Which of Dr. MacKenzie's Thirteen Points Would You Throw Out Today?

[Simon Barrington]

After a couple of days, here's the tally so far (#1 being excluded):

Point     Votes
  7           10
  4           6
  6           6
  13         5

The others only have 1 or 2 votes, while 3 and 5 received zero votes (even thou there was at least one modification suggested for #5)

Tom et al, any surprises?

I'm not surprised, exactly, but it's super interesting that the one point where I have stuck my neck out furthest [#7] and been told just now that I shouldn't worry about, is the one that I think has really made my work stand out as different, and earned the respect of peers and golfers whose opinions I respect the most.

Glad not to be in the consensus and the exception (by dint of suggested modification)


Ref: the other thread running currently, it is interesting when the respected leader of the Group profers something stridently that very quickly becomes groupthink consensus {winking face emoji}

[Kalen Braley]

After a couple of days, here's the tally so far (#1 being excluded):

Point     Votes
  7           10
  4           6
  6           6
  13         5

The others only have 1 or 2 votes, while 3 and 5 received zero votes (even thou there was at least one modification suggested for #5)

Tom et al, any surprises?

I'm not surprised, exactly, but it's super interesting that the one point where I have stuck my neck out furthest [#7] and been told just now that I shouldn't worry about, is the one that I think has really made my work stand out as different, and earned the respect of peers and golfers whose opinions I respect the most.

Your comments made me think of this thread from a long ways back when you challenged the group to pick which parts were modified (or not) at Pac Dunes.  It remains one of my favorites all these years later

https://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32962.0.html

[Ira Fishman]

After a couple of days, here's the tally so far (#1 being excluded):

Point     Votes
  7           10
  4           6
  6           6
  13         5

The others only have 1 or 2 votes, while 3 and 5 received zero votes (even thou there was at least one modification suggested for #5)

Tom et al, any surprises?

I'm not surprised, exactly, but it's super interesting that the one point where I have stuck my neck out furthest [#7] and been told just now that I shouldn't worry about, is the one that I think has really made my work stand out as different, and earned the respect of peers and golfers whose opinions I respect the most.

Tom,


I am sure you already have gotten past it. Or not. But #7 is a compound sentence such that the first clause may have led to the votes. No one actually wants to admit that the view matters even when it does.


Ira

[Sean_A]

After a couple of days, here's the tally so far (#1 being excluded):

Point     Votes
  7           10
  4           6
  6           6
  13         5

The others only have 1 or 2 votes, while 3 and 5 received zero votes (even thou there was at least one modification suggested for #5)

Tom et al, any surprises?

I'm not surprised, exactly, but it's super interesting that the one point where I have stuck my neck out furthest [#7] and been told just now that I shouldn't worry about, is the one that I think has really made my work stand out as different, and earned the respect of peers and golfers whose opinions I respect the most.

My take was more that Dr Mac was out on a limb not least because a fair percentage of his stuff didn’t look overly natural. Beyond that, Dr Mac doesn’t say why #7 is a sound principle. Even if he did, that shouldn’t infer that obvious unnatural looking work is inherently inferior or less than. Talk about groupthink 🙈.

Ciao

[Ben Sims]

After a couple of days, here's the tally so far (#1 being excluded):

Point     Votes
  7           10
  4           6
  6           6
  13         5

The others only have 1 or 2 votes, while 3 and 5 received zero votes (even thou there was at least one modification suggested for #5)

Tom et al, any surprises?

I'm not surprised, exactly, but it's super interesting that the one point where I have stuck my neck out furthest [#7] and been told just now that I shouldn't worry about, is the one that I think has really made my work stand out as different, and earned the respect of peers and golfers whose opinions I respect the most.

Didn’t I say I was going to get my noggin thudded?


I feel like we’re all falling prey to some sort of social experiment. 

[Thomas Dai]

Ref #7. Back in MacKenzie’s time there was considerably less urbanisation so much easier to find locations to build courses in beautiful natural surroundings and/or need to make artificial features indistinguishable from nature.
Atb

[Niall C]

I wish I could have weighed in earlier.


Tom,
You know I would have rejected his aversion for blind shots.
But what I wanted to post is something you just touched on.


Mackenzie never says anything about site selection! They got to build wherever they wanted in those days so it was taken for granted the land was going to be wonderful: seaside links dunes, dry heathland terrain, etc.


But his nod to an attractive site maybe implies that after that was the case, then follow these 13 points.


Could you technically follow the 13 points on a massive flat polo field?

Colin


Setting aside the larger point you are making , I disagree with the idea that in Mac's day they were unconstrained in terms of site selection. Yes they wouldn't have had anything like the environmental restrictions that architects and developers now face but they also were limited to what they could do with a site in terms of earthmoving. Also sites like Bandon or Sandhills wouldn't have been an option because they were too remote.


And at the end of the day, it's rarely the architect who picks the site and MacKenzie certainly worked on his fair share of ordinary sites.


Niall


 

[Jeff Schley]

I'd throw out 13, as it doesn't allow for northern courses to even qualify in the off season, or I guess ANGC/southern courses in the summer.
I noted that very little is mentioned about greens, which surprises me. Just sufficient undulations.  With many of his greens being pretty severe by our standards today due to green speeds. Also, nothing about bunkers at all, just reference to forced carries without mentioning what. His bunker maintenance finely cut edges are a characteristic today I'm sure many super's loathe due to the man hours.

I find #5 to be the most ambiguous and catch all in any way shape or form someone wants to point out. "Every hole should have a different character." It is open ended enough that people on this DG could have a unending thread just on this topic.

[Tags:]

Tags: