[Slag_Bandoon]

Which of these points hold up and which don't?

1. Two loops of nine holes preferable.
2. At least four short holes, two or three drive and pitch holes and a large preponderance of good two shot holes..
3. Short walks only from green to following tee, preferably forward to leave elasticity for future lengthening.
4. Undulating greens and fairways but no hill climbing.
5. A different character in every hole.
6. Minimum blindness for the approach.
7. Beautiful surroundings and man-made features, indistinguishable from nature.
8. Sufficient heroic carries from the tee but alternative routes for the shorter player if he sacrifices a stroke or half stroke.
9. Endless variety in shot making.
10. No lost balls.
11. Playing interest to stimulate improvement in performance.
12. High scoring golfers should still be able to enjoy the layout.  
13. Perfect greens and fairways. approaches equal to greens and conditions just as good in winter as in summer.

What amendments can be made to this list for modern architecture?  

[ed_battye]

Great thread.

[APBernstein]

1. Personally, I see no detriment to a course that does not feature two loops of nine holes, but it does make playing a quick nine holes a lot easier.  For the modern CCFAD, it is much better to have two loops ending at the clubhouse because of the costs to run a halfway house out in the middle of nowhere (they can combine the costs of the dining room).

2.  Short holes are the soul of golf...enough said.

3.  Most definitely, especially in today's equipment-driven game.

4.  Sometimes hills are very difficult to avoid.  I look at Lehigh as one of the perfect examples of routing on somewhat hilly property.  You get to the top of the hill (often the landing point for the fairway), look back at the tee, and wonder to yourself, "did I just walk up that?"  You often don't even notice.

5.  Absolutely.

6.  This I do agree with, to a certain extent.  I think an architect should not purposefully seek blindness on the approach, but there are still quality holes that do possess some sort of blindness.  It can often be a great strategic feature if used correctly and sparingly.

7.  What is sorely lacking from many modern courses, especially when you include overt housing complexes.

8.  The second most important feature behind good short holes.

9.  Another feature unfortunately lacking from many modern, over-watered courses.  The ground game multiplies this feature ten-fold.

10.  See: Pinehurst #2

11.  There is a reason that so many people keep coming back to the game.  There is also a reason that there is not a high rate of replay at courses such as Tot Hill Farm.

12.  220 yard forced carries don't exactly fly in this category.

13.  I don't believe that the perfect greens and fairways applies so much anymore.  What does apply is the over-watering of courses, especially approaches as to obsolete the ground game.

Overall, an outstanding list that will be true in about 81 years.

[Bill_McBride]

Far too many modern courses make water the primary hazard. Lost balls are routine, I've played with people who've lost a dozen or more. Golf Magazine has a category in their reviews for ammo requirement, whether it's two or three sleeves or more.  The occasional water hazard, preferably a pond on a risk/reward par 5, or a diagonal creek, are great (or the occasional battle with the Pacific Ocean!), but a course with 16 holes alongside or over lakes is too much.

[ForkaB]

I think that 3, 6, 8 and 11 still hold up.  The rest are obsolete, irrelevant, or poorly framed in the first instance.

[Mark_Huxford]

Slag I only own The Spirit of St Andrews and not MacKenzie's original Golf Architecture book. It doesn't sound like you have listed them verbatim however - which in my opinion is important.

For example, to understand #13...

The course should be equally good during winter and summer, the texture
of the greens and fairways should be perfect and the approaches should have the
same consistency as the greens.

you need to break it up into it's three parts and understand what MacKenzie defines as 'texture'. From his writing I understand 'texture' to be different from conditioning. It's not about wall to wall green like many clubs today strive for.
It's a mix of good golfing grasses that are pleasurable to play from, enhance undulations, imitate nature and subtly camouflage borrows in putting surfaces.

The course should be equally good during winter and summer.

stresses the importance of proper drainage and irrigation to turf culture.

[/i]...the approaches should have the
same consistency as the greens.[/i]

stresses the importance of multiple shot options on approaches, ie; the ground game.

Rich, I'm disappointed to see you can dismiss MacKenzie's wisdom so easily. The only one I think could be questionable is two loops of nine and it is common knowledge the Good Doctor mellowed on this late in his career. Two loops of nine was about using the terrain and the wind as much as it was about the efficiency of operating from two tees. I urge you to have another think.

[ForkaB]

Mark

I'll give you my thinking.

1.  Two loops of nine--far too restrictive and formulaic.  Too many examples of great course that do not follow this formula.
2.  Too formulaic. If he had combined this one with #9 "endless variety in shot making" to something like, a "a balance in the holes and their shot values"  it would be better.
4.  I know of very many very fine greens that are not particularly undulating.  Also, hills climbs can often not be avoided.  It is hte architects job to incorporatre thees sort of "unfortunate" features into his design.
5.  I think havinga "different character" for each hole is either simplistic (or course no two hoels are alike) or sends the wrong message in terms of diversity.  On great course most or all holes have a similar "look and feel."  (E.g. Muirfield, Pebble Beach).
7. This overstates the case for naturalness.  Even TOC is not "indistinguishable from nature."
9.  As discused abvove, this is a hopelessly idealistic statement.
10.  A good goal, but impossible.  Probably if re-stated to speak about minimizing the lost ball it would be OK.
12.  Nothing wrong with this, but it is really obvious, and all it really means is either sseparate tees or a few bail out areas on certian holes.  To the degree that it implies that courses should be built to test the high-handicappers game, it is very misleading.
13.  Perfection is possible only ones mind.  While having green surrounds equal to greens is possible and highly desireable, having approaches as such is less possible, or irrelevant in a lot design scenarios (e.g. Pine Valley).  The winter summer thing is an idealistic one which works in very few microclimates.

Sorry to be iconoclastic, but I think we should hold icons to the same standards as ourselves.

[Mark_Huxford]

Yes by all means Rich. I just think we should always state our reasons in our posts.
Too many people on this board like to play devil's advocate just for the hell of it - though I know you're not one of them.

I think what MacKenzie said later on about two loops of nine says he himself wouldn't insist absolutely on several of the other principles. I do like them all very much though and think they should be given due consideration as I know of many courses where their incorporation into the master plans would be beneficial.

"It is a considerable advantage that a course should be arranged in two loops of nine holes, as on a busy day players can commence at either the first or the tenth tee. On the other hand one can easily sacrifice the best features of good golfing terrain by being too insistent on this principle. There is a charm in exploring fresh country and never seeing the same view twice until one arrives back at the clubhouse." - Alister MacKenzie

As for #10 (There should be a complete absence of the annoyance and irritation caused by the necessity of searching for lost balls). Are you reading that as you shouldn't lose a ball during the round?
MacKenzie certainly didn't like it when he did lose a ball (Water holes essay, Geoff's book) but the actual principle applies to the 'searching for' and not the 'losing of' a golf ball. I imagine a lot of losing of golf balls goes on at MacKenzie's own 16th at CPC while there is very little need to search for many of them! :-)

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Mark H, You are right, upon checking Alister's actual text, these are not verbatim, as they were taken from FW Hawtree's book 'The Golf Course' and I trusted he wouldn't abridge them. My bust.

Alister 'preceded' these 13 points with this statement. . .

"As the essence of golf is variety, it would not be wise to be too didactic as to what does constitute the ideal golf course, but my suggestions for it would be very much on the lines of what I wrote twenty years ago, and as I can hardly improve on that, I set it down here as it was originally written."

 Like any blanket statement or pedagogical dictum, it should be viewed with an open mind of variability of the site.  To help myself accept his suggestions I place the mantra "Strive for" before each point and it becomes less dogmatic. IMO.

Alister definitely swung with his dictum. (oy)

The times have changed our architectural vernacular.  I don't see anything in here about cart paths, owner's wishes, housing concerns, etc.  

[ForkaB]

Mark

Firstly, my apologies to you and others for the particularly ghastly typos in my response.  Too many things to do, too little time....

Vis a vis 9 hole loops, MacKenzie was oviously a businessman as well as an architect.  Nevertheless, I can see absolutely no need for coming back to the clubhouse if you have a course which is routed to allow for play in 3-4 hours.

In terms of lost balls, if the issue is eliminating areas of complete gunge, I fully agree.  However, if it means thinning out the rough at the right of the first hole at Muirfield so that the fear of losing your ball (or, even worse, finding it in a place where getting back to the fairway is problematic) is eliminated--No Way Jose....

[T_MacWood]

MacKenzie's 13 points date back to at least 1910 and an article in the magazine Golfing.

Rich
May I suggest you read The Spirit of St.Andrews, where MacKenzie explains each point in deatail in the second chapter - 'General Principles'. He begins the chapter, "The essence of golf is variety, it would not be wise to be too didatic as to what does constitute the ideal golf course, but my suggestions for it would be very much on the lines of what I wrote twenty years ago..."

In fact I would recommend the book to anyone truely interested in golf architecture.

I agree we should hold icons to the same standard as ourselves, but hopefully that includes looking a little beyond the surface before making any blanket judgements, even icons deserve as much.

[ForkaB]

Don't worry, Tom, I'll re-read MacKenzie some day (skimmed it while visiting a friend's house soon after it first came out).  I like a guy who says, in effect:  "Don't be didactic...but also never forget that what I wrote 20 years ago is gospel!"

[T_MacWood]

Rich
"Don't be didactic...but also never forget that what I wrote 20 years ago is gospel!" I like that also. Reminds me of your opposite but common practice of constantly changing your latest contradictory opinion as you "gather more information". Atleast Mac seemed to have done his homework before drawing any conclusions. Your homework assignment is to read The Spirit and then report back to the group. Good luck.

Slainte  

[ForkaB]

Dear Prof. MacWood

I must sadly report that my friend's dog has eaten his copy of "The Spirit, etc. ad infinitum" so I will not be able to finish (or even start!) your assignment.

Rich

PS--keep up the good work of identifying and correlating my errata.  Someday your corrigendum will be of great value to Goodale scholars throughout the civilized world.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
I'm sorry to here you won't be able to initiate a golf architectural program -- reading The Spirit would have been a good start.

How can I get in contact with those Goodale scholars, I have investment opportunity I think they might be interested in.

[T_MacWood]

I appologize for not listing your many changes of position, but they are numerous and frankly I don't have time to go back list them all, plus I've tried to wipe them out of my memeory and rehashing them when only give my a headache -- but I'm sure you recall some of them and could share them with the group.

[ed_battye]

In MacKenzie's text, Golf Architecture, the points he makes are listed as 'essential features of an ideal golf course'. An ideal course does not/will not ever exist (?)

To have a 'great' golf course it is imperative to recognise which of macKenzies' points need to be adhered to more so than others.

In my humble opinion I place the list in order of importance;

8. Heroic carries
7. (Beautiful surroundings) and natural appearance
6. Minimum blindness
9. Variety of shots required [monotony is killing our game   ]
13. Emphasis on the ground game
10. No lost balls (searching for)
3. Little walking between green and tee
12. Enjoyment for all abilities [this is partly provided for in point 8]
11. Stimulation for improvement
5. Different character on each hole
2. Many two shot, two-three drive pitch and at least four one shotters
4. Sufficient undulations, no hill climbing
1. Two loops of nine  

I would argue that the bottom three points are no longer 'essential'.

I loathe courses where sacrifices in the routing have been made to incorporate two loops of nine.

Andrew;
I fully agree with you about hill climbing.

I also agree with you about short holes, however, I have played many great courses with only two par threes. I think Rich has hit the nail on the head here; balance.

[T_MacWood]

Ed
What do you make of what MacKenzie says about your bottom three in The Spirit of St.Andrews?

[ed_battye]

Tom;

I think MacKenzie would agree with me on the first point. He must have wished his list had been '12 essential features' - that the first statement had never been made.
It is an advantage (for many reasons) to have two loops of nine but not essential. I particularly like Woking GC where you return after 14 holes, before the finale.

With reference to the second point (his fourth) I think he might disagree with me, he writes in length about the necessity of undulating greens and fairways. He does, however, emphasise the naturalness which these undulations should take (see point seven, ranked 2). If he were alive today he would perhaps recognise, unfortunatley, how these undulations would be difficult to maintain and to play upon especially with today's cut heights.
When I ask people about the greens on their home course most, sadly, give me an answer in either speed or condition. The need for speed has corrupted many of the greens on some of the finest British courses. Undulating fairways on the other hand are nice but not essential.

On his second point he writes,

'I usually like to have four one-shot holes, two in each half, but....we should be influenced primarily by the nature of the ground.'

He was a great beleiver in golfers of all abilities being able to enjoy the game. One shotters and drive-pitch holes do provide more enjoyment for a wider scope of players, everybody has a bite at the cherry, if you like.

He was very flexible on this point though. The reason for his comment I think was that The Doctor, who had more inclination for variety than balance, wanted to down play the need for pre-determined distances, sequences, hole lengths, championship course length   etc.... He did this, ironically, by trying to pre-determine the number of par x holes.

If a course allows for four or five par threes and a few short par fours then great, but if not, so what. It's not essential.

What is important is that none of these statements are exclusive to one another. They are all interwined with one another in some way and it is how well and wisley each part is used as to the greatness of the finished article.

[Slag_Bandoon]

 Ed, If value was placed on the order, I'd have to place. . .

11. Playing interest to stimulate improvement in performance.   . . . on top.

Beyond all these points is what I think his real motive is in his design theories ...

"to create 'pleasurable excitement' for the golfer."

Behind all those rules, I don't think he lost sight of his true intention, and that undying goal is what made him a great timeless golf course designer.

I think anybody could have written those 13 points but his results far outweigh their simplicity.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()