[Lou_Duran]

In the case of both Jones going to Hollywood and ANGC deciding to do a big tournament, the publicity they sought was because at the relevant times they were both flat broke.

That's what the record shows. Absent those facts, Bobby wouldn't have bothered with instructional films and ANGC, like other exclusive clubs in the US, could not have been bothered to open its doors to a national tournament involving lowly professional golfers.

Bob

BCrosby,

I think I've read most of the books regarding ANGC and The Masters, and the sense I got from these is that Mr. Jones always had a steady source of income from his law practice and golf related ventures.  If I am not mistaken, his grandfather was also well-heeled, and his own parents were at least middle class.  May I inquire as to what "record" you are referring to which reflects that Mr. Jones was "flat broke" during the time that Dr. MacKenzie was in the most dire need of payment of his design commissions?  Didn't Dr, MacKenzie write directly to his good friend Mr. Jones and nearly begged him for at least partial payment?

[BCrosby]

Lou - I believe it was Keeler who talked about Jones's motives at the time. He also signed a lucrative contract with Spalding a little later. He was also given a couple of Coke bottling franchises by Woodruff during the 30's. By 1935 or so he was doing quite well. But I'll check at home.

Jones was 30 + years old when he retired from golf. He had never really worked. His father was not a wealthy man (he was a bit of a character who didn't seem to spend much time at his law firm), though his grandfather owned several mills in Canton which were sold during the Depression at depression prices (as I recall). Bobby himself said that one of the reasons he retired was because of the need to make some money. Flat broke may be an overstatement, but he had a wife and children and was concerned about his finances.

Jones was not a natural showman. He was extremely private. So the Hollywood thing would have been out of character absent other considerations.

Bob

P.S. I forgot to mention that during Jones's competitive career, the only time he could afford to travel to the UK was in Walker Cup years when his trip was paid for. Jones was not a trust fund baby clipping coupons when he needed a little cash. I think 1927 was the only exception.

[Marty Bonnar]

Is it possible that Roberts was more than a wee bit teed off that MacK had the audacity to send a woman to oversee the construction work while he swanned off looking at other jobs?
Maybe this is actually why ANGC membership is men-only?
FBD.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Lastly, let me quote the following from someone who spent a good deal of time researching ANGC and The Masters:

Pat, ditto Bob's request. 

The fellow whose remarks I quoted had unprecedented access to the archives, records and membership of ANGC.   Why is his name so important ?[/color]

Why didn't you give the attribution of what you have there in quotes?
Because I didn't want to.[/color]

And, those are quotes from the unnamed person you say spent a good deal of time researching.  They don't appear to be direct quotes to RTJ himself, as Matthew and Bob have consistently been offering in their side of your debate.

So what ?
Must a fact or a conclusion based on facts be attributable to a direct quote ?

"Now listen to me, I did not have sex with that woman"

That's a direct quote, isn't it ?
[/color] 

BTW, what guy that ever embarked on a 'dream project' of a golf course design in which he hired one of the great archies of the day, and spent so much time and his own resources, didn't "entertain" a notion during and post design/construction that would go something like this:  "you know, this course is so good, it could host a major".

I believe that's what I've been saying all along.
Especially when that guy was a world class player, a local, and was keenly aware that no USGA major had ever been held in the south, where his roots were.[/color]

I'll just bet those words flowed from Kohlers lips, Bakst, Youngscapp, Kaiser, et.al.  I think it is rather natural that men of grand egos and captains of industry and banking and the like, such as Cliffy recruited as members would be all ginned up, on the very innaugral train ride down there in Jan 1933, with all kinds of bragadoccio going on about their new prise enclave being the best of the best, and would set the world on its ear with hosting a "major".

While all of those fellows you mention probably had that thought cross their minds, none of them won the Grand Slam and the most majors in the history of golf.  Jones's goals would surely have been the loftiest.[/color] 

None of what I can see from quotes supplied from Jones' book, interviews in mags, etc, indicate that Jones' primary focus was a course with the hubbub of a major.  It was to be private.   Cliffy and Rice and the boys had the other ideas, IMHO.  Jones went along not to be a wet blanket, IMHO.


There you go again, running the same red light as the others.

NOONE, I repeat, NOONE ever stated that the PRIMARY focus in designing the course was hosting a major, however, I contend that it was one of the goals associated with, and intricately connected to the design of the golf course.

Refusing to believe that the course was designed without any thought to hosting championship play would seem to be an attempt to deny Jones's legacy.[/color]

[Mark Bourgeois]

Pat

Your source probably would tell you two courses initially were planned, a "championship" course and a "ladies" course, the latter being jettisoned along with other doo-dads when memberships failed to materialize.

But can he locate in the club records a date for the specific idea of hosting an Open, or would he too have to go to Roberts's book, where the date given is late 1932?  And does he say whether the main purpose of getting the Open in 1934 -- before the place was really finished -- was to sell memberships? Or was the idea all along to target 1934 for the Open?  The plan for the Open and the use of the word "championship": there's the marketing and there's the design.  Can your source separate the words from the (design) actions?

Your source also must know that in October 1931 MacKenzie wrote a lengthy description of the holes, and Roberts asked him to supplement it with "two or three paragraphs detailing the fact that Bob collaborated with you on all phases of the plans and due to the fact that Bob had studied civil engineering, and due also to the fact that he is of a studious nature and studies carefully each course that he plays on, he was of very genuine and very practical help to you.  You might also add that he contributed several ideas that were distinctly original."

That establishes the ideas as MacKenzie's first -- those hole descriptions and Roberts's suggestions found their way into the 1932 American Golfer article, where MacKenzie never mentions anything more specific than "expert" and "championship tees."

Anyway, these are nits, aren't they?  The really sad thing is here's a designer who believed in designing golf courses that could test the best and provide fun for the dub.  He was perhaps the first and probably the best designer ever to break that forced compromise -- away from the sea.

He worked really hard to figure out how to meet the ONE goal of greatest pleasure for the greatest number.  Most (all?) designers then and today don't seem to really understand or know how to do that, nor do the leader(s) at ANGC.

Maybe as you got at it in your other thread, the forced compromise came back to the club starting in 1980.  It seems more late 1990s to me.  Either way, the great majority seems to think that MacKenzie's ideal can be met no longer.

I don't know.  If we accept the premise of "defend par" then the answer's probably "no."  But just as the stewards of the game haven't done what they should do, it seems like there's been a poverty of imagination down there in Augusta.  They appear intent on challenging the best from the tee forward and not, like Jones wrote, "by the introduction of subtleties around the greens."

It might have been easier to design the "ideal" course back in the Golden Age, but that doesn't mean it was easy back then or that most designers could do it well.  Maybe it's one of those talents that's always in short supply, just more acutely felt today than ever before.

Mark

[Adam Clayman]

CBS/ESPN sure has thrown the good Doctor out with the bath water.
 Not a single mention of his affiliation during today's telecast. Roberts and Jones only.

[TEPaul]

By the way, have any of you guys ever seen one of those ANGC membership solicitation letters Jones must have sent out a ton of?

There's one from him hanging in the clubhouse of my club in Philadelphia. I haven't read it in years. It's a one page letter but maybe it might give us some insight into what they were trying to promote architecture or championship golf-wise. I'll take a look at it next time I go over to GMGC.

I think part of the point of it was they were willing to pick you up maybe for a free train trip as it headed down the East Coast to Georgia if you showed some interest in joining ANGC.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom

Stories are legion.  At some resort Cliff Roberts tried to get a foursome he'd never met to sign up.  They declined.

Mark

[Garland Bayley]

I beg to differ Pat. Jones wrote in "Golf is my Game" (p.203-4) -

"I believe it is true that with modern equipment and modern players, we cannot make a golf course more difficult or more testing for the expert simply by adding length."

That passage would seem to indicate that Jones was out of touch in that regard.  William Flynn and other leading architects understood the need for future length and therefore introduced elasticity in their designs in order to allow for more length.  So much so that they incorporated "elasticity" by factoring it into their routing schemes.

I find it amazing that you would find the greatest golfer of the time out of touch with what makes a "golf course more difficult or testing for the expert". You mistakenly take actions of architects to defend against future improvements in equipment to support your views. Your thinking is hazy. You need to get that nurse out of the house for awhile so you can focus.

Also, earlier you were maintaining that making the course playable by the member, but difficult for the expert were so contradictory as to be unachievable. Just look at the greens at ANGC! If the expert wishes to score well he has to place his ball in the correct positions. However, the members can still reach the dance floor and leave with a respectable, if not expert, score.

Amazingly as much as this is discussed by some of the world's top architects on this site, your nurse seems to have distracted you enough that you overlook it. Don't make us send Tom Paul over to straighten you out!

[Patrick_Mucci]

I find it amazing that you would find the greatest golfer of the time out of touch with what makes a "golf course more difficult or testing for the expert".

I think a good indicator of how easily and how quickly a great golfer can become out of touch with the game, the challenge, play and scoring is Nicklaus's commentary during the British Open at St Andrews, which John Daly won, with play totally contradictory to that advised by Nicklaus.[/color]

You mistakenly take actions of architects to defend against future improvements in equipment to support your views.

Not at all.
I merely studied history.[/color]

Your thinking is hazy. You need to get that nurse out of the house for awhile so you can focus.

If you saw my nurse, you'd know why she continues in my employ.
I may be crazy, but, I'm not stupid.[/color]

Also, earlier you were maintaining that making the course playable by the member, but difficult for the expert were so contradictory as to be unachievable.

That's essentially true if they play from the same tees.

It's only by having two (2) distinct sets at ANGC that the course is able to accomodate both.[/color]

Just look at the greens at ANGC! If the expert wishes to score well he has to place his ball in the correct positions.

It's a lot easier to get your ball in the correct position when you're hitting wedges and short irons.  It's not so easy to do if you're hitting medium and long irons, and the ONLY way you can get players to do that is to lengthen the golf course, OR, Narrow it beyond belief.[/color]

However, the members can still reach the dance floor and leave with a respectable, if not expert, score.

And how do members who are medium to high handicappers do that ?
You and others seem to attribute great shot making abilities to less than great golfers.  Your theory is seriously, or rather, fatally flawed.[/color]

Amazingly as much as this is discussed by some of the world's top architects on this site, your nurse seems to have distracted you enough that you overlook it.

Those distractions do get my attention to the exclusion of everything else.
But, in the hours when she's sunbathing, swimming or sleeping, I do manage to return my attention to GCA.com and architecture.[/color]

Don't make us send Tom Paul over to straighten you out!

My nurse makes sure that I'm straightened out.
I'm afraid that TEPaul would have the opposite affect.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Amazingly as much as this is discussed by some of the world's top architects on this site, your nurse seems to have distracted you enough that you overlook it. Don't make us send Tom Paul over to straighten you out! 

I'm good, perhaps very very good but I may not be that good. I doubt anyone is.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

Your source probably would tell you two courses initially were planned, a "championship" course and a "ladies" course, the latter being jettisoned along with other doo-dads when memberships failed to materialize.

But can he locate in the club records a date for the specific idea of hosting an Open, or would he too have to go to Roberts's book, where the date given is late 1932? 

I'd have to ask him.[/color]

And does he say whether the main purpose of getting the Open in 1934 -- before the place was really finished -- was to sell memberships?

Yes, he does state that the purpose from the begining was to host a championship[/color]

Or was the idea all along to target 1934 for the Open? 

With the U.S. Amateur being considered a major, he bundles it with the U.S. Open, and indicates that they were targets from the very begining.[/color]

The plan for the Open and the use of the word "championship": there's the marketing and there's the design.  Can your source separate the words from the (design) actions?

Yes, I believe he can, and, I believe he did.
He was rather emphatic in his assessment, quoted previously.[/color]

Your source also must know that in October 1931 MacKenzie wrote a lengthy description of the holes, and Roberts asked him to supplement it with "two or three paragraphs detailing the fact that Bob collaborated with you on all phases of the plans and due to the fact that Bob had studied civil engineering, and due also to the fact that he is of a studious nature and studies carefully each course that he plays on, he was of very genuine and very practical help to you.  You might also add that he contributed several ideas that were distinctly original."

I'm sure he does.

In your opinion, was Roberts trying to make sure that Jones got the  design credit he deserved ?
Or, do you think Roberts was trying to fabricate Jones's involvement in the design of the golf course ?[/color]

That establishes the ideas as MacKenzie's first -- those hole descriptions and Roberts's suggestions found their way into the 1932 American Golfer article, where MacKenzie never mentions anything more specific than "expert" and "championship tees."

I don't see how you can exclude every other communication between Jones and MacKenzie, directly or indirectly, from the reading of that letter.

Are you stating that Jones NEVER had any contact with MacKenzie prior to the routing and design of every hole ?[/color]

Anyway, these are nits, aren't they?  The really sad thing is here's a designer who believed in designing golf courses that could test the best and provide fun for the dub.  He was perhaps the first and probably the best designer ever to break that forced compromise -- away from the sea.

I don't believe that the forced compromise you reference is anywhere near what it is today.

In 1999 I could play reasonably well from both sets of tees, today, or with my game of 1999, I could not play reasonably well from the Masters tees.[/color]

He worked really hard to figure out how to meet the ONE goal of greatest pleasure for the greatest number.  Most (all?) designers then and today don't seem to really understand or know how to do that, nor do the leader(s) at ANGC.

That's not true.
The disparity in 1934 was minimal, today it's gigantic.
Thus the task or challenge to any architect is almost impossible to meet.[/color]

Maybe as you got at it in your other thread, the forced compromise came back to the club starting in 1980.  It seems more late 1990s to me.  Either way, the great majority seems to think that MacKenzie's ideal can be met no longer.

I'd agree with that.

There is no way that you can provide wide fairways, little or no rough and challenge the PGA Tour Pro and the average golfer.

The disparity is enormous.[/color]

I don't know.  If we accept the premise of "defend par" then the answer's probably "no." 

But just as the stewards of the game haven't done what they should do, it seems like there's been a poverty of imagination down there in Augusta. 


I would ardently disagree[/color]

They appear intent on challenging the best from the tee forward and not, like Jones wrote, "by the introduction of subtleties around the greens."

You must be kidding.

But, here's your chance.

Tell us how you would do that ?

Tell us what subtleties around the green you would introduce ?

And, how the average golfer would contend with them ?
[/color]

It might have been easier to design the "ideal" course back in the Golden Age, but that doesn't mean it was easy back then or that most designers could do it well.  Maybe it's one of those talents that's always in short supply, just more acutely felt today than ever before.

I'd disagree, those Goldern Ager's produced a tremendous number of golf courses that offered a challenge to both levels of golfers.
It's the task of providing a challenge for both levels of golfers that's become exponentially more difficult due to the enormous disparity in their play that's occured over the last 15-25-35 years.[/color]

[Mark Bourgeois]

They appear intent on challenging the best from the tee forward and not, like Jones wrote, "by the introduction of subtleties around the greens."

You must be kidding.

But, here's your chance.

Tell us how you would do that ?

Tell us what subtleties around the green you would introduce ?

And, how the average golfer would contend with them ?
[/color]

Patrick

I'd regrade the bank fronting 15 green!

Mark

PS Then I'd seek professional help (as was helpfully implied!) and call 512.477.5441.

See if they say what Jones and MacKenzie wrote is no longer possible.  See what kind of "subtleties around the greens" were possible.  Ask if we could chop down a ton of trees and eliminate rough -- their remit being not to make the course tougher or easier or to "protect" against a certain score but to restore options and decisions competitors must make.  The measure of their success being not average scores or what club Golfer X hit into hole Y necessarily (although if they need to introduce tees between the Masters' and members', fine), rather the distribution of scores on holes.

I'd ask them to pay particular attention to the par 5s, 3s, and short 4s. I'd also ask if the number of eagles, and eagles relative to bogeys and double-bogeys, on 2, 7, 8, and 15 says anything about the risk-reward equation on those holes.  Or if one eagle so far on 15, against 7 double-bogeys, out of 232 chances, was indicative of good-risk reward. (An eagle rate of less than half of one percent, and and eagle-to-double ratio of 0.14, doesn't seem to imply much risk-reward, as doesn't the steady stream of layups on the hole.)  Especially compared to 13, which I would have noted through 3 rounds had yielded 7 eagles against 9 double-bogeys.

[Patrick_Mucci]

They appear intent on challenging the best from the tee forward and not, like Jones wrote, "by the introduction of subtleties around the greens."

You must be kidding.

But, here's your chance.

Tell us how you would do that ?

Tell us what subtleties around the green you would introduce ?

And, how the average golfer would contend with them ?
[/color]

Patrick

I'd regrade the bank fronting 15 green!


How would you do that ?

Would you make it steeper ?

Or, would you make it flatter ?

And, are you telling me that that's the ONLY change you'd make with respect to the subtleties around the greens ?[/color]

PS Then I'd seek professional help (as was helpfully implied!) and call 512.477.5441.

See if they say what Jones and MacKenzie wrote is no longer possible.  See what kind of "subtleties around the greens" were possible.  Ask if we could chop down a ton of trees and eliminate rough --

MacKenzie designed the course with rough, why do you want to eliminate it ?[/color]

their remit being not to make the course tougher or easier or to "protect" against a certain score but to restore options and decisions competitors must make. 

What options have been lost ?

Could you tell us on what holes, and, how and why they've been lost to the PGA Tour Players ?[/color]

The measure of their success being not average scores or what club Golfer X hit into hole Y necessarily (although if they need to introduce tees between the Masters' and members', fine), rather the distribution of scores on holes.

WHY do you want to add an additional set of tees to ANGC ?

And, what in the world are you talking about when you reference: "the distribution of scores on holes"

And, scores for whom ? [/color]

I'd ask them to pay particular attention to the par 5s, 3s, and short 4s.



That's only 9 holes, what about the others ?[/color]

I'd also ask if the number of eagles, and eagles relative to bogeys and double-bogeys, on 2, 7, 8, and 15 says anything about the risk-reward equation on those holes. 

For whom ?

And, what would it say about risk/reward that 74 years of experience doesn't already tell you ?

Equally as important, if you did draw a conclusion from statistical analysis, how would that manifest itself in the redesign of the individual features and holes ?[/color]

Or if one eagle so far on 15, against 7 double-bogeys, out of 232 chances, was indicative of good-risk reward. (An eagle rate of less than half of one percent, and and eagle-to-double ratio of 0.14, doesn't seem to imply much risk-reward, as doesn't the steady stream of layups on the hole.)

Mark, pardon me for laughing at your suggestions and your belief that statistical analysis is the key to golf course architecture and the design of features and holes, but, I, and a huge number of people already KNOW that # 15 is a GREAT hole in it's present configuration.

I also know that weather and agronomic conditions, coupled with the circumbstances of the day, and the competitors "mojo" on a given day, aren't factored into your statistical analyses.[/color]

Especially compared to 13, which I would have noted through 3 rounds had yielded 7 eagles against 9 double-bogeys.

And..... that means what to you ?

Again, I and an enormous number of people already KNOW that # 13 is a GREAT golf hole in its present configuration.

AND, that # 13 and # 15 are two entirely different holes, in their configurations, topos, features and play.

Both are world class holes.

So, if  your statistical analysis caused you to conclude that there wasn't enough risk/reward, how would you change the holes ?

And, if your statistical analysis caused you to conclude that there was too much risk/reward, how would you change the holes ?[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()