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.


Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Untouched classic courses
« Reply #25 on: April 11, 2002, 10:22:56 AM »
Chris
I'm still not clear how ANGC illustrates the two men's philosophical differences. For one I don't believe ANGC was designed with many fairway bunkers (something like eight or nine), ground contours being a major feature. And wasn't the bunkering at ANGC more MacKenzie-like at the time Maxwell made his changes? The current simple look is post MacKenzie and Maxwell, in fact the old photos I've seen of Maxwell's bunkering looks pretty bold and stylish. Would you describe the bunkering at Old Town or Prarie Dunes as simple?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris_Clouser

Re: Untouched classic courses
« Reply #26 on: April 11, 2002, 11:05:31 AM »
Tom,

I'll try to answer your questions in reverse order of your asking.

The bunkering at Prairie Dunes and Old Town was very site specific from what I can tell.  It appears from all the early photos I have of many of Maxwell's courses that most of his bunkering was very simplistic.  Most often oblong or oval in shape with somewhat of a sand face and tightly placed against the green.  So I think though he was capable of this style he didn't do it on a majority of his courses, especially those early on in his career pre-MacKenzie.  I've not really thought about his bunkering on his post MacKenzie work due to the lack of photographs at this point of that work.  I only have photos of Old Town, So. Hills and PD to look at and I would like to compare other courses before saying those 3 are the usual.  But that issue should be taken care of shortly and I could probably provide a better answer on the post-Mac influence of his bunker work.

I agree that the the bunker work at the course was all MacKenzie at the time that Maxwell came in, but his bunkering style at least what I have seen of it looks much more like what the modern version appears to be.  I would love to see a photo of the work shortly after Maxwell completed it to see if it was done the same way.  That may answer some questions and bring up some more.  

As for the number of bunkers at Augusta, I think I read somewhere that MacKenzie admitted that this was an inordinately small number of bunkers for him.  Though he thought many courses were overbunkered, the number at Augusta were much smaller than his usual work.  I am not an expert on what MacKenzie's work originally looked like, but maybe he did use the ground contours to a much greater advantage than I was thinking before.  I would love to hear some examples throughout the course where the contours themselves make a huge impact in the play.  Maybe I am under the wrong impression about Macs work.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Lester George

Re: Untouched classic courses
« Reply #27 on: April 11, 2002, 03:51:05 PM »

As we discussed a couple of weeks ago, the Charles Banks course at Cavalier Golf & Yacht Club that I am restoring is largely untouched over the years.  

Three greens were rebuilt in the last 20 years (1 in-house and two by another architect (who will remain unamed) and many of the fairway bunkers have been abandoned.  But all-in-all, the course remains in it's same foot print, with many original features including a Biarritz green complex (although the club never elected to use the fron half) a Redan hole which I have to restore (other architect) an Eden hole, and an Alps hole that is really neat.  We also have one par three green which sits in an island of sand, similar to others Banks did.  

I'll be restoring most of the fairway bunkers using a 1929 routing plan and restoring the back to their original square shape.  I'll try to provide photos of the before and after shots if anyone cares.  Work starts June 17th.

Lester
 

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

SPDB

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Untouched classic courses
« Reply #28 on: April 11, 2002, 03:54:26 PM »
Lester - I think i speak for everyone here when I say that before and after pictures would be GREAT. Keep up the good work, i'm anxious to see how it progresses.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Untouched classic courses
« Reply #29 on: April 11, 2002, 04:44:56 PM »
Chris
I think you can trace the blandness of ANGC's bunkering to Roberts and George Cobb the long time club architect. Some of Maxwell's courses may have bland bunkers today, but they didn't start that way. I think you might be under estimating MacKenzie, Flynn and Tillinghast's abilities to utilize natural contours.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Chris_Clouser

Re: Untouched classic courses
« Reply #30 on: April 12, 2002, 07:09:32 AM »
Tom,

I watched the replay of the Masters telecast last night and you are probably right about my evaluation of Mac's use of terrain.  I don't know if I've ever notice how much change their is in the terrain at Augusta.  But I don't know if I've ever paid that much attention to it while watching the tournament in the past.  Some of the movement in the fairways reminded me of some of the fairways at Crystal Downs while watching it last night.  

As for the way Maxwell bunkering looked in the beginning, I've only seen it on courses from photos that were a few years after the course was originally designed, so depending on what evidence I can find in the coming months, that could very well change my opinion either way.  But I do admit of the work I've got photos of from Southern Hills, PD, Crystal Downs and Old Town those bunkers look anything but bland.



Chris
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »