Sorry, but I must go eat and should return far less interesting with a full stomach.  Thanks for a fun morning.

Richard the Magnificent:

In one post above you go on and on about the idea of "eye candy" with bunkering.

What exactly do you mean by that and where do you suspect such an idea originally emanated from?

Do you suppose the natural blowouts and formations that occured on some of the earliest natural linksland courses were put there by Nature for the benefit of golfers? Do you think those things evolved only for the purpose of effecting the strategies and golf balls of golfers?

Tom

Please let me know of five "natural blowouts and formations that occured on some of the earliest natural linksland courses" that you are even tenuously familiar with.  If that is too tough of an assignment, I'll take 4, or 3, or even 2 (I'll grant that Hell just might be more natural than man-made).

Waiting patiently

Il Grande Ricardo

As far as we can determine what Dr. MacKenzie put on the ground, that is #1 in my book among the ways to ascertain his intent.

For me #2 would be anything he wrote specifically about a certain feature that he actually built. By that I mean if he wrote that a certain bunker was flashed for a certain reason I'd tend to believe him as long as his description matched what was actually built.

At best, his writings about TOC or design philosophy in general are of tertiary value. As others have pointed out, there are many reasons to write down and promulgate this or that abstract principle but the real test is the action to back up the words.

Tom,
What you seem to forget about The Old Course is that the bunkers whose placement seems to be random and natural could indeed move about the property in a random and natural manner and the strategy of the course would not change."

JohnK:

I'd disagree with that.

While, at this point, I would very much doubt that kind of thing happens, even a little bit, on TOC, it probably happened with some frequency in the old days that pre-dated comprehensive man-made architecture.

And the very point of that is that the strategies of TOC were ever changing because of that. That may even be much of the point of the pre-golf course architecture lore of the place. That may even be why so many of those early architects considered it to be the ideal in strategic makeup before or even after its famous widening.

Tom

So how many times have you played the Old Course, or even walked it?

I thought so.

Ignorance is bliss.

Smile away compadre!

Richard

I don't know what this adds (maybe just clutter) but this Darwin article written around the time of WWI talks of trenches, bunkers, TOC, the natural, and MacKenzie.

"Dr. Mackenzie is a well-known golfing architect in the North of England and incidently gained the prize for the best design of a two-shot hole which was recently conducted by Country Life newspaper and for which Mr. C. B. Macdonald gave the prize.  The hole which he designed or something like it may some day be tackled by the golfers on the new course at Long Beach, L.I.  

Dr. Mackenzie, moreover, served in the South African War so that he has a practical knowledge of trenches as well as bunkers.  His lecture was founded on the assumption that an invasion of England was quite within the limits of possibilities; that in such an event civilians could make themselves very useful in digging trenches: that foremen would be needed who understood how to do it and who could be better men for the job than greenkeepers!

It would take far too much space to expound all or anything like all his interesting views. Very shortly his point was that the modern trench is not half so invisible as it ought to be.  Either, it is in the form of an old-fashioned bunker with an abrupt rampart or turf wall in front of it which is the most clearly visible thing in all the world or it is merely a hole dug in the ground and is like the ordinary pot bunker.

The type of entrenchment which Dr. Mackenzie prefers corresponds rather to the bunkers at the twelfth hole at St. Andrews. I suppose a good many of your readers have stood on that twelfth tee and seen an apparently open and innocent plain of grass stretching away before them: likewise, have they hit what they deemed beautiful tee-shots and found them trapped by bunkers that are lurking everywhere unseen. Strangers to the course complain bitterly and not perhaps without some show of reason. The secret lies in the gently sloping bank of the bunker, which is of the same color of the surrounding country and appears to be no more than a natural undulation.  

When the bunker is artificial it is well made by slightly exaggerating a natural rise in the ground so that its contours harmonize with the undulations of the surrounding country.  There is little doubt that this is a very good kind of bunker: it looks the neatest, nicest and most natural and can be made so as to be invisible from the tee, where the player considers he has a right to see it, and from nowhere else.

Dr. Mackenzie gives very good reasons for thinking it the best kind of entrenchment and also excellent and detailed advice for the making of loop holes, the drainage of the trench, protection from shrapnel fire by means of an overhanging lip and much else of interest.  What he has to say is extremely interesting, though we may hope that as far as the greenkeepers of Britain are concerned it may be of no more than academic interest.

"Tom
So how many times have you played the Old Course, or even walked it?"

Richard:

That's a kind of kneejerk response question that I've always figured you had to be better than and smarter than. And I'm definitely not joking when I say that.

We're not talking about a golf course like Dunbar here. We're talking about St Andrews, the assumed prototype home of all golf and architecture. It's definitely not as if many of the world's golfers who've never been there have not clearly seen the place and in detail for pretty obvious reasons.

And I'm only talking here about the aspect of sand and the aspect of coastal dunes on the place historically and what that meant to the evolution of golf architecture, particularly that sand vestige from early golf called the sand bunker.

There's often a sort of adolescent attitude of informational possessiveness or proprietariness on this website and your remark above is one of the silliest I've ever seen, particularly in the context of this particular thread's subject.

Thanks, Tom

I'll assume that the answer is "never," and I'll remember that next time I post something regarding Pine Valley, which I never will since I've never played there.  As we used to say in the 60's, different strokes for different folks......

Rich

To get this back on track, could someone show me where Mackenzie used the style of The Old Course in a way that would show that he loved the place.  This should be easy.

In what way do you mean style? AM certainly emulated the strategic elements found at TOC. You're not talking bunkers alone are you?

Agreed, David.  I should and do very much respect Tom's opinions, but I also reserve the right to disagree with him, when and if I see fit.  As should we all.

Rich

Richard, I agree. No one, including AM and TD, is infallible. I've never thought otherwise.

"Thanks, Tom

I'll assume that the answer is "never," and I'll remember that next time I post something regarding Pine Valley, which I never will since I've never played there.  As we used to say in the 60's, different strokes for different folks......  

Richard:

In my opinion, this OT tete-a-tete between us is chump change and not worth the diversion on an otherwise potentially great thread subject.

But if you really feel you're the only "go to" authority on TOC, one of the most visible and studied courses in the world, and including the subject of sand and sand bunkering in the evolution of golf architecture, then, hey, knock yourself out Pal.

Potentially great?
Ken just called Flynn's bunkering homogenized.
I think I can the hear the keys banging from Philly, now.

I didn't say it was homogenized.

I wondered if the appearance of Flynn's bunkering made it less likely to be destroyed by the homogenization that most of our courses suffered during the Depression and WWII.

I would be thrilled if someone responded to that supposition.

Ken

I have always had a disconnect between my personal definition of what I consider camouflage, and how it doesn't relate with Mackenzies bunkering on some of his more reputed creations.

It also seems that some here are making similar comparisons between his writings on TOC and some of his creations....at least in their appearance.


Maybe he was camouflaging his writings.