MacKenzie Biography that discusses camouflage education through application?

« **Reply #25 on:** January 04, 2008, 01:08:48 AM »

Nick,

I think this is some of what you are looking for. Here is the link:
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1915/gi31r.pdf

« **Reply #26 on:** January 04, 2008, 02:05:43 AM »

Quote from: David Stamm on January 04, 2008, 12:36:34 AM

A few pics of Pasa from their site....

The 4th

Is the ridiculous mowing pattern in front of the bunkers a result of poor design or construction? I'm talking about the grass point in the bottom right corner of the picture.

« **Reply #27 on:** January 04, 2008, 08:34:31 AM »

Quote from: Jeff Doerr on January 04, 2008, 01:08:48 AM

Nick,

I think this is some of what you are looking for. Here is the link:
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1915/gi31r.pdf

Jeff,

Thanks for the link. I read the whole thing out of interest.

Mac says point three - avoid straight lines is the most important and I still say that is primarily the link between the two subjects. Like Neil, I tend to think after reading this that fooling the eye and scale may be different subjects. As always, I could be wrong.

I do know that Civil War trenches were mostly straight, I think to avoid gaps in the firing line. I wonder how the Brit military establishment took to his ideas? He complains the golfing world took ten years to be convinced.

JK,

The triangular point is merely a function of mowing incorrectly.

« **Reply #28 on:** January 04, 2008, 09:00:01 AM »

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on January 04, 2008, 08:34:31 AM

JK,

The triangular point is merely a function of mowing incorrectly.

On further review, it does tie into the gable of the clubhouse. Modern maintenance genius.

« **Reply #29 on:** January 04, 2008, 09:01:03 AM »

John,

I totally AGREE with you. That mowing line looks horrible. Also, I hope that sand takes on a different hue over time.

Tom,

I have been arguing against the natural look and overt framing of MacKenzie's green sites on this site for years now, especially the mounds and excessive use of overly flourished bunkers. Either there is no response or I am dismissed as a sacrilegious nut somehow glorifying Flynn in the process.

Just for the record, I believe on par 3 holes, Flynn too often used a single bunker at green level on one side and multiple bunkers below the green level on the other side.

MacKenzie is conferred one of the highest positions in the Pantheon of golf architecture. I think his work is outstanding and he is one of the greats. However, I don't like all of it and I certainly don't like his excessive mounding, his overuse of bunkers and other aspects of his work.

I think a lot of architects use phrases and slogans to their benefit and MacKenzie had as much BS in his as others. While much of his work was tied into the surrounds in natural ways, a lot had the inescapable look of man-made.

How many club histories have remarks that the architect was building the best inland course in America? Or that God intended this land for golf or some other BS line. So many architects wrote one thing and did another often enough so that you can't take everything for gospel.

« **Reply #30 on:** January 04, 2008, 09:07:13 AM »

Do we have our next reality show - "The battle of the golf architect biographers?"

« **Reply #31 on:** January 04, 2008, 02:29:19 PM »

Quote from: Wayne Morrison on January 04, 2008, 09:01:03 AM

Either there is no response or I am dismissed as a sacrilegious nut

I'll vote for the latter, Wayne!

« **Reply #32 on:** January 04, 2008, 02:47:40 PM »

Then I might as well be the best damn sacrilegious nut I can be

« **Reply #33 on:** January 04, 2008, 04:26:07 PM »

David,

I can't view photobucket at work, so I didn't get to see your photos until this miorning. Certainly it is beautiful golf course architecture, but where is the camoflauge. You can't hide 100 soldiers on 3, 4 or 15! Again, those are examples of how to build imposing bunker complexes; put the bunkers on the hillocks not the hollows!

The Good Dr. is credited as being one of the finest GCA's ever and I don't doubt that for a minute. I just don't think anyone has made a plausable connection to his genious and the art of camoflauge yet. I'm ceratin there is some connection but no one has explained it very well to this point. Frankly it seems that Tom Doak is the only one who could shed light on this subject. I look forward to his or anyone else's input on why this aspect made MacKenzie the great GCA he was.

« **Reply #34 on:** January 04, 2008, 04:37:40 PM »

Quote from: Pete Lavallee on January 04, 2008, 04:26:07 PM

David,

I can't view photobucket at work, so I didn't get to see your photos until this miorning. Certainly it is beautiful golf course architecture, but where is the camoflauge. You can't hide 100 soldiers on 3, 4 or 15! Again, those are examples of how to build imposing bunker complexes; put the bunkers on the hillocks not the hollows!

The Good Dr. is credited as being one of the finest GCA's ever and I don't doubt that for a minute. I just don't think anyone has made a plausable connection to his genious and the art of camoflauge yet. I'm ceratin there is some connection but no one has explained it very well to this point. Frankly it seems that Tom Doak is the only one who could shed light on this subject. I look forward to his or anyone else's input on why this aspect made MacKenzie the great GCA he was.

Pete,

As I mentioned earlier, I believe the intent, and this just my opinion, was to fool the players eye as to depth perception, like on the photo of hole #5 on the right hand side. The top of the bunker on the right center is in line with the green surface and in turn is in line with the bottom of the bunker line on the back of the green. The uncertainy when the flag is on the part of the green really makes the shot uncomfortable. You can also see this on the 3rd hole pic. On the fourth, imagine if you will being on the left side of the fw with those bunkers on the left of the green and the depth perception problems that that would create. This would be eliminated by challenging the bunkers you see in the foreground and therefore an open angle at the green. IMHO, this is what I take out of what AM meant about utitlizing his camouflage ideas. Not really hiding the overall bunker per se, which actually happens with that middle left greenside bunker on 4, but making the bunkers play tricks on your eyes.

« **Reply #35 on:** January 04, 2008, 05:49:03 PM »

Pete Lavallee said:

“The Good Dr. is credited as being one of the finest GCA's ever and I don't doubt that for a minute. I just don't think anyone has made a plausable connection to his genious and the art of camoflauge yet. I'm ceratin there is some connection but no one has explained it very well to this point.”

Pete:

Honestly, I can’t understand why you have such a problem understanding how and why Mackenzie was using camouflage techniques he observed during the Boer War in golf course architecture. It’s really not that hard to understand unless you try to make it hard to understand. Read what Mackenzie said about it and perhaps you’ll understand.

“It may be asked what earthly connection is there between golf course construction
and trench making? The connection consists in the imitation
of nature. The whole secret of successful course construction
and concealment in trench making consists in making artificial
features indistinguishable from natural ones, and for the last
ten years I have been daily attempting to imitate nature.”

Do you see where he says ‘the connection consists in the imitation of nature’? That’s all he means about camouflage techniques as applied to golf course architecture and the imitation of nature was merely done so golfers and such could not tell the difference between what was made and what was naturally occurring and to do this well in architecture the technique is to both “tie in” the lines between the one and the other as well as to create lines in man-made features that look like the lines of nature.

Now is that really so hard to understand and if it is I’ve got to ask you why you think so?

« **Reply #36 on:** January 04, 2008, 06:02:23 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 04, 2008, 05:49:03 PM

Do you see where he says ‘the connection consists in the imitation of nature’? That’s all he means about camouflage techniques as applied to golf course architecture and the imitation of nature was merely done so golfers and such could not tell the difference between what was made and what was naturally occurring and to do this well in architecture the technique is to both “tie in” the lines between the one and the other as well as to create lines in man-made features that look like the lines of nature.

Tom,

I think every architect during the Golden Age, with the possible exception of Raynor, was trying to imitate nature in their design. Frankly the article posted above looks like it was copied from George Thomas's book about how to build a natural looking bunker. Behr never studied camoflauge and he was ceratainly concerned with imitating nature; yet his designs have been compromised, unlike MacKenzie's. What exactly did MacKenzie learn learn in So. Africa that put him head and shoulders above the rest?

« **Reply #37 on:** January 04, 2008, 06:36:11 PM »

"Tom,
I think every architect during the Golden Age, with the possible exception of Raynor, was trying to imitate nature in their design. Frankly the article posted above looks like it was copied from George Thomas's book about how to build a natural looking bunker. Behr never studied camoflauge and he was ceratainly concerned with imitating nature; yet his designs have been compromised, unlike MacKenzie's. What exactly did MacKenzie learn learn in So. Africa that put him head and shoulders above the rest?"

Pete:

I'll tell you what MacKenzie learned in So. Africa that may've put him head and shoulders above the rest, and apparently certainly in time.

It's true that the likes of Thomas, Behr and others like Tillinghast, Flynn, Wilson, Crump and a number of others were dedicated to imitating nature in golf course architecture. Most all those men were in complete concert with MacKenzie in that way and he with them. But the point is most of the above began doing it around the teens and into the 1920s.

The fact is MaKenzie obviously came up with the idea around 1900 because that's when the Boer War was and when he made his observations on camouflage during the Boer War and probably how to apply it to golf course architecture.

Some of his fellow heathland contemporaries like Fowler, Colt, Abercrombie, Simpson et al may've been getting into imitating nature too shortly after that but the point is Mackenzie may've been the first to come up with an idea like this applied to golf course architecture for the purpose of creating a much greater look of naturalism in architecture.

A lot of understanding most anything about golf architecture is understanding not only WHAT happened but also WHY and particularly WHEN.

« **Reply #38 on:** January 05, 2008, 11:33:26 AM »

Tom,

Although I haven't played MacKenzie's courses in No. England it would certainly seem, from pictures, that he hadn't fully realized how to implement this style at that point. It was only when he attempted architecture in the US and Australia that he used these techniques. Please feel free to site examples of the Good Dr's camoflauge techniques in any course he built before 1920. I know you have had the pleasure of playing his courses in the North of Enland.

« **Reply #39 on:** January 05, 2008, 01:28:40 PM »

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on January 03, 2008, 12:26:48 PM

If TePaul is right, and I suspect he is, here is what I take out of MacKenzie's use of camoflage principals as it relates to golf design (short version)

When moving earth for golf features:

Mimic the natural slopes by perhaps no more than doubling the existing slopes

Pay careful attention to the edges where earthwork ties back in. Specifically:

Tie in on a curved - not straight - edge, to best mimic rolling slopes

Use more fill at the base of built (and probably more constant at, say 4:1) slopes when blending into existing (and more variable slopes, which looks better than bringing a constant slope right down to a flatter slope.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have always felt that his mentions of some kind of mysterious camo techniques were about 99% marketing BS and would make the Hall of Fame Top 10 GCA Marketing BS easily.......

Jeff I found this really interesting. How much to you adhere to this and what conditions have to manifest themselves in order to make you adjust to something different?

« **Reply #40 on:** January 05, 2008, 01:40:15 PM »

"Please feel free to site examples of the Good Dr's camoflauge techniques in any course he built before 1920. I know you have had the pleasure of playing his courses in the North of Enland."

Pete:

The only one I'm aware of is Alwoodley and that was early for Mackenzie. The architecture seemed natural looking to me and it certainly was compared to all that "steeplechase" stuff that preceded it in inland England.

« **Reply #41 on:** January 05, 2008, 01:49:03 PM »

What's interesting is the modern school is a different one. Pete Dye wanted visuals looking back from the green (TV).

« **Reply #42 on:** January 05, 2008, 02:03:25 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 05, 2008, 01:40:15 PM

The only one I'm aware of is Alwoodley and that was early for Mackenzie. The architecture seemed natural looking to me and it certainly was compared to all that "steeplechase" stuff that preceded it in inland England.

Tom,

Exactly, both Alwoodley and Moor Park don't have a single feature which could hide 100 soldiers. Why didn't he employ these techniques in his early courses?

« **Reply #43 on:** January 05, 2008, 04:53:54 PM »

Pete,

I think if there are 100 soldiers on the course, they should be seen and not hidden. What's the point of having soldiers on your course if you can't see them? What was that knucklehead MacKenzie thinking? Camouflage my arse

« **Reply #44 on:** January 05, 2008, 05:40:39 PM »

Pete:

First, I think Alwoodley was one of Mackenzie's first courses if not his first and second what in the world does hiding 100 soldiers on the golf course have to do with his ideas of using camouflage techniques to create natural looking man-made architecture?

« **Reply #45 on:** January 05, 2008, 06:32:18 PM »

"I am sitting in my veranda at the present moment on the edge of the 6th fairway of the Pasatiempo GC. I have just remarked to my wife that there are two bunkers within a hundrd yards of her capable of concealing a hundred soldiers in each and machine guns in a defensie poition...and I have asked her if she can show me their postion from where we are sitting. She was quite unable to do so."

The Spirit of St Andrews, pg 263

« **Reply #46 on:** January 05, 2008, 07:58:54 PM »

Quote from: Jay Flemma on January 05, 2008, 01:28:40 PM

Quote from: Jeff_Brauer on January 03, 2008, 12:26:48 PM
If TePaul is right, and I suspect he is, here is what I take out of MacKenzie's use of camoflage principals as it relates to golf design (short version)

When moving earth for golf features:

Mimic the natural slopes by perhaps no more than doubling the existing slopes

Pay careful attention to the edges where earthwork ties back in. Specifically:

Tie in on a curved - not straight - edge, to best mimic rolling slopes

Use more fill at the base of built (and probably more constant at, say 4:1) slopes when blending into existing (and more variable slopes, which looks better than bringing a constant slope right down to a flatter slope.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have always felt that his mentions of some kind of mysterious camo techniques were about 99% marketing BS and would make the Hall of Fame Top 10 GCA Marketing BS easily.......

Jeff I found this really interesting. How much to you adhere to this and what conditions have to manifest themselves in order to make you adjust to something different?

Those ideas, and probably Mac's on the subject presume some rolling golf ground. I think I would add after reading his article to only put highs - like support mounds for bunkers - as accentuations of natural highs, and make lows low. In other words, tie in vertically rather than only horizontally. In simpler terms, I bet Mac did very few green backing bunkers by building up a mound, but tended to put them where the mound or rise already existed.

Generally, I try to follow the same principles, although I haven't always. But I do recall doing some field staking early for Killian and Nugent and when I saw the backing bunker was going to require a 17' fill, decided to let that side of the green just fall away naturally. When working on plan, though, its all to easy to decide to add a bunker back left, say, regardless of where the natural high point is.

Obviously, all rules are out when you have to start from scratch on a flat site.

« **Reply #47 on:** January 05, 2008, 10:03:49 PM »

Quote from: Pete Lavallee on January 05, 2008, 06:32:18 PM

"I am sitting in my veranda at the present moment on the edge of the 6th fairway of the Pasatiempo GC. I have just remarked to my wife that there are two bunkers within a hundrd yards of her capable of concealing a hundred soldiers in each and machine guns in a defensie poition...and I have asked her if she can show me their postion from where we are sitting. She was quite unable to do so."

The Spirit of St Andrews, pg 263

Pete,

At CPC #4 the bunkers are deceptive on the tee as the landing area is very hard to ascertain. The bunkers hide the ample fairway available. When looking back from the green, no bunker is visible.

« **Reply #48 on:** January 05, 2008, 10:10:26 PM »

""I am sitting in my veranda at the present moment on the edge of the 6th fairway of the Pasatiempo GC. I have just remarked to my wife that there are two bunkers within a hundrd yards of her capable of concealing a hundred soldiers in each and machine guns in a defensie poition...and I have asked her if she can show me their postion from where we are sitting. She was quite unable to do so."
The Spirit of St Andrews, pg 263"

Pete Lavallee:

Are you aware that Alister Mackenzie had a sense of humour?

« **Reply #49 on:** January 06, 2008, 12:59:40 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on January 05, 2008, 10:10:26 PM

Pete Lavallee:

Are you aware that Alister Mackenzie had a sense of humour?

No,

But like my self, I hear he was very fond of scotch.

News:

Jeff Doerr

John Kavanaugh

Jeff_Brauer

John Kavanaugh

wsmorrison

Jeff_Brauer

David Stamm

wsmorrison

Pete Lavallee

David Stamm

TEPaul

Pete Lavallee

TEPaul

Pete Lavallee

Jay Flemma

TEPaul

Tony Ristola

Pete Lavallee

wsmorrison

TEPaul

Pete Lavallee

Jeff_Brauer

Jeff Doerr

TEPaul

Pete Lavallee