News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


John Kavanaugh

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #125 on: October 02, 2007, 12:57:26 PM »
JK,

But then, why limit this to MacKenzie? I play at a Flynn course that  I think is pretty 'natural' but if Mother Nature wants some of it, who's going to stop her?

To take this full circle, you do not have to worry because Flynn architecture has proven to be more likely to have continued existence than Mackenzies.

"PROVEN"?

Would that be...beyond a reasonable doubt?

Proven by the fact that Flynn architecture remains in intact today as designed and the work of Mackenzie does not.

John Kavanaugh

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #126 on: October 02, 2007, 12:59:47 PM »
Sorry, but I must go eat and should return far less interesting with a full stomach.  Thanks for a fun morning.

TEPaul

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #127 on: October 02, 2007, 01:01:51 PM »
"To take this full circle, you do not have to worry because Flynn architecture has proven to be more likely to have continued existence than Mackenzies."

I'm sorry that even in one morning things have had to come full circle again.

I think this is your question on here---eg why Flynn's architecture has continued to exist more prevalently than Mackenzie's (if that is in fact true) probably needs to be looked at much more carefully.

And if it is I suppose we need to ask what it was that Flynn was trying to acheive or did acheive that Mackenzie didn't or even vice versa?

Ultimately, this will all probably have to come down to an analysis of what Man, the golfer, is willing to accept and why. It's pretty interesting that the same can probably be said about Mother Nature and her powerful natural forces of wind and water and such.  ;)

From our perspective, at least we have about 75 years of evidence to look at to answer some of these questions.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2007, 01:05:18 PM by TEPaul »

Rich Goodale

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #128 on: October 02, 2007, 01:03:52 PM »
Richard the Magnificent:

In one post above you go on and on about the idea of "eye candy" with bunkering.

What exactly do you mean by that and where do you suspect such an idea originally emanated from?

Do you suppose the natural blowouts and formations that occured on some of the earliest natural linksland courses were put there by Nature for the benefit of golfers? Do you think those things evolved only for the purpose of effecting the strategies and golf balls of golfers?


Tom

Please let me know of five "natural blowouts and formations that occured on some of the earliest natural linksland courses" that you are even tenuously familiar with.  If that is too tough of an assignment, I'll take 4, or 3, or even 2 (I'll grant that Hell just might be more natural than man-made).

Waiting patiently

Il Grande Ricardo

TEPaul

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #129 on: October 02, 2007, 01:10:52 PM »
Jeesus Richard, what a totally absurd and even pusilanimous question. Try to do better than that one.

I'll just offer you one then---eg the natural occurence of exposed sand and sand dunes on much of the old links sites.

Are you really willing to stipulate that that did not exist pre-golf course architecture on linksland? If not a whole lot of people have been wrong about something pretty fundamental for an awful long time now!  ;)

Brent Hutto

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #130 on: October 02, 2007, 01:15:26 PM »
As far as we can determine what Dr. MacKenzie put on the ground, that is #1 in my book among the ways to ascertain his intent.

For me #2 would be anything he wrote specifically about a certain feature that he actually built. By that I mean if he wrote that a certain bunker was flashed for a certain reason I'd tend to believe him as long as his description matched what was actually built.

At best, his writings about TOC or design philosophy in general are of tertiary value. As others have pointed out, there are many reasons to write down and promulgate this or that abstract principle but the real test is the action to back up the words.

Rich Goodale

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #131 on: October 02, 2007, 01:18:46 PM »
Jeesus Richard, what a totally absurd and even pusilanimous question. Try to do better than that one.

I'll just offer you one then---eg the natural occurence of exposed sand and sand dunes on much of the old links sites.

Are you really willing to stipulate that that did not exist pre-golf course architecture on linksland? If not a whole lot of people have been wrong about something pretty fundamental for an awful long time now!  ;)

Nice try at obfuscation, Tom.  Now go to bed until some question comes up that you can answer rather than ignore.....

Your obedient conscience

Rich

TEPaul

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #132 on: October 02, 2007, 01:19:08 PM »
Tom,
What you seem to forget about The Old Course is that the bunkers whose placement seems to be random and natural could indeed move about the property in a random and natural manner and the strategy of the course would not change."

JohnK:

I'd disagree with that.

While, at this point, I would very much doubt that kind of thing happens, even a little bit, on TOC, it probably happened with some frequency in the old days that pre-dated comprehensive man-made architecture.

And the very point of that is that the strategies of TOC were ever changing because of that. That may even be much of the point of the pre-golf course architecture lore of the place. That may even be why so many of those early architects considered it to be the ideal in strategic makeup before or even after its famous widening.

TEPaul

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #133 on: October 02, 2007, 01:22:09 PM »
Rich:

How interesting it is that you label perhaps one of the single most fundamental natural facts of linksland an obfuscation.

Do us all a favor and just go back to aiming at flagsticks only and not even paying attention to anything else.  ;)

Rich Goodale

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #134 on: October 02, 2007, 01:24:37 PM »
Tom

So how many times have you played the Old Course, or even walked it?

I thought so.

Ignorance is bliss.

Smile away compadre!

Richard

TEPaul

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #135 on: October 02, 2007, 02:45:43 PM »
"Tom
So how many times have you played the Old Course, or even walked it?"

Richard:

That's a kind of kneejerk response question that I've always figured you had to be better than and smarter than. And I'm definitely not joking when I say that.

We're not talking about a golf course like Dunbar here. We're talking about St Andrews, the assumed prototype home of all golf and architecture. It's definitely not as if many of the world's golfers who've never been there have not clearly seen the place and in detail for pretty obvious reasons.

And I'm only talking here about the aspect of sand and the aspect of coastal dunes on the place historically and what that meant to the evolution of golf architecture, particularly that sand vestige from early golf called the sand bunker.

There's often a sort of adolescent attitude of informational possessiveness or proprietariness on this website and your remark above is one of the silliest I've ever seen, particularly in the context of this particular thread's subject.


« Last Edit: October 02, 2007, 02:46:59 PM by TEPaul »

Peter Pallotta

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #136 on: October 02, 2007, 02:49:59 PM »
I don't know what this adds (maybe just clutter) but this Darwin article written around the time of WWI talks of trenches, bunkers, TOC, the natural, and MacKenzie.

"Dr. Mackenzie is a well-known golfing architect in the North of England and incidently gained the prize for the best design of a two-shot hole which was recently conducted by Country Life newspaper and for which Mr. C. B. Macdonald gave the prize.  The hole which he designed or something like it may some day be tackled by the golfers on the new course at Long Beach, L.I.  

Dr. Mackenzie, moreover, served in the South African War so that he has a practical knowledge of trenches as well as bunkers.  His lecture was founded on the assumption that an invasion of England was quite within the limits of possibilities; that in such an event civilians could make themselves very useful in digging trenches: that foremen would be needed who understood how to do it and who could be better men for the job than greenkeepers!

It would take far too much space to expound all or anything like all his interesting views. Very shortly his point was that the modern trench is not half so invisible as it ought to be.  Either, it is in the form of an old-fashioned bunker with an abrupt rampart or turf wall in front of it which is the most clearly visible thing in all the world or it is merely a hole dug in the ground and is like the ordinary pot bunker.

The type of entrenchment which Dr. Mackenzie prefers corresponds rather to the bunkers at the twelfth hole at St. Andrews. I suppose a good many of your readers have stood on that twelfth tee and seen an apparently open and innocent plain of grass stretching away before them: likewise, have they hit what they deemed beautiful tee-shots and found them trapped by bunkers that are lurking everywhere unseen. Strangers to the course complain bitterly and not perhaps without some show of reason. The secret lies in the gently sloping bank of the bunker, which is of the same color of the surrounding country and appears to be no more than a natural undulation.  

When the bunker is artificial it is well made by slightly exaggerating a natural rise in the ground so that its contours harmonize with the undulations of the surrounding country.  There is little doubt that this is a very good kind of bunker: it looks the neatest, nicest and most natural and can be made so as to be invisible from the tee, where the player considers he has a right to see it, and from nowhere else.

Dr. Mackenzie gives very good reasons for thinking it the best kind of entrenchment and also excellent and detailed advice for the making of loop holes, the drainage of the trench, protection from shrapnel fire by means of an overhanging lip and much else of interest.  What he has to say is extremely interesting, though we may hope that as far as the greenkeepers of Britain are concerned it may be of no more than academic interest.

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #137 on: October 02, 2007, 02:52:08 PM »
"To take this full circle, you do not have to worry because Flynn architecture has proven to be more likely to have continued existence than Mackenzies."

I'm sorry that even in one morning things have had to come full circle again.

I think this is your question on here---eg why Flynn's architecture has continued to exist more prevalently than Mackenzie's (if that is in fact true) probably needs to be looked at much more carefully.

But don't you think the question is only interesting if we can somehow prove that the original thesis is true?

So, before we waste too much time: Are Flynn's courses significantly less likely to have been altered than MacKenzie's?

Or better yet: How many of the great golf courses from that era still around in their original form?

It seems to me that the most visible changes made to Mac's courses is a "simplification" of the complex, natural-looking bunkers.  Given the political and economic upheaval of the Depression and WWII that seems almost inevitable.

How does that compare with what's been done to Flynn's courses?

Is it possible that what we're talking about is nothing more than the fact that Flynn's original features were simply more like the "homogenized" bunkering, etc. that survived those times, and therefore seems less affected by change?

Ken
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Rich Goodale

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #138 on: October 02, 2007, 05:45:34 PM »
"Tom
So how many times have you played the Old Course, or even walked it?"

Richard:

That's a kind of kneejerk response question that I've always figured you had to be better than and smarter than. And I'm definitely not joking when I say that.

We're not talking about a golf course like Dunbar here. We're talking about St Andrews, the assumed prototype home of all golf and architecture. It's definitely not as if many of the world's golfers who've never been there have not clearly seen the place and in detail for pretty obvious reasons.

And I'm only talking here about the aspect of sand and the aspect of coastal dunes on the place historically and what that meant to the evolution of golf architecture, particularly that sand vestige from early golf called the sand bunker.

There's often a sort of adolescent attitude of informational possessiveness or proprietariness on this website and your remark above is one of the silliest I've ever seen, particularly in the context of this particular thread's subject.




Thanks, Tom

I'll assume that the answer is "never," and I'll remember that next time I post something regarding Pine Valley, which I never will since I've never played there.  As we used to say in the 60's, different strokes for different folks...... ;)

Rich

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #139 on: October 02, 2007, 10:46:06 PM »
I am 100% serious.  Please note that I have only played Pasa and never read a book about Mackenzie so my opinions are only gut feelings based upon similarities I see between the object of Mackenzies professional life and mine.



In that case , John, I would suggest reading his books before making these statements. I think if you did, it would enlighten you about MacKenzie's views on the TOC and architecture in general. TOC was the focal point as to why AM and Behr debated Joshua Crane in regards to Crane's point rating system and why they felt he was so off base.

If that is truly the case why was Mackenzie afraid to copy the old course in style.  Why did he feel a need to top it...To show he was better.  People do not write love letters to without considering the return.  I see no value in reading what Mackenzie said he loved when the proof is in his work.


Forgive me for answering these questions after I've answered others. John, why do feel he was topping (or attempting to top) TOC? Can't someone love something without emulating it?
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #140 on: October 02, 2007, 10:49:12 PM »
To get this back on track, could someone show me where Mackenzie used the style of The Old Course in a way that would show that he loved the place.  This should be easy.


In what way do you mean style? AM certainly emulated the strategic elements found at TOC. You're not talking bunkers alone are you?
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #141 on: October 02, 2007, 10:51:25 PM »
Do you think Bobby Jones also loved The Old Course and that is why he hired Mackenzie as his architect?  I think we both know better.


I do think Jones loved TOC, but what does that have to do with what I said? And I'm sorry, what am I supposed to know better?
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #142 on: October 02, 2007, 10:53:48 PM »
Agreed, David.  I should and do very much respect Tom's opinions, but I also reserve the right to disagree with him, when and if I see fit.  As should we all.

Rich


Richard, I agree. No one, including AM and TD, is infallible. I've never thought otherwise.
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

David Stamm

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #143 on: October 02, 2007, 10:55:24 PM »


However, even Tom Doak can't really write an autobiography of Alister Mackenzie.

I think I'm pretty safe in saying that only Alister Mackenzie could do that.  ;)

Yeah, yeah Tom. Even younger folks suffer momentary lapses of clarity. ;)
« Last Edit: October 02, 2007, 10:58:59 PM by David Stamm »
"The object of golf architecture is to give an intelligent purpose to the striking of a golf ball."- Max Behr

TEPaul

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #144 on: October 02, 2007, 11:03:21 PM »
"Thanks, Tom

I'll assume that the answer is "never," and I'll remember that next time I post something regarding Pine Valley, which I never will since I've never played there.  As we used to say in the 60's, different strokes for different folks......  ;D

Richard:

In my opinion, this OT tete-a-tete between us is chump change and not worth the diversion on an otherwise potentially great thread subject.

But if you really feel you're the only "go to" authority on TOC, one of the most visible and studied courses in the world, and including the subject of sand and sand bunkering in the evolution of golf architecture, then, hey, knock yourself out Pal.


Adam Clayman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #145 on: October 02, 2007, 11:14:55 PM »
Potentially great?
Ken just called Flynn's bunkering homogenized.
I think I can the hear the keys banging from Philly, now.
"It's unbelievable how much you don't know about the game you've been playing your whole life." - Mickey Mantle

Ken Moum

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #146 on: October 02, 2007, 11:50:23 PM »
Potentially great?
Ken just called Flynn's bunkering homogenized.
I think I can the hear the keys banging from Philly, now.


I didn't say it was homogenized.

I wondered if the appearance of Flynn's bunkering made it less likely to be destroyed by the homogenization that most of our courses suffered during the Depression and WWII.

I would be thrilled if someone responded to that supposition.

Ken
Over time, the guy in the ideal position derives an advantage, and delivering him further  advantage is not worth making the rest of the players suffer at the expense of fun, variety, and ultimately cost -- Jeff Warne, 12-08-2010

Rich Goodale

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #147 on: October 03, 2007, 12:37:00 AM »

you're the only "go to" authority on TOC


Many thanks for the endorsement, Tom.  I didn't know you cared!

paul cowley

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #148 on: October 03, 2007, 01:48:04 AM »
I have always had a disconnect between my personal definition of what I consider camouflage, and how it doesn't relate with Mackenzies bunkering on some of his more reputed creations.

It also seems that some here are making similar comparisons between his writings on TOC and some of his creations....at least in their appearance.


Maybe he was camouflaging his writings.
paul cowley...golf course architect/asgca

wsmorrison

Re:When Mackenzie lost it..
« Reply #149 on: October 03, 2007, 07:36:09 AM »
I think it would be an error to compartmentalize Flynn's bunker style into a simple clamshell variety or any homogeneous look.  He did quite a few of these, but it is best to remember that Flynn was one of the first great superintendents in America.  He had a sense for maintaining features, not only bunkers in a cost effective manner.  This is one reason why he liked naturalism, for the more appealing look and the reduced maintenance costs over time.  Yet, the intended look, depending upon the site(parkland, inland, mountain, seaside, etc), the club, the budgets to build and maintain, etc. could vary enormously.  Flynn's bunkers could be simple or complex.  I would also bear in mind that some things that appeared simple, might not be.  Flynn used toplines and surrounds to miscue the golfer into thinking greens sloped a certain way or hide diagonals along the line of play so that golfers had a difficult time discerning carry distances.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back