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.


Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« on: June 30, 2013, 09:40:06 AM »
The recent thread by Bart Bradley on Alwoodley raised an interesting discussion on the 10 and 11th holes. Back in January 1925, MacKenzie was asked by Golf Illustrated to write an article on what changes he would now make to Alwoodley. In the article MacKenzie addresses his original intent for those holes. I've transcribed the article as the copy I have is not great but hopefully of interest.

How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
Golf Illustrated 9th January 1925

When the Editor of Golf Illustrated requested me to write an article on “How I Would Alter Alwoodley” I thought he had chosen an individual whose natural predilections were to leave the course alone, and this to a very great extent is the case. When the existing course was designed some years ago it consisted of fourteen ragged fields surrounded by hedges, a sub-soil surrounded by heavy boulder clay, and most of the ground such a bog that it was not unusual for hunting men who ventured over it to have to drag their horses pout with ropes. With the exception of some gorse and patches of heather, there were few natural features, and opinions had been expressed by golfers of national reputation that it would not make a golf course in twenty years.
Alwoodley has been entirely artificially created; the hedges were completely removed, and the whole of the ground was drained. The draining was done at a comparatively small cost because, as far as I know, it was the first golf course, where a system of mole draining was employed, and it speaks well for this form of drainage that after over sixteen years there is little sign, if any, of the mole drains being blocked up, and the course is almost as good in winter as it is in the summer months. When the formation of the Alwoodley Golf Club was first proposed it was the opinion of the members of the two existing clubs that the City could not possibly support a third, as neither of the existing ones was well off, either from the point of view of membership or financially. Alwoodley became a brilliant success in every respect. It was entirely different from anything seen in the North before, and perhaps more closely approached the old idea of golf as exemplified by the Old Course at St Andrews than any inland course constructed before or since.
The influence of Alwoodley was so great that the two existing clubs in Leeds had their courses reconstructed, and they in turn became far more popular and prosperous in every respect. Since then nine additional new courses have been constructed in Leeds under the supervision of the writer. All these courses show signs of becoming increasingly popular and the clubs more and more prosperous. Alwoodley is not as famous as it might have become had it not originated as a semi-private club with a restricted membership of a hundred and seventy five members. The Committee also has never sought competitions there, although the qualifying rounds of the Daily Mail and News of the World tournaments have both been held at Alwoodley. 
Alwoodley is so interesting that it does not appear to be a long course, although it is about six thousand three hundred yards in length and could easily be stretched an additional two or three hundred yards if required. The long holes are full of character and interest, and the four short holes are all entirely different, visible from the tee, and giving good variety of play according to the position of the flag, direction of wind, etc. The characteristic of all the long holes is that the tee shot has to be played with extreme accuracy for the approach to become an easy one and par figures to be obtained. The average score at Alwoodley is a high one, but owing to the visibility of the greens, the trueness of the approaches, and the almost complete absence of blindness perfect golf receives its true reward, as is evidenced by the fact that J. W. Gaudin the clubs professional, has done successive rounds of sixty-six, sixty-seven, and sixty-eight in one day.
Alwoodley having been constructed under the writers supervision, the work has been carried out in according to his ideas. Every hole, although interesting and exciting, is absolutely fair, and there is a complete absence of freak greens, a danger which is often likely to arise when the work is carried out by the clubs own ground staff without sufficient supervision by the architect. A course like Alwoodley not only provides an interesting and pleasurable test of golf to all classes of players, but it caters for such a high standard of play that it has a great effect in improving one’s game. As an example, the professional at Alwoodley although verging on the age of fifty, improved his game out of all recognition since he came there a few years ago. Since he came to Alwoodley he has been Northern Professional Champion, Yorkshire Champion (three or four times), winner of the Leeds Cup, and runner up in the News of the World tournament, and French Open championship.

second part to follow

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #1 on: June 30, 2013, 09:40:49 AM »
Part 2

The improvements I would suggest at Alwoodley are the following: Third Hole- At this hole there is an ugly looking hummock for the tee shot (one of the few features about the course that has an artificial appearance). This was largely due to the fact that it was the greenkeeper’s first attempt at making a hummock. It would be desirable to alter it (?) or alternatively construct a line of bunkers running in echelon from left to right from the tee.   
Ninth Hole- Here again there are some hummocks which might possibly be said to be of an artificial appearance and should be reconstructed so that like most of the features at Alwoodley they appear indistinguishable from Nature herself.
Tenth Hole- This is the only hole where green alterations should be made. The present green was always intended to be a temporary one and it is the only green on the course which is a natural one. The original intention was to extend the hole to the field beyond, which is not at present in our lease, but I think great efforts should be made to obtain sufficient ground in this field to construct an entirely new green. Everyone is agreed that this hole is a blot on the course, but if the original intention were carried out it could be constructed into by far the best one, and more over the next, the 11th, would be vastly improved as the new tee would be placed on a higher level and would give a much better view of the green.
If this suggestion were carried out the tee should be moved slightly forward and some whins removed so as to give the long driver the opportunity of driving over the “out of bounds” that juts into the course in the form of a tongue, and would make a magnificent tee shot hazard. The weaker player would have the alternative of playing his tee shot as it is done at present.
Twelth Hole- Here there is a hummock which should be enlarged so as to make it visible beyond the whins that have grown up so high that they block out the view.
Fourteenth Hole- This green, which somewhat resembles the 11th at St Andrews, has been recently enlarged. The new construction work has not been particularly well done and it should be altered to give it a more natural appearance. The bunker, which corresponded to Strath at St Andrews, simply looks like a hole in the ground and not like a natural bunker. The only other suggestion the writer has to make is that the sand in the bunkers should be renewed by sharper sand similar in character to that at Sand Moor, which course almost adjoins Alwoodley.   

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #2 on: June 30, 2013, 10:28:36 AM »
Perhaps should have added, thats the end of the article. Interested to hear comments.

Personally I'm intigued by his comments about freak greens. Alwoodley does seem to me to be different to the other later courses he designed in that the green contours are generally more subdued and more than that, the green approaches are much more open than at other of his courses I've played.

Given that there was a big debate on trick greens in the golfing press when this article was written I suspect MacKenzie is trying to tone down his reputation of a builder of wild greens.

Niall

Ally Mcintosh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #3 on: June 30, 2013, 11:05:50 AM »
For me, freak greens have less to do with big internal undulations for which MacKenzie is well known. They are usually greens just pitched at too big an overall slope / tilt rendering pin positions almost impossible - that is where in-house construction sometimes fails.

MacKenzie always built back-stops, bowls and flatter areas to enable pin positions, even on his wilder greens.

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #4 on: June 30, 2013, 11:26:22 AM »
I haven't read everything he wrote, but I think that's the first reference I've seen that Mackenzie designed holes based on existing holes -- his 14th at Alwoodley compared to the 11th "Eden" at St Andrews.   From my recollection, the copy of the Eden fails in the same way most do:  not enough slope either back to front or left to right.  
« Last Edit: June 30, 2013, 05:56:13 PM by Bill_McBride »

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #5 on: June 30, 2013, 11:47:20 AM »
Niall,

it is interesting what is said about the tenth. It is the one green on the course that just looks like the typical committee design. It is too round, lacks any real internal features and the surrounds at the back are more of a containment bank than a natural feature. I always thought that it would be better if the green was a further forty yards back perched up in the field behind. It is Alwoodley's only weakness IMO.

Jon

BCrosby

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #6 on: June 30, 2013, 12:01:47 PM »
Thanks for posting Niall. As I recall, GI ran a series of these pieces ('25-'26?) in which architects talked about change they would make to various British courses. I tip my hat to MacK and the other architects of the era who participated in the series. It took courage.

A similar series in which modern architects were asked how they would change one or more of their courses would be fascinating reading. It would also be a great way to raise interest in architecture. We could listen in as they thought through different  design problems.

Which would be a great relief from the silliness of (and discussions about) rankings.  

Bob  

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #7 on: June 30, 2013, 02:21:10 PM »
Jon

Bear in mind Mac was talking about how he wanted the tenth to be rather than perhaps how it was built either in its original position at the bottom of the gully as at the time of the article or how it was subsequently built further back into the field that was acquired at a later date. Perhaps Mark Rowlinson or Neil Crafter can confirm, but I suspect MacKenzie wasn't involved in the construction of the repositioned green so you are possibly/probably correct about it being a bit of a committee design. However Alwoodleys not the best set of greens I've seen from MacKenzie or other lesser gca's come to that, but the overall feel and lay of the land architecture is magical.

Ally

My sense of looking through far too many old periodicals is that perhaps Colt was more prone to pushing the boundaries. Certainly St Georges Hill greens took a bit of a pasting when it first opened. I'd love to know if some of these greens have been softened over time or was the reaction to them just a reaction to the previous fad of bowling green flat square greens. Incidentally, Ran in his profile of Reddish Vale refers to greens of the time (1910 ?) all being flat which I think is not quite true. The revolution had started before then  ;D

Niall

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #8 on: June 30, 2013, 02:33:55 PM »
Bob

Absolutely agree. You will recall no doubt that the contributors of that series in GI (1924 to 1925 I think) all used pseudonyms with the exception of MacKenzie. I always wondered who was who, and figured that Charles Ambrose, Tom Simpson maybe, Harold Hilton, Darwin (?) and perhaps Fowler or Colt might have contributed. It was only when typing out MacKenzies article that it struck me that not only was he the only one who used his own name but also that he had been asked to comment on his own design. That got me thinking that perhaps some of the other contributors had also been asked to comment on their designs. It would certainly be great to know who wrote what.

Whether you could do the same thing today I don't know. I get the impression that back then they all knew each other rather better (could be very wrong in that respect) and were more used to the cut and thrust of intellectual debate (please note - not suggesting there's no intellectuals in todays ranks of gca's, just we don't seem to see the same level of debate). Anyway, these days the professional organisations probably discourage this type of thing as being professional discourtesy or some such thing.

Niall

Bart Bradley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #9 on: June 30, 2013, 03:49:36 PM »
Niall

Thanks for posting.  Interesting article. 

Bart

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #10 on: June 30, 2013, 05:43:35 PM »
Niall,

I would be amazed if the good Dr. had been involved in the present 10th green. What is a shame is that the 11th green has been done so well and the 10th not. Although many of the greens may not have spectacular contouring I would suggest this is do to with Dr. Mac's desire to blend the course into the landscape. Alwoodley as a whole has long, drawn out slopes so the greens as they are do sit well in the landscape. Having said that 3, 7, 8, 15 & 16 are all bold greens in their design.

Jon

Mark Pearce

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #11 on: June 30, 2013, 06:32:15 PM »
John,

The 10th green is just fine in my book.  It's large and round, yes.  But it's a green to which most will be hitting long irons over water and it's wickedly sloped.  A more "interesting" green would be wrong for the hole. To me that one of McKenzie's strengths, matching the challenge of the green to what came before.  The 10th may not be one of his greens but I think he'd like it.
In June I will be riding the first three stages of this year's Tour de France route for charity.  630km (394 miles) in three days, with 7800m (25,600 feet) of climbing for the William Wates Memorial Trust (https://rideleloop.org/the-charity/) which supports underprivileged young people.

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2013, 06:41:43 AM »
I have posted this before, but it is appropriate on this thread.

MacKenzie's writings on Alwoodley #11, from his plan hanging in the Clubhouse.







James B
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2013, 01:43:41 PM »
James

Thanks for posting the photo of the plan. I recall spending time looking over it with Nick Leefe but had forgotten or at least not picked up on the significance of the annotation re the 11th green. The note compares it to 17th green at Moortown which suggests that it's a later addition to the plan and therefore the new 11th green might not have been planned at the outset. As usual could be totally wrong. Mark R's the man to know.

Bart

Like the others, I think Alwoodley is well known and appreciated by the cognescenti but not necessarily well known by the average golfer as seems to be the case back in 1925. Like you, it would seem the good doctor lamented that fact.


Niall

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2013, 01:48:18 PM »
I haven't read everything he wrote, but I think that's the first reference I've seen that Mackenzie designed holes based on existing holes -- his 14th at Alwoodley compared to the 11th "Eden" at St Andrews.   From my recollection, the copy of the Eden fails in the same way most do:  not enough slope either back to front or left to right.  

Bill

Quite a few of MacK's designs in the UK used templates with the Eden being a favourite. He did one at Erskine although you wouldn't recognise it as one now. He also did a copy of his Gibraltar hole at Pollok. Either that or it was a copy of the Redan  ;).

Niall

Jim Eder

Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #15 on: July 01, 2013, 04:07:18 PM »
Niall,

Thank you for the post of this article. Fantastic.

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #16 on: July 01, 2013, 07:51:22 PM »
James

Thanks for posting the photo of the plan. I recall spending time looking over it with Nick Leefe but had forgotten or at least not picked up on the significance of the annotation re the 11th green. The note compares it to 17th green at Moortown which suggests that it's a later addition to the plan and therefore the new 11th green might not have been planned at the outset. As usual could be totally wrong. Mark R's the man to know.

Niall

Niall

remember that Moortown's clubhouse was originally behind what is now #11 green.  I think it burnt down.  Anyway, that made #11 the 18th and, more importantly, the current #10 (Gibralter) was #17.  In between, before the addition of the current #6 and #7 (by Steele I think), Gibralter was #8.

The key thing to remember here is that MacKenzie is referencing Gibralter as his template for Alwoodley #11, for the time when the 10th green could go back, and the 11th tee and 11th green could also go back.  The new #11 at Alwoodley is not as uphill as the original would have been, which appears to have played to the copse above #11 green and near #12 tee.
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2013, 07:19:29 AM »
James

Thanks for that. Wasn't aware of the detail of the Moortown changes.

My point was more about timing ie. shifting the 11th green was an afterthought rather than something considered at the outset, which sounds reasonable as their would seem to be no restrictions in placing the 11th green where it is now right at the outset.

If I'm theorising further, I'd suggest the reason for moving the original 11th green was probably more to do with it being in the firing line from golfers playing off the 10th tee. Mac seemed to like routing his courses in this fashion, bringing adjacent holes playing in opposite directions into the same playing corridor a la St Andrews. Just a thought.

Niall

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2013, 03:54:01 PM »
John,

The 10th green is just fine in my book.  It's large and round, yes.  But it's a green to which most will be hitting long irons over water and it's wickedly sloped.  A more "interesting" green would be wrong for the hole. To me that one of McKenzie's strengths, matching the challenge of the green to what came before.  The 10th may not be one of his greens but I think he'd like it.

Mark,

the tenth just does not fit with the rest of the course. I agree with you that the green is functional but for me, like the way my name appears in your post it is visually jarring ;)

Oh, the water in front is a more recent addition

Jon