Who influenced the great designers of yore?

[TEPaul]

"It may be asked what earthly connection is there between golf course construction and trench making?  The connectijon 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."

David:

He says the connection between golf course construction and trench making consists of the imitation of nature---the whole secret of successful course constructon and the concealment in trench making consisting in making artificial features (golf features or military trenches) indistinguishable from natural features.

What could be clearer than that? Where did that observation of natural trench making occur to MacKenzie? It occured to him in the Boer War when he was a medical officer in the Boer War. MacKenzie's biography is pretty crystal clear on that.

Again, if that article or that quote was written in 1917 (or even in 1914 or 1915 or 1916) that would basically square with MacKenzie's interest in golf architecture which might've come to fruition in 1905, 1906 or 1907 when he first became actively involved with Alwoodley.That's obviously why he made the remark about ten years in golf architecture. But we know the Boer War was from 1899-1902 so logically if Mackenzie was there then and observed the Boer's naturally appearing military trenches that must have been when his ideas on camouflage occured to him. He certainly was not circumspect about how those types of military camouflage techniques occured to him to apply to golf course construction techniques.

[TEPaul]

"TomPaul, does the Life and Time discussion regarding MacKenzie's possible "landscape gardening" expertise cause pause regarding your outright dismissal of landscape gardening as a potential source of inspiration or study for MacKenzie?"

David:

Not at all. However, I'd prefer Mackenzie's own words and descriptions for the things that influenced him, rather than the wording of somebody from the US Military who referred to him as a landscape gardener. I don't take that very seriously for obvious reasons. I do take the fact that MacKenzie may've described what he did on a letterhead as a landscape gardener, though.

And I'm not totally dismissing landscape architecture or landscape gardening's influence on MacKenzie or golf course architecture either. What gave you that idea?

Perhaps it was from those long threads with Tom MacWood when I said I did not think the primary influence on the Golden Age of golf architecture should be considered to be the Arts and Crafts movement and I certainly did not think that Horace Hutchinson should be considered to be the father of golf course architecture. While Tom MacWood may've backtracked on those two statements on here on those threads they are what he said in his five part article on the A/C Movement.

I started that thread simply because I didn't agree with him or those statements, as others don't, and I was explaining to him why.  

[T_MacWood]

David
The article was actually his discription of Stoke Poges in 'Golf Courses of the British Isles'...there is no mention of who designed the park.

The closest reference to English garden design by Darwin was this quote:

"Even on the National Golf Links of America, where several great holes from Scotland and England have been carefully reproduced, there are no black sheds to catch the sliced drive at the hole which is copied from the seventeenth at St. Andrews; there is nothing but a wilderness of sand and rough. In such cases the architect is right; anything sham is surely bad art, and we do not to-day approve of the ingenious Mr.Kent, who put dead trees into some of his classical re-creations of nobleman’s gardens because they were dead trees in classical landscapes."

Kent collaborated with Capability Brown; they were predecessors of Repton. Repton was a contemporary of Price and Knight. The three were friends and shared a number of basic ideas, although Price and Knight differed from Repton in one major way. Unlike Repton, they were admirers of wildness and ruggedness in the landscape. Price and Knight promoted the Picturesque aesthetic style...defined by wild ruggedness (chasms, dark impenterable forests, rushing streams...) in landscape design and interesting, asymmetrical, rustic structures in architecture (which influenced early A&C practioners).

[T_MacWood]

TE
Since you appear dead set on this thread devolving into a A&C thread let me clarify what you said.

I did say if I were to re-write my A&C essay I would change Hutchinson from 'Father' to 'Guide'. I'm not a big fan of calling anyone the 'father' of anything. If you want to characterize that as a backtrack...so be it.

Regarding the A&C Movement and most importantly the philosophies of the A&C Movement (promoted by Ruskin and Morris) Those philosophies were the primary influences on aesthetic thought during that period (all art forms including golf architecture). Among their philosophies was looking to the past for inspiration and designing in accord with nature....two ideas that changed the face of Victorian golf design.  

[TEPaul]

"TE
Since you appear dead set on this thread devolving into a A&C thread let me clarify what you said."

Tom MacWood:

David Moriarty mentioned the A/C Movement on this thread and I just responded to that. He seems to think I'm trying to dismiss all landscape architecture or landscape gardening as having any influence on golf course archtiecture. I've never said anything like that on this website---ever. I was only reminding him of what my only issue was on the subject of the A/C movement's influence on the golden age or golf architecture. In your articles on the A/C you mentioned many of the same landscape architects as D. Moriarty mentioned on his thread here.

"I did say if I were to re-write my A&C essay I would change Hutchinson from 'Father' to 'Guide'. I'm not a big fan of calling anyone the 'father' of anything. If you want to characterize that as a backtrack...so be it."

That's true---so be it. A guide is quite different than the "father" of golf course architecture.  

"Regarding the A&C Movement and most importantly the philosophies of the A&C Movement (promoted by Ruskin and Morris) Those philosophies were the primary influences on aesthetic thought during that period (all art forms including golf architecture). Among their philosophies was looking to the past for inspiration and designing in accord with nature....two ideas that changed the face of Victorian golf design."

Thanks for the redundant attempt at an education. Regarding the A/C movement or its philosophy, perhaps those who basically promoted it such as Morris would LIKED TO HAVE SEEN it become the primary influence on aesthetic thought or any other kind of thought (IN ALL ART FORMS INCUDING GOLF COURSE ARCHITECTURE) but that did not happen and I don't mind reminding you of it whenever you say that. The A/C movement was just not the primary influence on golf course architecture in that period or any other period no matter how many words you want to mince to try to make it look like it was. Maybe it did have some influence on golf architecture----but that influence was never golf architecture's primary influence---not unless you want to try to make totally synonymous naturalism and the A/C Movement. Something surely tells me naturalism in many art forms and in many forms of the thoughts of man, aesthetic or otherwise, even golf architecture, came well before and well independent of the ARTS and CRAFTS movement.

Why in the world you can't understand that is frankly beyond me. The reason may be what one on here once mentioned was what you do on some of the subjects that interest you and the discussions you carry on about them. It's a somewhat academic term called "positivism", but sort of your own version of it. You just present a whole series of facts, some of them not much connected to the subject and you assume that passes for proof of some assumptions and conclusions of yours. Futhermore you fail to consider events and occurences, writing or other forms of deduction, including plain old commonsense, to the contrary.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty just said;

“TomPaul,
I tried to ask a fairly specific question with this thread, and I'd just as soon not fall back into same old tired arts and crafts thread.  Frankly, I dont understand why you insist on trying to take it there.  Please let's try to stick somewhere near the topic.  

Here let me try to help . . . Have you read MacKenzie's work on camoflauge?  Do you agree with Life and Time that MacKenzie's work closely resembled the work of Brown?  Why do you suppose MacKenzie would market himself as a Landscape Gardener (on his letterhead) if he thought of himself as a sculptor and not a landscape gardener, as you state?”

David:

Look, here’s what you said in your initial post on this thread of yours entitled “What influenced the designers of yore?”  

 “What did Humphry Repton (1752-1818), Prince Herman von Puckler-Muskau (1785-1871), and Alexander Pope (1688-1744) all have in common?  For one thing, they were all significant influences on the so-called Arts and Crafts landscape architects.  For another, they all had somewhat similar approaches to the role of nature . . .”

It was you and not me who brought up the mention of the arts and crafts movement in this thread? What is the question of your thread? Again it says, “What influenced the designers of yore?” Do you expect people on here to answer that question as they see fit or do you expect them all to stick completely to your first post? If you don’t expect them to stick to the title question of this thread then why didn’t you title this thread  “What designers of Yore were influenced by landscape architecture or landscape gardening?”

Are you and Tom MacWood some kind of clones of one another? You post threads on here and then when anyone offers an opinion you two may not agree with or that may not fit into your “positivist” assumptions, conclusions or agendas you start asking those who may not agree with you if they’ve read various things seemingly implying if they haven’t they have no business posting on the thread and no right to discuss the subject with either of you. I have not gone for that type of pompous condescension on the part of either of you in the past on here and I’m not about to start now.

No, that I know of, I have not read a “Life and Times” article that MacKenzie’s work closely resembled the work of Brown? But if it did that’s just fine by me. Glad to hear it. What is it about you that makes you accuse me of dismissing anything to do with landscape architecture in golf course architecture? I asked you that above. Why no answer? Probably because you can’t find one to support that remark about me dismissing landscape architecture in golf architecture. All I said was I don’t necessarily agree with the “art” or “landscape architecture” principle of “emphasis” in golf design if that means drawing the eye to where the golfer should always hit the ball.

Why would I suppose MacKenzie would put “landscape gardener” on his letterhead, thereby marketing himself as a landscape gardener? I’d suppose he did that simply to market himself as a landscape gardener on that letterhead. Did I imply that MacKenzie ever had a problem with landscape architecture or landscape gardening even as to how he thought it applied to architecture? If so tell me where I said that, or stop making those kinds of remarks or implications about what I said. And where did I say MacKenzie was a sculptor. He was best known as a golf course architect. Perhaps the best ever, in my mind.

Most of what I said to you is it seems pretty obvious to me that Mackenzie got his ideas on camouflage from his experiences in the Boer War that clearly preceded his active involvement in golf course architecture. You seemed to imply his ideas on camouflage came first from somewhere else, perhaps golf architecture, landscape architecture or landscape gardening. Is this your attempt to prove that his ideas on camouflage came from somewhere other than the Boer War and the Boer’s unique construction of military trenches?

I’ve read MacKenzie’s book “Spirit of St Andrews. I’ve read other things about him, maybe some other articles by him. I’ve read Tom Doak’s book on MacKenzie which I think is good, interesting, informative. I found out a number of things from it I didn’t know. There’s an excellent chapter on the influences of camouflage on him, how he used them, where they first occurred to him (Boer War) as well as an interesting section entitled “The Art of Landscaping”.

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul,  I did mention the fact that the three mentioned were influential on a and c.  I also explained that I was not intending to return to beating the dead horse of those old discussions.   Rather, I asked a specific question in my title and then narrowed it further in my initial posts.  Everyone else seems to understand this except for you.  

If you have anything to contribute, then please do so, but dont turn this into yet another ac discussion.    

This thread is not entitled "What influenced the great designers of yore?", but rather "Who influenced the great designers of yore?"   This is so because  specifically hoped to gain insight into what sort of books and concepts these guys were exposed to, and to see if they might show up in their works or writings.   Digressing into why you think tomM is wrong is not going to advance this at all.  

 

Did I imply that MacKenzie ever had a problem with landscape architecture or landscape gardening even as to how he thought it applied to architecture? If so tell me where I said that, or stop making those kinds of remarks or implications about what I said. And where did I say MacKenzie was a sculptor. He was best known as a golf course architect. Perhaps the best ever, in my mind.

What you said was that if landscape architecture had been a primary influence on MacKenzie he would have discussed it.   But since you have not read all he has written you have no idea if he discussed it in writing or not-- beyond the discussion in Spirit.   So I dont think we can dismiss landscape architecture as a potential influence, maybe a primary influence, on MacKenzie.

[T_MacWood]

I tend not to think the English garden movement was a major influence upon early golf design. You look at most heathland courses of that period and they are the antithesis of the stylized naturalistic meadow....like Stowe or Stoke Park. The heathland are cousins of the links....there is nothing stylized about a raw dunescape. Modern golf architecture is more close aligned with the English garden movement. Then again Macdonald and Behr did make note of the English garden designers.

[DMoriarty]

I tend not to think the English garden movement was a major influence upon early golf design. You look at most heathland courses of that period and they are the antithesis of the stylized naturalistic meadow....like Stowe or Stoke Park. The heathland are cousins of the links....there is nothing stylized about a raw dunescape. Modern golf architecture is more close aligned with the English garden movement. Then again Macdonald and Behr did make note of the English garden designers.

Tom,  you may be correct there may be no connection whatsoever.   I really dont know one way or another, which is why I started the thread.   I find it very interesting that these guys were apparently so well read regarding the pre-Victorian British Landscape School.   And based on this alone I think it premature to dismiss this possible influence.  
 
One thing . . . you know as well as anyone that we've got to look at these guys in the context of their time, and I suspect it was popular at this time for those rejecting certain Victorian artforms to draw on Pre-Victorian artisans for inspiration or perhaps merely for rhetorical value.  

MacDonald expresses this sentiment-- returning to the past ideals to find modern truths-- throughout his career, his book, and most importantly for this thread, in his choice of his parallel flanking quotes on each end of this Architecture chapter.  

Further, influence, if any, would not necessarily be by the direct imitation of works, but rather for the larger concepts and ideals.   For example, take a look at Pope's famous words, specifically at the last two lines below (in bold) . . .

To build, to plant, whatever you intend,
To rear the column, or the arch to bend,
To swell the terrace, or to sink the grot;
In all, let Nature never be forgot...
Consult the genius of the place in all...

The last two lines transcend any particulars about Pope's specific style or gardens.  One could easily imagine being inspired by the poem whether or not one ever even saw a Pope Garden.  

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said;

“Tom Paul
What you said was that if landscape architecture had been a primary influence on MacKenzie he would have discussed it.  But since you have not read all he has written you have no idea if he discussed it in writing or not-- beyond the discussion in Spirit.  So I dont think we can dismiss landscape architecture as a potential influence, maybe a primary influence, on MacKenzie”

David:

I can’t see where I said that. Perhaps you’re confusing me with Tom MacWood. It appears he said in post #10 that he’s not aware of MacKenzie saying anything negative about landscape design in golf architecture. He said he’s not aware that Mackenzie said anything positive about it either in golf course architecture. Nothing positive or negative I guess would pretty much imply he’s not aware that Mackenzie said anything about landscape architecture or design as an influence on golf course architecture. I also never said MacKenzie was a sculptor either---as you said I did. That also seems to be Tom MacWood in post #10. Apparently the same first name must be confusing you. But I've certainly not read everything by or about MacKenzie either, and like Tom MacWood, I'd have to say I am not aware that MacKenzie said anything negative or positive about landscape architecture or as it applied to golf course architecture. But I guess one probably needs to define what one means by landscape architecture, landscape design, landscape gardening or landscaping! If any of those describe and define the construction of military trenches in the Boer War, then yes, I'd certainly say that MacKenzie very much did explain his feeling on how that could INFLUENCE and apply to the construction of golf architectural features!  

You asked yesterday:

TomPaul,
I dont quite know what point you think you are making regarding this camoflauge business.  Yes, MacKenzie's Boer War experience was before he got involved with golf courses.  Yes, comoflauge was very important to MacKenzie, perhaps even an obsession, and this most obviously stems back to his experience with the Boer wars.    Yes, that period certainly had a major influence on MacKenzie, at least regarding the potential of the manipulation of land and the imitation of nature.  
All that being said, MacKenzie relies on none of that to promote himself as a camoflauge expert in the Country Life/ Golf Illustrated article.  Instead he notes that he has been immitating nature for the past 10 years.  That is all I was "wondering about" initially.  Reviewing Doak's book cleared it up for me, somewhat.  So just what is the additional point you are trying to make?”

Read this exchange between you and Tom Doak:

Tom Doak said to you:

Dr. MacKenzie was profoundly influenced by his service in the Boer War in South Africa, and his observation of the Boers' use of camouflage to wipe out a larger British force.  I've read the couple of articles he wrote on camouflage for the military, and it is clear that this was a traumatic experience for him, and that it had a lot to do with his later thoughts on making golf courses look natural.

You said to Tom Doak:

“Tom Doak,
I thought about the camoflauge connection to MacKenzie, but recently read one of his old articles that left me wondering whether it might have been that his experience as a golf course architect shaped his view of camoflauge, rather than the reverse.  I'll take another look at the article and try to figure out what gave me that impression.”

The point I was trying to make is it seems pretty clear that MacKenzie’s observations on the construction of military trenches in the Boer War is what initially shaped his ideas on camouflage and further how he applied them later to golf course architecture, and not the reverse, as you surmised above, that golf course architecture first shaped MacKenzie’s ideas on camouflage. You seem to be aware of that, but yet you say because MacKenzie did not mention that connection in an article in Country Life/Golf Illustrated perhaps that’s not the way it happened. You mentioned he simply said he’d been imitating nature in golf architecture for ten years. That’s right, and so what? His imitating of nature in golf architecture began a number of years AFTER his initial observations of the Boers imitating nature in the construction of military trenches. That’s my point, because at first you seemed to suggest you thought his initial ideas on camouflage came from golf course architecture and not the Boers during the Boer War.

[TEPaul]

"I tend not to think the English garden movement was a major influence upon early golf design. You look at most heathland courses of that period and they are the antithesis of the stylized naturalistic meadow....like Stowe or Stoke Park. The heathland are cousins of the links....there is nothing stylized about a raw dunescape. Modern golf architecture is more close aligned with the English garden movement. Then again Macdonald and Behr did make note of the English garden designers."

Tom MacWood:

You may be interested to know I'm in complete agreement with your thoughts there, particularly this part, 'The heathland are cousins of the links.....'  

(the linksland was the primary influence on heathland architecture, and not that movement....what was it called?....or that writer....what was his name again?.....or that English magazine about country life and country gardens....what was that magazine called?)

[DMoriarty]

David Moriarty said;

“Tom Paul
What you said was that if landscape architecture had been a primary influence on MacKenzie he would have discussed it.  But since you have not read all he has written you have no idea if he discussed it in writing or not-- beyond the discussion in Spirit.  So I dont think we can dismiss landscape architecture as a potential influence, maybe a primary influence, on MacKenzie”

David:

I can’t see where I said that. Perhaps you’re confusing me with Tom MacWood. It appears he said in post #10 that he’s not aware of MacKenzie saying anything negative about landscape design in golf architecture.

Post 11, by TEPaul:  
Is there any doubt he would've said something about English garden or English landscape architecture if it'd been a primary influence on his philosophies on golf course architecture? . . .


It was Tom MacWood who said something like that MacKenzie more akin to a sculpture than a landscape designer.  


As for MacKenzie and the Boer Wars, if you look closely I asked you:  What additional point are you trying to make?

All you seem to want to to is point out all the things I have conceeded.  

This is a perfect example of what is increasingly wrong with this website . . .

I make a comment to Tom Doak that I am wondering about something I recall from a article,  and mention that I will look into it and see why I was left with the impression that I was.
 
In the very next post, I had already dug up the article, reread the section in Doak's book, compared the Country Life article with the article I have found,  and clarify what it was I thought was interesting and slightly misleading about the [Golf Illustrated] article I recalled.[/i]  There was no mention of the Boer Wars,  so to the audience in question (readers of the magazine and me before rereading some additional materials) it looks as if he is basing it all on golf design.   Question resolved.  

But you apparently only read my first comment to Tom Doak-- or you chose to ignore my second clarifying post.  You are apparently so excited to have caught me in what you must think is a gaffe, that you devote who knows how much space to trying to correct me.  

Well, Tom,  I have conceded absolutely everything you have said.  [/i]Most of it before you had said it.[/i]  Yet never mind that you havent read any of the source material to which I refer,  never mind that you have nothing new to add, you keep at it.

Why Tom?  Why keep at it?  Why not just step aside and see if anyone has anything to add that actually has anything to do with the topic at hand?   Honestly, I dont get it.  It is as if you cant stand to see a conversation about a topic you've already decided upon.   Or that you feel left out.   I really am at a loss, but am getting close to dropping this whole forum because whenever I try to discuss something I find interesting you seem to need to destroy it.  

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said;

“It was Tom MacWood who said something like that MacKenzie more akin to a sculpture than a landscape designer.”

David:

Why don’t you just get it right instead of just trying to avoid the point for some odd reason? Tom MacWood said in the post directly above (post #10) the one I posted you decided to quote from;  

“Tom D.
I don't recall MacKenzie ever saying anything negative about 18th C. or 19th C. English garden design, but he certainly never mentioned it has any influence either (and is there any doubt he would have if it had been an influence)”

All I said is I never saw anything from MacKenzie about that either. Does that mean to you I said he never mentioned it or just that I never saw anything where he mentioned it? It’s pretty clear to me but I’m no lawyer either who some say tend to try to distort things for the convenience of whatever point they happen to be trying to make at the time.

[TEPaul]

David Moriarty said:

"All you seem to want to to is point out all the things I have conceeded.  
This is a perfect example of what is increasingly wrong with this website . . .
I make a comment to Tom Doak that I am wondering about something I recall from a article,  and mention that I will look into it and see why I was left with the impression that I was.
In the very next post, I had already dug up the article, reread the section in Doak's book, compared the Country Life article with the article I have found,  and clarify what it was I thought was interesting and slightly misleading about the [Golf Illustrated] article I recalled.[/i]  There was no mention of the Boer Wars,  so to the audience in question (readers of the magazine and me before rereading some additional materials) it looks as if he is basing it all on golf design.  Question resolved.  
But you apparently only read my first comment to Tom Doak-- or you chose to ignore my second clarifying post.  You are apparently so excited to have caught me in what you must think is a gaffe, that you devote who knows how much space to trying to correct me."

David:

Oh horseshit this is a perfect example of what's wrong with this website. It's times like this you act like some crybaby in the first class of the first semester of law school. This is GOLFCLUBATLAS.com, an argumentative website about golf course architecture not your conception of some perfect little law school world of debate. This is what you said to me about five posts later;

" Tom Paul,  I dont think that above quote is far from explicit about that.  The quote doesnt mention the Boer War at all, and neither does the article.  To the contrary,  MacKenzie is essentially arguing that he is qualified to lecture Generals about camoflauge techniques because he has been been building golf courses (and landscape gardening?) for the past decade.
Nonetheless, after reviewing Life and Time, I agree that MacKenzie's experience in the Boer War definitely had an influence on how he viewed man's capabilities to imitate nature by manipulating the landscape.”

The Boer War, as Doak said, is where he came up with the entire idea of camouflage maybe 15 years before he said that to those generals or whomever and seemingly some years before he went into golf architecture but obviously you feel the need to hedge and qualify anything I say to you. Maybe the same explanation as mine would be taken differently if it came from Tom Doak.

 

[TEPaul]

"Why Tom?  Why keep at it?  Why not just step aside and see if anyone has anything to add that actually has anything to do with the topic at hand?  Honestly, I dont get it.  It is as if you cant stand to see a conversation about a topic you've already decided upon.  Or that you feel left out.  I really am at a loss, but am getting close to dropping this whole forum because whenever I try to discuss something I find interesting you seem to need to destroy it."

Good Moriarty, I hope you do drop out. In my opinion you are the pompous argumentative little ass I always thought you were. I guess appearances really can be deceiving. If you do stay on here why don't you just post threads and carry on a conversation with yourself or just line up people who agree with anything you must think because anyone who disagrees with you or doesn't stick to your odd ideas of what the subject is you just argue with automatically, including me, over practically nothing at all. Who the hell wants that on here?

[DMoriarty]

TomPaul:

Let's review the substance one more time.  

1.  You say exactly what I attribute to you, no manipulation needed . . .

-- David Moriarty, post 33:    "What you said was that if landscape architecture had been a primary influence on MacKenzie he would have discussed it."  

-- Tom  Paul post 36.:   "I can’t see where I said that. Perhaps you’re confusing me with Tom MacWood."

-- Tom Paul's post 11:  "Is there any doubt he would've said something about English garden or English landscape architecture if it'd been a primary influence on his philosophies on golf course architecture?  Probably not much doubt at all . . . ."

That's where you said it Tom.  Now let it go.

2. The Boer War.  Tom, your sole point seems to be that the Boer War was a strong influence on MacKenzie.   I've explicitly acknowledged this point repeatedly, In fact I was aware of this before your first post on it.   Yet you still keep at it.  Insane.

3.  The MacKenzie Article.  You claimed (in post 23) that the the quote from the Golf Illustrated article makes the Boer War influence "pretty explicit."  It does no such thing.  In fact the article doesnt mention the Boer War at all.    I tried to correct you politely, but that time has passed. Once again you were talking out your behind.  

As far as I can tell, your entire contribution to the MacKenzie portion of the conversation is that the Boer War had a large influence on MacKenzie.   I've said the same thing repeatedly.  

 If we were ratios of our contributions to words, you'd be one in a million.  

[Tom_Doak]

I had forgotten, when I made my original post about this, that my co-author on the MacKenzie book Dr. Scott had written quite a bit of material trying to compare MacKenzie with 'Capability' Brown.  I never really understood the sense of his comparison and lobbied to keep it out of the book, but I don't remember if some of it creeped in.

[You may or may not want to co-design a golf course, but never, ever co-author a book.   )

Anyway, I don't know why the last 15 posts of argument has been going on, but I will repeat my belief that MacKenzie's ideas on camouflage were initiated several years before he had any interest in golf course architecture.  

In the Boer War, there were two battles where British army regiments were decimated by the Boers using camouflage ... in the one I can remember (I think it was Colenso), the Boers tricked the British into thinking they were at camp across a river, luring the British up to the opposite bank.  At which point, the Boers sprung up from camouflaged positions on the near side (which the British had marched right past) to pin them against the river and wipe out a force five times their size.

It wasn't just the imitation of nature which interested MacKenzie so much ... he admired the Boers' use of their brains to defeat an overpowering opponent, and he wanted to bring that possibility to golf.

[TEPaul]

"TomPaul:
Let's review the substance one more time."

David Moriarty:

Let's not. If you insist on carrying on these stupid little arguments with me about the Boer War and trench construction, camouflage, MacKenzie, and where the idea came to him and how he applied it to golf architecture and when why don't you just read Tom Doak's post #43? It completely confirms everything I've said to you on the subject and the substance of it.

And it's certainly not me who messes up most all the threads you post on here. You do a first rate job of that all by yourself.

[TEPaul]

Even if David Moriarty will obviously feel this post is some egregious hijacking of one of his thread's topics, I think it certainly is interesting to consider Alister MacKenzie's apparent increasing fascination, perhaps even maniacal fixation with military trench camouflage. This seems hauntingly poignant in his letter (reprinted in Tom Doak's book) to the  President of the United States, Franklin Roosevelt, in the 1930s in which MacKenzie claims that if his ideas on military trench camouflage are globally applied it may lead to the end of the need for land armies and just may ensure peace world-wide.

Did MacKenzie's ideas on naturalizing military trenches to camouflage them meld into ideas, including his own ideas, on naturalizing through construction and otherwise golf architectural features or even naturalizing landscape architectural features? It would certainly seem so.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tillinghast was influenced to begin designing by Old Tom Morris. It was during this trip that the two became very close and Old Tom shared with him many intimate details of his son, Tommy. He encouraged him to learn about golf courses and how to build them.

After he returned from his second trip to Scotland in 1898, he designed a rudimentary course in a public park in Frankford, Pa. He used old tin cans used as pea storgaes for cups on his dirt putting surfaces. He spent the end of that summer and fall tecahing many of the general public how to play golf.

It would be 13 years before his first real course, Shawnee, opened for play. It is also interesting to see how he used a number of design aspects that he found in the courses in Scotland that he applied to his first designs. A good example of this was his "Alpinization" in Richmond.

 

[Yancey_Beamer]

Philip,
"Alpinization"in Richmond. What course? What location?

[TEPaul]

"Let's do ourselves both a favor Tom, and avoid further correspondence, on here or elsewhere."

I surely have no interest in corresponding with you elsewhere, David Moriaty. On here you can count on it.

[T_MacWood]

Phil
Is the Alpinization at Richmond a tribute to what he saw in Scotland or Mid Surrey in England?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

Good pick-up! I was  a little punch-drunk when I was typing. It is Mid-surrey of course.

[Tags:]

Tags: