Who was the genius, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?

[DMoriarty]

I'm not ignoring that.  It is two bills, one asking for relief or a bargain,  the other for non-payment by MacKenzie's account.   They bargained for the water bill, and skipped, by MacKenzie's account, on part of his fee.

It doesn't look like bargaining.  Rather, tt sure looks like ANGC's representative was pleading for relief because of financial hardship.  Are you suggesting that ANGC's representative was lying to the water company to get a bargain on water?   That seems pretty unlikely to me.   There was also the issue of a $5000+ charge for running power lines to the property.  It was eventually paid, but not in the year it was due.

You have implied a number of times that the story about Mackenzie not being paid is only 1/2 the story.   I don't know one way or another, but I trust that Tom Doak researched this before he wrote it.   Do you have reason to believe that "Mackenzie's version" is inaccurate?  Or are you just creating the impression that perhaps the story is false without any definite reason to believe it so?   

You are not considering Jones' quote, what was built at ANGC, and the large scope and expanse of the bunkers , greens, and fairways.

Well then let me consider these . . .

The Jones Quote: Is this the Jones quote to which you refer?   

" There are two ways of widening the gap between the good tee shot and the bad one.  One is to inflict punishment upon the bad shot, to place its perpetrator in a bunker or in some other trouble which will demand the sacrifice of a stroke in recovering. The other, is to reward the good shot by making the second shot simplier in proportion to the excellence of the drive. In this way, upon the long well placed drive - possibly the one which has dared an impressive bunker - is conferred the greatest benefit;  but shots of less excellence are still left with the opportunity to retrieve their fortune by bringing off an exceptionally fine second. " -  Bobby Jones

I have no idea how you could read this as establishing that Jones was responsible for the drastic cutback in the number of bunkers at bunkers at ANGC.

- First, as Tom MacWood has established, Mackenzie had already cut way back on the number of bunkers at his Depression era designs, and this was BEFORE he ever worked with Jones.
- Second, the article is about BUNKER PLACEMENT, not the number of bunkers.    It contemplates challenging better golfers WITH BUNKERS yet most of the holes at ANGC did not even challenge the better golfer with impressive bunkers.   
- Third, like much of what Jones wrote about golf design, the ideas expressed in the quote could have come directly from Mackenzie.   (Not that I blame him for following Mackenzie's lead.  Mackenzie had good ideas, which is why Jones used him at ANGC.)   Mackenzie had been preaching the very same principles for decades.   See for example, his 13 guidelines for an ideal golf course, written when Bobby Jones was a child.
. . .
8.  There should be a sufficient number of heroic carries from the tee, but the course should be arranged so that the weaker player with the loss of a stroke or a portion of a stroke, shall always have an alternate route open to him.
. . .
10. There should be a complete absence of annoyance and irritation casued by the necessity of searching for lost golf balls.
11.  The course should be so interesting that even the scratch man is constantly stimulted to improve his game in attempting shots he he has hitherto been unable to play.
12.  The course should be so arranged that the long handicap player or even the absolute beginner should be able to enjoy his round in spite of the fact that he is piling up a big score.  In other workds the beginner should not be continually harassed by losing strokes from playing out of sand bunkers.  The layout should be arranged that he loses strokes because he is making wide detours to avoid hazards.   
. . .
As one can see, these ideas were hardly new to Mackenzie.  Nor were they inconsistent with the notion of having 80 - 100 bunkers on a course.   These ideas were primarily about bunker placement. 

What was built at ANGC?
-  Only 22 Bunkers.  20-25% of the number Mackenzie was building before the depression.  While some of these bunkers were large, Mackenzie's work usually features many very large bunkers.   So the major difference at ANGC was the number of bunkers, not the size.
-  You have repeatedly argued that the limited number of bunkers was NOT a cost saver because in your opinion the cost of the bunkers would have been high.  But Mackenzie himself disagreed with you on this point, and touted the limited number of bunkers at ANGC as a COST SAVER for both construction and maintenance:
As an indication of my of the low cost of maintenance and construction of my golf courses there are only twenty-two bunkers on Augusta National and only nineteen at Bayside
So, as to your theory, Mackenzie says it isn't so!  Do you have any reason to believe that Mackenzie was misrepresenting the relatively [b"]low cost"[/b]of construction and maintenance of the Bunkers at Augusta?  Do you have any reason to believe that Mackenzie was misrepresenting that the relatively low cost was because "there are only twenty two bunkers on" ANGC?

Because it seemd like we should put this issue to rest, or at least you should realize that your disagreement is with Mackenzie's version of what happened, not Tom MacWood's or mine.

Also, Mackenzie notes that there were only 19 bunkers at Bayside.  Bayside was designed by Mackenzie, without Jones and construction was completed before Mackenzie began designing ANGC.  Likewise, Jockey Club had no rough, wide fairways, and "a few" bunkers.  Whatever Jones' views on bunkers and rough, Mackenzie was already designing courses with NO ROUGH and FEW BUNKERS before ANGC.  So it is hard to imagine how you or anyone else can attribute these ideas to Jones.   How can you?

The large scope and expanse of the bunkers , greens, and fairways?
- As for the bunkers, their large scope was standard operating procedure for Mackenzie.   It represents no change of approach.    The cost saving change was with the NUMBER of bunkers.
- As for the fairways and greens, the newly mechanized approach allowed them to build these things at a fraction of the cost, and Mackenzie claimed he could cut down on the maintenance cost by building them right, so they drained, and with "finality."   
- Mackenzie held up ANGC as an example of a course that saved money on construction and maintenance!

Maybe we should consider the laborers being paid twice the going rate during the many months of construction.

Sure, but then we should also consider that Mackenzie was revolutionizing the use of heavy machinery, and according to Mackenzie one Caterpillar could replace 200 laborers.  That means that while Augusta was paying 50 cents more per employee per day, they were paying a lot less laborers. 

Or maybe they spent the money on the sprinkler system, or the 19th hole, or buying and shipping beach sand,  or probably underwriting some of the cost of bringing down members and potential members from New York, Baltimore, and Philadelphia by special private Pullman cars with everyone staying at the Bon-Air for the opening of the course.

According to Mackenzie, a hoseless sprinkler system was also a huge cost saver, because it could be operated with very few laborers.   Quality sand was necessary for good drainage, which in the long run would save money for maintenance and rebuilds.   Plus, they only had 22 bunkers so they saved having to import sand on 80 more.   

The Private Pullman cars had nothing to do with the construction of the golf course, nor did the 14,000+ guests.    It is obvious that their membership hopes had not gone as planned, and they were pulling out all the stops.   

The financial interest of the hotel in the success of Augusta is an interesting topic though.  Jones worked for them, ostensibly as their attorney, but it was reported that he agreed to spend multiple months each winter at the hotel, which obviously would have been quite an attraction for the establishment.   

They were not flush with money, but if you read what Jones wrote, you can see it wasn't about having a large number of bunkers.

See above.

At ANGC, MacKenzie had much fewer number but the size and extent David, wow !

 

Take a look at some of his other projects and you will be just as wowed.    The difference is with the NUMBER.

Maybe Jones had a bit of input on the ANGC course design.

 

It sure sounds like it.  But not to the extent that you are suggesting, unless you count Jones confirming that he liked what Mackenzie had already been doing.

Don't get me wrong.  I don't doubt that Jones was very important.  But you guys are ignoring what Mackenzie was doing before ANGC and also what he had written over the years.  Plus you read things into the Jones quote that are speculative at best. 

If not for the depression and economy,  how much larger would the greens and fairways have been at ANGC ?
 
You are exactly correct.  Fairways and greens (I hope) would not have been any larger.

I don't get this business of you answering my questions for me??   I wouldn't expect the greens or fairways to be larger, because their size at Augusta is consistent with his approach elsewhere.   

If not for the depression and economy,  how many more bunkers of the same size (cost) would they have been at ANGC ?

Correct again.  Probably no more bunkers than built,  if you believe Bobby Jones' statement.

[/quote]

Jones statement was about placement, not number.    I would have expected at least three or four times as many bunkers. 

As I said above, I think the depression was good for Mackenzie, as the result shows that not that many were needed. 
________________________________

John, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, but I am wondering whether anything would convince you that the change in Mackenzie's approach was related to the world wide depression?  Also, as far as I can see, neither you nor anyone else has answered a very fundamental question:

How do you explain Mackenzies change in approach BEFORE ANGC?

[john_stiles]

As to your question,   I have only seen the oft quoted statements by MacKenzie in various books. Thats all.

See title of thread and course being discussed.

Refer to the extent of the work at ANGC.

Refer to B Jones quote.

As to a drastic cutback,  what was the original number of bunkers that it was cutback from ?   The number built at Crystal Downs ?


David,

Consider all that was done at ANGC, as to the extent of features that were not cost savings of any sort.  Not just fixation on the number of bunkers.

Consider B Jones statement in a reasonable context of not placing bunkers about the course so as many errant shots ended up in a bunker.  Rather the few bunkers  challenged some to dare the impressive bunker to come close for greatest benefit.

" In this way, upon the long well placed drive - possibly the one which has dared an impressive bunker - is conferred the greatest benefit;  but shots of less excellence are still left with the opportunity to retrieve their fortune by bringing off an exceptionally fine second. "

David,

As to number  12,  on how many courses in the great sandbelts was this followed ?  Not at least at CP based on many fine photos posted.    "12.  The course should be so arranged that the long handicap player or even the absolute beginner should be able to enjoy his round in spite of the fact that he is piling up a big score.  In other workds the beginner should not be continually harassed by losing strokes from playout .... he loses strokes because he is making wide detours to avoid hazards. "

I would disagree with your implication that Jones (or MacKenzie) cut back on their design and dreams for the 18 holes because of the Deresssion, and that by implication, ANGC was better because they spent less.  Like it was by accident or something due to lack of funds. Like it was 22 because they had no more money for 28 or 36.

[DMoriarty]

John,

According to Tom Doak, Mackenzie cut back the number of bunkers from around 80-100 bunkers.  That is a dramatic cutback, wouldnt you agree?

Not sure about how many bunkers there were at Crystal Downs, but their appear to have been at least 3x the bunkers as at Augusta, and some of them were quite large.  But Mackenzie's involvement was rather brief and then Maxwell took over.  

The Jones quote is about placement, and he is not saying anything that Mackenzie had not said many times.  Mackenzie was a master at making very playable courses that looked to be heavily bunkered.  

As to Mackenzie's guideline number 12, it was most certainly followed at CPC and Pasa and Valley Club and CD and Sacramento.  I've never played a Mackenzie where it wasn't followed.   I've been told that this the case at Royal Melbourne and other Australian works as well.    You have no idea how wide the fairways are at CPC is from those photographs.    Both Jockey and Bayside reportedly had no rough and very few bunkers and so it was followed their as well.    Mackenzie was very good at using bunkers to make a hole look much harder than it actually played, to create excitement.  


It wasn't an accident that the course had so few bunkers.  It was the approach that Mackenzie took during the depression.  

You still did not answer my question.  

How do you explain why Mackenzie had already cut the number of bunkers by 75-80% BEFORE ANGC?

[Phil_the_Author]

Are there any plans, drawings, sketches, memorandum, letters or documents of any type in which it states that Mackenzie &/or Jones were planning far more bunkers than what was on the course on opening day?

[TEPaul]

Perhaps I'm mistaken but it seems to me the salient question of this thread (originally) was who was the genius who came up with the basic design concepts of ANGC? Secondly, what were those "design concepts" for which ANGC was touted?

We have always heard that ANGC was unusual for an American inland golf course in that it somehow borrowed the essential design concepts or design principles of TOC in a fruit orchard in Georgia! Is that true? I suppose it is if there is some agreement on what those "design concepts and principles" were.

It seems pretty hard to argue with the fact those "design concepts and principles" at ANGC borrowed from TOC were:

1. Width of play and width of fairways
2. The use of prevalent ground undulations (humps and hollows)
3. The strategical use of bunkering whether randomly placed (as on TOC) or as to a lesser number of bunkers or different arrangements of bunkering than previous architecture to allow for ways to play around them for all levels of player, particularly the less than expert player.
4. The use of minimal rough or at least prevalent areas where fairway and rough lines were somewhat indistinguishable.
5. Interesting greens in both angle, contours and such that required strategic thought as to how to approach them.


But now it seems the question has shifted to who was the genius who came up with the idea of a truly minimal amount of bunkers in golf architecture----eg in the case of ANGC only 22 and was that idea generated solely for economic reasons (due only to the economic depression of the 1930s?) or did it have to do with other reasons such as new and different strategical concepts (that may've been a reversion to the concepts of TOC and the reapplication elsewher of its concepts and feature arrangements)?

Once we can agree on particularly the last question it isn't that hard to sift back through documentary evidence and find the answers.

For starters, I give you these remarks from Mackenzie himself found in his book "The Spirit of St. Andrews."

"You might specify, for examle, that a contractor should construct a couple of hundred bunkers, but the worth of a golf course is not measured in terms of sand traps.
          When we advised the Royal Sydney and Australian Golf Clubs, we suggested that they shoulld convert over one hundred sand hazards on each course into grassy hollows, and I do not think we put in more than ten new ones in their place. Since these alterations have been carried out I am informed these courses have not only become more pleasurable and interesting but also better tests of golf. Max Behr has succeeded in making better golf courses with a dozen bunkers than any contractor could hope to do with hundreds of them."


Should we take MacKenzie at his word with that statement? I don't see why we shouldn't and of course the begged question is----did Max Behr do what Mackenzie said he did with minimal bunkers on golf courses before ANGC (Bayside and The Jockey Club) and before the economic depression of the 1930s and did he do it for strategical reasons or economic reasons or some degree of a combination of both?  

Should we assume from that MacKenzie remark that it was Behr who originated this idea of truly minimal bunkers on golf courses? Probably not if we are to believe what else MacKenzie said in this vein in this book "The Spirit of St. Andrews" that goes all the way back to some of John Low's original architectural thinking and applications in INLAND golf (including bunkering and its placement) around the turn of the century that were borrowed from TOC and the study of it!

It is also interesting, at least to me, that in MacKenzie's book, "The Spirit of St. Andrews", Alister does seem to lay claim to originating a number of interesting ideas and concepts and applications in golf course architecture but that neither the strategic use of bunkering nor the mimimal use of bunkering in golf architecture was one of them!

Lastly, these kinds of threads on here seem to ebb and flow in some strange ways, at least with the particular particpants on these types of threads. It seems like intransigence of opinion or position is the hallmark. I don't mean for this particular post of mine to be one of some intransigent opinion-----eg there is no necessary reason to listen to my opinion on these specific subjects but if it is MacKenzie we are discussing, it seems to me perhaps we should at least listen very carefully to HIS opinions on these subjects! 

[Tom MacWood]

Who was the genius at ANGC, Bobby Jones or Mackenzie?

TEP
This was the question posed, and clearly the answer is Mackenzie. Based on your last post it appears you are now moving away from your previous idea that it was Jones.

If you want to say Behr originally came up with the idea to maximize width in the mid-20s, or earlier, I think a case could probably be made. As far as who came up with the idea of minimal bunkering, Tom Simpson was advocating (and practicing) that idea before Behr. And both of those ideas existed when Mackenzie was building some of the most heavily bunkered courses of the golden age, in the mid- to late-20s. The fact is it took the Depression before he drastically altered his design style, and he added his own twist on those concepts with his undulating greens, bold mounding and highly mechanized construction method. It is also worth noting unlike Behr Mackenzie was intimately familiar with TOC and its strategies.

[TEPaul]

"TEP
This was the question posed, and clearly the answer is Mackenzie. Based on your last post it appears you are now moving away from your previous idea that it was Jones."


Tom MacWood:

No, I'm not moving away from my previous idea at all. All I have ever said on here is that I do not think that it is as clear to say as you seem to think it is that minimal bunkering in architecture (and at ANGC) was MacKenzie's original idea and for the reason you give (primarily the economic realities of the Depresssion).

I think the idea and concept goes farther back than the projects you cite and the interesting thing to me is MacKenzie himself appears to say exactly that in his own book, "The Spirit of St. Andrews."

Of course, it has not been lost on me that Behr very much gets into this very subject in some of his articles, primarily including his seminal article on "penalty" (penology in architecture) "The Nature and Use of Penalty in Golf Architecture" in June 1925 published in the USGA Bulletin.

I don't even believe that Behr originated this basic idea or architectural concept; I think it was essentially an accumulation of evolving ideas that reaches as far back as Alister Mackenzie basically said it did in his book (The Spirit of St. Andrews) and as other architectural books and articles of the 1920s seem to confirm. The interesting thing is in all of them the course that seems to get their attention the most throughout this entire evolution spanning thirty years (considering MacKenzie wrote that book in 1933) is TOC at St. Andrews! 

[Tom MacWood]

 In my opinion, in that particular article, and others like it, they seem to suggest the idea was Jones's and I see no particular reasons to doubt that.

TEP
You suggested that minimal bunkering at ANGC was Jones' idea. In your last post (#154) you don't even mention Jones's name, and now are trying to make the case for Behr. You are moving away from your Jones idea for good reason, there is overwelming evidence Mackenzie was experimenting with the idea before ANGC.

Is this a new revelation that TOC was a major influence on golf architecture?

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

In your post #155, it seems to me you are being a bit close minded in the short shrift you give to Bob Jones on the specific subject of what ANGC was meant to be and originally turned out to be (including a very minmal number of bunkers). Afterall, ANGC was HIS ideal golf course and not necessarily MacKenzie's ideal golf course. With that we certainly should never forget the remarkable transformation of opinion of Jones himself when it came to TOC, and we should also not forget that being the man and the golfer that he was he most certainly was not incapable of extremely prescient thinking on the subject of golf course architecture! 

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

In an earlier post on here I referred to a Aug 7, 1933 NY Times article on Bob Jones and his ideas on ANGC. I see no particular reason to assume that article is completely inaccurate on the subject of ANGC's bunkering and Jones' ideas about them. Do you?  

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

In your post #155, it seems to me you are being a bit close minded in the short shrift you give to Bob Jones on the specific subject of what ANGC was meant to be and originally turned out to be (including a very minmal number of bunkers). Afterall, ANGC was HIS ideal golf course and not necessarily MacKenzie's ideal golf course. With that we certainly should never forget the remarkable transformation of opinion of Jones himself when it came to TOC, and we should also not forget that being the man and the golfer that he was he most certainly was not incapable of extremely prescient thinking on the subject of golf course architecture! 

TEP
Are you disputing the fact that Mackenzie was experimenting with designs that featured wide fairways, minimal rough, minimal bunkers, bold mounding, large undulating greens, and mechanized construction prior to his collaboration with Jones?

[Tim Nugent]

After reading through many of these posts, I find interesting that

A) so many are fixated on the # of bunkers aspect and

B) that those actually responding to the original question all accept the premise of the question, "who was the genius?" as if it MUST be one or the other.  Frankly, I reject the premise.  The work was a collabotation.  As such, the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts.  If Jones attempted it by himself, the result would be much different (maybe better, maybe worse - who knows). Same for if Mac flew solo on it.  ANGC was the compelation of both Jones AND Mac's collective experiences.  Perhaps the Genius in the equation was they both repected what the other brought to the table.

As for A, speaking from personal experience, architects design philosphies evolve over the course of their careers.  It's folly to assume that what they did in the past is relavent to what they are doing in some future time.  Perhaps discussions with Jones "enlightened" the good Dr. as to how the very best players react to design.  Perhaps Mac was able to superimpose these thoughts on previous designs and was able to ascertain that certain elements or stategies were misplaced or not as revelant as he thought they were at the time.

The better architects seem to have been able to experience the impact of their designs on the common man over time and use that information to adapt to trends and impliment it in future designs.  This is why many designs by newbies fail.  They are just copying what others have been successful with but don't know how it got there - or why?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
Are you disputing the fact that Mackenzie was experimenting with designs that featured wide fairways, minimal rough, minimal bunkers, bold mounding, large undulating greens, and mechanized construction prior to his collaboration with Jones?"



Not at all, and I have never tried to dispute that fact. All I'm saying, and have been saying, is that MacKenzie's experimentation with minimal bunkering at The Jockey Club, Bayside and ANGC does not necessarily mean that it was MacKenzie who originally came up with that architectural idea, concept or application as you seem to have been suggesting on this thread.

[TEPaul]

"B) that those actually responding to the original question all accept the premise of the question, "who was the genius?" as if it MUST be one or the other.  Frankly, I reject the premise."


JimN:

I believe I'm with you on pretty much rejecting that premise too. It seems from many sources, including MacKenzie's own words in his own book, that the idea, concept and application of minimal or very minimal bunkering in golf architecture may not have been an idea, concept and application original to MacKenzie (or Jones).

[David Stamm]

Pardon my lateness to the party. A few observations.



1. To underestimate the dire financial situation that ANGC was in in it's infancy (and really through WWII) is a product of not knowing all the facts. As has been suggested earlier in this thread, Owens book details this very well. Not only did MacK get stiffed, so did men who had underwrote the club, some for as much as $25K (a large sum then!) with the club promising to pay them back. They never did. Owens own research turned up many bills that were owed to local merchants that were never paid, including one for toilet paper! The club was indeed in dire straits. IMHO, to think that the course was not compromised by this situation would be erroneous. How could it not?


2. IMO, I think if anything, Jones role was OVERESTIMATED in the project. Roberts had chided AM for not expressing in his early ANGC writings Jones having a larger role in the project in the beginning. Why? Roberts needed Jones name to be front and center to sell the memberships that they badly needed to save the club. Jones himself said playing top level golf did not mean one knew how to design a course. Did Jones contribute? Sure, but AM was giving them an education in architecture (Roberts own words, I beleive).


3. I have played 3 AM courses and all are very generously bunkered. 2 of these courses were places that Jones had seen. His comments were that when he returned to Georgia that he knew he had found his architect. Was the bunkering the only reason? Of course not, but knowing the kind of courses that AM was designing, why would he want something that AM was just not doing at the time? It would be akin to meeting Enzo Ferrari and seeing his work and then commenting that you had found the man that you wanted to build an sub-compact. Is it possible that the course would not have had as many bunkers even if the economy was better? Sure, but I think the impact of the economy and the cost of labor surely somewhat played into AM's design freedom. 

[Tom MacWood]

"TEP
Are you disputing the fact that Mackenzie was experimenting with designs that featured wide fairways, minimal rough, minimal bunkers, bold mounding, large undulating greens, and mechanized construction prior to his collaboration with Jones?"



Not at all, and I have never tried to dispute that fact. All I'm saying, and have been saying, is that MacKenzie's experimentation with minimal bunkering at The Jockey Club, Bayside and ANGC does not necessarily mean that it was MacKenzie who originally came up with that architectural idea, concept or application as you seem to have been suggesting on this thread.

TEP
The question was who was the genius behind ANGC's inovated design - Jones or Mackenzie? How the hell could it be Jones if Mackenzie brought the idea with him?

[TEPaul]

"TEP
The question was who was the genius behind ANGC's inovated design - Jones or Mackenzie? How the hell could it be Jones if Mackenzie brought the idea with him?"


Tom MacWood:

Brought what idea with him? Minimal bunkering? How do you know that was MacKenzie's original idea? Are you saying that only because of your recent fixation on MacKenzie's Jockey Club and Bayside? Why don't you at least start by reading what MacKenzie had to say about that particular item in his own book?

By the way, his own book I'm referring to, "The Spirit of St. Andrews" was written right around the same time all these newspaper articles that have been referred to on here on ANGC were written.

The only difference between "The Spirit of St. Andrews" and those old newspaper articles is the manuscript of The Spirit of St Andrews was not published until 1995!  

[DMoriarty]

Are there any plans, drawings, sketches, memorandum, letters or documents of any type in which it states that Mackenzie &/or Jones were planning far more bunkers than what was on the course on opening day?

Phillip, A good question.  I am not sure of the answer but I think other previous plans were mentioned earlier in the thread.  Regardless, I am not sure the issue hinges on this.   Mackenzie had already gone into his Depression Era economic efficiency and cost saving mode before he designed ANGC and had already drastically back on the numbers of bunkers at Bayside and Jockey Club.   By the time he became involved at Augusta the depression was well under way.  So it wouldn't surprise me if the design was for fewer bunkers from the beginning.
------------------------

Shut Up Stamm.  This is no place for astute and reasonable observations.

While I don't doubt that Jones contributed, I think we tend to overlook that his largest contribution to any project was his name and reputation and the goodwill it created.   I'm not trying to diminish his knowledge or appreciation of design,  but that shouldn't blind us to the fact that in the early 30's he was a mega-celebrity, NYC ticker tape parade worthy, and as an amateur with social status, education, intellect, and charm he had to have seemed to be almost a Second Coming to the monied classes up and down the East Coast.

And let's not forget that he had Grantland Rice, a respected reporter, as his own personal P.R. representativethe and that Rice had an economic stake in the success of the project. So when we read about "Bobby's ideal course" or "Bobby emulating his favorite holes" or Bobby's extensive involvement with the design, we should keep in mind that these articles and letters had tremendous marketing value, and it was in everyone's best interest (including Mackenzie's) to portray Jones as being intimately involved inevery aspect of the project.   

[TEPaul]

On the idea, concept or application of minimal bunkering in golf architecture I wonder why this interesting remark from Alister MacKenzie HIMSLEF in his own manuscript from 1933 (same time as all the articles and opening referred to on here on ANGC and its minimal bunkering was taking place) is being ignored and overlooked on this thread and this discussion!  





"You might specify, for example, that a contractor should construct a couple of hundred bunkers, but the worth of a golf course is not measured in terms of sand traps.
          When we advised the Royal Sydney and Australian Golf Clubs, we suggested that they shoulld convert over one hundred sand hazards on each course into grassy hollows, and I do not think we put in more than ten new ones in their place. Since these alterations have been carried out I am informed these courses have not only become more pleasurable and interesting but also better tests of golf. Max Behr has succeeded in making better golf courses with a dozen bunkers than any contractor could hope to do with hundreds of them."



Obviously the appropriate question to this particular thread's subject (or one of them---eg the origination of minimal bunkering) is whether MacKenzie is referring to architectural work with very minimal bunkering Behr did BEFORE the economic depression of the 1930s and before MacKenzie's Jockey Club or Bayside? If so that would sort of take out MacKenzie as the originator of that particular idea as it would take out the economic depression of the 1930s as the primary REASON for that idea, concept and application!


"Timelining" is a real bitch, isn't it? 

[David Stamm]

Are there any plans, drawings, sketches, memorandum, letters or documents of any type in which it states that Mackenzie &/or Jones were planning far more bunkers than what was on the course on opening day?

 ------------------------

Shut Up Stamm.  This is no place for astute and reasonable observations.

 

I'll try to not let it happen again. 

[Tom MacWood]

"You might specify, for example, that a contractor should construct a couple of hundred bunkers, but the worth of a golf course is not measured in terms of sand traps.
          When we advised the Royal Sydney and Australian Golf Clubs, we suggested that they shoulld convert over one hundred sand hazards on each course into grassy hollows, and I do not think we put in more than ten new ones in their place. Since these alterations have been carried out I am informed these courses have not only become more pleasurable and interesting but also better tests of golf. Max Behr has succeeded in making better golf courses with a dozen bunkers than any contractor could hope to do with hundreds of them."

Obviously the appropriate question to this particular thread's subject (or one of them---eg the origination of minimal bunkering) is whether MacKenzie is referring to architectural work with very minimal bunkering Behr did BEFORE the economic depression of the 1930s and before MacKenzie's Jockey Club or Bayside? If so that would sort of take out MacKenzie as the originator of that particular idea as it would take out the economic depression of the 1930s as the primary REASON for that idea, concept and application!


"Timelining" is a real bitch, isn't it?  

TEP
Mackenzie may have only added no more than 10 new bunkers at RSGC, but that doesn't mean the course was minimally bunkered. When Mackenzie was done remodelling Royal Sidney there was in excess of 100 bunkers remaining. I believe the course originally had 200 to 300 bunkers. The Australian GC was no minimally bunkered course either when he was done. Along those lines when he says Behr succeeded in making a better course with 12 bunkers he is saying 12 new bunkers to an exsiting golf course. To my knowledge Berh never designed a golf course with only 12 bunkers.

When anaylsing historical accounts it helps to have a basic understanding of what actually happened in Australia and/or California at the time, otherwise you're bound to misinterpret things.  

[DMoriarty]

 Tom Paul,

In 1933 Mackenzie gave Behr as an example of someone who was building quality courses with less bunkers.  So what?   You cannot conclude from this that Behr must have been behind Mackenzie's more economical approach toward creating golf courses.  As is often the case, you take what is barely the kernel of an idea, one more based on more of an allusion or an assumption than on any real support, and yet expect us to treat it like a full blown thesis that has been fully articulated and proven.   And so, we aren't ignoring your theory.  There isn't enough substance behind your theory for us to even ignore it.   Give us a theory supported by facts and we might not ignore it.   

Isn't it about time you realized that this is not really the place for pontificating wildly without bothering to even try to support your off-the-cuff notions?   Off-the-cuff pontifications add little value to the discussion, especially when you repeatedly demand that we acknowledge them.  If you have a case to make, make it.  If you have a theory to present, present it, with support.   But so far you haven't even remotely begun to do so.  Let me help:
- What courses of Max Behr's is Mackenzie referring to?   
- How many bunkers did they really have?
- What were the size of the bunkers?
- Why did they have so few bunkers?
- When were they built?
- When did Mackenzie see them?
- What did Mackenzie and others write about them elsewhere?   
- What did Behr write about these courses?
- How do you know it was Behr who was influencing Mackenzie, and not someone else or the other way around.
- What about all the others who had been advocating a judicious use of bunkers, from the turn of the century on?
- What about the fact that Mackenzie also points to his own work when talking about reducing the number of bunkers?
- What about the fact that Mackenzie had been writing about the judicious use of bunkers for decades?

Also, there appear to be more immediate explanations for Mackenzie's change.   The depression and his sudden focus on the economical creation and maintenance  for one thing.    A logical extension (in the extreme) of his own ideas on hazards, rough, and naturalism for another.   Plus their are others who may well have influenced him.   Take for example, his own design partner, Perry Maxwell.    Maxwell claimed their were only six man-made bunkers at his Holston Hills, and that the entire 18 hole course cost $3,000 per year to maintain.  He also claimed that courses needed only 20-25 artificial bunkers.   I may be mistaken but I believe that it preceded any of Behr's design work.   

So, Tom, if you want to make a case for Behr as the progenitor of all things good in golf design, then do some research and make your case.   Enough with the idle speculation and sonorous pontification.

By the way, Tom, I've read his work but I've only played a few Max Behr courses so I am not an expert on Max Behr like you.   How many Max Behr courses have you played?    The reason I ask is because there seems to be a disconnect between what you write about him and my understanding of what was actually in the ground.

[TEPaul]

“Along those lines when he says Behr succeeded in making a better course with 12 bunkers he is saying 12 new bunkers to an exsiting golf course. To my knowledge Berh never designed a golf course with only 12 bunkers.

When anaylsing historical accounts it helps to have a basic understanding of what actually happened in Australia and/or California at the time, otherwise you're bound to misinterpret things.”


Tom MacWood:

When it came to Behr and minimal bunkering, again, here is what MacKenzie said in his “The Spirit of St. Andrews.”


“Max Behr has succeeded in making better golf courses with a dozen bunkers than any contractor could hope to do with hundreds of them." 

What does that sound like to you? Does it sound like he meant Behr was adding a dozen new bunkers when any contractor might ADD hundreds of them?   


I'm not in the least trying to suggest that the idea of very minimal bunkering in golf architecture was an idea that was originated by Behr; as I have said on here a number of times I think it was an idea that was in the works for quite some time and from a few other architects for reasons that did not just relate to economic considerations only (even though economic considerations did seem to be a part of their thinking and long before the economic depression of the 1930s. Economic efficiencies in architecture, agronomy, maintenance practices etc were also part of the thinking and writing of many others, including Robert Hunter, George Thomas and even the letters of Hugh and Alan Wilson and the articles of William Flynn. To think the subject and concern for greater economic efficiency or reduced cost is something that just cropped up in the Depression of the 1930s is just plain naive and smacks of a lack of research and proper analysis). A close reading of particularly Behr's June 1925 article "The Nature and Use of Penalty in Golf Architecture" makes that pretty clear, including strategic reasons not to get into redundant bunkering.

But for a more general understanding of the idea and its history I feel there is enough on the subject that can be found in what MacKenzie himself wrote in his 1933 "The Spirit of St. Andrews."

But if you want to ignore it, dismiss it, fail to consider it or whatever, that's fine with me. I don't think many of us look at a lot of this stuff via the selective theories of Tom MacWood because he thinks he has discovered something heretofore unknown or unrealized, and for whatever reasons just can't seem to let it go and face historical reality.

Frankly, I think some of the best analyses done on a lot of this general subject comes from two recent essays done by Bob Crosby---one entitled "Joshua Crane" and the other "John Low." I think Bob puts it all in the proper evolutionary architectural context it deserves to be put into for a far clearer and more accurate understanding of what happened, when, why, how and by whom.

[Tom MacWood]

TEP
You have to understand the context of his comments. In this one paragraph Mackenzie said he made heavily RSGC better by reducing the large number of unnecessary bunkers and added only 10 new bunkers; he did not say when he was finished there was only 10 bunkers. Likewise, he goes on to say Behr made a course better with the addition of only a dozen bunkers; he is not saying there were only a dozen bunkers in total on the golf course.

One of the problems you have (and frankly Bob does too) in interpreting these comments is your lack of knowledge of Mackenzie and Berh's design careers. And by the way the question on this thread is who was responsible for the concept at ANGC - Jones or Mackenzie, not Jones or Mackenzie or Behr. If you want to discuss Berh you should start a new thread.

[TEPaul]

"Likewise, he goes on to say Behr made a course better with the addition of only a dozen bunkers; he is not saying there were only a dozen bunkers in total on the golf course."


In "The Spirit of St. Andrews" did MacKenzie say what you just said above?

It seems to me you added a word or more to what MacKenzie actually DID say.  


Furthermore, to even try to use your "context" of what Mackenzie was saying about Behr, what golf course are you aware of where a contractor came in and ADDED hundreds of bunkers to an existing golf course?  

Not that many golf courses in the history of golf architecture even had HUNDREDS of bunkers at any time.