[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

I have no problem at all with you or anyone else asking questions about the architectural attributions of any golf course. The only problem I have with you is when you try to make your questions look like facts!! 

You seem to be into some kind of on-going endeavor to challenge the legends and architectural attribution status quo of various courses and the architects those courses are attributed to.

You did that with Crump at Pine Valley, Wilson and his committee at Merion and apparently now Mackenzie and Crystal Downs.

All of that is fine by me but I, and I think most everyone else, would like to see you come up with some facts to support your suppositions and not just questions, and certainly not questions that look in any way like facts, or that you try to pass off as facts. To say that you believe something could not have happened simply because you have not yet found evidence that it did happen falls into that category, in my opinion. In other words, what you are aware of at any particular time or in these cases not aware of, should never be passed off by you or anyone else as the sum and substance of historical events. 

In his recent essay on Merion, David Moriarty seems to have picked up on this type of modus operandi, and it should be noted that he passed his essay on to you for your review and critique before he made it available on this website.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
My questions look like facts? Thats an odd statement.

I'm sorry you don't like the look of my questions. I'm not sure why my questions look any more or less like facts than anyone else's questions. A question is a question. I will admit mine are perhaps more pointed questions, but that is because I've spent a great deal of time looking at MacKenzie and Maxwell's history, and I try to couch my questions with known facts for those who may not know all the background info. 

My goal is get to the truth, answering some or all of these questions would get us a long way towards finding it. Can you answer any of the questions?

[TEPaul]

"Can you answer any of the questions?"


Tom MacWood:

I don't know but I can certainly give my opinions on some of your questions.


“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?”

I don’t know who drew up the plans for C.D., but I do know that the person who drew up plans for a golf course does not necessarily have to be the only person responsible for the design of the golf course.

“Was the original plan for nine or eighteen holes?”

I don’t know. What I do know is the eventual plan was for 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?”

I don’t know what you mean by being paid for services with land. I suppose any service provider can negotiate with a client in any number of “currencies”. I don’t see what that has to do with Mackenzie’s part in the design of CD.

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

I have no idea but there could be a myriad of reasons other than he had nothing to do with its design. It certainly appears to me that Macdonald never mentioned projects he had something to do with or mentioned very little about them. The most logical reason for that to me (which is pretty well borne out) is because he got pissed off at the people at those clubs or projects. 

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

I have no idea about that either and I wouldn’t think anyone could know that unless they were aware what that previous nine hole course looked like or even where it was on the land. Do you have any idea about that? I don't think Eugene Goebel should be given even partial credit unless or until someone can figure out exactly what he did there. To me that's no different than H.H. Barker at Merion East----one should not and cannot just assume Merion East's routing and design had anything to do with him just because he was there and did a stick routing on part of the same land for some developer who had nothing to do with MCC.

“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?”

I don’t know. It may’ve had to so with the depression but what does that matter as to what Mackenzie’s contribution to the design was? I'd look to Chris Clouser and what he said on that, as he seems to have done a lot more research on the creation of CD than either of us.

“When did M&M part ways?”

I don't know that either but probably when Mackenzie died in Feb. 1934. Have you ever seen anything at all that indicates Mackenzie and Maxwell formally extinguished their desire to ever partner again?  It seems to me one of the most unique modus operandi of some of those English architects, particularly Alison and Mackenzie, was their inclination to create regional partnerships with architects from particular regions. We do have a statement from Mackenzie that he felt Maxwell was perhaps the best architect in the Eastern USA. Alison attempted to partner with Flynn in the early 1920s but that didn't happen, and Park apparently essentially partnered a Philly job with Flynn's construction crew (but that may've resulted from the fact that Park died in the process). I think those particular English architects were as much attempting to partner with the local construction crews of local architects as much as with the architects themselves.

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

Not that I’m aware of but that does not mean he did not design a course or courses with someone else, such as a partner----ie MacKenzie.

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
You skipped the first question.

[TEPaul]

"Is getting the timeline correct important?"


I think "timelining" is really important, and I feel more that way as time goes on. Of course, a lot of it depends on what exactly one is looking to determine with timelining. If the front nine of CD did not begin to go into construction until something like the second half of 1928 or early 1929 I don't think it would matter that much if Mackenzie and Maxwell went to CD together in the spring of 1928 or the fall of 1928, as far as determining if Mackenzie had significant design input on the front nine as Chris Clouser claims he did. 

[Thomas MacWood]

If the front nine of CD did not begin to go into construction until something like the second half of 1928 or early 1929 I don't think it would matter that much if Mackenzie and Maxwell went to CD together in the spring of 1928 or the fall of 1928, as far as determining if Mackenzie had significant design input on the front nine as Chris Clouser claims he did. 

TE
I'll tell you why it is important. According to Chris the design of CD was formulated in the Spring of 1928. If MacKenzie was not in the country in the spring and summer of 1928, which I believe was the case, and his timeline is accurate, then MacKenzie had nothing to do with original layout.

He's also connected the visit to CD with the initiation of the UMichigan project. His timeline does not work based on the known facts.

I disagree with you, if you are trying to piece together history an accurate timeline is ALWAYS important.

[Thomas MacWood]

"Can you answer any of the questions?"


Tom MacWood:

I don't know but I can certainly give my opinions on some of your questions.


“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?”

I don’t know who drew up the plans for C.D., but I do know that the person who drew up plans for a golf course does not necessarily have to be the only person responsible for the design of the golf course.

“Was the original plan for nine or eighteen holes?”

I don’t know. What I do know is the eventual plan was for 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?”

I don’t know what you mean by being paid for services with land. I suppose any service provider can negotiate with a client in any number of “currencies”. I don’t see what that has to do with Mackenzie’s part in the design of CD.

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

I have no idea but there could be a myriad of reasons other than he had nothing to do with its design. It certainly appears to me that Macdonald never mentioned projects he had something to do with or mentioned very little about them. The most logical reason for that to me (which is pretty well borne out) is because he got pissed off at the people at those clubs or projects. 

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

I have no idea about that either and I wouldn’t think anyone could know that unless they were aware what that previous nine hole course looked like or even where it was on the land. Do you have any idea about that? I don't think Eugene Goebel should be given even partial credit unless or until someone can figure out exactly what he did there. To me that's no different than H.H. Barker at Merion East----one should not and cannot just assume Merion East's routing and design had anything to do with him just because he was there and did a stick routing on part of the same land for some developer who had nothing to do with MCC.

“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?”

I don’t know. It may’ve had to so with the depression but what does that matter as to what Mackenzie’s contribution to the design was? I'd look to Chris Clouser and what he said on that, as he seems to have done a lot more research on the creation of CD than either of us.

“When did M&M part ways?”

I don't know that either but probably when Mackenzie died in Feb. 1934. Have you ever seen anything at all that indicates Mackenzie and Maxwell formally extinguished their desire to ever partner again?  It seems to me one of the most unique modus operandi of some of those English architects, particularly Alison and Mackenzie, was their inclination to create regional partnerships with architects from particular regions. We do have a statement from Mackenzie that he felt Maxwell was perhaps the best architect in the Eastern USA. Alison attempted to partner with Flynn in the early 1920s but that didn't happen, and Park apparently essentially partnered a Philly job with Flynn's construction crew (but that may've resulted from the fact that Park died in the process). I think those particular English architects were as much attempting to partner with the local construction crews of local architects as much as with the architects themselves.

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

Not that I’m aware of but that does not mean he did not design a course or courses with someone else, such as a partner----ie MacKenzie.

TE
All very interesting conjecture, which is your speciality, but short on facts relating to the two subjects, and in particular the development of the course.

[TEPaul]

"TE
All very interesting conjecture, which is your speciality, but short on facts relating to the two subjects, and in particular the development of the course."



Tom MacWood:

I think even you should know by now that kind of remark which you have used so often and for so long and with so many people really doesn't work anymore and probably not with anyone. You basically dismiss as conjecture and speculation everyone else's opinion that seemingly doesn't agree with you, while at the same time attempting to promote your own speculations and conjectures (generally in the form of questions) as something that should pass as fact. I've hammered away at you about this for years and I will continue to do so whenever and however you keep doing it.   


Again, your apparent belief that Alister Mackenzie did not contribute to the design of CD is total conjecture, nothing more!

[Phil_the_Author]

Having been away for a week I am quite pleased to see this thread both still going on and that the discussion has been both somewhat civilized and quite intelligent!

Chris asked a question and Tom Paul gave a reply that. I must comment on the two:

Chris: "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: "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..."

Good conversations have a starting point that seems to fade into the distance of the discussion, and that is what apparently has happened here. What makes a good conversation become great and memorable is when the new direction is about a most fascinating idea and those invovled present opinions both informative and somewhat respectable.

That is what has happened here and all I can say is keep it going!

[Thomas MacWood]

"Can you answer any of the questions?"


Tom MacWood:

I don't know but I can certainly give my opinions on some of your questions.


“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?”

I don’t know who drew up the plans for C.D., but I do know that the person who drew up plans for a golf course does not necessarily have to be the only person responsible for the design of the golf course.
Although I'm certain you can cite some interesting exception to the rule, we are looking at two specific designers and their modus operandi, not some miscellaneous case.

“Was the original plan for nine or eighteen holes?”

I don’t know. What I do know is the eventual plan was for eighteen holes
Thank you for your insight.

“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?”

I don’t know what you mean by being paid for services with land. I suppose any service provider can negotiate with a client in any number of “currencies”. I don’t see what that has to do with Mackenzie’s part in the design of CD.
Perhaps if you had read Chris's book you would know what I'm talking about....and why the question is important. The question also relates to the severing of the partnership and its timing.

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

I have no idea but there could be a myriad of reasons other than he had nothing to do with its design. It certainly appears to me that Macdonald never mentioned projects he had something to do with or mentioned very little about them. The most logical reason for that to me (which is pretty well borne out) is because he got pissed off at the people at those clubs or projects.
Interesting conjecture. This really was a bad question because its just asking for speculation...your wheelhouse.

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

I have no idea about that either and I wouldn’t think anyone could know that unless they were aware what that previous nine hole course looked like or even where it was on the land. Do you have any idea about that? I don't think Eugene Goebel should be given even partial credit unless or until someone can figure out exactly what he did there. To me that's no different than H.H. Barker at Merion East----one should not and cannot just assume Merion East's routing and design had anything to do with him just because he was there and did a stick routing on part of the same land for some developer who had nothing to do with MCC.
I'm not sure why you find the need to interject Merion into every discusion. Its been my experience that each project has its own unique circumstances and its really not helpful to jam the square peg of one project into this round hole of another.

“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?”

I don’t know. It may’ve had to so with the depression but what does that matter as to what Mackenzie’s contribution to the design was? I'd look to Chris Clouser and what he said on that, as he seems to have done a lot more research on the creation of CD than either of us.
I was hoping Chris would chime in as well. Establishing the timeline of event is important to determining who did what. Including the important facts of who was involved in completing the second nine in 1932, when the second nine was designed and when the association desolved.

“When did M&M part ways?”

I don't know that either but probably when Mackenzie died in Feb. 1934. Have you ever seen anything at all that indicates Mackenzie and Maxwell formally extinguished their desire to ever partner again?  It seems to me one of the most unique modus operandi of some of those English architects, particularly Alison and Mackenzie, was their inclination to create regional partnerships with architects from particular regions. We do have a statement from Mackenzie that he felt Maxwell was perhaps the best architect in the Eastern USA. Alison attempted to partner with Flynn in the early 1920s but that didn't happen, and Park apparently essentially partnered a Philly job with Flynn's construction crew (but that may've resulted from the fact that Park died in the process). I think those particular English architects were as much attempting to partner with the local construction crews of local architects as much as with the architects themselves.
Most architects during this period collaborated at some point, English, Scots, American, Irish, Germans, French, Canadian and Japanese (Colt, Dunn, Tillinghast, Strong, O'Neil, Croke, Collis, Emmet, Thomas, Hoffman, Thompson, etc.) In most cases these collaboration were not open ended - they had a beginning and an end....prior to death. That being said were not talking about most architects, we talking about two specific architects and when their association ended.

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

Not that I’m aware of but that does not mean he did not design a course or courses with someone else, such as a partner----ie MacKenzie.
You're right. It doesn't mean a lot of things, for example it doesn't mean MacKenzie & Maxwell were not involved in stealing the Limburg baby either, however the more of these questions we can answer the less we'll have to rely on your imaginitive and entertaining speculation.

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

TE
There is big difference between expressing doubt due to unanwered questions and speculating on what happened or what could of happened based on little or no info, your speciality.

[TEPaul]

"TE
There is big difference between expressing doubt due to unanwered questions and speculating on what happened or what could of happened based on little or no info, your speciality."

Tom MacWood:

I think a lot of people on here will consider it a major victory to get you to even admit that much after over five years of you speculating on how much more Colt did at Pine Valley or Macdonald did at Merion than the factual record shows. I'm not the one who's been speculating with little or no info on how to question "legends" and "status quo" and how to reinterpret the historical record at Pine Valley or Merion and now Crystal Downs, you are, and you seem to have been on something of a pattern that way for quite some time now. If there was some relevent reason to do that at those clubs I guess I could see it but there doesn't seem to be any reason at all other than your attempt to make a name for yourself that way. But what the hell, no reason no to keep it up----maybe after about a hundred attempts you might actually come up with something factual and provable rather than just questions and conjecture. 

[Thomas MacWood]

TE
You can't help yourself can you? We can not discuss a subject without bringing Merion & PV into the conversation. You've got Merion and PV on the brain. You need to diversify.

You've been throwing out speculation on those two courses for so long that you are unable to differentiate between what is your imagination and what is reality. Please spare us the pain of another of those treads. We've seen it all and heard it all...move along.

[TEPaul]

"TE
You can't help yourself can you? We can not discuss a subject without bringing Merion & PV into the conversation. You've got Merion and PV on the brain. You need to diversify."

Tom MacWood:

Not as long as you keep up the same old modus. Looks like you're now trying to reinterpret the architectural attribution of Crystal Downs. What will be next?

"You've been throwing out speculation on those two courses for so long that you are unable to differentiate between what is your imagination and what is reality."

What I've thrown out on those two courses is their historical architectural record backed up by solidly documented fact. What you and Moriarty have thrown out there is nothing other than speculation and this total bullshit you call the "Philadelphia Syndrome" which is garbage and completely unproductive. If you think Macdonald/Whigam routed Merion East why the hell don't you show us SOMETHING SOLID other than torturing events and continuous and complete conjecture and speculation? That's a rhetorical question, by the way, because you never had anything anyway and you never will. It doesn't exist because the facts of the course's history prove otherwise and always have. If you ever want me to stop harping on Merion with you the time will have to come when you admit to the above! Otherwise, I'll keep bringing it up with your speculative attempts to reinterpret the architectural records of courses and their architects.

Next time when you find a few articles somewhere mentioning something like Macdonald and Merion maybe you should do the smart thing and call or email us first since we've had those articles for years. You obviously thought you found some significant but you didn't, particularly with the partial information you have on the course and club. We could've saved you a lot of time and a lot of wasteful speculation on your part. It seems like you're always trying to pass yourself off and prove yourself to be this clever researcher. Even if you think you are you should learn to go to the source first with what you have at least to check what you have against it but your intention always seems to be to try to prove people wrong. I guarantee you if you just learn to accept this kind of logical advice it will save you a lot of time and energy in the future.

[Thomas MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

Not as long as you keep up the same old modus. Looks like you're now trying to reinterpret the architectural attribution of Crystal Downs. What will be next?

TE
I'm not really interested in rehashing these extraneous issues. I'd rather try to figure out the history of CD. Our understanding of history is constantly changing as new facts are uncovered, that is not something you naturally embrace.

Its very apparent to everyone on this website that you are quite comfortable with the history as you understand it today....lets call it the C&W version, and very uncomfortable when that version is challenged. You fight it tooth and nail.

Everyone has certain strengths and weaknesses, certain aptitudes and areas of ineptness, people with an interest in history are naturally inquisitive, a new discovery is satisfying, but is followed by another question or series of questions. Its a never ending process to answer the next question and to find out what really happened. And it takes effort, you are not going to find the answers staring at a website.

History really isn't your bag.

[TEPaul]

"Its very apparent to everyone on this website that you are quite comfortable with the history as you understand it today....lets call it the C&W version, and very uncomfortable when that version is challenged. You fight it tooth and nail."


No, Tom MacWood, that is definitely NOT obvious to everyone on this website! What is obvious to most on this website, however, is that you've tried, and massively unsuccessfully, I might add, to lay that bullshit C&W label on me. It's just really, really getting old on your part, Pal!

The fact is I've read more, seen more and lived and researched more golf and golf architecture than you ever have or ever will be a factor of at least ten or twenty. I get out there and get involved and always have and you don't, certainly not anything like one should if they ever want to truly understand these clubs and courses, their architectural histories, their ethos and their realities, including the truth of their architectural histories and their architects.

The hilarious think about you is you're a total snob with research with no earthly right to be that, that I can see, and you have so little to actually apply it to. I think at this point most everyone on here feels that way about you. I think a good many on here appreciate some of the things you come up with but to actually let you analyze it in an historical and big picture sense is just not in the cards. It's better for a closeted research worm like you to just pass it on or at least liberally colloborate with others in the analysises of it. Unfortunately, David Moriarty is of the exact same ilk as you are, only worse. The thing neither of you get it that you can learn somethings in books and newspaper and magazines but it just doesn't hole a candle to what you can and do learn with a lot of time in the field---both with projects and clubs!

You've got a particular research talent but it's never going to be worth much to you or to anyone else unless and until you get out there and live it and learn it, make mistakes with it and from it and learn by them, and go on.

You either just don't understand that or you think somehow you must be immune to it or above it somehow. You aren't----nobody is, and someday you'll need to learn that and appreciate it if you ever want to be any good at this kind of thing.

I think what you really need to do is get out there and get to really know some of these architects, some of these supers, some of these golf and green chairmen and club presidents and others, get to know what they really think and do, what clients think and do too, and what they're up against that way, as I have, particularly the restoration architects and projects, even if some of those I know out there who aren't into that type of architecture are the most valuable of all to get to know and understand. You need to really get to know the Hanses and Wagners, Coores and Crenshaws, Cowleys, Prichards, Forses and Nagles, Silvas, Youngs, Andrews and a ton of others. The fact is you don't do that and it shows. It would with anyone no matter what their research talents. And when you get an opportunity like you did with John Ott of Pine Valley which I arranged for you, for Christ's Sake take him up on it before it's too late as it is now. A guy like you isn't going to get that opportunity every year so follow up on it if you really love this stuff like most of us on here do! Look at TommyN, look what he did that way and look what it meant to him and what he learned from it! Those opportunities are valuable for a lot of reasons---grab them, rather than just remaining out there in your odd Ivory Tower. A guy like you doesn't fool me in the sightest---I know damn well why you never really get involved---it shows crystal clear in most all your posts---the thought of being seen to be wrong or to make a mistake is anathema to a guy like you.

You're never going to really cut it sitting behind a computer in your home or office or in Mike Hurzdan's impressive library, Tom MacWood. That's just the way it is for all of us and including you---you're no different from any of us in understanding this stuff the only way it can be understood, that's for damn sure. You may even consider joining a golf club and getting involved in the realities of it like most of the rest of us do so you can at least understand that side of the ledger which you don't have a clue about at this point. There are some pretty important things to learn about all of this from just that and you really do need to experience some of it, otherwise you never really will know it or understand it. You've got some talents, Tom MacWood, but you need to learn how to use them better than you have and than you do now.

 

[TEPaul]

As much as we disagree and argue, Tom MacWood, there is some good news in it, and that is despite our legend differences and differences of opinion, at least, unlike some others on here, we always do manage to pretty much always keep it about golf course architecture or golf course architects! 

[Thomas MacWood]

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? What became of the plan?

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? Was this payment for the second nine?

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?

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

When did M&M part ways?

I'm pretty certain MacKenzie and Maxwell parted ways some time in 1930 or around the time MacKenzie hooked up with Wendell Miller. After this point Miller became MacKenzie main man in the east. 1930 was the last time I've seen Maxwell's name included on the MacKenzie letterhead. So it would appear the second nine was completed after the severing of the ties.

[Mike Vegis @ Kiawah]

The Ocean Course.No bunkers but not a fair answer to the spirit of the question.Pinehurst 2 has very few bunkers that are really important to the course.In other words,take them all out and does Pinehurst 2 really change?

I used to say we only had one bunker ...and it was 2 1/2 miles long .  But, that's no longer the case.  With Pete's restorations, I believe we have 18 bunkers now...

[TEPaul]

If you don't get answers you like to the questions you ask just keep asking the same questions over and over again until hopefully you do get some answers you like before everyone ignores you! 

[TEPaul]

From Mark Bourgeois:

"Tom Paul and Bob
Have you documented the first instances where Behr, MacKenzie, and Crane expressed an idea?  This intellectual timeline would be a very valuable product of your efforts and useful in documenting these giants' lives of ideas."

Mark:

I guess we've tried a bit but not all that diligently. I think Bob has tried a lot harder than I have to timeline the first mention of various ideas and terms and remarks amongst the likes of Crane and Behr and Mackenzie. Bob believes that Behr (or Mackenzie) coigned the term "Penal vs strategic" and perhaps in reaction to Crane and his proposal to rank holes and courses mathematically and scientifically.

I would love to "timeline" all the concepts and terms that were central to the thinking of these men (and to their debate) but as you can imagine it's a little hard to do or to know where to look.

Mackenzie's mentioning of perhaps one bunker on a hole is most interesting indeed. Since, on some courses (ie Cypress), he built many more than that per hole it might be probable that he looked at bunkering as having different uses---eg a few to serve for strategic purposes and perhaps the rest to aesthetically tie-in other areas in the context of his ideas on camouflage----eg to make a site look like it wasn't made by an architect. The concept of "artificial dunes" may've been the latter.





"For example, Behr's concept of permanance vs. MacKenzie's idea of finality: are these the same, where do they overlap -- and who wrote what when?

A second example:
When did Behr write of "lines of charm"?
MacKenzie in "Golf Architecture":

Quote
It is an interesting fact that few hazards are of any interest which are out of what is known among medical men as the direct field of vision.  This does not extend much farther than ten to twenty yards on either side of the direct line to the hole.  Hazards placed outside this limit are usually of little interest, but simply act as a source of irritation.


A third example:
Bunker minimalism -- MacKenzie in "Golf Architecture":
"...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 !' "

"Golf Architecture" is 1920, but it seems good chunks of it, particularly passages relating to "economy," may actually be transcripts from those two lectures he gave in the early 1910s -- not sure if any of the above fits.

If they did, the ideas would predate MacKenzie's meeting Behr, yes?"



All of the above are very good questions that I'd love to see some answers for.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Well, it's mainly a taxonomical challenge. A simple table would be a good start, with headings of:
Concept, Behr / date, Mackenzie / date

There could be multiple entries under each concept, which would be of particular value to show whether and where either's views changed / evolved.

It would be cool just to see the passages side by side. It could be a foundational document for understanding the origins and evolution of each's philosophy.

Just the past few posts could seed the table, and we could actively compile entries or just add them at our leisure; it's not like those two are going anywhere! You could add a Behr concept and the date, I could do some of the Mackenzie, someone keeps the master, others would chime in - every now and then we could see if the concepts were similar enough to be combined, like the finality example earlier.

As a perfect taxonomy does not exist the key is just to quote the passages, source and date them. Concepts and their names can be changed as necessary.

The point is just to collect / capture this stuff.

Two more:
1. The penal vs strategic is interesting, as I just the other day read that in one of Mac's writings (maybe GA) and thought, "Hmm, that's well before Wethered&Simpson; wonder if that was a commonly-held concept, something that was debated actively - who came up with it...."

2. "extra" bunkering. A few months ago I read everything Mac wrote on camo. Going back to GA, I remember staring for a loong time at a picture of Alwoodley, wondering why a bunker appeared off in the background.

I think it was actually in play, marginally, on another hole, but why go to the apparent trouble of making it visible from the first?

Then it hit me: if he just put in one or two bunkers on a hole, the human mind - which when you think about it operates in no small part on pattern recognition for sensory perception, a fact critical to successful defensive camouflage - the mind easily would see those bunkers as manmade.

Long answer short, I agree completely with your speculation.

And why would Mac need us to believe nature made his bunkers?  This to me is the heart, the absolute heart, of his philosophy and approach - something that dovetails with his second (third) career as a camoufleur.

Mac wrote the most important skill an architect could have was knowledge of psychology, in effect a designer needed to be a psychologist.

We may read that today and be nonplussed; however, for his time this must have put him light years ahead of peers. Wonder if he thought this before WWI, which would put him waay out in front...

Mark

[Mark Bourgeois]

Also re the evolution of MacK's ideas?

Does anyone have anything on his War years? So far it seems like a black hole, but in his role it is highly likely wmge would have come into contact with an astonishing breadth of ideas, concepts, philosophies and people. Everything from Gestalt psychology to Baden-Powell's "embedded figures" (he actually mentions B-P), Cubism and the Avant-Garde, "concealment coloration" and Abbott Thayer, society portraitists (and the salon, civil engineering, photography (yes, including "halation"!) - who knows, he might even have learned of the Hohokus! Etc etc etc....

But so far this has been a black hole to me and all I've been able to research is the development of camouflage as a military doctrine - I actually think I know more about the American effort (incl Thayer, Brush, and Saint-Gaudens) and the French camoufleur program.

BTW WWI camouflage is Alice's rabbit hole - stay away from it, I urge all of you, you'll never find your way out!

Mark

[BCrosby]

Mark -

I am with the wife (you will be pleased to know she is (to my regret) every bit as blue as you ) in the Great Smokies and have a minute to check in. (I love every minute I can be here. But that's another story for another thread.)

The concept of penal features in gca has been around from the beginning. What I think Behr and Mack brought new to the table is the notion of a "penal school" of gca. What was new was their belief that there had appeared on the scene a sophisticated theory of design competing with strategic gca for the hearts and minds of the golf world.

I think Joshua Crane prompted their views on this. There were a number of people who held held views similar to Crane's, some of whom pre-dated him. But no one had articulated anything like as sophisticated a counter-theory of gca as Crane had. (By "counter-theory" I only mean a theory of gca that wasn't in the strategic tradition.)

That playing strategies and other commonplaces of strategic gca played little role in Crane's gca ideas drove Behr and MacK nuts. What also drove Behr and MacK nuts was that Crane's ideas at the time were taken quite seriously, widely accepted and very popular. He himself became something of a celebrity. So they were by no means certain at the time that they were winning the battle for hearts and minds.

Gotta go have a Scotch on the deck overlooking the Blue Ridge Parkway. Heaven.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Mark:

In your posts #145 and #146 you’re throwing some pretty interesting concepts and even psychologies and psychiatries into this that may have something to do with what Mackenzie was coming up with via “camouflage” in architecture. But something tells me you might be putting the cart before the horse. My sense is that Mackenzie hit on a couple of pretty base fundamentals in his observations of Boor military trench camouflage and then eventually just sort of intuited them from a military context to a GCA context. On the one hand, it was clear to him the effectiveness of what the Boors were doing in that vein and most certainly compared to what the British were doing in that vein both in South Africa and with their general military trench philosophy and construction techniques---eg the British were protecting themselves to some extent but they sure as shootin’ were not attempting to disguise where they were. In Mackenzie’s mind the British were simply calling attention to themselves and their military positions with glaringly artificial looking trenches and the Boor’s were doing basically the complete opposite---eg hiding themselves remarkably effectively in the visible lines and formations of Nature!

But Mackenzie sure did observe that the Boors took their military trench philosophy to the next logical step----eg they actually constructed artificial military trenches just like the British did, except they never manned them---they only served the purpose of drawing fire away from where the Boors really were because they were so recognizable.

I don’t think it’s all that much of a stretch to imagine how Mackenzie figured out how and why at least the first part and perhaps some of the elements of the second part could be used effectively in GCA to produce some pretty interesting affects on golfers. The fact is he was producing something of a visible skewing effect of what was defensive about GCA and what wasn’t. In a real way this is precisely the way of Nature herself. This is also probably the very baseline of what has been said about the theme of Mackenzie architecture---eg it looks more difficult than it actually might be!!

But the other part of this philosophy, at least as it was developed by Behr in his writing was that most any golfer will probably be less critical of what is put before him if he thinks it is a result of Nature rather than some man---eg golf architect. This is particular relevant in Behr’s mind when it comes to obstacles---ie hazard features that involve the entire concept of "penalty" in golf!




Bob Crosby said:

“The concept of penal features in gca has been around from the beginning. What I think Behr and Mack brought new to the table is the notion of a "penal school" of gca. What was new was their belief that there had appeared on the scene a sophisticated theory of design competing with strategic gca for the hearts and minds of the golf world.

I think Joshua Crane prompted their views on this. There were a number of people who held held views similar to Crane's, some of whom pre-dated him. But no one had articulated anything like as sophisticated a counter-theory of gca as Crane had. (By "counter-theory" I only mean a theory of gca that wasn't in the strategic tradition.)

That playing strategies and other commonplaces of strategic gca played little role in Crane's gca ideas drove Behr and MacK nuts. What also drove Behr and MacK nuts was that Crane's ideas at the time were taken quite seriously, widely accepted and very popular. He himself became something of a celebrity. So they were by no means certain at the time that they were winning the battle for hearts and minds.”


Bob:

You and I have seemingly gone round and round over the years on what some of that really meant. You say Crane came up with or was the representative or best spokesman of a sophisticated new theory of design that was beginning to compete with strategic GCA.

That may’ve been the case but I’m not sure Crane came up with the meat of it. What I think most of that so-called sophisticated new theory of GCA was involved new ideas on what others (such as Tillinghast) referred to earlier as “modern” or “scientific” GCA.

What did that mean exactly and what did it mean to those early architects? I think it basically meant a far more scientific placement of risk and reward elements of GCA to better accommodate the games and abilities of the entire spectrum of golfers at least compared to the types of architectural arrangement that preceded this type of new "modern" or "scientific" GCA (don't forget much of the very early GCA was considered to be glaringly "penal" to most levels of golfers). In their minds that type of “scientific” design required all golfers to deal with what their abilities could handle and not more than that, and it managed to do that by transitioning GCA into far more scientific arrangements which essentially relied on far more diagonal arrangements, or at least flanking arrangements and less of the perpindicular arrangements that preceded it.

I think the real departure in the philosophies of Crane and perhaps some of the other “scientific” designers compared to the likes of Behr/MacKenzie/Jones et al was what happened to particularly the less good golfer if he failed to do what even this type of “scientific” designer expected him to do or even required him to do even if what he expected or required him to do could be considered as “strategic”?

This to me was the real departure and difference in the architectural philosophies of these two groups. The Crane philosophy is that the golfer should be immediately subject to penalty if he failed to do what was expected or required of him while the group represented by Behr, Mackenzie, Jones et al did not believe that should necessarily be the case---eg that the penalty could be and should be far more “indirect” and perhaps lying in some future shot or result.

In a word, the Crane et al GCA philosophy was to exact a price basically immediately for failure to execute within a prescribed GCA arrangement and the philosophy of Behr/Mackenzie/Jones et al was that that did not necessarily need to be the case, that the golfer’s strategies both could be and should be far more in a “whole hole” context that could and would exact a price sort of cumulatively at the end, if he did not in fact recover from that "potential" penalty by some clever strategy or execution. In this context lies the entire realm of the philosophy of "recovery", something some felt was the greatest delight of all golf!

I don’t think the differences of opinion and philosophies of these two camps or groups was so much about the good golfer or very good golfer, I think it was much more about how to handle the less than good player via GCA. Crane’s sense seemed to be in the realm of equity across the spectrum of all levels of players and that required that the less good should be made to pay for their failures to do what was expected of them or prescribed via arrangements for them while the other camp did not see it that way. This idea seems to be borne out in the remark by Macdonald or Mackenzie that an architect does not need to design for the less than good golfer as his own game pretty much takes care of that on its own.

[Thomas MacWood]

Bob
Other than Joshua Crane (who was a critic and not an architect), what architects do you believe were members of Behr & MacKeznie's 'penal school'?

Is it acccurate or fair to say Joshua Crane was the spokesman for penal architecture? It seems to me his ideas of golf architecture were more sophisticated than that.

Mark
MacKenzie was working on a camouflage book at the time of his death. Have you been able to track down any of his writing on camouflage in the 1930s? I wonder how effective his Boer concepts would have been against the impending Nazi blitzkreig. 

TE
Over the years I've seen the term 'scientifically' used often with golf architecture. What is the origin of the term in golf architecture? Are you trying to make the case scientific is synonoumous with penal?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()