Routing for the future: Mackenzie

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff

I am with you.  In a tight area of a course the worst thing to do is create blindness with trees or leave an area naturally blind.  Its just too dangerous not to be able to see and be aware of what is going on in ultra tight situations.  I will never ever forget the insanity at Painswick with the back to back par 5s hitting into each other blind.  This has to be the most negligent bit of design I have ever come across.  Yet, if I could see the chaps on a tee hitting toward me I wouldn't have had nearly the same problem with the design.

Ciao

Someone wasn't following the rules of the road at Painswick.  On all those intersecting and jointly used fairways, the inbound group has the right of way.  If you were on #8 you should have been off to one side while the group on #9 played down the fairway.  Otherwise it really would be dangerous there. 

Bill

Great idea, but you can't see the folks on #9 tee.  Is one meant to stand aside from the moment the group ahead disappears?  I never shy away from blind holes, but in this instance it is a most ridiculous and dangerous use of blindness.  To cap it off, it isn't at all necessary as the hole is in no way better for it.  #9 could be a better hole as a par 4 with the tee moved forward, bring the cool swale area well short of the green in play off the drive.  The tee shot is a bit of waste of time as it is now.  The oob right causes folks to aim out left into what is essentially a field - causing great danger to the folks on #8.  Sorry Bill, I ain't buying the Painswick creed in this instance.  

Ciao

My impression of Painswick after five rounds there is that those who it play it understand the dangers inherent in a routing with shared fairways and follow the rules of the road and are pretty cautious about getting hit.  They would, for example, be aware that the group they had been following most of the front nine were finishing #8 and would soon be teeing off back at them on #9.  This would generate some caution out in the 8th fairway.

It's a pretty unique situation, not applicable to much of real life golf. 

[Philip Spogard]

I am not entirely sure but I think I am standing on the back tee taking the photo (I don't recall a tee further back than that).

The trees are a real shame - but what is almost worse is that they are in more or less exact rows. These could easily be broken up without impacting on the safety.

[Philip Spogard]

I just found this photo showing the fence on hole 8 as seen from the tee.

[Sean_A]

Jeff

I am with you.  In a tight area of a course the worst thing to do is create blindness with trees or leave an area naturally blind.  Its just too dangerous not to be able to see and be aware of what is going on in ultra tight situations.  I will never ever forget the insanity at Painswick with the back to back par 5s hitting into each other blind.  This has to be the most negligent bit of design I have ever come across.  Yet, if I could see the chaps on a tee hitting toward me I wouldn't have had nearly the same problem with the design.

Ciao

Someone wasn't following the rules of the road at Painswick.  On all those intersecting and jointly used fairways, the inbound group has the right of way.  If you were on #8 you should have been off to one side while the group on #9 played down the fairway.  Otherwise it really would be dangerous there. 

Bill

Great idea, but you can't see the folks on #9 tee.  Is one meant to stand aside from the moment the group ahead disappears?  I never shy away from blind holes, but in this instance it is a most ridiculous and dangerous use of blindness.  To cap it off, it isn't at all necessary as the hole is in no way better for it.  #9 could be a better hole as a par 4 with the tee moved forward, bring the cool swale area well short of the green in play off the drive.  The tee shot is a bit of waste of time as it is now.  The oob right causes folks to aim out left into what is essentially a field - causing great danger to the folks on #8.  Sorry Bill, I ain't buying the Painswick creed in this instance.  

Ciao

My impression of Painswick after five rounds there is that those who it play it understand the dangers inherent in a routing with shared fairways and follow the rules of the road and are pretty cautious about getting hit.  They would, for example, be aware that the group they had been following most of the front nine were finishing #8 and would soon be teeing off back at them on #9.  This would generate some caution out in the 8th fairway.

It's a pretty unique situation, not applicable to much of real life golf. 

Bill

Caution is great, but if a guy is hitting a ball at me I would think the best precaution I could take is to watch him.  No, I can't agree that the 8th & 9th do anything for me in the current situation.  One aspect not mentioned is the backup waiting for the guys on the 9th to appear before approaching #8 - it is a reachable par 5.  The oob long and right encourages a fade into that green.  guess what, that means you are aiming right out near the 9th tee.  Of course this means, to be safe, folks need to wait until eye contact is made each way.  Guess what 2, I have been there a handful of times and the only time I felt safe is when nobody was in front or behind.  I have been bombed out in the 8th fairway and down near the 9th tee.  The simple truth is, even if folks are ultra prudent (which a great many aren't), its a VERY dangerous setup.  What is worse is that at least half the problem can be alleviated and for some reason apparently more important than basic safety, the club hasn't done anything.

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Jeff

I am with you.  In a tight area of a course the worst thing to do is create blindness with trees or leave an area naturally blind.  Its just too dangerous not to be able to see and be aware of what is going on in ultra tight situations.  I will never ever forget the insanity at Painswick with the back to back par 5s hitting into each other blind.  This has to be the most negligent bit of design I have ever come across.  Yet, if I could see the chaps on a tee hitting toward me I wouldn't have had nearly the same problem with the design.

Ciao

Someone wasn't following the rules of the road at Painswick.  On all those intersecting and jointly used fairways, the inbound group has the right of way.  If you were on #8 you should have been off to one side while the group on #9 played down the fairway.  Otherwise it really would be dangerous there. 

Bill

Great idea, but you can't see the folks on #9 tee.  Is one meant to stand aside from the moment the group ahead disappears?  I never shy away from blind holes, but in this instance it is a most ridiculous and dangerous use of blindness.  To cap it off, it isn't at all necessary as the hole is in no way better for it.  #9 could be a better hole as a par 4 with the tee moved forward, bring the cool swale area well short of the green in play off the drive.  The tee shot is a bit of waste of time as it is now.  The oob right causes folks to aim out left into what is essentially a field - causing great danger to the folks on #8.  Sorry Bill, I ain't buying the Painswick creed in this instance.  

Ciao

My impression of Painswick after five rounds there is that those who it play it understand the dangers inherent in a routing with shared fairways and follow the rules of the road and are pretty cautious about getting hit.  They would, for example, be aware that the group they had been following most of the front nine were finishing #8 and would soon be teeing off back at them on #9.  This would generate some caution out in the 8th fairway.

It's a pretty unique situation, not applicable to much of real life golf. 

Bill

Caution is great, but if a guy is hitting a ball at me I would think the best precaution I could take is to watch him.  No, I can't agree that the 8th & 9th do anything for me in the current situation.  One aspect not mentioned is the backup waiting for the guys on the 9th to appear before approaching #8 - it is a reachable par 5.  The oob long and right encourages a fade into that green.  guess what, that means you are aiming right out near the 9th tee.  Of course this means, to be safe, folks need to wait until eye contact is made each way.  Guess what 2, I have been there a handful of times and the only time I felt safe is when nobody was in front or behind.  I have been bombed out in the 8th fairway and down near the 9th tee.  The simple truth is, even if folks are ultra prudent (which a great many aren't), its a VERY dangerous setup.  What is worse is that at least half the problem can be alleviated and for some reason apparently more important than basic safety, the club hasn't done anything.

Ciao

What do you thin the club can do beyond giving inward players the right of way?

[Tom Huckaby]

Regarding Pasatiempo, a little birdie told me the club was doing serious study regarding the trees on both sides of 7, with the goal of ascertaining which might be removed with safety being maintained.  But perhaps Rob Chestnut can comment... little birdies are notorious rumor-mongers.

In any case, is 7 too heavily treed?  Yes.  But someone put up a picture from 5 years ago.. it was worse....

So progress is being made.  In any case it remains a problematic set of holes, the constant bugaboo for Pasatiempo.

But should MacKenzie have foreseen crowded courses and unaware golfers?  That's a very tough expectation.  The world was quite different in his times.

TH

[Neil_Crafter]

Jeff
I think the letter from Gibbs shows that Mackenzie seemed somewhat oblivious to the safety impacts of roadways and houses and there is little doubt that holes 6, 7 and 8 got compacted together, with the result being what we see today. An earlier report from Gibbs in October 1928 indicated that in Mackenzie's first plan there were houses inside the golf course but these were dropped as Gibbs considered this housing area too small and difficult to develop, and so were supposed to be eliminated in future versions of the plan. However, looking at the 1929 Olmsted plan of Pasatiempo included in the club's history book, it appears there were two largeish lots included internal to the course, between the 8th and the 2nd, and between the 6th and the 4th tee. The street that accesses these houses is called Bird Hill Lane, and if these houses were not there, 6, 7 and 8 could have been spread out more. However, by the sound of what Gibbs says, these lots internal to the course were not forced onto Mackenzie.

Jim
I know that Gibbs did not specifically speak of the safety issues at 6,7 & 8, but I thought his comments about Mackenzie's views on roadways etc were instructive as to how he approached the planning of the course.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm trying to think why the golf industry is so sensitive to this when by far and away the most dangerous thing we do is jump in our car everday and drive to work.  We have tens of thousands killed every year in car wrecks but we don't just shut down highways and ban cars do we??

Hell more people died last year from slipping and falling in the shower than getting beamed with a golf ball.  I just don't get this knee jerk reaction to all of a sudden an architect is getting thier pants sued off cause someone hit a nasty quack hook on a golf hole. Just seems like a hasty over-reaction.

While were at it, why stop there. Last I checked, living is hazardous to ones health as 100% of people who live eventually die!  So why not just sue our parents right now because by them getting feisty after having too many tequilas one night, it led to your birth and eventual unavoidable death...

[Sean_A]

Jeff

I am with you.  In a tight area of a course the worst thing to do is create blindness with trees or leave an area naturally blind.  Its just too dangerous not to be able to see and be aware of what is going on in ultra tight situations.  I will never ever forget the insanity at Painswick with the back to back par 5s hitting into each other blind.  This has to be the most negligent bit of design I have ever come across.  Yet, if I could see the chaps on a tee hitting toward me I wouldn't have had nearly the same problem with the design.

Ciao

Someone wasn't following the rules of the road at Painswick.  On all those intersecting and jointly used fairways, the inbound group has the right of way.  If you were on #8 you should have been off to one side while the group on #9 played down the fairway.  Otherwise it really would be dangerous there. 

Bill

Great idea, but you can't see the folks on #9 tee.  Is one meant to stand aside from the moment the group ahead disappears?  I never shy away from blind holes, but in this instance it is a most ridiculous and dangerous use of blindness.  To cap it off, it isn't at all necessary as the hole is in no way better for it.  #9 could be a better hole as a par 4 with the tee moved forward, bring the cool swale area well short of the green in play off the drive.  The tee shot is a bit of waste of time as it is now.  The oob right causes folks to aim out left into what is essentially a field - causing great danger to the folks on #8.  Sorry Bill, I ain't buying the Painswick creed in this instance.  

Ciao

My impression of Painswick after five rounds there is that those who it play it understand the dangers inherent in a routing with shared fairways and follow the rules of the road and are pretty cautious about getting hit.  They would, for example, be aware that the group they had been following most of the front nine were finishing #8 and would soon be teeing off back at them on #9.  This would generate some caution out in the 8th fairway.

It's a pretty unique situation, not applicable to much of real life golf. 

Bill

Caution is great, but if a guy is hitting a ball at me I would think the best precaution I could take is to watch him.  No, I can't agree that the 8th & 9th do anything for me in the current situation.  One aspect not mentioned is the backup waiting for the guys on the 9th to appear before approaching #8 - it is a reachable par 5.  The oob long and right encourages a fade into that green.  guess what, that means you are aiming right out near the 9th tee.  Of course this means, to be safe, folks need to wait until eye contact is made each way.  Guess what 2, I have been there a handful of times and the only time I felt safe is when nobody was in front or behind.  I have been bombed out in the 8th fairway and down near the 9th tee.  The simple truth is, even if folks are ultra prudent (which a great many aren't), its a VERY dangerous setup.  What is worse is that at least half the problem can be alleviated and for some reason apparently more important than basic safety, the club hasn't done anything.

Ciao

What do you thin the club can do beyond giving inward players the right of way?

Bill

If it was me, I would create the 9th tee to the right (looking toward the 8th green) of the 8th fairway near oob in sight of those coming forward on #8 - thus making it a dogleg left long par 4.  I saw just the spot for such a tee.  Players could then exit the 8th green right and head straight back up the hill.  I know it causes a bit of a walk to the forward tee, but at least its walking toward home and its safer.  Just to bring Painswick somewhere into the current age and because the 8th and 9th fairways are basically just a field and they feel that way (probably the worst area of the course), I would slap in a few centreline bunkers down the middleish. 

Ciao

[Tyler Kearns]

I also understand that Mackenzie's Bay Area courses at Claremont and Green Hills are extremely tight (and dangerous) in spots, and that changes are currently underway at Royal Melbourne to resolve some safety issues.

Jeff,

At Claremont, one hole north of the road bisects 2 others, directly in front of a tee and a green. On the south side of the road, a par three plays across another fairway. Seems quaint on a private estate course, but I can imagine the delays during regular or tournament play.

TK

[Tom Huckaby]

Re Claremont, I have played it ONLY in tournaments... and none of those crossing holes caused any delay.  The key is the crossing occur near tees... you can always see where everyone is... it really works better than one might think on the surface.

I think Claremont is a pretty ingenius use of a tiny amount of land.

TH

[Jeff_Mingay]

Jeff,

At Claremont, one hole north of the road bisects 2 others, directly in front of a tee and a green. On the south side of the road, a par three plays across another fairway. Seems quaint on a private estate course, but I can imagine the delays during regular or tournament play.

TK

Tyler,

I heard this story while I was in the Bay Area. I also heard, for daily member play, Claremont "works", which is kinda neat.

I wish I had more time, I definitely would have visited Claremont to see this unique routing in person. And, Jim Urbina recently finished bunker work, etc. there.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jeff - see above - my experience was that Claremont worked in tournament play also.

It is a very neat, very fun golf course.

TH

[TEPaul]

Neil:

I think that's a wonderfully informative letter you produced on post #14 about how Mackenzie felt about roads and such very near or in play.

Yesterday I was reading a book entitled "Golf In America" from 1895 and it certainly seems architects back then were hardly ever trying to avoid existing roads, railroads, stone walls etc. They seemed to view them as excellent natural features to be used in golf holes.

It seems Macdonald did the same as did original Merion East, some of Tillinghast's courses so it doesn't surprise me at all that Mackenzie did the same.

[Jeff_Mingay]

Tom,

Roads, railroads, stone walls, property lines, even buildings in some cases, are wonderful features to incorporate into golf course designs, aren't they. Such features inject character and distinction. But, as you know, it's really difficult to make this type of stuff work these days.

Didn't Coore and Crenshaw have to build a new green at that really cool "boundary hole" at East Hampton GC, which appears to have been modeled after the famous fourth at Woking, recently? To take play away from the property line, there.