One notion I hear often is that if the designers of the classic courses had had modern technology, they most certainly would have used it, moving more dirt and generally creating more 'man-made' courses.

We've debated this before and I dont really want to start at it again, at least not directly.  

My questions are:  
-- If the architects of the classics had access to the technology and resources of today's architects, what specifically would they have done differently?  
-- Would these changes have improved the course?  

For example, on a recent thread, one poster indicated that if MacKenzie had access to modern construction equipment he would have flattened the reverse cant of the eighth fairway by moving soil from the left side to the right side (raising and increasing the angle of the slope between No. 8 and No. 9.)  The same poster suggested that while he wouldnt like the change to be done now, it may have improved the hole if MacKenzie had done it originally.

(My thought was earth moving technology, but I see no reason to limit the question there.  How would they have used any technology which was unavailable during their time.)
______________________


Believe it or not, I am not trying to disparage anyone, I just thought it would interesting to carry out the logic of the above notion.

Darn good question David.  I tend to think that a big factor would be to use the technology (as efficient earth moving capacity) where they wouldn't have dreamed of it in their day.  They might have tackled even tougher sites.  But, the vastly more desirable natural sites available, and the lower restrictions on them regulation wise, were more of a factor than having the tech to hammer out tougher site problems.  I still think that their respect for the collaboration or utilization of naturally favorable sites would dominate their thinking beyond being able to pound out engineering and construction marvels.  I also think that they might have used the technology to do everything more efficiently or economically, just because they seem to me to tend to be more frugal men.  But, I sure might be wrong, especially with a nod towards Raynor and the Lido project.  

Mike, maybe guys like George Bahto who have a deeper insight into writings of SR and CB and such can say whether they would have avoided the blind shot if they had the tech to knock it down.  But, until proven by their specific writings otherwise, I'm going to hold on to the romantic notion that they would have seen the beauty and uniqueness of the natrual land form and stayed with what was given naturally as somehow superior.  

I do recall that avoidance of blind shots is mentioned by some of the "Golden Age" architects.  Did they purposefully set a tee at an angle to create blindness?  I doubt it, unless other design criteria made it desirable (routing, distance between green and tee, length, lack of budget to move the dirt, etc.).   If someone can cite something in the literature contrary to this, I would like to read more about it.

Today, however, it may be different.  I can see someone like a Keith Foster purposely looking for a hill and stepping back to a possible tee site with the intent of making the drive blind.  Dye, Doak, and others often move quantities of dirt to a side of the hole making the shot to the green blind from the safer side of the fairway.

Regarding MacKenzie and #8 at CPC, I didn't mean to assert that he would have done it.  Given the holes mentioned by David Moriarty, it was one where I (me) thought that the Dr. might have moved part of the dune to take out the negative slope.  The Doctor's own writings on camoflauge seem to suggest that he wasn't afraid to move dirt.  His caveat, as I recall, is the need to make it all look natural.

Doak and Shackelford can speak to this much better than I can, but, unlike Fazio, MacKenzie was seldom if ever blessed with an ample budget.  On the other hand, he did seem to have access to better sites with little intrusion from interveners.  That he considered such major engineering projects as an island back-tee on CPC #18 does suggest to me that he was not shy about enhancing one of Mother Nature's masterpieces.  

Yahooooo!  That's the one, my friend.  And my bad, I meant "tee shot".  The only way you could hit driver there is straight at the green.

Damn that shot impresses the hell out of me.. and I don't even care what the result of the 2nd shot was.  

TH

Assuming their developmental process as architects did not change, I do not believe modern technology would make a significant difference....perhaps slope in their greens would be lessoned. Cypress Point and ANGC were both constructed with the help of heavy equipment.

Who is talking about the issue of fairness?   Though I suspect that those who can execute the shots are "luckier" more often than those who cannot.  Any reference in olde English is wasted on me- I have enough trouble with the modern language.  As far as crying, I strive to be like Huckaby and not like the whiners I hear on televison nearly every day.  There are plenty of variables in the weather, ground conditions, the swing and the equipment to provide the element of luck that some of us find so charming.  I don't need a side board to knock me into the rough so I can't hit my next shot to within 30 yards of the pin.  Maybe if I had Division I skills, I would feel differently.

David S,

You don't need to remind me of my current status in life and the game.  I am more painfully aware of it each day.

Fairness is something I've long learned not to expect, nor to  demand.  Perhaps with maturity one learns to accept the results of his actions and the vicissitudes of life (golf) as gracefully as possible and to make the best of them.  

Modern gca probably goes overboard to minimize the element of chance.  Perhaps the large amount of dirt work is at the expense of detail or what some would call art or craftsmanship.  Maybe if Fazio and Nicklaus would spend more time on their sites, this important element of design might receive more focus.

As to needing side boards because I've seen everything else, you vastly overestimate my experience base.  This is something I am trying to do something about, however, only with limited results.

David M,

I am going to reread "Golf Architecture" here shortly.  I do understand that MacKenzie's principles were really ideals which he strived for, probably knowing that success could only be partial.

CPC #8 has gunch on the right, and often plays against or quartered by the prevailing wind.  Most "long handicap" players have a problem with the slice.  My recollection is that the left side of the fairway and perhaps even the tee is also protected, which may make playing for a big slice a bigger problem.  I suppose that the negative camber would steer the ball back toward play, but not if the wind blows the weak slice further into the vegetation-covered dunes.

MacKenzie also talked about avoiding blindness on the approach shot and not climbing hills.   Not that I would recommend lowering the green site, but a short right shot is nearly blind (though the layup is not), and the left side of the faiway does not give you a good look at the green.  Again, these are not criticisms, though I have to wonder if MacKenzie would not have made some adjustments if he had some modern machines which get a lot of work done for relatively little money.

As to Pasatiempo, #15 is a very nice par 3 which I would not change (though I don't think that the set of 3s at Pasa are world-class by any means).  Perhaps you were referring to #14 and the collection area running perpendicular along the entire width of the fairway some 250 yards from the tee (I was in it in a very poor lie during the KPII).  I don't recall how this hollow integrates into the surrounding; whether it was part of the natural surface drainage or perhaps constructed.  I think that a modern architect, and maybe MacKenzie himself, would have found another way of moving the water, perhaps providing a side of the fairway to avoid it.  As it is, the hole favors the long hitter who can fly or skip a ball through the depression and have a much easier second shot with a wedge to a well protected green.

Tom MacWood claims that MacKenzie used heavy machinery at CPC and ANGC.  The Doctor, ever the Scot, talks about the use iof equipment to save on costly labor.  Does it not make sense that if he had at his disposal the technology of today that he would use it?  Would this not perhaps entail making his courses closer to his "ideals"?

 

Mike,  do you think that the himalayas would be a better hole if they simply blew the himalayas into small pebbles to be removed from the property?

David -

I never said I didn't like the hole (of course, when you hit the exact shot your caddie describes for you to 5-feet, you tend to like a hole ...), I was just inquiring if the lack of construction equipment or land space forced its design.

I am glad you brought up Prestwick ...    

Your welcome, I glad I can do something positive every once in awhile ...

I rationalized the greatness of the blindness of Alps more so than Himalaya because the Alps green complex was fantastic and one that needed to be incorporated into the design of the course.

Would MacKenzie have leveled the 15th at Pasa?    

I believe I remember seeing photos of the 15th at Pasa, early after its opening, that showed the 15th not as blind as today.  Yes, the landing zone was blind but the trees down the left side were not there and you could see down the creek line towards the green and low point of the fairway.

Mike