Neil:
Allow me to elaborate on what I said about my opinion of Mackenzie (probably at the top) and why I feel that way.
I would have to say that what I have seen of his architecture just completely appeals to my particular taste in so many ways, even if perhaps not in all ways----eg sometimes I wonder if he didn't tend too much towards the "artistic" even if in a somewhat natural way such as copying the shapes of passing clouds in some of his West Coast bunkering, if that is actually true.
But what I really mean is that in my opinion, any man who could come up with the ideas to apply to golf course architecture he did from highly naturalized Boer military trench construction is just totally brilliant----frankly genius!
The latter is far more important to what I believe real natural looking architecture should be and should look like than any applied principles of Landscape Architecture could ever be, in my opinion.
On the subject of Landscape Architecture, I think the only thing I have ever completely agreed with Tom MacWood on was many years ago when he mentioned on here that Landscape Architecture, even the finest naturalized English LA or even an Olmsted, is essentially an "idealized" form and presentation of Nature!
I very much doubt that was the case with the naturalized military trenches of the Boers because if it was I'm pretty sure they realized full-well they were more likely to DIE if that was the case!
Being the expert on Mackenzie that you are I'm sure you realize that Mackenzie not only informed the British military that they should emulate the Boer naturalized military trenches but he also informed them that the Boers also emulated the highly artificial looking British trenches just to draw fire away from their manned Boer trenches.
And lastly, I feel more and more as I continue to consider GCA and its history that all of this kind of stuff revolves around the fact that with golf architecture it's all contingent on the fact that golf may be the only stick and ball game in the world in which the ball is not vied for between human opponents. And with that fact which may be so fundamental to golf as to have become forgotten about years ago, it may put the context of the target for a golfer in somewhat the same context as a highly naturalized Boer military trench whose primary purpose is to deceive the target shooter and/or drive fire away from it.
OR, in a short construct, I think I believe in all forms and applications of deceiving the eye of a golfer, if for no other reason than to make him always ponder the less, and hopefully far less, than the obvious.