Jeff writes:
"Mac, who was the best bunkerer ever, IMHO, only came to the "less bunkers is more" theory when trying to sell work after 1929. The relative lack of bunkering was tied to finances, and ANGC started a bit thin."
While that sort of claim is not crazy, I've never thought it made much sense.
First, MacK never said anything remotely close to that. He never suggested that he would have built a different course at ANGC if only he had been given more money. To the contrary, he wrote at great length about why the bunkering at ANGC was exactly what he wanted it to be. Bobby Jones said the same thing time and again. The limited number of bunkers was something they were proud of. It made the course more playable for weaker golfers, among other things. There is nothing in the record to suggest their complaining about a design that "might have been" but for more money. Are you suggesting MacK and Jones were making up some sort of tall tale?
Second, if money drove the design of ANGC, how do you explain the installation of a (then) state of the art irrigation system, piping Rae's Creek at various spots and the expense of building of extremely wide fairways and enormous, highly contoured greens?
Third, money was indeed short for the ANGC project. But the budget for the golf course was determined at the outset and never reduced. Their money problems were met by eliminating a par 3 course, a pool and tennis courts and dumping the idea of building a new clubhouse. The original budget for the course, set early on before anyone thought there would be money issues, was never reduced. (As I recall the correspondence in the Olmsted files, they took pains not to touch the budget for course construction. Other things were sacrificed.)
Fourth, the "less bunkers is more" idea had been around for a while, was a well-established design principle and did not arise as a response to tight budgets. It was a constant refrain of Tom Simpson. Likewise Max Behr. It was one of several Golden Age ideas about golf course design that arose independently and with its own justifications that had nothing to do with money constraints.
MacK and Jones designed and built exactly the course they wanted to build at ANGC, not a second best course. Moreover, they said so time and again. I see no good reason to doubt them.
Bob