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.


Adam Lawrence

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: MUST READ: Mackenzie writes to critics of TOC 11 (1924)
« Reply #25 on: December 25, 2014, 04:02:46 AM »
I wonder who drew the survey? That isn't Dr Mac's handwriting
Adam Lawrence

Editor, Golf Course Architecture
www.golfcoursearchitecture.net

Principal, Oxford Golf Consulting
www.oxfordgolfconsulting.com

Author, 'More Enduring Than Brass: a biography of Harry Colt' (forthcoming).

Short words are best, and the old words, when short, are the best of all.

Frank Pont

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: MUST READ: Mackenzie writes to critics of TOC 11 (1924)
« Reply #26 on: December 25, 2014, 04:36:14 AM »
The good news is that this is one of the classic greens of which we have a very detailed survey from before they "improved" it.
So anytime the Links Trust would want to reinstate the original in the future it is possible.

Anybody wants to bet in how many years it will happen? In any case, not in the next 15 years, too much loss of face......

Rich Goodale

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: MUST READ: Mackenzie writes to critics of TOC 11 (1924)
« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2014, 04:08:34 PM »
Interesting article, but it is tragically dated as it was written a decade before the introduction of the sand wedge and 60
years before the introduction of the lob wedge.  The sand wedge significantly vitiated any fear of the Hill and Strath bunkers, in both stroke and match play, for all but the well below average player.  The lob wedge did the same for any 2nd shot hit from the hard pan short of either bunker.

I also agree with Jeff B that this hole is not particularly worthy of being copied, both for its simplicity and for the positioning of the green on a nearly unreplicatable land form.  The best "Eden"replica I have seen is at Midland Hills in Minnesota, and while being a very good hole, it does not stir the blood, as any great template hole should do.
Life is good.

Any afterlife is unlikely and/or dodgy.

Jean-Paul Parodi

Thomas Dai

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: MUST READ: Mackenzie writes to critics of TOC 11 (1924)
« Reply #28 on: December 25, 2014, 04:22:40 PM »
Thomas of course someone standing on the first tee in 1924 would have come across an 80 year old shaking their head at the new equipment and smooth conditions on the course. We forget TOC is very old indeed and MacKenzie's time was a blip on the chart of time just as much as today is.

I hear you Mark, but if the article had been from 1844 I would still be singing from the same hymn book. IMO, and others are welcome to feel differently, to analyse/understand properly you have to get as near as possible to the circumstances prevailing at the time. Hence my additional comment about later period courses and persimmon/steel/blades/balata. And modern era courses with titanium/graphite/cavity backs/hybrids/spinny grooves/spinny balls as well.

Atb

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: MUST READ: Mackenzie writes to critics of TOC 11 (1924)
« Reply #29 on: December 27, 2014, 09:25:10 AM »
I wonder who drew the survey? That isn't Dr Mac's handwriting

Adam,

If you notice the plan is dated 1911 and I think was prepared as part of the series appearing in Golf Monthly from when the mag started in 1911. Other holes featured included the plan of the Road Hole which (allegedly ?) Ian Scott Taylor copied for Tilly's sketch.

With regards to copying the design, MacKenzie was fond of copying it, eg. at Erskine and Duff House Royal. He was also fond of reproducing his Gibraltar/Redan design and yet we don't tend to think of him as doing templates.

Niall