a good use of it, but is Pasatiempo also sandy?  I figured it was both far enough from the ocean and far enough up the hill that it would be more clay-based? 

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #21 on: January 24, 2021, 01:49:53 PM »
Difficult to make ‘bunker-slut’ accusations where the underlying terrain is sandy. Less sympathetic though where the terrain isn’t naturally sandy. Some sites of course likely have a bit of both.
Atb

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #22 on: January 24, 2021, 02:00:52 PM »
IMHO, and in the big picture, basically, Mac was the first to conceptualize bunkers as pieces of art, throwing out the concept of "natural looking" to make his designs more attractive to the eye.  I can hear him say, "Of course they aren't natural!"  But, who cares?  Apparently, not the next five generations of golfers.


Some guys, like Ross, were so conservative by nature, those extravagances never seemed to cross their mind, until perhaps much later, a la Seminole.  I always had the feeling he was more or less forced into it, as others became more relevant to the gca scene.  (I would have to look up the number of commissions by year for several gca's to prove that, I realize.)


I think he probably was a revolutionary at that time as Dye was later, but it's all speculation, of course.  And, he was revolutionary again after 1930, when he realized that a plethora of bunkers was putting many courses out of business, and started designing with fewer.  I have little doubt his design concept for ANGC had much to do with anything other than budget, but again, I could be wrong.  And, only important bunkers that affected play became the mantra for the next 40+ years (to at least 1977 when I entered the biz)  Not even RTJ or Wilson dare put random bunkers that "weren't in play", they just doubled up the number of bunkers at the LZ and green, LOL, not.


So, I hate to call names, but if anyone were bunker sluts, maybe its gca's in my era (started my firm in 1984, just as the boom was getting going) who brought back Mac's more prolific and shapely design style when the money started flowing similar to the 1920's, and were only held back by the recession of 2000 and 2006+.  Hey, I've been called worse! ;)
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #23 on: January 24, 2021, 04:24:26 PM »
As posted on Twitter recently - for more see - https://twitter.com/evalu18golf/status/1352938699449917440
Template - hill top green site from 100 yds away

As proposed by Herbert  Fowler -

As proposed by Alister MacKenzie -

Colt and Abercromby didn't submit proposals.
Make what you wish of the proposals and the bunker number, size and positioning.
atb


Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Alister MacKenzie - Bunker Slut?
« Reply #24 on: January 24, 2021, 04:41:41 PM »
Mine would probably follow the Fowler bunker pattern of bunker left/Bunker Right.  Not sure if there is a pot mid right, but if yes, I wouldn't put that one in.  Why?  In 44 years as a gca, I have never once woke up in the morning and said to myself, "What golf needs is more greens with bunker front left/front right."


That said, I do think most golfers like to see all hazards, and I tend to reserve that bunker combo for similar uphill shot as depicted to help the golfer identify the target zone.  It looks like he moved the green forward to make it a hazard on the left, so that SB is both unessary and blind, unless its a save bunker preventing a ball from bounding down the hill.


I would also tend to simpler green surface, since golfers can't really know how to use slopes to direct the ball to the hole on blind shots.  Also, it appears to me that Fowler's low shelf in on the uphill side of the green, which almost never looks right visually.




Mac's front right bunker probably the most visible of all of them, and would probably be okay as well.  If somewhat in front of the green, it might fool the eye as to approach shot distance.  (Is the green right behind, 20 yards behind, etc.)  The three tiers are okay, especially if he had proposed dropping the entire green 15 feet (or so, can't tell with scale) so the tiers would all be visible, which would result in a punch bowl type of green.  That might make the green surface visible, but would take away the long distance vistas both of them presumed are somewhere behind the green.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back