Why did Alister MacKenzie come to the US?

[T_MacWood]

 I am only pointing out that being English, Welsh or Scottish depends on your parents rather than your place of birth.

What do you have against the Irish and Manx? Ironically English physician Alister MacKenzie's parents were Scots. I say until we have any definitive information on Whiting's parents we call him and Dr. Mac British.

[Marty Bonnar]

I believe I may have inadvertendly stumbled upon the REAL reason for the somewhat sudden departure of our dear Ally for your distant western shores.

His brother's on-going litigation with Pitreavie GC over unpaid bills and incomplete operations CLEARLY were so embarrasing for the delicate intellectual sensitivities of the educated physician that he could see no other way out than to flee to the farthest possible extremity of civilisation.

Given that Australia was/is full of men wearing dubious hats and shorts, he obviously decided that, for him, California held more allure than the deep Antipodes.

Imagine if it were today! Would Ally-boy be a sun-tanned, fake-teethed, silicon-implanted Cali-Brit with a ridiculous Sheena Easton Cali-Brit accent?

Now that's what I call GCA postulation...

FBD.

[T_MacWood]

Sean
What do you make of the folks from Ulster or Gibralter?

If MacKenzie's mother is English and his father a Scot than what? Or turn the table what if his father is English and his mother Scottish? You make the call.

[James Bennett]

MacKenzie appeared proud of his scottish heritage, wearing his kilt.   It is not something undertaken lightly.

He may have been equally proud of his english heritage.

James B

[BCrosby]

Tom MacW -

As between MacK and Behr I think there was a fair amount of borrowing back and forth.

MacK preceded him in the business, was older and always had a bigger reputation than Behr. Heck, MacK had already published a book on gca at about the same time Behr was just starting out in the business.

But it wasn't entirely a one way street. I think MacK appreciated Behr's radicalism. (And Behr appreciated MacK's.) Behr's notion of a bunkerless course, like the one he built at Rancho Sante Fe, was a precursor of sorts for MacK's minimal bunkers at ANGC. MacK called Lakeside one of the great courses in the world.

Behr's emphasis on using existing contours and the centrality of landforms and contours in great designs might have been something that MAcK ended up stressing in S of SA more than he otherwise might have because of Behr. Certainly that idea was at the heart of why he thought TOC was the greatest course in the world.  

The larger Behr influence, however, was in shaping the response of the strategic school to the challenges posed by Crane. Crane promoted tougher, more penal golf courses. He urged more severe tests of golf skills. He thought TOC let bad golfers get away with too many bad shots. They weren't penalized enough for his tastes.

Behr was a first responder to Crane and in many respects the conceptual framework of his response to "penal" designs was the conceptual framwork adopted in all the great architecture books published in the Golden Age. They all borrowed, in one form or another, arguments first made by Behr. In fact, describing some designs as "penal architecture" originated with Behr. The strategic v. penal dichotomy originated with Behr.  

Put differently, Behr shaped the way MacK (and Thomas, Hunter and others) described what they were doing. He helped them define the principles of strategic design by helping them define what it wasn't. The great battle MacK and others saw themselves engaged in with penal architecture was one in which the vocabulary was pretty much set by Behr. That battle, btw, was essentially a battle against ideas promulgated by Crane.

Bob

[ForkaB]

This is a fascinating thread because everybody is guessing!

My guess is that it was both personal and professional--some hanky panky at (e.g.) Alwoodley and some client malfunctions at (e.g.) Pitreavie plus the chance to go somewhere he could wear the kilt and not be in fear of being assaulted by former public school boys.  Hopefully Mark Rowlinson, Nick Leefe et. al. can resolve at least some of this when they publish Alwoodley's centeneray book..........

[JR Potts]

To vote for Washington?

[T_MacWood]

CA MacKenzie sued Pitreavie and won his case - I don't think it had much effect on the good doctor. He had a pretty good stretch in 1924-25.

[Sean_Tully]

It seems like CA Mackenzie came over at some point as he was a part owner with Hunter Jr. of American Golf Course Construction Co. Its not too hard to figure out who the money guy was! I do not know for how long at this point but I have him mentioned in a 1927 article, but nothing after that. Maybe he was brought in to get them going until they got things figured out.

Tully

[T_MacWood]

Tom MacW -

As between MacK and Behr I think there was a fair amount of borrowing back and forth.

MacK preceded him in the business, was older and always had a bigger reputation than Behr. Heck, MacK had already published a book on gca at about the same time Behr was just starting out in the business.

But it wasn't entirely a one way street. I think MacK appreciated Behr's radicalism. (And Behr appreciated MacK's.) Behr's notion of a bunkerless course, like the one he built at Rancho Sante Fe, was a precursor of sorts for MacK's minimal bunkers at ANGC. MacK called Lakeside one of the great courses in the world.

Behr's emphasis on using existing contours and the centrality of landforms and contours in great designs might have been something that MAcK ended up stressing in S of SA more than he otherwise might have because of Behr. Certainly that idea was at the heart of why he thought TOC was the greatest course in the world.  

The larger Behr influence, however, was in shaping the response of the strategic school to the challenges posed by Crane. Crane promoted tougher, more penal golf courses. He urged more severe tests of golf skills. He thought TOC let bad golfers get away with too many bad shots. They weren't penalized enough for his tastes.

Behr was a first responder to Crane and in many respects the conceptual framework of his response to "penal" designs was the conceptual framwork adopted in all the great architecture books published in the Golden Age. They all borrowed, in one form or another, arguments first made by Behr. In fact, describing some designs as "penal architecture" originated with Behr. The strategic v. penal dichotomy originated with Behr.  

Put differently, Behr shaped the way MacK (and Thomas, Hunter and others) described what they were doing. He helped them define the principles of strategic design by helping them define what it wasn't. The great battle MacK and others saw themselves engaged in with penal architecture was one in which the vocabulary was pretty much set by Behr. That battle, btw, was essentially a battle against ideas promulgated by Crane.

Bob

Bob
I thought Crane felt luck played too large a factor at the Old Course...quirky bounces and blind hazards. He also believed the 18th was a poor hole.

Crane was pretty interesting fellow, very well traveled and apparently a connoisseur of great golf courses. I wonder if all his opinions on golf architecture are dismissed out of hand because he was critical of the Old Course (and becasue his rating system was a little goofy). Didn't he drop his rating system later on?

Are you certain Rancho Santa Fe was bunkerless?

Behr may have coined the term 'penal' but hadn't the true purpose of hazard - to punish a poor shot vs promote decision making - been debated for decades?

[Tom_Doak]

Sean T:  If you've got evidence of Charles MacKenzie coming over to the USA I'd be interested to see it.  I'd also be surprised.  He and his wife sided with Alister's wife in their breakup and divorce, and all indications I've seen were that the brothers were not on good terms afterward.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Bob,
Rancho Sante Fe was anything but bunkerless, witness as per below:



As far as the club history, it had several dramatic bunker schemes throughout the site. At least that's what the club hgistory shows.

[T_MacWood]

To avoid confusion between A. MacKenzie and C.A. MacKenzie the CA MacKenzie & Co, Golf Course Contractors changed its name to the British Golf Course Construction Co. This was done around the time CA sued Pitreavie (1924).

TD
When did MacKenzie's marriage hit the rocks?

[BCrosby]

Tom Mac -

From the beginning bunkers were called penal, hazards, trouble, jail and so forth.

What is new with Behr is the notion that there is a type of architecture that can be called penal. He then went on to use the concept to distinguish penal from strategic architecture. All of which emerged from his debates with Crane.

I have not been able to locate anyone before Behr who used "penal" in that broader sense to designate a style of architecture.

Yes, Crane thought that TOC's greatest weakness was that it that gave luck too big a role in competitive outcomes due to its wild contouring, random gorse and other features. It's "wildnesses" as Crane called it. He didn't like the 18th at TOC because he didn't feel it was a stern enough test.

The strategic architects (MacK, etc.) were pretty agnostic about luck. Rub of the green and all that. It was part and parcel of their mantra of working with the land you were given.

Crane was not agnostic about luck. It was very important to his view of gca that the role luck be minimized to the extent possible.

Tommy N.

It was my understanding that Rancho SF was originally built without bunkers and that they were added later by the club. I will recheck my sources.

Bob  

[Tommy_Naccarato]

Bob,
According to the club history, they've only added three bunkers since the course's inception in 1929. Now, I think where you might be thinking it is that Max wouldn't place his bunkers until he built he course as where they were neeed--in some cases. I think I read that somewhere or maybe it was someone else.

The drawing for the course shows bunkers throughout. I'll download it and post it later

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I had thought of joining the debate several pages ago.  I'm glad I didn't.

[T_MacWood]

Bob
I agree that Behr appears to be the first come up with terms penal and strategic, but those concepts had been discussed for a couple of decades using different terminology.

I've always thought MacKenzie's minimalist bunker designs (Bayside, Jockey and ANGC) were a response to economics more than anything. His late 20s California designs were all heavily bunkered (Cypress Point & Pasatiempo as examples).

The first minimal bunker man that I'm aware of was Tom Simpson...he advocated the idea beginning the early 20s (MacKenzie would have been keenly aware of his theories). He believed there should be no more than 50 bunkers per course. Liphook (Croome & Simpson) had 42 and Morfontaine 25 and Spa somewhere in between. He gave credit to John Low for the idea.

[Neil_Crafter]

My colleague John Scarth (Lovell) who co-writes the Australian architect profiles with me in Golf Architecture magazine has researched Charles Mackenzie. He wrote an article about him which appeared in the Dec 2004 issue of the British Golf Collectors Society magazine 'Through the Green'. In it he records that Alister and Charles met Robert Hunter first when Hunter came to Britain in 1912 researching for his book The Links, and was introduced to the brothers by Harry Colt. Charles moved to Canada and farmed in Saskatchewan in 1915 after being wounded and repatriated in WW1, returning to the UK after the Armistice. After the breakup of Alister's partnership with Colt and Alison, in July 1923 the brothers merged their interests with the creation of the British Golf Course Construction Company.

In 1925, Charles was asked by Hunter to visit California and assisted him at Monterey Peninsula CC and later built greens for Chandler Egan at Lake Oswego and then visited Perry Maxwell on the East Coast. With these contacts Charles incorporated the American Golf Course Construction Co with Hunter, Hunter's son, Charles and Alister as its directors. Charles also apparently negotiated Alister's partnership with Maxwell. Charles returned to the UK in October 1926. By 1929/30 they had fallen out due to AM's divorce.

Now I have paraphrased John's article here, so if anyone vehemently disagrees with this - don't shoot the messenger!

Tom D, why did you think Charles had never been to the US?

cheers Neil

[Jeff_Mingay]

Neil,

Very interesting tidbit about Charles MacK. farming in Saskatchewan. Seems odd. Interesting though.

I'm headed to Sask. tomorrow... the forecast is -5 degrees C for Wed. morning!

[Bill_McBride]

I haven't read all the posts on this thread, but a great source of information on MacKenzie's whereabouts at various times is the timeline presented by Bob Beck and Nick Leefe as an "In My Opinion" piece on this website!

I'm not familiar with Mr. Beck, but Nick is the current historian and former captain of the Alwoodley Club in Leeds, Alister MacKenzie's first design and home course.  Perhaps it will clear up some of the mystery about where he was and when.

[Sean_Tully]

Neal

Thanks for posting that info. What I had that was similar was the info regarding the AGCCC and C.A.'s involvement in its formation.

Bill

The info that Mr. Beck(A founding member of the Mackenzie Society, historian at Pasatiempo, a great help to me with any questions I have come up with, and very knowledgeable on Hollins and Mackenzie) and Mr Leefe has is a great start and I hope to add to it as I continue to come across more information. Unfortunately some of my info is different and will be used to update the list where in question. I have a really good source of info on some of the work done in the area and it is different.  It does start a dialouge between other historians and people with info to paint a bigger picture with factual information.

Tully

[TEPaul]

What interests me most is not exactly why MacKenzie came to America but why he came as seemingly late as he did.

Maybe he had enough going on elsewhere or maybe it involved some understanding with the odd and complex partnership he had with Colt and Alison and who worked where. It seems to me that Colt, Alison, MacKenzie partnership may've been for defensive reasons as much as anything else (so they wouldn't directly compete with one another).

We found in a letter from Hugh Wilson to Piper that Alison wanted to partner with William Flynn maybe around 1920 but apparently Wilson discouraged that and I think I remember that Melrose CC letter or routing hanging on the wall with the letterhead of MacKenzie & Maxwell, London, England.

Those peripatetic GB architects seemed to have a pretty facile way of partnering with someone convenient depending on where they were. I guess that was understandable in those days seeing as how they were constantly on the move around the world and doing otherwise would've been structurally and logistically inconvenient.
                 

[T_MacWood]

Neil
That is interesting info on Charles MacKenzie. I do recall reading that he had spent time in Canada but I had not heard of his acitivities on the Pacific coast.

[TEPaul]

As for Behr and MacKenzie and who influenced whom most or whatever, it seems to me architecturally they were pretty much becoming philosophical birds of a feather and perhaps even independent of one another and perhaps even for some time before they even met and got to know one another. If that were so, what could it have been that was their common philosophical bond or thread? Probably their respect and interest in the architectural model of TOC. But who the hell really knows anymore? Perhaps it was their deeply abiding adoration (even if unrealized ) for the English Arts and Crafts Movement.  

[TEPaul]

As for MacKenzie's political outlook---now that really would require some interesting speculation, I'm sure. From the sound of a few things he said it sounds to me he would've been happy to be a part of the Cliveden Set and a real opponent of the Socialist Movement in Britain. He sounded like a real capitalist but ultimately Mackenzie seemed interested in the end of war as it was then known and very oddly he felt his observations on military camouflage just might accomplish that end. Apparently that belief led him to write that odd letter to President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s.

Whatever Mackenzie motivations were or whatever the influneces on him were, in my opinion he was the architect who took the art form to a height none of his other contemporaries ever quite reached, and perhaps has never been reached again.