[TEPaul]

"TE
It sounds like you have a real appreciation for research."


But I've been telling you that for years Tom MacWood. I do have a real appreciation for research and I think I have a whole lot better idea how to analyze it than you ever have. I've been telling you that for years----eg you find some interesting stuff, it's just how you analyze it that's so odd and leads to bizarre interpretations with little basis in truth or fact. You say it's better not to be too close to a subject but my feeling is just the opposite----eg if you're not close to it as you never have been with Merion or Pine Valley it's the stuff you don't know that you need to know which puts you at such a disadvantage. Of course, you rationalize that problem away constantly that if one is too close to some subject they automatically distort things or lie about things which is about the most preposterous premise ever foisted on this website but, what the hell, that's just you and some of your other distance-from-the-subject research buddies! The opposite is true---one needs to get as close to a subject and ALL its documentary material as possible to understand the subject best. 

[Thomas MacWood]

"TE
It sounds like you have a real appreciation for research."


But I've been telling you that for years Tom MacWood. I do have a real appreciation for research and I think I have a whole lot better idea how to analyze it than you ever have. I've been telling you that for years----eg you find some interesting stuff, it's just how you analyze it that's so odd and leads to bizarre interpretations with little basis in truth or fact. You say it's better not to be too close to a subject but my feeling is just the opposite----eg if you're not close to it as you never have been with Merion or Pine Valley it's the stuff you don't know that you need to know which puts you at such a disadvantage. Of course, you rationalize that problem away constantly that if one is too close to some subject they automatically distort things or lie about things which is about the most preposterous premise ever foisted on this website but, what the hell, that's just you and some of your other distance-from-the-subject research buddies! The opposite is true---one needs to get as close to a subject and ALL its documentary material as possible to understand the subject best. 

TE
It sounds like you have a real appreciation for analyzing research.

[BCrosby]

Very nice post, Bob.  But how do you explain his writing circa 1920 about courses being overbunkered, then going off and building some of the most extravagantly bunkered courses extant, only to follow that by building several courses at the end of his career that apparently were minimally bunkered?

How do you square that circle? I'm assuming his California and Australia work was more heavily bunkered than what came before or after, but who was counting?

Mark - I'm not sure what passages you are referring to, but my guess is that the issue was differences over how bunkering ought to be used rather than the number of bunkers per se. My guess is that AM was criticizing a course he considered Victorian or penal. He was plumping not so much for fewer bunkers but a different bunkering scheme.

I take it that the passages you mention are from the mid-20's?

As noted above, I think towards the end of his life, AM restrained his use of bunkers out of an evolution in his design philosophy rather than being forced to that position out of economic necessities. So I'm not sure how much of a circle there is to square, unless I misunderstand you.

Tom MacW -

Interesting theory about Crystal. You might be on to something. The same thought has crossed my mind, but I've not followed up on it.

Bob

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bob

It was number of bunkers used -- but that's conflated in a sense with bunker purpose.

Here are two quotes from "Golf Architecture":

1. "...illustrating the value of one bunker...Any additional bunker for the tee shot or across the approach to the green would materially lesson the interest of the hole.  The moral is, 'Few bunkers placed in interesting positions !' "

2. "On many courses there are far too many bunkers: the sides of the fairways are riddled with them, and many of these courses would be equally interesting if half of the bunkers were turfed over as grassy hollows.  It is often possible to make a hole sufficiently interesting with one or two bunkers at the most."

Mark

[TEPaul]

"PS: I'm not convinced MacKenzie designed Crystal Downs."


Tom MacWood:

That's a pretty remarkable statement and might call for a little expansion on your part, don't you think?

If you don't think he was involved in the design of Crystal Downs what do you think he contributed to it?  Do you think Perry Maxwell did the design and the course on his own, and if so what do you have that indicates that?

I also see you mentioned Melrose. The little I was able to find at that club and elsewhere it really didn't seem that Mackenzie had much of anything to do with it. There is something around here somewhere that shows Mackenzie congratulated Maxwell for it, though.

Interestingly, the drawing of Melrose has "Mackenzie & Maxwell, London, England" at the bottom of it. 

[Thomas MacWood]

The reasons I'm not convinced:

1. The course doesn't resemble any MacKenzie course I'm aware of

2. If Prairie Dunes had a brother it would be CD

3. Mackenzie never took credit for CD and never mentioned it in his writing. I don't believe he ever mentioned Michigan, Melrose or Oklahoma City either, all M&M courses supervised by Maxwell

4. Maxwell and Dean Woods built CD 

[BCrosby]

Tom MacW -

As noted, I think your CD conjecture is worth a closer look. Primarily because after my one time around the course it didn't feel much like MacK to me either.

But are you suggesting that MacK didn't do the routing and the bunker schemes? Because I thought that Maxwell was pretty clear about giving MacK credit for those things.

Bob

[Mark Bourgeois]

Tom

I don't see how this supports or hurts your argument one way or another, but MacKenzie did write about Melrose.

From Golf Illustrated, London, June 24th, 1927:

I then went East and conferred with my eastern American partner, Mr. Perry D. Maxwell.  He had just completed the design of a new golf course in Philadelphia, the Melrose Golf course, and his design was so good that I was only able to make a few minor suggestions for its improvement.  Mr. Maxwell was a member of the Advisory Green Section of the United States Golf Association, and relinquished this on taking up golf architecture.  He has made a study of golf architecture for some years and has visited this country.  During my previous visit to America I inspected some of his courses and was much impressed by the fact that he had done better work at a much smaller cost than any other golf architect in the East.  It was for this reason that I asked him to come into partnership, and further experience of his work has more than confirmed my first impression of his great ability."

Mark

[Thomas MacWood]

Bob
I don't believe Maxwell gave credit to MacKenzie for the routing. The story came from a local fellow. Another interesting fact about CD that is often ignored, there was an existing nine-holer at the time M&M were engaged.

[BCrosby]

Where is Chris Clouser when we need him?

[TEPaul]

Bob:

I did speak to Chris Clouser about the design of CB and I just wrote a post about what he said but I put it on the IM to him by a mistake. I told him I'll just skip it and if he wants to post it or his thoughts on it on here, that's up to him.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
If you haven't already read it I would highly recommend Chris's book on Maxwell. I just got a couple of months ago and enjoyed it thoroughly.

[TEPaul]

I've read it. Maxwell is my favorite green designer.

[Chris_Clouser]

Egads gentlemen!

Ok, here is the definitive listing of who did what on the Maxwell/Mackenzie projects.

Melrose - Maxwell did the design and construction.  Mackenzie was brought in as a consultant late in the project and he made some bunkering suggestions.  Some of which were implemented.

Crystal Downs - Mackenzie was hired to do the course design.  He brought Maxwell up to Michigan with him and they initially laid out the front nine together and Maxwell began the construction.  Mackenzie left some suggestions for the back nine.  The construction took almost three years because of the long winters with Maxwell staying on site during the summer months.  The second year, Maxwell finished the front nine construction and laid out the back nine with a few variations on the layout from Mackenzie's notes.  The third year, they finished the construction of the course. 

U of M - Mackenzie was leaving Michigan from his initial visit at Crystal and was contacted by Yost to hire him for the design and construction of the course.  He accepted the contract and had Maxwell do the initial design layout.  Maxwell sent it to Mackenzie and Mac made some alterations, Sean Arble pointed those out earlier.  Maxwell and his crew then did the construction.  Yost had a hand in the final product as Maxwell and his crew planted several pine trees per the A.D.'s dictate.  Maxwell actually did an interview about the course in 1945 for a Tulsa paper that gave some indication of what occurred there.

Oklahoma City - Maxwell accepted the contract under the Maxwell/Mackenzie umbrella.  Mackenzie only toured the site during Maxwell's construction when he was going through Oklahoma to pay Maxwell and his family a visit. 

Ohio State - That is pretty well documented by Tom MacWood already.

Augusta - Maxwell had no involvement with the initial design and was hired later by Roberts and Jones to come in and do some revisions.  But most people are already aware of that one.

So to settle this.  Mackenzie was heavily involved with the early stages of Crystal Downs and from what other sources who are much more versed in his travelings, possibly in later stages of the project.  Mackenzie was involved with U of M but Maxwell was the primary protagonist in that effort. 

As for Dean Woods, he was involved with Crystal Downs.  But contrary to what many think, he was only marginally involved at U of M.  He actually was sent by Maxwell with an initial routing plan and a skeleton crew to Princeton, Kentucky and Woods built the course there with Maxwell only paying a couple of visits during the construction of the course.  Maxwell oversaw most of the construction at U of M and Crystal directly.  There are a couple of reasons why that was, but they have nothing to do with architecture. 

Now let's get back to the topic originally posted. 

I think the best course I ever saw without bunkers was the Woodland Country Club in Carmel, IN by Bill Diddel.  I only got to see it once and that was just walking the course during some tournament I believe.  It was quite fascinating.  I wish I had been able to play it before it was redone by Dye.

[TEPaul]

"Crystal Downs - Mackenzie was hired to do the course design.  He brought Maxwell up to Michigan with him and they initially laid out the front nine together and Maxwell began the construction.  Mackenzie left some suggestions for the back nine.  The construction took almost three years because of the long winters with Maxwell staying on site during the summer months.  The second year, Maxwell finished the front nine construction and laid out the back nine with a few variations on the layout from Mackenzie's notes.  The third year, they finished the construction of the course."


Chris:

While that chronicle of Crystal Downs' creation and Mackenzie's involvement in it sounds most reasonable and such I'm afraid it just isn't a possiblility because Tom MacWood is not aware of that, so there really is no way Mackenzie could've been involved in Crystal Downs' design.




 

[Thomas MacWood]

Chris
Perry Maxwell had a slightly different take on the Michigan job:

"Well, I laid out one for the Penn A.C. -- the Melrose course in Philadelphia -- and Yost wanted a course for the University of Michigan. Somebody took him over the Melrose course and after that he asked me to build the University of Michigan courses at Ann Arbor, which I did."

When did MacKenzie visit Crystal Downs and UM?

[Chris_Clouser]

Tom MacWood,

Mackenzie was at Crystal in the spring of 1928.  There are some that say he was there in 1929 and again after the course opened.  I don't have anything to confirm that.  But he was there in 1928.

He was also supposedly at U of M after his trip to Crystal in 1928.  I guess he could have accepted the contract without seeing the site.  Some say he was there in 1931.  I don't have confirmation of him ever being there, but I do know he and Maxwell communicated on the course and Mackenzie made suggestions after the initial routing was done by Maxwell. 

That is an interesting quote from Maxwell.  It contradicts what Maxwell said years later about Mackenzie being the one first contacted about the job.  Perhaps Yost went and saw Melrose because he wanted to see something of note that Maxwell had built.  And that would have possibly been the closest course for him to see, considering Crystal was not completed yet.

Maxwell was hired by the Harkness Brothers to lay out the course at Melrose.  I'm guessing that Penn A.C. is the Penn Athletic Club, correct?  If so, were the Harkness Brothers affiliated with the organization in someway? 

The reason I ask is that if they were not affiliated with the Penn A.C. that might lend credence to a theory I have about Maxwell's work in Philadelphia.

[BCrosby]

Chris -

Isn't Maxwell usually given partial design credit for Crystal? Are traditional attributions far off the mark in your opinion?

Bob

[Thomas MacWood]

Chris
I assume AC is Athletic Club, but I couldn't tell you if the Harkness Bros. were connected with it or not.

I think your timeline is off a bit. MacKenzie & Maxwell went to CD in October 1928 (per Walkley Ewings account). MacKenzie went back to the UK every winter, so he would have traveled east at that time of the year. Maxwell (and presumably Woods) returned to CD in the spring of '29. The redesigned first nine was ready for play at the end of 1929. The second nine was not completed until 1932.

According to Yost's autobiography in the fall of 1928 Yost made a 'vast inquiry' to find an architect to help build his course, which included a tour of courses out east. Ironically he did not play golf. Presumably that is when he visited Melrose. Construction at UM began in the summer of 1929. It was hoped the course would be ready by fall 1930. I believe they opened the course around that time, although it took another year for the grass to be completely established. In his biography the modest Yost takes full credit.

How do you know Maxwell sent the UM plans to MacKenzie for approval and that he made changes to the plan?

MacKenzie and Maxwell's partnership appeared to be very short lived. I would put the break-up some time in 1930 or about two years before CD was completed, which may explain why the course screams Maxwell, and why MacKenzie never mentioned it.

[TEPaul]

Bob:

The traditional attribution for Crystal Downs and from Crystal Downs is Mackenzie/Maxwell.

[Chris_Clouser]

Philip,

We really should apologize for taking over your thread.  Is there anyway we can move all of this Mackenzie and Maxwell stuff to another thread?  Does anyone know?

Tom, Bob and Tom,

The attribution on Crystal if fine in my opinion.  U of M might need some tweaking, but both men did work on the course and that is all that really matters, isn't it?  Isn't the squealing over dates a little silly? 

I had a nice response all typed up to answer Tom MacWood's questions, but I think we have taken up too much space on this thread for it and deleted it from my response. 

Now back to the real topic, how many bunkers is too many for consideration on this thread?  I would say maximum average of one per hole.  Do we have any that fit that bill?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Now back to the real topic, how many bunkers is too many for consideration on this thread?  I would say maximum average of one per hole.  Do we have any that fit that bill?

MacKenzie wrote of one bunker per hole being enough to generate interest, two max.

[Thomas MacWood]

Chris
I don't think getting the dates right is silly at all. If you are trying to piece together history getting the dates right is imparative.

Feel free to start a separate thread.

[TEPaul]

"Crystal Downs - Mackenzie was hired to do the course design.  He brought Maxwell up to Michigan with him and they initially laid out the front nine together and Maxwell began the construction.  Mackenzie left some suggestions for the back nine.  The construction took almost three years because of the long winters with Maxwell staying on site during the summer months.  The second year, Maxwell finished the front nine construction and laid out the back nine with a few variations on the layout from Mackenzie's notes.  The third year, they finished the construction of the course."



Tom MacWood:

What do you have, other than questions, that in any way refutes that CD architectural history? 


PS:

Chris, I'm quite sure Philip will forgive us for co-opting this thread's subject for a while. It wouldn't be easy to drag all this CD stuff to another thread. Perhaps Ran Morrissett should just start another menu section on this site dedicated to the interest some on here have of trying to reinterpret the architectural histories of golf courses. 

[Thomas MacWood]

"PS: I'm not convinced MacKenzie designed Crystal Downs."


Tom MacWood:

That's a pretty remarkable statement and might call for a little expansion on your part, don't you think?

If you don't think he was involved in the design of Crystal Downs what do you think he contributed to it?  Do you think Perry Maxwell did the design and the course on his own, and if so what do you have that indicates that?

I also see you mentioned Melrose. The little I was able to find at that club and elsewhere it really didn't seem that Mackenzie had much of anything to do with it. There is something around here somewhere that shows Mackenzie congratulated Maxwell for it, though.

Interestingly, the drawing of Melrose has "Mackenzie & Maxwell, London, England" at the bottom of it. 

TE
There are numerous questions surrounding who did what at CD, which is why I made my statement in the first place. I don't see you bringing any answers to the party. Here are some more questions for you.

Is getting the timeline correct important?

Who drew up the plans for CD? Maxwell produced the plans for other three M&M courses, did he also produce the plan for CD?

Was the original plan for nine or eighteen holes?

Why was Maxwell paid for services with a piece of property? When was he given the land and did MacKenzie get some land as well?

Why didn't MacKenzie ever mention CD - did he consider it one of his designs?

How much of the original nine hole course was utilized, and should Eugene Goebel being given partial credit?

The second nine was complete three years after the first. Did it take three years to build or was the project delayed for three years? Did Woods and/or Maxwell supervise its construction?

When did M&M part ways?

Did Maxwell ever supervise the construction of a golf course he did not design?

PS: I have even more questions about the UMichigan project.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()