The MacKenzie Conundrum- Principle#6

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rich,

I think my points stand and confirm what the good doctor felt. Its clear from his writing and his work that he (and virtually all other golden age guys) were trying hard to get away from blindness and quirk and they set the principles of US golf design that still stand today.

As to maintaining a life long love of TOC, again, it could just be the "spirit" of the place.  Nothing wrong with a design philosophy evolving over time and with experience.  I guess we will just have to accept that it is what it is.......

Or, it was just too good a marketing ploy to leave alone.  I mean, if modern guys sell by referencing the classics, it probably worked for him, too.  He couldn't very well say he loved the knockoffs of CBM could he?

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mackenzie designed holes where the tee shot was blind and he designed holes where the green was not visible.

Regarding TOC, IMHO Jeff is closer than Rich The Pot Stirrer.  Mackenzie wrote of his fondness for the course in terms of playability and enjoyability for all, the placement of the hazards and the strategy entailed, and its unique (read: untampered) evolution.

He didn't write he loved TOC for its blindness but presumably he was wise enough to take the course as it is / was.

Mark

[Rich Goodale]

Mark

I see myself more as a Pot Sticker than a Pot Stirrer, and in terms of PS I am not referring to those lovely chinese dumplings but rather that troublesome gunge that sticks to a dirty pot and seemingly refuses to go away, no matter how hard you try to clean it (or, in the case of an argument, try to pussy-foot your way around it )

PS--If you cannot see hazards (off the tee or otherwise) how can you consider and deploy strategies to avoid them?  Of course, if you are lucky enough to play a course a number of times you will build some sort of mind map as to what exists and where it is beyond the blindness, but given that so many golf courses (particularly the Greats) are only played once by the average travelling golfer, is this acceptable architecture?

Jeff

Good points, but isn't invoking the "Spirit" of a golf course to defend it something akin to answering "Just because!" to the question "Why?"

Rich

[Jeff_Brauer]

Rich,

You are a pot stirrer, no question.  If I was there with you, I would pinch your cheek and quote Ronald Reagan, "There you go again!" 

[Mike_Cirba]

Sorry for the double post (here and on the Seaview thread), but a discussion over there started by Kyle Harris about the uncertainty caused by foreground features (like top shot bunkers, or intruding rows of mounding, or anything else that serves to obfuscate the view of the landing area and introduce uncertainty iin the player) caused me to think about that in relation to this discussion of what Mackenzie wrote.   So I wrote;

In thinking about tee shots where either something uncomfortable intrudes in the foreground, or the landing area is blind, or mostly both, Seaview is chock full of them.

You find this on 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, and 17.

I prefer this type of tee shot, actually to the "see everything right out in front of you" that guys like Dr. Mackenzie (and today, Rees Jones and Jack Nicklaus) advocate.  

I'm not sure how Mackenzie could have railed against blindness and then praised the virtues of The Old Course.  

[Jim Nugent]

How many holes with blind shots did Mac design?

From watching on TV, it looks like ANGC might have at least two.  The second shot to the 8th green.  And, at least for most, the approach to #18.  Yes?

What about Lahinch?  Does it have any blind shots? 

Rich, the St. Andrews paradox shows up in a lot of top golfers.  Here's a platitude for you: it's the exception that proves the rule.   

[Mark Bourgeois]

PS--If you cannot see hazards (off the tee or otherwise) how can you consider and deploy strategies to avoid them?  Of course, if you are lucky enough to play a course a number of times you will build some sort of mind map as to what exists and where it is beyond the blindness, but given that so many golf courses (particularly the Greats) are only played once by the average travelling golfer, is this acceptable architecture?

Mr PS, I would say the fault lies in ourselves not in our star designers.

MikeC and Mr PS, I will have to check to see if Mackenzie wrote about blindness on TOC.  My view is that as he wrote in The Parable of the Coal Thief, Mackenzie wrote of the virtues of TOC in a manner of, "we take it as it comes."

He might or might not have approved of TOC-type blindness, the point is that TOC possessed many excellent aspects and we take it all together, blindness and all.

To repeat: I don't know that he praised TOC for its blindness.

Jim, for starters: 2 (tee shot) and 17 (green) at Alwoodley, 4 (tee shot) at Royal Melbourne West.  There are more...

Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

oops...I see Rich is way ahead of me on Dr. Mac's Old Course hypocr.....er...ah...um...paradox. 

Should have known. 

[Bart Bradley]

To all:

Wonderful responses and discussion, I am learning much...

First off, MacKenzie writes some interesting things about blindness on TOC hole #14...

"This hole is very nearly ideal, but would be better still if the lie of the land were such that the Beardies, the Crescent, the Kitchen and Hell Bunker were visible and impressive looking."

and then perhaps even more interesting:

"It may be, however, that it is just as well as thoese bunkers are blind.   If they had been visible, although in reality they would have been much fairer, there would have been so many players crying out that it was most unfair that bunkers should be placed in the exact positiong where perfect shots go..."

So, although, he loves TOC and praises the strategic options of #14, he certainly feels that it would have been "fairer" if theses bunkers were not blind.


Mark Bourgeois:

I really enjoyed your discussion of MacKenzie and his view of camouflage.  However, how do you reconcile your points with MacKenzie clearly stating that it is unacceptable to see the flag and not the green surface.  On what basis is he condemning this other than he finds it leads to deception that makes the hole harder?

He certainly discusses the experience of hitting heroic carry shots and wanting the hole to look harder than it plays...but is this not the opposite of the above situation?...He is actually advocating using deception to make the mental aspects of the game harder but not the physical.  IS this an important distinction?  Deception only to make it more enjoyable and not less?

Bart

[Mike_Cirba]

I find it interesting to hear an anti-socialist like Mackenzie brandishing the concept of "fairness".

He certainly had a great understanding of human nature, whatever his politics and philosophies.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bart

More good questions.  Yes I think it's that not all forms of deception are bad; there are subtle but apparently important distinctions.  Here are a couple of threads that might help flesh out the distinctions:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27606.0.html

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,26771.0.html

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,27310.0.html

As you have a fresh pair of eyes, see if any of the comments advance the subject...and report back!

Mark

[Ian_L]

What about Lahinch?  Does it have any blind shots? 

#3 tee shot
#4 second shot (over the Klondyke, completely blind to a hole with OB over the green)
#5 blind par-3 (Dell)
#6 tee shot, to a lesser degree
#7 tee shot
#17 tee shot?

It would be interesting to know which of these holes preceded Mackenzie, and whether there were others he took out.

[Bart Bradley]

Mark:

All 3 threads are interesting and germane..

After a first read the most compelling of these as it relates here is the discussion of suggesting something false vs. suppressing the truth....

I wonder what MacKenzie would say about this and I think his writing would suggest that he might also clearly condemn suggesting falsehood.

But interestingly (at least to me), I might suggest that perhaps MacKenzie would espouse suppressing the truth only in such cases where the truth is, in fact, better than what is visually suggested.  To clarify,  perhaps Mackenzie believed deception was good so long as it most likely provided the golfer a more exhilarating psychological experience or a greater "spirit of adventure".

I really struggle to figure out how to reconcile MacKenzie's views on even minimal forms of blindness and the notion that MacKenzie wanted to visually "fool" golfers such that they had worse results.  Maybe I am wrong?

What do you think of that?

Bart

[Jim Nugent]

What about Lahinch?  Does it have any blind shots? 

#3 tee shot
#4 second shot (over the Klondyke, completely blind to a hole with OB over the green)
#5 blind par-3 (Dell)
#6 tee shot, to a lesser degree
#7 tee shot
#17 tee shot?

It would be interesting to know which of these holes preceded Mackenzie, and whether there were others he took out.

Thanks.  Kind of amazing that someone who wrote so strongly against blind shots could design the Dell.  Or did Mac design that hole? 

[Bart Bradley]

Jim:

The course was first laid out in 1892 by Old Tom Morris (MacKenzie got there in 1927)...but I don't know who designed the Dell...I agree that it seems unlikely it was MacKenzie's idea.

Bart

[Mark Bourgeois]

Bart

I think the "worse results" bit wasn't what he was after; the emotional response was.  So, sure, "mentally" harder could factor in -- make no mistake, he wanted to create courses that challenged the very best, the average, and the mediocre alike -- but so, too, could easier.  There was a method to his fooling, and it was the experience, the emotional response.  That could mean harder or that could mean easier; the word Mac might have chosen instead was "heroic."

Therefore, the notion of any deceptions he employed that made a hole or shot more difficult misses the mark a bit -- IMHO.

Consider this passage from "Golf Architecture:

It is largely a question of the spirit in which the problem is approached.  Does the player look upon it from the "card and pencil" point of view and condemn anything that has disturbed his steady series of threes and fours, or does he approach the question in the "spirit of adventure" of the true sportsman?...

It does not by any means follow that when a player condemns a hole in particularly vigorous language he really dislikes it.  It may be a source of pleasure to his subconscious mind.  Although condemning it, he may be longing to play it again so as to conquer its difficulties.

Emphases added.

Also, his ideal was for match play not medal or "card and pencil" play.  This, too, should put his comments re deception and difficulty in a different light.  Another passage from "Golf Architecture":

Successfully carrying or skirting a bunker of an alarming or impressive appearance is always a source of satisfaction to the golfer, and yet it is hazards of this description which so often give rise to criticism by the unsuccessful player.  At first sight he looks upon it as grossly unfair that, of two shots within a few inches of each other, the one should be hopelessly buried in a bunker and the other should be in an ideal position.

However, on further consideration he will realize that, as in dog-legged holes, this is the chief characteristic of all good holes.

Holes of this description not only cater for great judgment, but great skill: a man who has such confidence that he can place his ball within a few feet of his objective gains a big advantage over a faint-hearted opponent who dare not take similar risks.

As far as his praise of TOC or his use of blindness in some of his designs, Mackenzie wrote there "are few, if any, ideal two or three shot holes in existence."  Apparently, he found criticism with virtually everything he saw, including his own designs: he wrote of how some of his best holes could have been improved, sometimes to the effect of improving the green's visibility. (This, even as he was a master of self-promotion.)

So: in his writings he reached for Platonic ideals in his writings, even as he recognized such ideals could not survive the real world, and might not even be "ideal" out there.

Mark

[Bart Bradley]

Mark:

I think there is a difference between hard and deceptive...Many a hole can be hard without being made harder with deception.  I don't think MacKenzie was, in any way, against having hard holes...but I don't know if he thought they should be made that way by deception?

The quotes you posted certainly point out that MacKenzie wanted to challenge the player, but do they apply to the notion that MacKenzie wanted to make his holes harder by deception?

I appreciate your input...thanks.

Bart

[Mark Bourgeois]

I don't think he wanted to make his holes harder by deception, not in a suggestio falsi sense.  As the quotes imply, he probably didn't mind making a hole play harder than it looked.  There's no shortage of holes he designed to fit that bill!

Blindness of a green wouldn't count as suggestio falsi.  Not seeing the green is suppression of sensory inputs, it's supressio veri.

By the way, where do we stand relative to your initial questions?

Mark

[Ian_L]

What about Lahinch?  Does it have any blind shots? 

#3 tee shot
#4 second shot (over the Klondyke, completely blind to a hole with OB over the green)
#5 blind par-3 (Dell)
#6 tee shot, to a lesser degree
#7 tee shot
#17 tee shot?

It would be interesting to know which of these holes preceded Mackenzie, and whether there were others he took out.

Thanks.  Kind of amazing that someone who wrote so strongly against blind shots could design the Dell.  Or did Mac design that hole? 

I'm pretty sure Old Tom Morris designed the Dell and the Klondyke.  I'm glad Mackenzie left well enough alone there.

[Kyle Henderson]

In MacKenzie's day they didn't have yardages marked on sprinkler heads, gps, range finders or yardage books. With on or more of those tools in hand, courses featuring blind approaches (e.g.Tobacco Road) are much easier to tackle.

Perhaps MacKenzie would relax his rule a bit in the modern age (or protest against use of the new tools)?

[Peter Pallotta]

Bart - I'd guess that Mackenzie's words were not written for posterity but for potential clients.  There were probably many examples of lousy blind shots around back then, most created by a previous generation of architects.  I think the good Doctor saw a chance to promote himself as the next (and best) generation....an architect for the modern age.   

Peter   

[Niall C]

Guys,

Interesting chat on MacKenzie and his use of camouflage. A few years back I played a MacKenzie course in Dunfermline (Pitreavie I think) which I suspect has seen little by way of alteration in terms of routing, greens etc since it was first built. Several of the holes had a burn in front of the green. The front lip of the burn had been built up such that the burn, which was no more than a yard wide, couldn't be seen by the approaching golfer.

I would suggest that Mac wasn't trying to confuse the golfer but rather was trying to hide the hazard. One of the holes was a down hill par 3 and as a first time visitor to the course, there was no way of knowing about the burn until you had reached the green.

This would have been one of his early courses and presumably his views on hiding hazrds changed over time or perhaps he took the view that as it was a members course, the club member would know it was there and would therefore have to deal with something they knew of but couldn't see.

Either way, I would be interested to know if he did anything similiar in his later courses.

Niall

[TEPaul]

Neil Crafter:

Apparently the thirteen principles or features or ideals that Mackenzie included in his 1920 book "Golf Architecture", including #6 on blindness, was from a collection of lectures from around 1913-14, correct?

If so, I wonder if Mackenzie altered his feelings over time or after 1920 about some of them including the use of blindness.

The reason I ask is in the mid to late 1920s MacKenzie seemed to get in league with Max Behr and some of his ideas to do with various new directions (or perhaps about some of the older ideas (TOC)---ie particularly during those Joshua Crane debates) about architecture and its future (ex future design with little or no rough).

If that's the case I wonder if the use of blindness in various forms (Behr actually explained in a general sense some the elements of appropriate forms of blindness) is one of them as Behr did write a published article in 1926 (entitled "Blindness") about how to look at certain aspects of blindness in architecture as an asset rather than a drawback.

[Rich Goodale]

Guys,

Interesting chat on MacKenzie and his use of camouflage. A few years back I played a MacKenzie course in Dunfermline (Pitreavie I think) which I suspect has seen little by way of alteration in terms of routing, greens etc since it was first built. Several of the holes had a burn in front of the green. The front lip of the burn had been built up such that the burn, which was no more than a yard wide, couldn't be seen by the approaching golfer.

I would suggest that Mac wasn't trying to confuse the golfer but rather was trying to hide the hazard. One of the holes was a down hill par 3 and as a first time visitor to the course, there was no way of knowing about the burn until you had reached the green.

This would have been one of his early courses and presumably his views on hiding hazrds changed over time or perhaps he took the view that as it was a members course, the club member would know it was there and would therefore have to deal with something they knew of but couldn't see.

Either way, I would be interested to know if he did anything similiar in his later courses.

Niall

Hi Niall

I've played Pitreavie 20-25 times (most recently in October) and have never thought of the burns being hidden, although on reflection I do see your point in that the burns naturally run below grade.  They do have yellow and red stakes, however, which should be a clue!   Most of them are also well short of the green which takes them away from your eye and makes them hazards only if you mis-hit or mis-club your shot.  I also think that the course was designed in the middle of his career (1920's) rather than at the start.  Those on this site who are working on the Mackenzie Time Line can tell you more about where it fits into his oeuvre.

Cheers and welcome aboard

Rich

Tom

Could you give us a precis about what Behr wrote in his "Blindness" essay?  Thanks in advance.

Rich

[TEPaul]

"Tom
Could you give us a precis about what Behr wrote in his "Blindness" essay?  Thanks in advance."


Well, aaah, yes indeed-do, you betchya bippy I could give you a precis about Max Behr's essay on "Blindness", Oh Magificent One, who married a pretty Scottish lass and eventually hied on over to Scotland and expatriated his homeland, The United States of America!!

Behr wrote in 1926 in an article entitled "Blindness" that the linksland, particularly TOC, offered a form of partial blindness that looked natural (because it was natural ) as the undulating, tumbling terrain is such that it allows the golfer to pick up distance as his eye wanders from one hillock to the next until it arrives at the pin. And that in that type of natural terrain the golfer can learn to play to certain points that affords him a greater or lesser degree of visibility.

Behr also contended that blindness offered a form of delay as to results that served to make a call upon intelligence (the effective dealing with both deception and mystery) both as to one's own shot as well as that of an opponent's. Behr felt the foregoing ramification and factor should not be considered objectionable but an asset (again, as it made a call upon intelligence (experience) to effectively dealing with something less than instant visual feedback).

If you are extra nice to me I may consider typing out for you Behr's entire article on blindness because it isn't all that long.