Will everyone please stop the MacKenzie worshipping?

[Doctor Disgusted]

I have recently been told that, where the great Alister MacKenzie visited/acted as a consultant on a course, that the course must by definition be worth going to play. What poppycock!I appreciate MacKenzie's best (perhaps 7-9 courses worldwide) for what they are: the best. HOWEVER, there are still a lot of mediocre efforts out there that bear his name.There would be another 35 courses at least where his name is associated with their course. I bet 30 of them are not worth ever seeing. Pretty poor odds of finding a good MacKenzie course, eh?

[Ran Morrissett]

I agree and disagree as to the signifigance of the architect's name associated with a course.I agree that the end product as it stands today is how a course should be measured. Who cares who designed it? If you enjoyed reading a book, does it matter if it was by a no-name author? Of course not. But the key is how did you select that book? Did you just get lucky and happen to pick it, did someone refer you to it, did you read a review, etc.If you are debating which course to play or how to plan a trip, then the architect is a valuable way to do it. I have never been disappointed by playing a Coore/Crenshaw, Doak or Pete Dye course (and I had high expectations each time). Also, a name architect may signify that there is more to the course than meets the eye. The art of subtlety may be present or the course may have potential for betterment (eg. 8th hole at Riviera), all of which may be fascinating to the student of design.Thus, I  agree on the one hand that rather than worrying about who designed a course seventy years ago, Clubs are better off to focus on insuring the present day course is the best it can be. On the other hand, one way to do that is to understand (hopefully the genius of) the architect who was responsible.Perhaps if Mackenzie's work was restored, then those 30 courses you refer to would be worth a journey. Truth in advertising would say if the majority of an architect's work is no longer present at a course, then his name should be removed from being associated with it. Donald Ross would second that vote, I do believe.

[Scott Kraus]

Dis-associating an architect with a course would not be a good idea. For instance, if you know George Thomas designed your course, wouldn't you try extra-hard to find all the originals plan and restore it? At some point, be it 1999 or 2099, a Board will realize the course they have is garbage. Their first step of action should be to go  to the orginial design plans (if their course was designed by a Master Architect).

[Bob Sacamano]

I have played several MacKenzie courses both maintained and unmaintained.I couldn't disagree with you more.The Good doctors work is untiring and always fun filled when playing.Perhaps you should make it a point to actually see past your thoughts and actually ply a few of his courses to actually look and see some of his great deception or what is left of it.  There has been so much proliferation of his design principles and methods, and so much of what he did beinfg misread and used as theory it makesme sick.

[Bob Ellington]

From one Bob to another, I hear what you are saying - MacKenzie courses are always both fun and challenging. But I think the question raised above is how much of his actual work remains? Which courses of his have you played that you enjoyed the most and are they mostly "true" MacKenzie courses?

[Sandy_Barrens_Jr.]

I can't believe that you would have the odyassity to make such a statement.MacKenzie's genius can be seen in many of his smaller designs.  I myself have played many Mackenzie private and public throughout California, Michigan, Scotland and England and can tell you your statement is very wrong.A good course to talk about is Pitreavie, an obscure little gem that is nothing more then a Scottish public golf course.  While the bunkering over the years is not Mackenzie like, the placement is.  Golf courses do change over time.At Pitreavie one can see a model of the 12th at Augusta although it is more of a downhill shot that requires a cross over the creek to a very shallow green.  It fits the site perfect and it is a intimidating one.  There are several other golf holes out there that show MacKenzie's finesse of routing.