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

[Brian Finn]

I could definitely eliminate 1, 7, 13, and 6. Then, I'd allow 5 to do the work of 2 & 9 - don't need to be so specific.

I attempted to rank them in order of importance, from my perspective.

5 different character each hole
10 no lost balls
12 playable for beginners
8 heroic carries / alternate route
3 green to tee proximity / elasticity
4 green and fairway undulations
11 plus handicap stimulated
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
9 infinite variety
2 variety of holes - specifics
6 minimal blind approaches
13 all seasons / consistent conditions
7 beautiful surrounds / natural
1 two loops of nine

At the end of the day, what the heck do I know?  If I were actually building a new course, I would find a great architect and let them do their thing.  I am a big believer in leaving such specialized work to people who actually know what they are doing.

[Michael Morandi]

I would question 5 and toss out 8, although I don’t know what he meant by heroic. As for every hole having its own character, I’m not sure that is possible in a course that flows, but, again, I don’t know what he meant by character.  Every hole should pose a different test. Is that character?

[Thomas Dai]

“13.  The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the texture of the greens and fairways should be perfect, and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.”

I mean, this is a nice rule for folks who live in the UK, Coastal CA, and the Melbourne Sandbelt. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that that is where he did most of his work. God forbid you build a fun course in Michigan.

Certainly not the case for a significant number of his inland/parkland U.K. courses. Have my doubts in relation to his NZ and Argentinian work too. Not sure about his Uruguayan courses. Drainage, drainage, drainage.

Atb

[Ira Fishman]

Royal Melbourne West.

Yep, that's the one.

Do my bonus points lead to a round at Crystal Downs or Chicago GC? Just checking.

[Tom_Doak]

Well, this post started off quickly, and then fizzled out quickly.  I should have asked people WHY they chose the one they did, which only a few of you justified.


I will make my notes about the points below, in green, in honor of Pat Mucci.

1.  The course, where possible, should be arranged in two loops of nine holes. 
     [Nearly everyone except Jeff Brauer will pick this one, but MacKenzie himself repudiated it in his later book, so Rule 1 doesn't count here.]


2.  There should be a large proportion of good two-shot holes, two or three drive-and-pitch holes, and at least four one-shot holes.  [I had not read this for a while, and hadn't considered that MacKenzie said nothing at all about three-shot holes!  So places like Rye and Sedge Valley would pass this test.  But The Old Course at St. Andrews would not, because it only has two one-shot holes, and MacKenzie never squared that with his love for The Old Course.]


3.  There should be little walking between the greens and tees, and the course should be arranged so that in the first instance there is always a slight walk forwards from the green to the next tee; then the holes are sufficiently elastic to be lengthened in the future if necessary.  [Fewer people disagreed with this than I expected, but that's GCA groupthink for you.  It's most commonly an easy cudgel to use against a course you didn't like.  I do hold an exception in waiting for a course on severe terrain that's so great it's okay for it not to be walkable, but I note that the only such course that has made a top 100 list to date was Ellerston, which restricted access to people who wouldn't hold it accountable for that.]


4.  The greens and fairways should be sufficiently undulating, but there should be no hill climbing.  [As someone pointed out, Augusta National fails this test, and so does Pasatiempo.  But they were hilly sites and I doubt a better routing could have been found for either, so maybe this wasn't the best rule.]


5.  Every hole should have a different character.  [It's impossible to know what MacKenzie really meant by this, but I am sure he didn't mean that you should include a bunkerless hole and a drivable par-4 and a hole with a bunker in the middle of the landing area and a Redan and a Biarritz and a Short hole on every course, to make it easy for panelists to remember them all.]


6.  There should be a minimum of blindness for the approach shots.  [Blind shots are still the third rail of architectural criticism.  I have one client who keeps encouraging me to look for more blind shots and blind approaches, and I don't have anything against them, but it is against my nature of trying to find the path of least resistance through a site.  Do note that MacKenzie restricted his criticism to blind APPROACH shots, so he might have had issue with the 2nd hole at Royal County Down but not the 5th or 6th or 9th.  He didn't say anything about places like Ballyneal where being out of position can leave you blind for the approach, but his Augusta co-designer Bobby Jones did specifically mention "a better view of the green" as one of the potential rewards for a good tee shot.]


7.  The course should have beautiful surroundings, and all the artificial features should have so natural an appearance that a stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself.  [This was the piece that was most popularly thrown out, and the one that I've held onto most dearly throughout my own work, because it is the hardest to execute.  I am a firm believer (along with MacKenzie and Max Behr) that the game is different when it feels like a battle between the player and Nature, instead of player vs. architect, and if I can make it less obvious as to how I changed things, it makes you think more about how you should play the hole.  This is completely lost in the modern era because every architect wants to be lauded for their strategic genius, and puts it all in the yardage book.  Just for Ben S:  the same as a field commander wants to be lauded for a great new tactic or for how daring and brave they were, vs. MacKenzie's observation of how the Boers won.]


8.  There should be a sufficient number of heroic carries from the tee, but the course should be arranged so that the weaker player with the loss of a stroke or portion of a stroke shall always have an alternative route open to him.  [Several people were ready to throw this one out, and where were all of you when I had to push back on Mark Fine's Pine Valley thread?  Note that it is pointless to build "heroic" carries in the Trackman era where every good player knows what their carry distance is, and the consistency of the equipment is so good.  Pete Dye had that part right -- to challenge modern players off the tee, you need to put the hazards on a very gentle arc, and keep them going all the way along the landing area.]


9.  There should be infinite variety in the strokes required to play the various holes - viz., interesting brassy shots, iron shots, pitch and run-up shots.  [A noble goal that almost no one even tries to think about anymore, because the game has changed so much.  It's still possible -- the most interesting golf shot I've seen in the last five years was Rory McIlroy choosing to putt from 60 yards short of the 6th green at The Old Course, chasing a major, because he thought that was the best way to get close -- but to achieve it you have to build something that's pretty extreme and that most critics will hate.]


10.  There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irrigation irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls.  [Many in the golf business call irrigation "irritation" so that was a fun typo.  Few wanted to throw this one out, but Dr. MacKenzie's ideal here, combined with modern standards of maintenance, is one of the factors most responsible for the uncontrolled rise of construction costs, because if you want short grass to find the ball you have to irrigate a much bigger area.  It's also true that you can lose a ball on many great links courses (or at Crystal Downs or Oakmont) when the wind is up and they've had a wet spring or not cut down all the whins.]


11.  The course should be so interesting that even the plus man is constantly stimulated to improve his game in attempting shots he has hitherto been unable to play.  [This "outdated" ideal is such a great contrast with the modern school of avoiding penalty strokes at all costs and playing for the center of the green.  Everyone talks about the possibilities of "match play" courses, but no one ever suggests their real benefit, which is that the format frees players to try shots that are lower-percentage, because their opponent has forced their hand.  Nowadays we mostly only get away with experimenting with it at the margins of the course, when you have driven badly and have a chance of playing a daring recovery around the trees.  Did you ever notice that half the YouTube highlights of Tiger Woods involve trees?]


12.  The course should be so arranged that the long handicap player, or even the absolute beginner, should be able to enjoy his round in spite of the fact that he is piling up a big score.  [I've heard Jack Nicklaus dismiss this as important, and the whole idea of 4000-yard tees in modern design is to move players up to the point where the designer doesn't have to worry about making the course playable from further back.  It's another point that I am less willing than most to dismiss.  And, again, Pine Valley fails miserably here.]


13.  The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the texture of the greens and fairways should be perfect, and the approaches should have the same consistency as the greens.  [This is obviously not achievable in some climates and very difficult to achieve on sites that aren't sandy, as many have cited.  The Valley Club of Montecito is probably the best example I know of on heavy soils, but that's because the climate is so perfect in Santa Barbara . . . it is a mud pit when El Niño comes.]

[John Kirk]

Sorry, I planned on responding first thing today.  I had decided which one I would choose to eliminate yesterday.

I would eliminate 4.  The greens and fairways should be sufficiently undulating, but there should be no hill climbing.

Hill climbing is a vague definition.  I like seeing a grand variety of challenges on a course, and uphill holes and/or uphill approach shots are part of that variety.  If there's a good place for a green that requires an uphill shot, and then we tee off up there and go somewhere else interesting, that's fine.

I am less in favor of uphill walks to tee off on the next hole, but it has its purposes.  At the Stanford Golf Course (George C. Thomas and Billy Bell, 1931), the long uphill 16th hole is followed by an uphill walk to the short 17th hole tee and another steep walk to the 18th tee, where you can see all the way north across the Golden Gate.  It's a physical test and an exhilarating finish.

[Ben Sims]

Tom,


Light pushback, I’d argue in the case of the Second Boer War, using camouflage and low/hidden ground for concealment WAS a great new tactic for the Boers. As evidenced by Mackenzie going back to war 15 years later to do just that once it was consensus accepted as innovative and necessary for battlefield success.

[Niall C]

Tom,


Light pushback, I’d argue in the case of the Second Boer War, using camouflage and low/hidden ground for concealment WAS a great new tactic for the Boers. As evidenced by Mackenzie going back to war 15 years later to do just that once it was consensus accepted as innovative and necessary for battlefield success.

Ben


MacKenzie might have thought it was a great idea but I don't think it became a consensus opinion until WWII.


Niall

[MCirba]

I'll toss out 1, 4, 6, 7, 10, and 13.

Tom,


I'd only say as I'm pressed for time today that there are great courses (and great holes) that break all of these rules, and probably others.   I suspect even The Good Doctor would agree that rules are meant to be broken, and viva la difference!

[Thomas Dai]

Mackenzie’s Boer War experience is mentioned above.

The extent of MacKenzie’s South African Boer War, or rather Second Boer War, involvement is interesting.
The Second Boer War lasted between October 1899 and May 1902. MacKenzie however, was, as the splendid MacK’ Society’s Timeline* indicates, only in SA from March 1900 to March 1901.

This one year period was essentially when the Boer adopted more ‘hit-n-run’ guerrilla tactics as distinct from their earlier period of taking control of, defending and then losing regional towns, as had occurred during the earlier phase of the conflict.

His regiment was based in East London, which is a port city on the eastern seaboard of SA. His regiment's main duties would appear to have concentrated on guarding and supporting a series of blockhouses (ie small forts), barded wire fences etc built by the British Army along some of the main communications lines inland from East London.

I’m not knocking MacKenzie’s involvement here, instead being rather curious, but the dates and nature of his regiments duties do beg the question of to what extent did MacKenzie himself actually see the use of Boar camouflage activity with his own eyes? This would seem a rather important question given his later work, perceptions and claims about it. I’ve attempted to investigate his regiments precise movements and specific duties during MacK’s period in SA without success. Has any further details about such been established?

Atb

* Well done to all involved for the time and effort needed to undertake so much research and ultimate presentation. For details see - https://alistermackenzie.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/20th_Revision_Mackenzie_Chronology_Final_Oct_2018.pdf

[Alex_Hunter]

The single rule that can't apply to ~90% of the golfing world is likely the 13th.
There are only a handful of courses in Canada for example that can be golfed in the Winter and I am certain you wouldn't travel to them during that time. Mackenzie loved Jasper but its short season is May through September, yet I am certain one might not care you can't golf in December.

On the flip side there are notable American courses that aren't or can't reasonably be golfed in the summer; Augusta (closed), Florida, California desert, Arizona for example, less you desire heat stroke or swamp ass prior to the first tee...

Maybe I interpreted the principle too literally. idk.

[Sean_A]

Regarding #7…I never once thought I was playing against the architect at places like Kington, Walton Heath, Yelverton, Old Barnwell etc etc. To me this is a strange take on the issue. But then it is rare that I feel like a hole is completely natural. Oftentimes on great humpty bumpty land archies feel compelled to add bunkers…sometimes I think mistakenly so.

Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Mackenzie’s Boer War experience is mentioned above.

The extent of MacKenzie’s South African Boer War, or rather Second Boer War, involvement is interesting.
The Second Boer War lasted between October 1899 and May 1902. MacKenzie however, was, as the splendid MacK’ Society’s Timeline* indicates, only in SA from March 1900 to March 1901.

I’m not knocking MacKenzie’s involvement here, instead being rather curious, but the dates and nature of his regiments duties do beg the question of to what extent did MacKenzie himself actually see the use of Boar camouflage activity with his own eyes? This would seem a rather important question given his later work, perceptions and claims about it. I’ve attempted to investigate his regiments precise movements and specific duties during MacK’s period in SA without success. Has any further details about such been established?

I wanted to say that the battle MacKenzie described where camouflage was so effectively used was the Battle of Colenso . . . I'm not sure why I would have remembered the name otherwise.  But that was fought in December 1899, so, before the Dr. arrived in SA.  Perhaps he had to treat some of the wounded?


He describes the battle in some detail in his long article on camouflage, but I don't believe he said he was actually there.  Have you read the camouflage article?  I have a copy of it somewhere in my office.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Tom,


Not sure why you would single me out.  All I recall writing on this subject is that Robert Dedman, founder of Club Corp (now Invited) once told me that returning nines allowed an extra 3500 rounds per year, so he insisted on that.  For all but the top few courses, golf is a tough biz, so I did follow Mac's first rule, including the first part, "Where possible."  Put another way, architects should be concerned with the fiscal as well as the physical in design, so on most sites, returning loops isn't particularly difficult and if easily done, why not?  I know you like(d) your iconoclast positions (and they have worked for you quite well) but for most courses, this is a good idea.


I have done a few non-returning courses, including Wild Wing Avocet and Cowboys Golf Club.  At Cowboys, it just didn't fit, but it cost over $500K to run water and sewer down to the halfway house, which no one on the team had anticipated and which generally, I would prefer to put in the golf course.  That obviously varies with the site and situation of nearby utilities, but it is a cost to avoid if you can.  At Wild Wing, at least the cost was split among adjacent courses.


Philosophically, is a "perfect" golf hole (if there is such a thing) is more valuable than a similar one, even of slightly less quality than a large magnitude unanticipated expense?  Again, it varies by the site and the type of course, but for most courses budget prudence really is a bigger design concern than some theoretically better hole.


If you can, I would like someone to post a quote of the Doc's repudiation of rule 1.  I suspect it came after he routed CP, which is a case where returning nines wouldn't have worked or would have been far less satisfactory. 

[Tom_Doak]

Hi Jeff:


I hope you have maintained your sense of humor.  I was just referring back to you on point #1 because I remember your stirring defense of it a year ago.


I can't grab THE SPIRIT OF ST. ANDREWS off the shelf where it rests right now without waking my wife -- so I'll have to do it in the morning -- but the gist of the quote was MacKenzie saying that it had given him more grief than any of the other 12 points, because anytime he had a project where he proposed non-returning nines because he thought it was better, or where they just weren't feasible [Cypress Point and also The Valley Club and in fact Alwoodley and Morton fall into that category], he had to endure the reminders from members that it was his rule #1.

[Chris Hughes]

#7

[Niall C]

I've also read his camouflage article and can't recall what is says in terms of battles or whether he was there (if indeed he mentioned that fact) but I'm also doubtful he'd have been at any particular battle. I think it more likely he heard accounts of the Boers tactics and maybe got the opportunity to inspect one of their trenches.


Niall

[Marty Bonnar]

I've also read his camouflage article and can't recall what is says in terms of battles or whether he was there (if indeed he mentioned that fact) but I'm also doubtful he'd have been at any particular battle. I think it more likely he heard accounts of the Boers tactics and maybe got the opportunity to inspect one of their trenches.


Niall

I’ve never seen it. Would like to though, so if one of you fine gentlemen could post it, I’d be eternally grapefruit. Cheers!
F.

[Thomas Dai]

I've also read his camouflage article and can't recall what is says in terms of battles or whether he was there (if indeed he mentioned that fact) but I'm also doubtful he'd have been at any particular battle. I think it more likely he heard accounts of the Boers tactics and maybe got the opportunity to inspect one of their trenches.
Niall

I’ve never seen it. Would like to though, so if one of you fine gentlemen could post it, I’d be eternally grapefruit. Cheers!
F.

The main Second Boer War battles including that at Colenso took place in Dec 1899, ie 4 months before MacKenzie arrived in South Africa in March 1900. They also took place at considerable distances from MacKenzie’s apparent base in East London. By the time MacKenzie arrived the period of fixed battles was over and the Boers were essentially operating guerrilla hit-n-run tactics in the more rural inland areas, ie well away from East London or any other major coastal cities.
As to the camouflage article, Neil Crafters recent book ‘The Good Doctors Prescriptions’ contains copies of numerous MacKenzie articles on the subject.
Atb

[Niall C]

From MacKenzies article in The Military Engineer titled "The Common Sense of Camouflage Defence" and published January/February 1934;


"My own interest in camouflage was aroused while I was serving in the Boer War and particularly during the black week of the war when the Boers, by means of ambushes, wiped out the British at the battles of Colenso, Magersfontain and Stormberg. At the battle of Colenso, with which I was best acquainted, the Boers by means of dummy fortifications behind, and concealed positions in the front of the Tugela River, annihilated Bullers army with the loss of only five wounded men. These lessons of the power of camouflaged defences, perhaps the most significant in history as measured in terms of profit and loss, appear to have been completely ignored by soldiers and historians.


The brilliant successes of the Boers were due to the a great extent to their making the best use of natural cover and the construction of artificial cover indistinguishable from nature. I made a close study of the subject because it was obvious that if similar ideas were developed along scientific lines even greater results could be attained."


While not explicit it appears from the above that MacKenzie learned by later studying the battles rather than experiencing them first hand.


Niall

[Tags:]

Tags: