[Lou_Duran]

In Geoff Shackelford's newest book (pg 20), "Lines of Charm", he quotes Dr. MacKenzie: "the real reason St. Andrews' Old Course is infinitely superior to anything else in the world is owing to the fact that it was constructed when no one knew anything about the subject at all, and since then it has been considered too sacred to be touched."

Perhaps this bit of wisdom is counterintuitive.  For all these years I've been told that knowledge was power.  Why is it different in golf architecture?  Or did Doctor MacKenzie just get too close to the large guns while studying natural camouflage techniques in south Africa?

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps this bit of wisdom is counterintuitive.  For all these years I've been told that knowledge was power.  Why is it different in golf architecture?  Or did Doctor MacKenzie just get too close to the large guns while studying natural camouflage techniques in south Africa?"

Lou:

It's not counter-intuitive at all even if to some it represents one of the on-going riddles of all man-made golf course architecture.

You see Mackenzie was the ultimate "naturalist" in the entire history of golf course architecture and as close as he took the art form to Nature's own formations even he realized that no golf course architect could ever really equal the sublime beauty of Nature's own way with the earth as represented by the pre-golf architecture Old Course.

Another like Hunter mentioned that TOC was the most wonderful golf course that ever existed but in fact there were so many things wrong with it in that it broke and violated so many of the standards and formulae of man-made golf course architecture that no one ever dared actually copy it.

What some of the most talented architects in the way of "naturalism" said about TOC and why it would be hard to ever really copy it was a bit like what DeGaulle said about France and the French. He said he loved France with all his heart but that he basically hated the French.    

[ForkaB]

Tom

I take this differently.  Mackenzie mentions that the Old Course "was constructed" not that it had been found in nature.  This is, of course, true--a fact which the good Doctor must have known.

So, what he seems to be saying is that the people who "constructed" the Old Course, e.g. Shepherds, Dutchmen, Anderson, Playfair, Robertson, Morris, Honeyman, Low, etc. did so in relative ignorance of any GCA principles and that the result of their work was superior to anything else constructed since, including, by implication, his own works, because of that ignorance.

Not a very good advertisement for GCA, IMO.....

[Sean_A]

Tom P.

I am not sure what a naturalist is.  Probably someone who hangs out on beaches without clothes.  Isn't it those people ....?  I reckon golfers are probably the only people on earth who describe courses as natural.  

Wasn't DeGaulle that chap who borrowed in Dollars then paid back in Francs after shifting a decimal point?  Clever man.

Ciao

Sean

[T_MacWood]

The way I read it MacKenzie is saying the Old Course evolved naturally, trial and error more or less. There were no rules or orthodoxy to follow, just whatever felt right. That's the first part, the second part is just as important. The course continued to be great because of its sacred status, you didn't have a bunch know-it-alls (aka committeemen) trying to improve it or remove some of its unorthodox features, which as it turns is what makes the course special.

One of things that Hutchinson and others preached: while it is great we now have given thought to the art of golf architecture and what are good practices and what are not good practices, we ought not take a good thing too far. Some of these 'bad practices' add interest to the game.

[BCrosby]

I never understood that quote.

Maybe it's a "Wisdom of Crowds" thing. A fascinating book (by a New Yorker staff writer) whose thesis is that decsions made by a large, diverse group of uncoerced individuals are almost always better that decsions made by a few "experts".

Bob

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Of course my previous post was just me. Your take on his quote is probably much closer to what he meant.  

[TEPaul]

"One of things that Hutchinson and others preached: while it is great we now have given thought to the art of golf architecture and what are good practices and what are not good practices, we ought not take a good thing too far. Some of these 'bad practices' add interest to the game."

Tom MacWood:

Don't you think it was Morris, Rushkin, and perhaps Country Life magazine and its owner Riddell all of whom made up the massive albeit at the time unrecognized and unamed Arts and Crafts Movement who told the "Guide" of all golf course architecture, HH, to say that?

If not one might even think the primary influence on the Golden Age might've had someting to do with TOC as so many architects of the Golden Age maintained, for some odd reason. But what did they know about what was going on in their own time?  

[T_MacWood]

TE
You are starting to come across as a combination of embittered and consumed....you really should try to remove this A&C absorbtion from your mind.

Like all other creative endeavors there were many influences including: St. Andrews, North Berwick, Musselburough, Westward Ho!, Preswick, Sandwich, etc.

[TEPaul]

"TE
You are starting to come across as a combination of embittered and consumed....you really should try to remove this A&C absorbtion from your mind.

Like all other creative endeavors there were many influences including: St. Andrews, North Berwick, Musselburough, Westward Ho!, Preswick, Sandwich, etc."

Jeesus Christ Man, are you ever going to stop coming across like some f.... pontificating teacher on this website and get yourself at least a modicum of a sense of humor?? You take yourself and your opinions so Goddamn seriously it's shocking and in the process you definitely come across like you think practically everyone else on here's an idiot!  Learn to loosen up, will you----this stuff isn't life and death you know?! And the truth is there's a whole lot of people on here who understand all this stuff a whole lot better than you do.

[ForkaB]

Tom MacW

You really need to read Mackenzie's quote again.  He says clearly that the reason that the Old Course is superior is that it was constructed when nobody knew anything about GCA "at all.".  The fact that it has been preserved is just a bonus, within the meaning of the sentence.

Bob C

I agree with you in being puzzled.  He seems to be shooting himself in the foot, but as someone said on another thread, he really could have used a good editor for Spirit of St. Andrews.

BTW, there is a lot of research which shows that groups of people make better decisions than individuals, but it is also true that truly great decisions, i.e. those at the far right of the bell curve tend to be ascribable to individuals.

[T_MacWood]

Rcih
I agree with you.

Constructed by those who knew nothing about GCA and evolving naturally by trial and error without rules or orthodoxy is the same thing IMO.

[ForkaB]

Tom

Neither of your posts accepts the fact that MacK was saying TOC was superior BECAUSE there was no GCA involved.  That's the interesting bit in the quote.  If he really believed that (assuming he was a man of integrity) he would have gone back to practising medicine.

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Just prior to this quote he says it is better that construction work be done by men without any knowledge of the subject...followed by the story about finding the biggest fool in the village to build a natural looking green. That's the problem when taking these quotes out of context.

The quote is followed by a paragraph or two about backward committeemen....which supports the second part of the quote having to do with the course being sacred.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, Tom

What a joker was old Mack!

[T_MacWood]

Rich
Have you ever considered getting into the construction game?

[ForkaB]

Been there, done that.  My ambitions are more in the green design area these days.

[Lou_Duran]

Some interesting thoughts.

I think that MacKenzie might have been a bit of a contrarian and an elitist; obviously, he "got it" while most others didn't.  Perhaps the writing style of that era allowed for more poetic license.

Most of the Doctor's courses I've seen or played are highly pleasing to the eye.  On the other hand, particularly with the bunkering and green design, I would not describe his approach as naturalistic or minimalist.

Being a golfer, I would argue that he greatly improved on mother nature, but it was done not by happenstance and minimal knowledge of gca, but precisely because of creativity, preparation, knowledge, and careful application.  Unless MacKenzie believed that few others possessed his abililities (which he probably did), I am still having a hard time understanding the subject comment.

 

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps the writing style of that era allowed for more poetic license."

Really? Judging from Max Behr's writing style how would I ever have guessed that?  

[Lou_Duran]

TEP,

Behr goes well beyond that.  He was somewhat of an obscure designer and not even that as a writer.  I often have a hard time making heads from tails when reading his stuff.  I do regret not playing Lakeside in CA, the only course of note that I know of that he did.


Dr. MacKenzie is not hard to follow.  I just think that he may have said things for effect and sometimes without much contemplation.  Like Hogan when describing the golf swing, what he did and thought he did sometimes were two different things.

Personally, I think that some of the Classic Era architects romanticized and made more complex the game and the practice of gca than they really are.  Perhaps they were better promoters than their counterparts of today.  Or maybe they just had way too much time in their hands.

[TEPaul]

"Personally, I think that some of the Classic Era architects romanticized and made more complex the game and the practice of gca than they really are.  Perhaps they were better promoters than their counterparts of today.  Or maybe they just had way too much time in their hands."

Lou:

Personally, I think you have that both backwards and upside down. They didn't romanticize the practice of GCA even 1/10 as much as some on here romanticize both them and the GCA of their time. And they didn't have 1/10 the time on their hands that most on here have to both romanticize and promote what they did?

Sometimes I feel if they could read this website and what some of its contributors say about them they'd all fall out laughing their asses off.

I mean, come on, Lou, take it easy on those old guys. They were just trying to figure out the art of golf architecture and they were just trying to take it to new levels and little did they know that the primary influence on them was some guy named Morris who never played golf, probably never heard of golf course architecture and who'd been dead for about 50 years but who created a movement that didn't exactly have a name (or at least not one nobody was aware of) but was a universal and primary influence on all art forms and on all social and aesthetic aspects on earth. Little did they know that some guy who wrote about golf for an effete English magazine for rural aristocrats was their "Father" or their "Guide" or their "Man".

As Tom MacWood, that expert researcher/writer, keeps telling the rest of us we don't undertand the A/C Movement, that only he does, the same goes for those old guys. They just didn't understand what was influencing them at least not enough to be aware of it or to admit it. Like the rest of us they were just a bunch of idiots who didn't romanticize or promote themselves at all. They were obviously all content to just let it all wait for about 80-100 years for some pontificator from Ohio to figure it all out for them and the rest of us.

[Lou_Duran]

"Sometimes I feel if they could read this website and what some of its contributors say about them they'd all fall out laughing their asses off."  TE Paul

No doubt, as I do from time to time.

I also wonder if sometimes when we ascribe certain things of brilliance to them that they don't grasp their chin and think to themselves, "yes, that must have been what I was thinking when I left that old stone wall alone running across the fairway" or "precisely my thoughts when I angled the fairway so that only a cut tee shot hit OB over the sheds had a chance of finding the shorter turf".

As to being hard on the old guys, I don't think I am at all.  I buy their books, enjoy their courses, and participate in keeping their legacies alive.  What I don't do is deify them while vilifying their modern conterparts.  Generally, I like to understand what is being communicated, why the expressed belief is held, and whether there is some consistency in the thinking.

When it comes to Behr, I have a hard time just getting by the first one (what).  With MacKenzie, his motivations and consistency do puzzle me from time to time.

BTW, do you think that Fazio has anything on MacKenzie when it comes to self-promotion?  Please forward me the picture of Fazio in his Rolls Royce or Hummer limo at Shadow Creek's #17.

   


 

[RJ_Daley]

Wow, there sure is a great deal of insightful translation by some very smart guys about what Dr. MacKenzie and the early vanguard of GCA commentators said.  

I think that MacWood's thoughts on Mac's satire on orthodoxy - suggesting the village idiot should have a great golf green described to him, then charge him to go out and build one is best interpretted on the wry old Brit sarcasm scale.  I don't think he was being literal, on that point.

Identifying conventional wisdom and best practices as defined by a panel of so-called experts often becomes an exercise in rhetorical ring around the rosey.

I wonder if there aren't good arguments here that GolfClubAtlas.com's pantheon of YaBB gods shouldn't be put on the shelf, and replaced by the folks at the Bedlam Leaning Tower of Babel Learning Disabled Institute.  Perhaps a more clear picture of the principals of GCA would then develop.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()