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.


Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #100 on: February 22, 2013, 06:15:09 PM »
Bill,

If the California architects were building the "California" or "Lace Edge" bunkers before MacKenzie's arrival, either in print or in person, I think prudent men can conclude that MacKenzie had no influence.

And, if MacKenzie and others, contemporaneously, credited Thomas, Bell and others with designing a course, prudent men can again conclude that MacKenzie had no influence.

The preponderance of physical and written evidence indicates that the "California" bunker style was in existence in California prior to MacKenzie's presence, in print or in person, and there's NO documented evidence indicating that MacKenzie influenced, directly or indirectly, the bunker style in California, pre 1926 and 1921.

You want MacKenzie to be credited with influencing the bunker style in California, despite the lack of any physical or written evidence supporting your claim.  

Actually I really don't care one way or the other, I just like arguing with you every now, two 70-year olds duking it out.  

But I do think you are giving very short shrift to the communications of the post WW I era.  British golf magazines and books were undoubtedly sent to America.  Who's to say these publications with diagrams and photos weren't studied by American golf architects?   They could have been of considerable influence on the Americans.  

But I don't know they did, and you don't know they didn't.   This is why I say it's pure conjecture to make a conclusion one way or the other, but you seem to be willing to do so.   It's difficult to prove a negative - that Thomas et al weren't influenced by Mackenzie or other UK architects - so in my opinion this remains conjecture.  
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 06:16:44 PM by Bill_McBride »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #101 on: February 23, 2013, 11:55:03 AM »
Bill,

What's not conjecture is the fact that "California"/"Lace Edge" bunkers were in the ground in California before MacKenzie came to visit California in 1926 and before he came to reside there in 1930.

What's also not conjecture is that drawings depicting that style of bunker existed prior to MacKenzie's visit in 1926

The same can be said of the publication of his book in 1921.

Ergo, neither MacKenzie's 1921 book nor his 1926 visit introduced the "/California"/"Lace Edge" bunker to California.

That's not conjecture, that's fact.




RJ_Daley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #102 on: February 23, 2013, 12:15:55 PM »
And what is not conjecture is that your 'California archies' for the most part, spent their formative golfing careers back east, before migrating to Cali., playing in tournaments here and back in GB, and it is folly to think they weren't exposed to Dr. MacKinzie's lectures, and written accounts of his lectures, and club house comparative discussions on the subject of GCA among the elite who travelled to GB&I to play, which was their passion (just like we do here on this forum).  They exchanged mail, read books, and were an elite group of golfers who were like us, and had like minded golfers interested in fields of play to have vigorous discussions on all aspect of playing and building playing fields of the game.  And they were plenty resourceful and smart enough to learn course design and construction and agronomy techiniques to expand the game and its fields of play.  That is what they did, and moved their early knowledge to Cali, for the most part. 

I for one, will withdraw from this circuitous discussion, as it seems to me Pat, you are more trying to place heat, rather than light on this subject, for some strange reason.  Too many knowledgeable gents (not me) are trying to tell you your beating a dead horse of spurious reeasoning. 

But, I will await this revelation of documentation you keep stating you are obtaining.  Frankly, I expect you to produce a grainy photo of frilly edged bunker on some lower tier courses in Cali dated to 1910 or something, and craft more tortured logic that it is proof MacKenzie had no influence; when that would really be is proof someone else built a frilly edged bunker, for whatever reason, owing to terrain or a brain fart of inspiration.  It wouldn't prove a movement, or contradiction to all of Dr. MacKenzie's body of work, up through that time.

Now, if you can bring out some sort of directly written comment by a Cali archie that says, I built this style bunker in contravention or contrast to Dr. MacKenzie's style, you might have something.  But, at least it would prove they were 'thinking' about MacKenzie and his stylized presentations. 

No actual golf rounds were ruined or delayed, nor golf rules broken, in the taking of any photographs that may be displayed by the above forum user.

Patrick_Mucci

Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #103 on: February 23, 2013, 01:04:18 PM »
If the influence of bunkers, especially "Lace Edge" bunker was so great in the UK, then why is it that Charles Blair Macdonald, after studying golf courses, features and bunkers over a period in excess of 20 years, prior to 1909, didn't import that style to the U.S. ?

They're not at NGLA or any of his other courses I've seen, nor are they in evidence with Raynor's courses I've seen, nor are they in evidence at Banks' courses I've seen.  Why not ?  If they were so popular, why didn't CBM import them.

If they and MacKenzie were so influential, why weren't they imported by Macdonald.

And, Macdonald was not alone.

Wilson sailed to the UK in 1912 for the purpose of studying the great courses/holes/features with an eye toward importing the great holes/features/concepts he observed.

Yet, they're not in evidence at Merion.

Why not ?

If they were so popular, and MacKenzie was so influential, why did Wilson and Macdonald come back empty handed with that style ?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #104 on: February 23, 2013, 01:34:28 PM »

And what is not conjecture is that your 'California archies' for the most part, spent their formative golfing careers back east, before migrating to Cali., playing in tournaments here and back in GB,


That's pure nonsense on your part, just more wishful thinking.

I asked you, previously, to name the courses back east with that bunker style.
You failed to answer that question, choosing instead to just repeat your nonsensical claim.

Tell me which courses Behr played, in NJ and elsewhere back east, that had that style of bunker ?
Where and when did Behr ever play in the UK

Ditto Thomas and Bell

What courses back east did they play that had that style.
DON'T AVOID the question.

Where and when did Thomas play in the UK ?
Where and when did Bell play in the UK ?
Again, DON'T AVOID the question.

And, we know Thomas designed courses back east.  I was a member of one of them many years ago.
Yet, that style does not appear at either Spring Lake or Whitemarsh.


and it is folly to think they weren't exposed to Dr. MacKinzie's lectures,

If they NEVER went to the UK and MacKenzie didn't come to the U.S. until 1926, HOW would they have been exposed to MacKenzie's lectures prior to 1926 ? ? ?


and written accounts of his lectures, and club house comparative discussions on the subject of GCA among the elite who travelled to GB&I to play, which was their passion (just like we do here on this forum). 

That' complete speculation, conjecture and wishful thinking on your part.
You don't have one shred of evidence to substantiate your wishful thinking.


They exchanged mail, read books, and were an elite group of golfers who were like us, and had like minded golfers interested in fields of play to have vigorous discussions on all aspect of playing and building playing fields of the game. 

Do you have any documentation supporting your claim ?  Any letters ?  Any minutes ?
You have taken to defending a myth.
You can't produce any concrete evidence supporting your wishful thinking.
You're guilty of taking about as unacademic approach to this issue as possible.


And they were plenty resourceful and smart enough to learn course design and construction and agronomy techiniques to expand the game and its fields of play. 

That's irrelevant and nothing more than a diversionary smoke screen on your part.


That is what they did, and moved their early knowledge to Cali, for the most part. 

More nonsense.
If that was the case, then why didn't Thomas manifest that bunker style at Spring Lake, a course he designed in NJ before moving to California ?


I for one, will withdraw from this circuitous discussion, as it seems to me Pat, you are more trying to place heat, rather than light on this subject, for some strange reason.  Too many knowledgeable gents (not me) are trying to tell you your beating a dead horse of spurious reeasoning.

No RJ, that's not the case and that's your way of admitting that you have no facts to support your wishful thinking and emotional defense of a myth.

You NEVER answer the direct questions I've asked you.
Why is that.
Either one of two reasons, either 1.  You don't know the answer, or 2.  The answer will contradict your undocumented emotional defense of the myth.
 

But, I will await this revelation of documentation you keep stating you are obtaining.  Frankly, I expect you to produce a grainy photo of frilly edged bunker on some lower tier courses in Cali dated to 1910 or something, and craft more tortured logic that it is proof MacKenzie had no influence; when that would really be is proof someone else built a frilly edged bunker, for whatever reason, owing to terrain or a brain fart of inspiration.  It wouldn't prove a movement, or contradiction to all of Dr. MacKenzie's body of work, up through that time.

Let me see if I can rephrase your above statement.

No amount of photographic evidence, proving the existance of "California"/"Lace Edge" bunkers, prior to 1926 and 1921 will sway me from defending the myth that I, RJ, emotionally support since I have no documented evidence to refute the photos Pat produced.  Nor do I accept facts and logic that prove that MacKenzie didn't import the style of bunker refered to as "California/Lace Edge"


Now, if you can bring out some sort of directly written comment by a Cali archie that says, I built this style bunker in contravention or contrast to Dr. MacKenzie's style, you might have something.  But, at least it would prove they were 'thinking' about MacKenzie and his stylized presentations.
More nonsense.
Once again, you predispose proof that MacKenzie didn't import that bunker style to California by forcing the introduction of MacKenzie's influence into the denial.  It's mind boggling that this is the way you think.  You have concluded that MacKenzie introduced that style to California, either directly or indirectly, without a scintilla of documented proof.

I've proved the existance of those bunkers in California prior to 1926 and 1921.

The burden of proof is on you to prove that MacKenzie did import them to California, directly or indirectly.

We know that he didn't import them directly, so, you only have to prove that he imported them indirectly.

But, let me try to help you out.
Read Geoff Shackelford's "The Golden Age of Golf Design" and look at some of the photos.
Look at some of the other books with photos pre 1926.

I know you're in the midwest, but, look at the gallery of photos in clubhouses like LACC, Riviera, Wilshire and others.
Courses designed and built prior to 1926 and 1921, which evidence the existance of that style before 1926 and 1921.
 

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #105 on: February 23, 2013, 01:59:22 PM »
Pat:

How could anyone possibly name courses with a similar style of bunker when you yourself won't define the parameters of what you think encompasses this style?

Put up 10 photos of bunkers that you think exemplify the California style, and we'll start there.

"I know it when I see it" doesn't work in this case.

Sven
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #106 on: February 23, 2013, 03:39:35 PM »
There's an article in the April 1921 edition of Golf Illustrated that raises some questions regarding who did what at Wilshire.  I was always under the impression that it was all Macbeth, but the article suggests the course was designed by Charlie Orr (Orr is also credited as being part of the team that designed LACC in 1910-11).

"Macbeth was with Charlie Orr, another of the sons of St. Andrew, the founder and architect of the new Wilshire Country Club at Los
Angeles..."

(http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1921/gi151r.pdf)

On the Wilshire CC website, the club notes the following facts regarding the two men and the course:

- both Macbeth and Orr were given honorary memberships for services rendered;
- both men were appointed to the Greens Committe along with A.D.S. Johnston
- Macbeth was on the initial board of directors for the club
- the history suggests that there is evidence of Macbeth having been directed to commence with construction
- the minutes from 1919 and 1920 make little mention of the construction of the course
- the course was ready for play in December of 1920
- the history speculates that Macbeth may have been given assistance by Orr and/or Roger Lapham

Macbeth's son is quoted regarding the laying out of the course:

"I feel safe in saying that nobody else helped my father in the design and layout of the course. I went out with him several ties while he walked around and put stakes in the ground. We took an old Airedale along, but there was nobody else in the neighborhood. No one came to the house or discussed it on the telephone. I am rather puzzled that he could do the whole job in a few Saturday afternoons, but then I read recently of James Braid laying out a famous Irish course in one afternoon for a fee of 20 pounds (it had to be altered later)."

The history contains the following description of Macbeth's credentials:

"Macbeth was not a golf course architect, but he had played a great deal of golf in many parts of the world and was one of the finest golfers – either amateur or professional – in California."

Here's how Macbeth described designing the course in an August 1920 article:

"Few players with any ideas in their minds about gold course design would have been without a longing to put them into effect upon looking over the land which was offered to the Wilshire Country Club by Mr. Allan Hancock. Certainly I had that longing as it is really good golfing country. It has one supreme virtue – that of naturalness; those narrow, winding stream-beds where the clumps of willow grow were put there by the hand of Nature herself, who, if she be not so cunning is at any rate infinitely more artistic than any golf architect."

I found the following passage regarding the availability of beach sand interesting:

"Beach sand, plentiful in those days, was brought in early and much of it was dumped on the fairways to minimize damage by equipment. There was plenty of sand for the bunkers, which were then larger and more plentiful. Several have been taken out over the years because maintenance of bunkers increased golf courser labor substantially."

And just for the hell of it, some early photos of the course:






"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Patrick_Mucci

Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #107 on: February 23, 2013, 04:34:31 PM »
Sven,

The 18th at Wilshire was designed without bunkers, so it doesn't surprise me that you'd post photos of it ? ;D

The critical feature on # 18 was the Barranca/Arroyo that ran the length of the hole, from the tee through the green.
It both flanks and bisects the hole.

The terrain is quite unique

The 5th green is incredibly unique,

Originally it looked like a hybrid Biarritz with a wrap around water feature/stream.

Today, it's still got the wrap around stream at the front and flank,  but now there's a back tier that's elevated.
It's a very long green.   I paced it but forget the pacing.  It's in the 80+ yard area

That Barranca/Arroyo/Stream comes into play on about 14 holes, making it's use incredibly clever to bordering on genius

Look at it on Google Earth

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #108 on: February 23, 2013, 05:07:18 PM »
Pat:

There was no motive for posting those pictures other than I had them on hand.  If I thought they had any bearing on the conversation regarding bunkers, I would have noted it.

Still waiting for you to provide your photos.

Sven
« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 05:09:51 PM by Sven Nilsen »
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Patrick_Mucci

Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #109 on: February 23, 2013, 05:50:10 PM »
Pat:

There was no motive for posting those pictures other than I had them on hand.  If I thought they had any bearing on the conversation regarding bunkers, I would have noted it.

Still waiting for you to provide your photos.

Sven,

Did you read Geoff Shackelford's book ?

« Last Edit: February 23, 2013, 10:45:36 PM by Patrick_Mucci »

Sven Nilsen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #110 on: February 23, 2013, 06:06:47 PM »
Which one?
"As much as we have learned about the history of golf architecture in the last ten plus years, I'm convinced we have only scratched the surface."  A GCA Poster

"There's the golf hole; play it any way you please." Donald Ross

Patrick_Mucci

Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #111 on: February 23, 2013, 10:49:18 PM »
Which one?

All of them are quite good, but, the one I advised RJ and others to read in reply # 104.


Mark Chaplin

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #112 on: February 24, 2013, 02:20:16 AM »
Douglas Grant was in the UK in the early 1910s and returned to the USA for the duration of WW1, although he is only credited with the joint design of Pebble Beach he was a fine player and maybe a man of influence.
Cave Nil Vino

Patrick_Mucci

Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #113 on: February 24, 2013, 10:15:20 AM »
Mark,

In reading more and more about the early California courses, Hunter's role and influence seems to be underplayed, especially at CPC.

When you read the timeline on the MacKenzie website, it would seem that Hunter more than Macakenzie was responsible for the on site work at CPC

Matthew Mollica

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #114 on: February 24, 2013, 10:32:20 AM »
Pat, is that not MacKenzie's modus operandi through much of his career? He seems to have consistently identified a trusted associate on the ground, and left it to them once a routing was devised, and broad brush strokes performed...
"The truth about golf courses has a slightly different expression for every golfer. Which of them, one might ask, is without the most definitive convictions concerning the merits or deficiencies of the links he plays over? Freedom of criticism is one of the last privileges he is likely to forgo."

Patrick_Mucci

Re: And all this time I thought that
« Reply #115 on: February 24, 2013, 04:03:35 PM »
Pat, is that not MacKenzie's modus operandi through much of his career? He seems to have consistently identified a trusted associate on the ground, and left it to them once a routing was devised, and broad brush strokes performed...

Mathew,

It could well be, but when you look at the timeline and the chain of events leading to the awarding of the commission and work at CPC, it causes one to wonder about the author of the design.