[Tom_Doak]

Quick followup on the conversation earlier in this thread.

The following article appeared in the Aug. 3, 1929 edition of the Pittsburgh Press.  I suppose we could get into a history debate as to when the Great Depression actually started, but this was certainly pre-market crash.  In any case, the article echoes sentiments Mackenzie had laid out in 1920 when "Golf Architecture" was published.




Sven:  my only argument here is the dichotomy between what MacKenzie said and what he built. In the article above he recommends having few bunkers, like The Old Course - which has how many?


His original book is derived from a series of lectures delivered to greenkeepers in the years before WW I, pulled together into a book in 1920.  I don't know how well the UK economy had recovered from the war by then, but I am sure the greenkeepers were in favor of fewer bunkers to maintain.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:


His thoughts in G.A. echoed the principles he had laid out in 1914, so I'm not sure if citing post WWI economic issues works.


Like you, perhaps Mackenzie was blessed with the opportunity to work with ground that was ideally suited.  I'd imagine its easier to let a few additional bunkers slip in on sites that already contained blowouts and exposed sandy areas, let alone being sand-based.  In any case, from all of his writings it certainly seems he viewed constructed bunkers almost as a means of last resort, in situations where other natural features didn't exist to serve the same purpose.


I don't think this is a black and white issue.  It is entirely possible that the timing of the depression lead him to give greater credence to the thoughts on economy that he had laid out earlier.  But I think those initial thoughts were derived from his views on how the game should be played, not on how much money should be spent to keep up the playing field.


Sven

[Jim Nugent]

Before the GD, did Mac tend to over-bunker his courses, such as Pasatiempo, CPC, Royal Melbourne and Crystal Downs?  By 'over-bunker' I mean did he often throw in bunkers not needed for strategy, but more for aesthetics? 

In one sense, AM may have over-bunkered ANGC. Several of those original bunkers didn't come in play at all for good golfers.  And it doesn't sound like more bunkers would have made the course better, certainly not for bogey and not even for scratch. 

Quick followup on the conversation earlier in this thread.

The following article appeared in the Aug. 3, 1929 edition of the Pittsburgh Press.  I suppose we could get into a history debate as to when the Great Depression actually started, but this was certainly pre-market crash.  In any case, the article echoes sentiments Mackenzie had laid out in 1920 when "Golf Architecture" was published.




Sven:  my only argument here is the dichotomy between what MacKenzie said and what he built. In the article above he recommends having few bunkers, like The Old Course - which has how many?

Tom, Mac does not recommend TOC for its few bunkers.  He recommends it for its strategic options, that allow average golfers and experts alike to enjoy the course and get challenged by it. 
 

[Niall C]

As Tom points out MacKenzie compiled Golf Architecture from notes written pre WWI and in a UK context. The important thing to consider then is the context of his remarks and certainly UK courses then had a lot more bunkers than MacK used at say Pasatiempo.

The other point others have made was how big were the AMGC bunkers as designed by him ? Before that he liked to cluster bunkers to give the impression of one big bunker. Did the topography at ANGC not allow him to do that and did he maybe compensate by just building a bigger bunker instead ? Just an idea, although perhaps not a good one 

Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()