Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Robin_Hiseman on September 23, 2011, 07:43:18 AM
-
I'm putting together an online tutorial on greens design for student members of the European Golf Course Architects and by way of an introduction plan to use the iconic photo of Mackenzie's green at Sitwell Park.
It has generally been accepted that this is a picture of the 18th green at Sitwell, even though the caption labels the picture as being of a 140-yard Par 3. Now, I've trawled through a fair few threads here and around the internet and there seems to be a general feeling that there was only one wild green at Sitwell Park. It seems pretty clear to me now that there were two, side by side and that the iconic photo is of the par 3 12th hole. There is a much grainier picture of the adjacent 18th green in Mackenzie's book, which was equally curvaceous. Apologies if you lot already know this, but I can't find anything on this site to dispel the myth that there was only one.
The picture below is a good reproduction of the famous photograph. In the top right hand corner you can clearly see that there is another golf hole between the trees and a wooden shed on the hillside beyond.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/MacKenzie_Sitwell_Park.png)
Here is an aerial image of Sitwell Park showing the 12th green to the left and the 18th green to the right. It matches the previous image exactly, even down to the shed in the trees.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellParkOverhead.jpg)
Mackenzie's famous green is the 12th, not the 18th.
I've asked my brother, who lives nearby to run down to Sitwell and get current ground shots of the two greens. When he has them I will post them here for comparison.
-
....and maybe he can take his chain saw. :o
-
It would also explain why the people are standing where they are....Two hole locations on two greens.
-
Thanks Robin
I hope you don't mind the temporary thread jack...
What is a student member of the European Golf Course Architects?
Cheers
-
Sean: The picture is only of the 12th green. The 18th green is behind the trees to the right.
Mike: The EIGCA is running an education programme for fledgling golf architects. I've been asked to do the tutorial on form v function in green design. This green is a prime example of awesome form but flawed function. It's in there as a cautionary tale.
My brother is off to take the photos of the current greens this evening, so I should have the comparison uploaded on Monday.
-
Below is the old photo of the 18th green at Sitwell Park. It is clearly not the same green as the other photo. The bunker at the back of this green can be seen through the trees at the mid right of shot on the picture of Green 12.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellParkGreen18old.jpg)
Robert Hunter mislabelled the picture of 'The Home Green at Sitwell Park', in his book 'The Links', by incorrectly identifying it as 'a short hole of 140 yards'.
-
This is a great find!
And as if more proof was needed, the fence in the background gives it all away too.
-
Robin,
I'm not convinced by your argument. In my opinion, it's two pictures of the same green taken from different angles, and possibly on the same occasion. The first picture was captured from the front left and the second was captured from the front right (but not far enought to the right to include the bunkers on the right). There seem to be too many coincidences. Look at the positions of the players; they're almost idenitical. The guy holding the flag has a white cap in both pictures. The man in the white shirt sleeves is standing in the middle-right part of the green in both pictures. The man at the front of the green is in the same position. Look at the bunker at the back of both pictures. There is a portion that juts upwards in both pictures. If the first picture was captured from a position a bit more to the right, you would be unable to see the feet of the man in the white shirt sleeves, which is the case with the second picture.
I also find the greens in both pictures very similar. The top right portion of both greens is on the highest ground. Then you have a middle tier on the right where the man in the white shirt sleeves is standing. The the middle-right and top-right portions are higher than the other portions of the green in both pictures. Two almost identical greens on the same course?
I don't see how the fence proves anything. It's behind the green in both pictures.
I will admit that the bunker at the rear of the green in the second picture is very prominent, and not so prominent in the first picture. Could this be because of the different angle?
OK, now I need to match each tree one-by-one to make my argument watertight. ;D
-
Robin
I am certain that you are right, and that there were at LEAST two wild greens on Sitwell Park. One needs only to go as far as Mackenzie's own book "Golf Architecture" from 1920, which I am lucky enough to have a copy of, to confirm this.
As the frontispiece of his book Mackenzie included a photograph of the "140 yard Short Hole", while on p28 he placed a photograph captioned as "The Home Green at Sitwell Park". Clearly Mackenzie has shown these as two different holes. I have attached scans of the photographs in his book.
I can't imagine that there were only two wild greens built by Mackenzie at Sitwell Park, and that all the others were flat. I would expect that there were many other greens that he built there that had elements of wildness, although the two most extreme would be the Short and the Home Holes.
There was strong criticism early on of Mackenzie's greens at Sitwell and this was focussed on three greens in particular, the 12th (the short hole), the 15th and the 18th. I have attached Mackenzie's reply that was published in The Sheffield Telegraph on 28 February 1914.
So Robin, it would appear that there were in fact at least three dramatic greens at Sitwell that were subject to criticism. Two we have photographs of, the 12th and the 18th, but alas I have never seen one of the 15th.
Donal, the photographs are clearly of two different greens. And Mackenzie knew that they were! On the 18th there is no bunker at middle right, while the front bunker is more to the front left. On the 12th there is a middle right bunker and the front bunker is before the green and is a very different shape to the one on the 18th. Not to mention the differences in the backdrops.
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/SitwellGABookfrontispiece.jpg)
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/SitwellGABookp28.jpg)
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/sitwell28214sheftel.jpg)
-
Mike: The EIGCA is running an education programme for fledgling golf architects. I've been asked to do the tutorial on form v function in green design. This green is a prime example of awesome form but flawed function. It's in there as a cautionary tale.
My brother is off to take the photos of the current greens this evening, so I should have the comparison uploaded on Monday.
Robin:
I should get you a picture of the 13th at Barnbougle, just to show your students that you can pull off this kind of stuff. Even "flawed" function is a matter of taste.
I hate that I didn't go to Sitwell Park during my year overseas. I met someone who grew up nearby and was familiar with the course, and asked if there was any evidence of the wild green still there, and she replied "What wild green?" So I was pretty sure there was nothing left to see.
-
Fantastic picture from behind the 13th green at Barnbougle Dunes -- courtesy Bryan Izatt:
(http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/3620/13acc.jpg)
And a far lesser pic from he tee courtesy of moi:
(http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8563/dscn0678pt.jpg)
I'm confident Herr Henderson has something that would get bodily fluids flowing, if you wanted that sort of thing... ;D
-
A (bile? mucous? urine?)-inducing shot for stateside Scott.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5101/5559548009_6907fc90f4_b.jpg)
-
There you go!
-
There you go!
Shouldn't you be getting some rest before your prolonged stroll beside the Great Peconic?
-
Robin
I am certain that you are right, and that there were at LEAST two wild greens on Sitwell Park. One needs only to go as far as Mackenzie's own book "Golf Architecture" from 1920, which I am lucky enough to have a copy of, to confirm this.
As the frontispiece of his book Mackenzie included a photograph of the "140 yard Short Hole", while on p28 he placed a photograph captioned as "The Home Green at Sitwell Park". Clearly Mackenzie has shown these as two different holes. I have attached scans of the photographs in his book.
I can't imagine that there were only two wild greens built by Mackenzie at Sitwell Park, and that all the others were flat. I would expect that there were many other greens that he built there that had elements of wildness, although the two most extreme would be the Short and the Home Holes.
There was strong criticism early on of Mackenzie's greens at Sitwell and this was focussed on three greens in particular, the 12th (the short hole), the 15th and the 18th. I have attached Mackenzie's reply that was published in The Sheffield Telegraph on 28 February 1914.
So Robin, it would appear that there were in fact at least three dramatic greens at Sitwell that were subject to criticism. Two we have photographs of, the 12th and the 18th, but alas I have never seen one of the 15th.
Donal, the photographs are clearly of two different greens. And Mackenzie knew that they were! On the 18th there is no bunker at middle right, while the front bunker is more to the front left. On the 12th there is a middle right bunker and the front bunker is before the green and is a very different shape to the one on the 18th. Not to mention the differences in the backdrops.
Pictures of greens 12 and 18 deleted for brevity.
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/sitwell28214sheftel.jpg)
Neil,
That is a fascinating letter by Mackenzie, worthy of a thread by itself.
-
Robin,
Excellent stuff!
I was recently in Buxton, but this time instead of MacKenzie's Cavendish, I came across his old putting course, and the first thing I thought of when viewing the contours, was what I thought was the one green at Sitwell Park. fascinating to find out that there were two. Now if only someone could be convinced to rebuild them (or restore the Buxton putting course) we could all stop taking this damn game so seriously and have some fun!
Here is a photo of Buxton...
(http://i306.photobucket.com/albums/nn267/jamesboon53/2011%2008%20Cavendish/DSC09897.jpg)
Cheers,
James
-
Gentlemen,
I found the aforementioned newspaper response by MacKenzie quite difficult to read. I have inserted it below in the hope that this will make it easier for others and perhaps spawn, as Pete Pittock suggested, a thread of its own. Enjoy a leisurely read!
SITWELL PARK GOLF COURSE.
Moor Allerton Lodge, Leeds. February 26th, 1914.
Sir --- I have had cuttings from The Sheffield Daily Telegraph of February 21 an 24 sent to me by three friends with a request that I should reply to the criticisms. My remarks were quoted that the 12th. 15th. and 18th.greens at Sitwell, after the first burst of virulent criticism were got over, would become extremely popular amongst the members.
I have got accustomed to measuring the ultimate popularity of a hole or course by the amount of criticism it gives rise to in the first instance. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Sitwell which has got the natural advantages of at least three other Sheffield courses, like St. George's Hill which is undoubtedly the most popular of the recent London links, will have a great future. Its members will find other courses dull and uninteresting in comparison.
The criticism in your paper, however, is much fairer and milder than I anticipated. It is only natural that players who have been spoon fed on insipid, flat unintersting stuff(?) should view with a considerable amount of suspicion anything which is undoubtedly out of the ordinary. Your critic makes a mistake in comparing the Sitwell greens with St. George's Hill. The fact of the matter is, the only crab of St. george's Hill is not that it is too undulating, but that it is not rolling enough.The St. George's greens are on too much of a slope and if they had been made more undulating there would be more available hollows or flat places in which to p;ut the flag. In an undulating green it is absolutely essential that the place for the hole should never be on a side slope, but always on the flat.
Criticisms have been made that at Sitwell the putting is going to cost you more. The exact opposite is the case: the putting is going to cost less. It is inaccurate approaching that is going to cost you more. A man who has approached with great accuracy is helped towards the hole, and will frequently be down in one putt.
I would ask my critics in what other way would it have been possible to utilise the terrific slope on which these greens are situated and yet to have given the same natural appearance? Unless the hollows were made large enough and deep enough it would be impossible for anyone putting from the top of the green to remain anywhere near the hole when placed in a hollow at the bottom, and in a green of this kindit is only intended that the hole should be placed in a hollow or on the flat.
All these greens are large: in fact, thirty or forty yards wide. Each hollow is almost as large as an ordinary punch bowl green and has a big advantage over the ordinary punch bowl in three respects - firstly, they are visible; secondly, an innaccurate shot rolls away from the hole; and thirdly, there still remains a chance of recovery with a putter instead of a niblick out of the rough.
I do not agree with you statements that at the short twelfth two tee shots perfect in length and direction may have unequal treatment and, even if this were so, do you suggest that the element of luck should be eliminated entirely in golf?
I can ensure you that you can no more do so than in cricket. A certain amount of luck is responsible for some of the fascination of both games,and,if you succeeded in eliminating it you would only succeed in making both cricket and golf uninteresting.
Yours faithfully,
A. MacKenzie.
Cheers Colin
-
Scott/Tom
I'm pleased to report that I'd already scooped that photo from Barnbougle as an example of a modern day interpretation! Thanks for the link though.
I walked Sitwell Park once and the hillside is REALLY steep. Though I don't doubt that if you managed to put your ball in the same pocket of green as the hole was located it would have been fine, they would have been absurd greens from a functional point of view. Still a crying shame that they weren't softened in keeping. I'm hoping that my brother will be getting me the current photos soon, so that you can all see just what became of them.
Neil: Thanks for the articles. The next challenge is to find a shot of 15.
James: Never knew about that gem. A great find. Is that the High Speed Rail Link?
-
Colin,
Thanks for translating.
Neil, Robin,
I think I almost agree with Donal that the photos are of the same green. Atleast it is a possibility that is not easily discounted. Imagine that the a photo of the scene is taken from the red dot on the second photo (crest of small bunker). The first photo is a plausible representation of this.
(http://i194.photobucket.com/albums/z17/Digby_Jeffrey/SitwellGABookp28b.jpg)
I think it is quite easy for greens to look different from different angles.
If you had not been to Barnbougle, would you think these two photos were of the same green with the same pin position. Certainly not immediately.
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5101/5559548009_6907fc90f4_b.jpg)
(http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/8563/dscn0678pt.jpg)
-
Barnbougle Dunes Golf Course
Bridport, Tasmania. March 8th, 2011.
Sir.......
Criticisms have been made that at Barnbougle the putting is going to cost you more. The exact opposite is the case: the putting is going to cost less. It is inaccurate approaching that is going to cost you more. A man who has approached with great accuracy is helped towards the hole, and will frequently be down in one putt.
I would ask my critics in what other way would it have been possible to utilise the terrific slope on which these greens are situated and yet to have given the same natural appearance? Unless the hollows were made large enough and deep enough it would be impossible for anyone putting from the top of the green to remain anywhere near the hole when placed in a hollow at the bottom, and in a green of this kindit is only intended that the hole should be placed in a hollow or on the flat.
All these greens are large: in fact, thirty or forty yards wide. Each hollow is almost as large as an ordinary punch bowl green and has a big advantage over the ordinary punch bowl in three respects - firstly, they are visible; secondly, an innaccurate shot rolls away from the hole; and thirdly, there still remains a chance of recovery with a putter instead of a niblick out of the rough.
I do not agree with you statements that at the short thirteenth two tee shots perfect in length and direction may have unequal treatment and, even if this were so, do you suggest that the element of luck should be eliminated entirely in golf?
I can ensure you that you can no more do so than in cricket. A certain amount of luck is responsible for some of the fascination of both games,and,if you succeeded in eliminating it you would only succeed in making both cricket and golf uninteresting.
Yours faithfully,
C. Macqueen (and about 20 other Boomerangs)
I think the good Doctor's response can equally apply yo Barnbougle. It is easier to understand the design at Barnbougle having read the Doctor's treatise above.
Apologies Colin - thanks for transcribing the article.
James B
-
David
The 12th and 18th greens are adjacent and share similar design features and I dare say the same guys posed in approximately the same way on both greens, but they are assuredly two different greens in those old photos.
Robin
-
but they are assuredly two different greens in those old photos.
Robin
Robin,
What evidence are you basing this opinion on.
And why don't you think the green worked from a functional point of view?
-
but they are assuredly two different greens in those old photos.
Robin
Robin,
What evidence are you basing this opinion on.
And why don't you think the green worked from a functional point of view?
David
I've been to Sitwell Park and observed the two greens close together, which have very similar backdrops, as the aerial view in my opening post shows. Perhaps the most compelling evidence comes from Mackenzie's own book in which the two photographs are separately described as 'the 140-yard short hole' and 'the home green'. The left hand green in the aerial photo is the 12th, a 140-yard par 3 and the right is the 18th.
Looking at the photos themselves, observe the proximity of the wooden fence to the back of the green. Behind the short hole green it is far in the distance, well beyond a thick screen of trees. Behind the 18th it is just behind the bunker and a single line of trees, much closer to the putting surface. This same fence can be seen beyond the distant 18th green in the 'famous' photo to the top right of frame. Also, the large bunker behind the 'Home' green isn't present behind the 'Short Hole' Green. As it rises above the putting surface it would certainly be visible from the point of view of the cameraman. These are two different greens. I am certain of it.
From a functional point of view they were flawed, though Mackenzie mounts a staunch defence. I've read that these greens sloped about 10-feet from front to back. The truth is that they sloped well in excess of 15 feet, perhaps even 20-feet and you can't contain that amount of slope within a putting surface and present more than a mere handful of hole locations, even if the greens are running at less than 6 on the stimp. These greens would have had to been maintained at meadow height to have a chance of slowing down the momentum of the ball. I bet we would have had a ball putting on them, but it would have been crazy golf. Mackenzie can't beat the law of physics. They were too steep for a green.
Don't get me wrong. I love undulating greens and have designed my fair share of greens that others have thought were borderline unfair. I've even used the same defence that Mackenzie uses, that undulating greens don't penalize putting, they punish wayward approach play. The photo below is of my 18th green at the Royal Golf Club, Bahrain, that I designed with a definite nod to the spirit of the Sitwell greens. That's Paul Casey approaching the flag, about to hole out to win the Volvo Golf Champions. There is just less than five feet of elevation change from the front to the back of this green, perhaps only a third of the Sitwell greens, maybe even just a quarter, yet this is a seriously challenging green. I certainly wouldn't want to put any more contour in it.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/VolvoGolfChampions2011040.jpg)
In seeking to maximise the naturalness of these greens, Mackenzie misjudged their requirement for functionality...in my view. I still love them though and mourn their demise, but they could never have survived in this guise..
-
but they are assuredly two different greens in those old photos.
Robin
Robin,
What evidence are you basing this opinion on.
And why don't you think the green worked from a functional point of view?
David,
In comparing the shape of the front left bunkers in both photographs, they appear to be quite different.
TK
-
Excellent thread.
It raises a number of questions for me. Firstly, MacKenzie only built three of these wild greens at Sitwell why not 18 such greens, was it that he was taking advantage of a steep hillside for the 3 green locations or was he forced into it by the routing ? Secondly, if he was so convinced by the design merit of these greens, why did he not replicate the idea elsewhere, or perhaps he did and they didn't survive either ?
The other thing I would be interested to know, is what exactly is left ? Are any of the greenside humps and hollows remaining ?
Niall
-
In comparing the shape of the front left bunkers in both photographs, they appear to be quite different.
TK
Tyler, if they were two photos of the same green, I would assume they were different bunkers, one to the left of the green and one short of the green.
Niall, Robin,
The 16th at Pasatiempo is anotehr example of a similar Mackenzie green.
-
David
A couple of points:
1. Mackenzie would not have made a mistake of the level of putting two photographs of the same green in his book and the labelling them as two different greens.
2. The greens are obviously different with different bunkering patterns, as Robin has explained.
Two greens, not one.
Niall
I said in my post that I thought the other 15 greens, apart from the three dramatic ones, must have had a reasonable level of undulation in them otherwise they would have looked totally out of place. At this stage in Mackenzie's career, 1913, he was clearly experimenting to see what was achievable and what he could get away with. Guess he just went over the edge a bit at Sitwell, despite his arguments to the contrary.
-
James
Further to your post about the Buxton putting green, here's a period postcard of the putting green.
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/BuxtonPavilionGardensputting2.jpg)
-
With much thanks to my brother Andy, who some of you may remember joined us at the Painswick BUDA, here are, for what may be the first time, before and after pics of Mackenzie's iconic 12th and 18th greens at Sitwell Park.
I've added Andy's emailed comments to me, which clear up once and for all which green is which and that there are inded two separate greens.
The two old b/w photos are clearly of two different greens. I showed them to the two senior greenkeepers, and both agreed that the 'very wild' green is now the 12th, and the slightly less wild green is the 18th.
THE 18TH
I think photo 18th01_small is taken pretty close to where the 'HOME GREEN AT SITWELL PARK' photographer was standing. 18th02_small gives you a slightly more close-up view of the now-flat green.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellParkGreen18old.jpg)
Mackenzie's Original 18th green
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellPark_18th01_small.jpg)
2011: Taken from approximately the same position.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellPark_18th02_small.jpg)
A slightly closer view.
THE 12TH
I've given you three views of the 12th. The key challenge was: where was the photographer standing when he took the iconic view of Mackenzie's 12th green? For the iconic photo seems to have been taken from an impossible place. The ground slopes very sharply up a hill towards the green (you can see this best in 12th03_small), and there's seemingly no way to take the 'iconic' photo without the aid of a cherry picker! Rob I'll leave you to decide. You can see sheds and fences etc behind and to the right of the green, but they are now obscured by bushes and trees.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/MacKenzie_Sitwell_Park.png)
One of the most famous pictures in golf architectural history
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellPark_12th01_small.jpg)
Approximately the same view today
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellPark_12th03_small.jpg)
The view from the forward tee.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellPark_12th02_small.jpg)
From the front left of the old green.
It seems to me that, for the most part, Mackenzie's original contouring is still there, but has just been grown in. The winter green is a new addition, the terrace of the current green has been extended and the bunkering is long gone. It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility to recreate that photo in the current day, if it could just be worked out exactly where the original shot was taken.
If Andy's photos do anything they show very clearly just how steep the greensite was and how it was the case that Mackenzie emphasised form over function with his design in this instance. Another thing that strikes me is how dry the grass faces must have been. It had to have been extremely difficult to keep those slopes in a playable condition.
Well, I hope this thread ties up a loose end about what became of these greens. Who'd like to join me in recreating the photo?
-
Robin
Great stuff. A couple of suggestions, it might be an idea to get a photo when all the leaves are down from the trees to see if you can compare ridgelines behind to help with angles etc. The other idea I had was maybe trying to work out from the original photos roughly the extent of the greens and applying that to a modern day aerial to see how much of the undulating ground in front was part of the green. I don't know if that can be done but maybe one for your students to try ;)
Niall
-
Is there a better reason for the existence of GCA? Scholarship examined in public.
-
Dredging up Robin's old thread from the depths.......
I have come across a postcard of Sitwell Park that is described as 'Sitwell Park Golf Club - Green Making' and is a side view of one of these greens, which one I am not sure. Thoughts anyone? What it does show is the size of the greenside mounding and the depths of the hollows and slopes within the green.
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/SitwellParkGreenmaking.jpg)
-
Neil
What an excellent find and thanks for having the presence of mind to link it into this thread.
I wonder if you've found a picture of the 'other' green, the 5th? The backdrop doesn't match either the 12th or the 18th, both of which were more wooded. It can't be 12 because 18 would be in the background and 18 was set entirely within tall trees.
-
Neil
Thanks to a quick web search and happening upon our very own Andy Levett's website, i'd reckon that you've found a photo of the previously unseen 5th green.
Rather than pinch the photo from Andy's site, just follow this link to read his piece on Sitwell and look at the recent 5th hole photo. The steepness of the hillside behind the green and the hedgerow species makes me thinks this is it.
http://www.designmentor.co.uk/golf/sitwell_park.htm
-
Having looked at it again I think the old photo of the 12th green was taken from left of the left hand bunker. So at 8 or 9 o'clock to the line of play. This would account for the high angle
Jon
-
Robin
Your conclusion is interesting as I sent the photo to someone who knows Sitwell and they said:
from the look of the background and the boundary fence I'd think this was not the 12th or 18th, but one at the other end of the course near the 3rd green
So we could have a photograph of one of the other greens which would be very nice.
-
First, let's remember that they didn't have telephoto lenses in those days, so the camera lens was probably very similar even if taken with different equipment at a different time.
Second, The picture of the "12th" has a irregular shaped bunker with tounge in the middle. In contrast, the "18th" photo has a kidney shaped bunker. The only way to explain this away, is that the kidney shaped green on the "18th" photo is off-camera on the photo of the "12th", and the same thing for the bunker in the "12th" photo - the "18th" bunker is cut off from the left hand side of the photo or obscured by the mounding on the upper left of the "12th" photo.
Also, despite the different angles on which the photos were taken, the distance between the bunker and the narrow green entrance is very tight on the "12th" photo. Although difficult to see on the 18th photo due to the angle, it appears much wider on the "18th".
Also, doesn't the depth and width of the "12th" green look substantially greater than on the photo of the "18th?" To my eye, the "18th" photo looks significantly smaller. Maybe that is just the lens compressing the depth, but using the people as a measuring stick of 6', the "18th" green looks thinner.
Also, I don't see a way for the obvious bunker on the back of the "18th" not being visible, despite the angle change, from being visible in the "12th". Although David's lime green circle around the white thing gives one pause. The front edge of the back bunker cuts the gentleman circled by David in blue at his waist. How could we not see that same bunker on the "12th" photo? Or do we? In Neil's photo, does the back bunker appear about waist-high of the man furthest up the hill? To me, the large face of the back bunker on the "18th" cannot be explained away in the "12th" photo.
Who votes to play the old green over the new one? I love them big and crazy.
Lastly, did Hawtree/Dawson also have a go at these to make them more pinable for an Open?
-
Thanks for that Michael, but we have already concluded that they are two different greens.
-
3rd green? 4th green? 5th green? Any takers?
-
3rd green? 4th green? 5th green? Any takers?
The last find is almost certainly the 5th green IMO.
Jon
-
Jon
I've looked at the aerial of Sitwell Park and I am fairly certain that the side-on photo was of the 4th green. This is the shortish par 4 and is at the top in the aerial I have attached. The setting for this green appears to be in a bit of amphitheatre with enclosing ridges either side and the photo and aerial seem to match up. The 5th green doesn't seem to do it so well for me.
Also, there is a remnant bunker front left of the 4th green where Mackenzie had one in the photo. Green 5 has all its bunkers down the right. While they could have changes my suspicion is that they haven't changed much.
I'm going for Hole 4.
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/SitwellParkGreenmaking.jpg)
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/Screenshot2012-12-17at71929AM_zps5055e964.png)
-
.
(http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t65/Saabman2005/SitwellParkGreenmaking.jpg)
Surely that is Mackenzie in the postcard ?
-
Yep, could concede that one to you Neil. :)
-
I'm not so sure. Not nearly enough moustacheness or plus-fourness...?
F.
-
Whoops! Too many Neil's. I meant Neil Crafter's ident of Green 4. :)
-
Wouldn't it be great if a golf course like this threw caution to the wind and just did a full scale restoration?... All-in to playing conditions, clubs, balls et al....
It would just be fantastic to see a full length golf course with a bunch of REALLY crazy greens...
We can but hope....
-
Whoops! Too many Neil's. I meant Neil Crafter's ident of Green 4. :)
Thanks Robin, I knew you meant me ;D
Neil R., that's almost certainly not Mackenzie. As Marty B said.
Ally, yes it would be throwing caution to the wind indeed, but would be great to see. As private clubs are often having difficulty hanging on to members I could see it going one of two ways - an exodus or an influx. Not sure which.
My suspicion is that a lot of his other greens at Sitwell must have been fairly wild otherwise those three would stand out like dog's balls ;) in one lot of correspondence regarding the controversy over the Sitwell greens, the 15th was mentioned by Mackenzie, in addition to the 12th and 18th greens. To this collection I think we can add the 4th. One golf writer said that the 16th had an excellent undulating green but was less severe than the 12th and 18th.
-
Bumping this old thread, shame so many of the previously posted photos have now 'disappeared', as a place to showcase in colour photos of a couple of MacKenzie's famously contoured original Sitwell Park greens.
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EIe4JjBXUAA_tdb?format=jpg&name=small)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EIjNs-tWsActZAT?format=jpg&name=small)
-
Thomas,
what a difference a bit of colour makes. Great work!!!
I am surprised how much less severe the green looks in the bottom photo though it is undoubtedly still on the edge. What a shame it is no more. Bet the greenkeeper was glad though as it must have been quite a challenge to mow.
-
Outstanding work, Dai!
I came across a couple of interesting articles on the Sitwell Park greens authored by the two main contributors to this very thread.
Robin https://www.egd.com/?p=1150 (https://www.egd.com/?p=1150)
Neil https://sagca.org.au/sitwell-park-mackenzies-flirtation-with-the-eccentric/ (https://sagca.org.au/sitwell-park-mackenzies-flirtation-with-the-eccentric/)
-
Thanks for the links Duncan. Interesting reading. Well done Robin and Neil.
Here's the b&w photo of the (apparent) 4th at Sitwell now coloured.
atb
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EI4gjncXUAE2hED?format=jpg&name=small)
-
Posted today from the Sitwell Park Twitter account; “ How would this be received. Putting the 12th back to how it was originally designed.” Exciting if they genuinely are considering it.
-
Posted today from the Sitwell Park Twitter account; “ How would this be received. Putting the 12th back to how it was originally designed.” Exciting if they genuinely are considering it.
Only 20 years after I suggested it to them!
-
With much thanks to my brother Andy, who some of you may remember joined us at the Painswick BUDA, here are, for what may be the first time, before and after pics of Mackenzie's iconic 12th and 18th greens at Sitwell Park.
I've added Andy's emailed comments to me, which clear up once and for all which green is which and that there are inded two separate greens.
The two old b/w photos are clearly of two different greens. I showed them to the two senior greenkeepers, and both agreed that the 'very wild' green is now the 12th, and the slightly less wild green is the 18th.
THE 18TH
I think photo 18th01_small is taken pretty close to where the 'HOME GREEN AT SITWELL PARK' photographer was standing. 18th02_small gives you a slightly more close-up view of the now-flat green.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellParkGreen18old.jpg)
Mackenzie's Original 18th green
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellPark_18th01_small.jpg)
2011: Taken from approximately the same position.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellPark_18th02_small.jpg)
A slightly closer view.
THE 12TH
I've given you three views of the 12th. The key challenge was: where was the photographer standing when he took the iconic view of Mackenzie's 12th green? For the iconic photo seems to have been taken from an impossible place. The ground slopes very sharply up a hill towards the green (you can see this best in 12th03_small), and there's seemingly no way to take the 'iconic' photo without the aid of a cherry picker! Rob I'll leave you to decide. You can see sheds and fences etc behind and to the right of the green, but they are now obscured by bushes and trees.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/MacKenzie_Sitwell_Park.png)
One of the most famous pictures in golf architectural history
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellPark_12th01_small.jpg)
Approximately the same view today
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellPark_12th03_small.jpg)
The view from the forward tee.
(http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/jronimo/SitwellPark_12th02_small.jpg)
From the front left of the old green.
It seems to me that, for the most part, Mackenzie's original contouring is still there, but has just been grown in. The winter green is a new addition, the terrace of the current green has been extended and the bunkering is long gone. It would not be beyond the bounds of possibility to recreate that photo in the current day, if it could just be worked out exactly where the original shot was taken.
If Andy's photos do anything they show very clearly just how steep the greensite was and how it was the case that Mackenzie emphasised form over function with his design in this instance. Another thing that strikes me is how dry the grass faces must have been. It had to have been extremely difficult to keep those slopes in a playable condition.
Well, I hope this thread ties up a loose end about what became of these greens. Who'd like to join me in recreating the photo?
Im sure someone will have noted this before but to me, the original photo of the 12th green appears to have been taken from up a tree?
If you look at the top of the photo there is a small branch visible which is a scale and size not in keeping with the trees in the background and it "hangs" down into the frame.
Would this perhaps tie in with the comment about the need for a cherry picker to recreate the photo?
-
Better late than never, Robin?
Grant, I can’t agree on the ‘up a tree’ theory. The grass in the bottom left of the photo looks to be too close to the camera for that.
-
...
Neil R., that's almost certainly not Mackenzie. As Marty B said.
...
Perhaps it is Mr. A. E. Turnell?