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.


Mark Saltzman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« on: March 19, 2012, 11:16:53 PM »
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/AmericanGolfer/1933/ag368q.pdf

Some highlights:

It is a rather extraordinary thing that members of golf committees, themselves men of intelligence, experience and fre- quently specialists in different lines, when it comes to consideration of the task in- volved in remodeling the club course, will turn to seek the advice of persons whose only qualification in matters pertaining to golf is the ability to play a good game.


The so-called improvements of golf courses usually consist in making holes longer and in riddling the place with sand bunkers.


...the foolish pretense that changes in the ball or the addition of new traps make it desirable to bring the course up to date.


in the majority of cases, changes made by the greens committee consist in the construction of more penal hazards and the making of the course even less interesting than it was before.


Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #1 on: March 20, 2012, 07:43:05 AM »
The more things change, the more they remain the same.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #2 on: March 20, 2012, 09:22:05 AM »
Mark,

Most here would consider Mac a nearly infallible figure in gca, and yet many here seem to argue for more penal hazards, much like the people the good Dr. was complaining about.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the typical gca.com member would make a terrible addition to the green committee!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Don_Mahaffey

Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #3 on: March 20, 2012, 09:31:19 AM »
Jeff,
Penal hazards and designing only for the good player are not the same thing.
I could easily come up with a green committee I'd love to work with from GCA members.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #4 on: March 20, 2012, 09:34:52 AM »
Don,

Please tell me where I said they were?

I have often argued here that less penal sand bunkers make the course more interesting, because if they are too much of a penalty, the tendency is to just play conservative, like you would play away from water.  Granted, the average player should probably make an overall strategy of aiming away from bunkers anyway.

I was also going to mention that from memory, Ross and others also started out their books (or their editors put them in that order) with complaints about the greens committees.  I always said golf course architecture would be a lot easier without clients to please!
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #5 on: March 20, 2012, 01:23:45 PM »
I find that 1st statement from Dr. MacK a bit ironic/hypocritical in light of his best works like Cypress and Royal Melbourne being "riddled" with bunkers.




Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +3/-1
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #6 on: March 20, 2012, 02:15:52 PM »
I find that 1st statement from Dr. MacK a bit ironic/hypocritical in light of his best works like Cypress and Royal Melbourne being "riddled" with bunkers.


Kalen:

I would not describe Royal Melbourne as being riddled with bunkers.  Here's how many fairway bunkers the West course has, hole by hole:

1st - 0
2nd - 1 on R
3rd - 1 on R
4th - 3 to carry
6th - 3 on R / carry
8th - L & R
9th - 2 on R [shared with 8th]
10th - 1 on L
11th - 2 on L
12th - cluster to carry + 1 on R
14th - on approach
15th - 2 R + 1 L
17th - 2 L
18th - cluster on R to carry

There are only two holes which have fairway bunkers on both sides - the 8th, which is sandwiched between two other holes, and the 15th, which was inherited from the original course.

There are indeed a lot of bunkers around nearly every green.

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #7 on: March 20, 2012, 02:47:18 PM »
I seem to recall some descriptions of MacKenzie courses being quite difficult, if you took on the hazards ! I think the key to MacKenzie philosophy was not making courses so open and easy as to be uninteresting and dull but to give the lesser player an option of playing around trouble. He spoke about thsi and largely did this, cross bunkers at Scarborough aside  ;D

Niall

Garland Bayley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #8 on: March 20, 2012, 03:21:54 PM »
I find that 1st statement from Dr. MacK a bit ironic/hypocritical in light of his best works like Cypress and Royal Melbourne being "riddled" with bunkers.





Methinks there might be a big difference where Dr. Mac would "riddle" a course with bunkers, and where a green chairman would. My sample size of one says green committees are mostly concerned with image. Bunker count increases image for the layman.
"I enjoy a course where the challenges are contained WITHIN it, and recovery is part of the game  not a course where the challenge is to stay ON it." Jeff Warne

Kalen Braley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #9 on: March 20, 2012, 03:52:57 PM »
Tom,

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I think RMW does indeed have a lot of bunkering. So I used google maps and there were even more than I initially suspected.  Most of the bunkers also weren't very many small (pot type bunkers) and look fairly large in size.

Here is what I came up with:

Total number of bunkers on the course:  106
Average number of bunkers on each hole: 5.9
Average number of green side bunkers per hole (within 50 yards of green): 3.9
Average number of fairway bunkers per hole: 2.5

The 14th green has 7 green side bunkers, and the 18th has 8 green side bunkers.
The 6th, 12th, and 15th fairways have 4 bunkers and the 17th has 5.
Only 5 holes have 2 green side bunkers or less, the rest 3 or more.


Hole   Fairway   Greenside   Total Per Hole
1   0   1   1
2   1   2   3
3   2   3   5
4   3   4   7
5   0   5   5
6   4   4   8
7   0   4   4
8   3   4   7
9   1   4   5
10   1   2   3
11   2   4   6
12   4   2   6
13   0   5   5
14   2   7   9
15   4   4   8
16   0   6   6
17   5   2   7
18   3   8   11

14th green



18th green:

« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 04:01:39 PM by Kalen Braley »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #10 on: March 20, 2012, 04:24:05 PM »
Jeff Brauer's understanding of "penal hazards" and MacKenzie's understanding of "penal hazards" are very different.  One must consider the context of the time and the debate between various approaches to golf design when one reads MacKenzie's comments on penal hazards.  

As Niall mentioned, the idea of avoiding the use of "penal" hazards had much more to do with hazard placement than the difficulty of the hazard, and involved allowing the lesser player to find a way around.

In other words, one cannot judge a bunker as "penal" by its depth.  Rather one must look at it in the context of its placement on the course.  A hazard irrelevant to better players but which is unavoidable to the hack is penal, whether it is deep and nasty or not.   A hazard directly where the better player wants to be but avoidable to the lesser player willing to take a longer route isn't "penal" even if it is deep, dark, and nasty.  

As for Mackenzie's general disregard for greens committees and the damage that they do, perhaps it is worth remembering he had an equally low regard for the work of many who passed themselves off as golf course architects.  (I recall one particularly scathing review of a course created near San Diego which Mackenzie considered to be a monumental waste of money and land.)    The point is he opposed bad architecture, whether brought on by greens committee's out to punish the lesser golfers in club, or by those selling themselves as capable course builders but who did not truly understand the purpose of hazards at all.  

_______________________________________

Kalen, not sure about Royal Melbourne, but at Cypress one has got to consider the slate.  Much of the place was one big sand bunker when MacKenzie began, and many of what are bunkers now were then naturally occurring sand.    Mackenzie was a huge proponent of taking advantage of what was there naturally and at CPC it was sand. 

« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 04:26:35 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #11 on: March 20, 2012, 04:40:07 PM »
Its like the "Swallows returning to Capistrano" isn't it?  I post, and in ten minutes, DM tells the world that I don't understand something.....what a surprise. 
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #12 on: March 20, 2012, 06:24:32 PM »
Its like the "Swallows returning to Capistrano" isn't it?  I post, and in ten minutes, DM tells the world that I don't understand something.....what a surprise.  

One way to look at it is that I must be out to get you.  Another less paranoid way to look at is that you have a tendency to post misinformation on topics about which I care.

Either way you choose to look at it, my post is accurate, informational, and on point.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2012, 06:26:06 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jim Nugent

Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #13 on: March 21, 2012, 12:54:49 AM »
I find that 1st statement from Dr. MacK a bit ironic/hypocritical in light of his best works like Cypress and Royal Melbourne being "riddled" with bunkers.


Perhaps Mac was suggesting his work had the right amount of bunkers on them, strategically and aesthetically, where the committees created excess and overload.  i.e. it wasn't the absolute number of bunkers but whether they fit the course.   

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #14 on: March 21, 2012, 10:15:13 AM »
David,

Not paranoid, but we do have a history.  So, I respond, just in case any of the worldwide readers might think that I don't know beans about architecture from listening to you.

To borrow a phrase you lob my way often, "You can't possibly know what I understand about Mac's philosphy on bunkers."  Not from that post, and not anywhere else, but you still tell the world in a public forum that I don't know squat.  I resonded to both Don M's comments specifically, and was thinking of Mac's comments on committees demanding more penal bunkers, not Mac's philosophy. 

And, if not fully articulated, I was commenting on how often this site discusses architecture in terms of the best players, who probably won't show up at a club, and how Mac realized a more balanced approach to all players was important.  That does seem to get lost in these discussions, at least IMHO.

Of course, your modus operandi here has often been to make assumptions, twist words, parse them, and then come to conclusions that are either comical or tragic, a la your Merion essay, depending of course, on someone's point of view.  And you often tell us that you are the only guy smart enough to figure this stuff out.

So, while I do commend your interest and study of golf architecture history, I think you get off track sometimes, and particularly don't think you need to go out of the way to point out imagined flaws in mopst of my posts.

Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #15 on: March 21, 2012, 12:32:54 PM »
I've reviewed your posts and mine, and I stand by my opinion that your ""understanding of 'penal hazards' and MacKenzie's understanding of 'penal hazards' are very different."  

I won't bother addressing the rest.  Anyone who cares can compare your posts to mine and decide for themselves who is bringing the unnecessary baggage and gratuitous insults into this discussion.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Steve Strasheim

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #16 on: March 21, 2012, 02:04:02 PM »
Just want to check in and say that I really enjoy reading posts from Jeff_Brauer.

Don't have any opinion about those that always want to be the smartest in the room.

Jeff_Brauer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #17 on: March 21, 2012, 02:42:56 PM »
Steve,

Thanks.

David,

I actually understood where you were coming from more than Don, and don't disagree with your basic premise of Mac's thoughts.  Would have no problem in you articluating those thoughts, but there is still little connection in my response to Don and what I think about Mac, and none that would allow you to state that I don't understand Mac.

Its certainly not worth discussing your opinion of my opinion, or my opinon of your opinion any further.  If you can, I would love to know what SD course Mac was referring to, and also, it might be nice to have started this thread with full, rather than selected quotes from Mac, for those who want to form their own opinons on Mac, or even greens committees!

Would you agree that part of Mac's reason for dissing both in house and contractor or inexperienced architect work was to promote his own self?  Seems that way to me.
Jeff Brauer, ASGCA Director of Outreach

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #18 on: March 21, 2012, 03:44:44 PM »
If you understood from where I was coming then there was no need for you to get nasty or insulting.  I didn't.  All I did was disagree with the way you presented MacKenzie's ideas, and I still disagree.  I'd do the same with anyone and have done the same with just about everyone. 

Mackenzie didn't name the course but in San Diego but from the description I believe it was Emerald Hills which is NLE.

Of course Mackenzie was promoting himself.  Times were tough when he wrote that article and architects adopt all sorts of surprising positions when times are tough.  As I said one has to consider the context of the times when reading these things, and that applies equally trying to understand how they used terms like "penal" or "fair" and how they did not.
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Jerry Kluger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Problems in Remodelling Courses - Dr. Mackenzie
« Reply #19 on: March 21, 2012, 04:31:06 PM »
I was asked by our greens superintendent to rejoin the greens committee at my club and I did so only because I like him so much.  The new club president followed the precedent of his predecessor and chose someone to chair the committee who had never been on the committee.  The committee decided it was going to make some recommendations for short term and long term projects at the club and many involved making the course look better or play harder.  I suggested that our first priority should be to make the course more fun to play which should definitely include conditioning.  The backlash I received was unbelievable and I was told by one member not to tell him what to think.  My tenure lasted 2 months as I have decided that it just isn't worth the aggravation. 

Dr. Mackenzie was absolutely right about so many things.