Is Alistair MacKenzie the MOST overrated architect of all time?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

The simplest question yet on this site......NO

[Ben Sims]

JC,

Dude, I enjoy bantering with you as much as the next guy.  And creative thinking is lacking in our homogeneous society.  

But if I started a thread asking if the sky was yellow and someone told me I was in left field and then I defended it as "challenging the status quo" and not accepting "group think".  You know good and well you'd be here to tell me I was being a dumbass.

In this instance, the question is unreasonable.  Alister MacKenzie was not the most overrated architect of all time.  And asking me to defend that statement is like asking me to defend that the sky is blue.  

In other words, banging your head against a wall is against the status quo, but it's not accomplishing anything.

[Mark Pearce]

FBD,

A brilliant answer but wasted on most.  Pitreavie is, indeed, a perfect answer to this asinine question.

[JC Jones]

JC,

Dude, I enjoy bantering with you as much as the next guy.  And creative thinking is lacking in our homogeneous society.  

But if I started a thread asking if the sky was yellow and someone told me I was in left field and then I defended it as "challenging the status quo" and not accepting "group think".  You know good and well you'd be here to tell me I was being a dumbass.

In this instance, the question is unreasonable.  Alister MacKenzie was not the most overrated architect of all time.  And asking me to defend that statement is like asking me to defend that the sky is blue.  

In other words, banging your head against a wall is against the status quo, but it's not accomplishing anything.

Sometimes you have to aim 15 feet left of the green to get closer to the hole than aiming right at the pin.

[Bill_McBride]

JC, how many Mackenzie courses have you played?

If you are posing the question above because you've played Crystal Downs and perhaps Maxwell doesn't get enough credit, that's understandable.

But there's a lot more Mackenzie out there, and I have seldom had such a wonderful feeling of serenity and unity with nature as I have had on his courses.  These courses are fun, challenging, creative, inspirational, and more integrated into the natural setting -- whether it's the heathland of Leeds or the rugged coastline of Pebble Beach -- than any other courses I've ever played.

Overrated?  I don't think so.

[Matthew Petersen]

It feels to me that this is much less a question about the good doctor and far more about the old argument over attribution and who deserves credit for a design.

[Scott Warren]

What do Robert Hunter, Alec Russell and Perry Maxwell have in common? And where is the list of world-class courses they designed before meeting Alister MacKenzie?

It would be amazing that so many great courses were created with the same common link were that common link "the most overrated architect of all time".

[Eric Smith]

All I know is all I know, [which ain't much - 2 Dr. MacKenzie courses played] but IMO he is the greatest. Having recently reread The Spirit of St. Andrews, I am reminded of my pre GCA days affinity for MacKenzie and feel he is indeed worthy of being deified by the cognoscenti. His knowledge of camouflage, his desire to use the best of what nature had to offer and the many great sites he was able to work with yielded a portfolio of golf courses that are to this day considered to be among the very best in the world. Of all the architects, his are the courses I would like to see most.

Bill McBride's made a nice post above and I know he loves MacKenzie courses and he's seen a bunch of them so I'm going to agree with my friend and say that I do not think he is overrated.

[DMoriarty]

Cypress is Dr. MacKenzie... The way the course blends into the natural terrain, the camouflage bunkering, and the great green complexes. Yes Hunter, Hollins, and a few others had a major impact on the final product but Cypress is truly Dr. MacKenzie's masterpiece. I've seen several different routings of the Point and Dr. MacKenzie would have done it very similar to the way Raynor drew it up. The changes Dr. MacKenzie made resulted in some of the most brilliant holes on the golf course.

I agree that the place sure feels like MacKenzie's course, although I suspect that this would have been the case regardless of whether some of the routing was in place before MacKenzie became involved. 

I don't suppose you can elaborate on seeing "several different routings of the Point" and on "the way Raynor drew it up?"
I think I have seen three routings (actually photos of them) but they all had MacKenzie's name on them. 

[Mac Plumart]

FBD,

A brilliant answer but wasted on most.  Pitreavie is, indeed, a perfect answer to this asinine question.

Mark, FBD's answer wasn't wasted on me (and many others I'm sure).  I haven't played the course you mention, but the gist of that post was that you can see Mackenzie's genius in his lesser known designs.  Frankly, that post enhances my motivations to get out and see more of his (and other architects) lesser known courses.

[Carl Nichols]

What do Robert Hunter, Alec Russell and Perry Maxwell have in common? And where is the list of world-class courses they designed before meeting Alister MacKenzie?

It would be amazing that so many great courses were created with the same common link were that common link "the most overrated architect of all time".

And Luther Koontz......

[Neil_Crafter]

No, he is not.

[JC Jones]

Is there a difference between fact and opinion?  Is the sky being yellow arguing against a fact or an opinion?

I thought all of this was subjective and there were no truths.  Big World Theory Baby.  My opinions are my truths and your opinions are your truths. 

Where is Shivas with the GCA Hypocrisy thread

By the way, I think the courses attributed to MacKenzie are fantastic.  Maybe Nicklaus should write a book on architecture philosophy.

[Peter Pallotta]

JC - go figure. A lot of smart guys who know their stuff won't give you an inch because they think you're trying to take a mile; when what I see is an interesting question (I posed a couple that I thought were pretty good too) meant to engender thoughtful discussion...on a discussion board of all places. And yet posters will take to 20 pages and 500 posts yet another banal version of some "what is the best" bunch of b.s. that engenders nothing but a whole bunch of meaningless "lists" that lead no where and mean nothing.  I think I'm going to start a thread: "Best Par 4s followed by Par 3s in which the Par 4 is better than the Par 3, but where neither is better than the Par 5 that comes before them both, on the east coast only, and only from private courses designed by Macdonald or Mackenzie (but not Raynor) that you have personally played at least 3 times, once while wearing a fedora or a garter belt".  If it gets more than two responses I'm quitting.

Blah.

Peter    

[JC Jones]

JC - go figure. A lot of smart guys who know their stuff won't give you an inch because they think you're trying to take a mile; when what I see is an interesting question (I posed a couple that I thought were pretty good too) meant to engender thoughtful discussion...on a discussion board of all places. And yet posters will take to 20 pages and 500 posts yet another banal version of some "what is the best" bunch of b.s. that engenders nothing but a whole bunch of meaningless "lists" that lead no where and mean nothing.  I think I'm going to start a thread: "Best Par 4s followed by Par 3s in which the Par 4 is better than the Par 3, but where neither is better than the Par 5 that comes before them both, on the east coast only, and only from private courses designed by Macdonald or Mackenzie (but not Raynor) that you have personally played at least 3 times, once while wearing a fedora or a garter belt".  If it gets more than two responses I'm quitting.

Blah.

Peter    

This is the best post I've ever read on this site.  You are one in a billion. 

By the way, I am not into yoga and I have half a brain.

[Matt Day]

this thread isn't in any way related to today's date??

[JNC Lyon]

JC - go figure. A lot of smart guys who know their stuff won't give you an inch because they think you're trying to take a mile; when what I see is an interesting question (I posed a couple that I thought were pretty good too) meant to engender thoughtful discussion...on a discussion board of all places. And yet posters will take to 20 pages and 500 posts yet another banal version of some "what is the best" bunch of b.s. that engenders nothing but a whole bunch of meaningless "lists" that lead no where and mean nothing.  I think I'm going to start a thread: "Best Par 4s followed by Par 3s in which the Par 4 is better than the Par 3, but where neither is better than the Par 5 that comes before them both, on the east coast only, and only from private courses designed by Macdonald or Mackenzie (but not Raynor) that you have personally played at least 3 times, once while wearing a fedora or a garter belt".  If it gets more than two responses I'm quitting.

Blah.

Peter    

Wow, this has to be one of the posts of the year.  I feel especially bad because I started a list thread recently!

JC, I thought this was a cool question.  I have not played any Mackenzie courses, so I cannot really comment one way or the other.  With so many courses rated at the very top of the heap for so long, and considering Mackenzie is almost never criticized on GCA, isn't it possible that he is overrated?

[Scott Warren]

Matt Day: It's not "today" yet in the States!

[Matt Day]

Matt Day: It's not "today" yet in the States!

pre emptive strike?

[Jim Nugent]

George, you may want to rethink that quote of yours JC always seems to put at the bottom of his posts. 

1.  I don't "always seem to put it at the bottom of my posts," it is part of my signature line so it IS always at the bottom of my posts.

2.  Perhaps you should follow George's advice.

My response fit your title well, I thought.  Snark to snark.  

Hard for me to take your proposition seriously when it states speculation (Raynor routed CPC) as fact.  On top of which, most top courses are a collaboration of one kind or other, from Pine Valley to Merion to Pebble to TOC to ANGC.    

Would Crystal Downs be great without Maxwell?  I think the better question is, what would CD be without Mackenzie?  Same with the Australian courses.  And the same with Cypress Point.  Raynor never designed or built anything remotely resembling that masterpiece.  I've wondered for some time where and how he would have laid his templates there.    

This would be an interesting topic, if it had meat to it.  You are not seeing much discussion/debate because it doesn't that meat.  e.g. I haven't seen you or anyone answer the points Tom Doak made early on.    

[Ben Sims]

My response fit your title well, I thought.  Snark to snark.  

Hard for me to take your proposition seriously when it states speculation (Raynor routed CPC) as fact.  On top of which, most top courses are a collaboration of one kind or other, from Pine Valley to Merion to Pebble to TOC to ANGC.    

Would Crystal Downs be great without Maxwell?  I think the better question is, what would CD be without Mackenzie?  Same with the Australian courses.  And the same with Cypress Point.  Raynor never designed or built anything remotely resembling that masterpiece.  I've wondered for some time where and how he would have laid his templates there.    

This would be an interesting topic, if it had meat to it.  You are not seeing much discussion/debate because it doesn't that meat.  e.g. I haven't seen you or anyone answer the points Tom Doak made early on.    

Nugent has a Stranglehold on this thread. 

He's absolutely right.  No one has challenged Tom's points and no one has made any meaningful point agreeing with JC's assertions about MacKenzie that don't include speculation. 

Peter,

That was a well written post, as yours often are.  The problem I have--and in turn why I have no interest in discussing the topic--was the manner in which JC introduced the original post.  It's snarky, assumptive, and formulated in a way as to immediately engender the thread with a smart-aleck air.   

I don't buy into that manner of topic introduction, and it instills in me a cynicism towards the post rather than a genuine desire to discuss it.  I gather that the method is effective for roiling people into a discussion.  The tone around here often rewards sarcasm and false humor at the expense of real discussion.  FOX News and The Daily Show have proven the effectiveness of the method.  Introduce topic with sarcasm and humor--maybe a self-depricating faux innocence thrown in--and you'll have your audience agreeing with you and identifying with you.  Once an expert or someone with passion and knowledge comes along, the fact that they take the topic so seriously is only a detriment to their cause. 

No I will not concede an inch that Mackenzie was overrated, based 100% on how the topic was introduced. 

[JC Jones]

Ben Sims,

You crack me up.  If you have no interest in discussing the topic why do you find it necessary to post multiple times on the thread?  Just to tell everyone you don't want to participate?  Do you think they care or, do you have other motivations?  Have you been deputized by Ran to be the thread police?  Pointing out to everyone which topics are worthy of their time and discussion and which ones aren't?  If you haven't been deputized by Ran then you are exhibiting an astonishing level of self-righteousness.  I suggest in the future, if you don't like the way my or anyone else's threads are introduced that you just refrain from posting in them because I really don't care what you think of my threads or whether you deem them worthy. 
 
Furthermore, and to Jim Nugent as well, my entire first post including the title of the thread was a string of questions.  Questions are not assertions nor are they statements.  Questions are posed so that they can be answered.  I didn't "respond to Tom's points" because I was asking to learn, not stating an opinion and wanting to debate it.  Thankfully, I've learned a lot of cool stuff on this thread.  Unfortunately, I've also learned that some people have much more of an interest in attacking a person than they do having a conversation about golf course architecture; that they'd rather spend multiple posts telling me they don't like my "style" rather than just ignore a thread they don't have interest in. 

Finally, if this thread dies with informative and thought provoking posts from the likes of Tom Doak, Bob Crosby, Peter Pallotta, Sean Arble, Mike Hendren, Bill McBride, Mac Plumart and Eric Smith then I have learn and gotten as much from this thread than I could have ever expected when I posed those (emphasis added) QUESTIONS. 

   

[Ian Andrew]

JC,

I think you have a very good discussion idea, but it's lost in the tone.

I think your Maxwell question involving Crystal Downs would have been excellent. I agree with the notion that Perry Maxwell may be the most underrated architect. He's my choice. Prairie Dunes was so impressive that I inquired about joining despite the complications I would have had trying to get there once a year. His holes at Gulph Mills are so cool that despite a real old school Ross layout, they remain as a wild contrast that you can't ignore - and you would never remove then - there better than the Ross holes. I still think his impact on Augusta at #7 and #10 green created two great holes.

[Ben Sims]

Ben Sims,

You crack me up.  If you have no interest in discussing the topic why do you find it necessary to post multiple times on the thread?  Just to tell everyone you don't want to participate?  Do you think they care or, do you have other motivations?  Have you been deputized by Ran to be the thread police?  Pointing out to everyone which topics are worthy of their time and discussion and which ones aren't?  If you haven't been deputized by Ran then you are exhibiting an astonishing level of self-righteousness.  I suggest in the future, if you don't like the way my or anyone else's threads are introduced that you just refrain from posting in them because I really don't care what you think of my threads or whether you deem them worthy. 
 
Furthermore, and to Jim Nugent as well, my entire first post including the title of the thread was a string of questions.  Questions are not assertions nor are they statements.  Questions are posed so that they can be answered.  I didn't "respond to Tom's points" because I was asking to learn, not stating an opinion and wanting to debate it.  Thankfully, I've learned a lot of cool stuff on this thread.  Unfortunately, I've also learned that some people have much more of an interest in attacking a person than they do having a conversation about golf course architecture; that they'd rather spend multiple posts telling me they don't like my "style" rather than just ignore a thread they don't have interest in. 

Finally, if this thread dies with informative and thought provoking posts from the likes of Tom Doak, Bob Crosby, Peter Pallotta, Sean Arble, Mike Hendren, Bill McBride, Mac Plumart and Eric Smith then I have learn and gotten as much from this thread than I could have ever expected when I posed those (emphasis added) QUESTIONS. 

   

JC,

You seem to cherish kicking internet ass and unloading your clip before thinking.  If I had a nickel for every time you went off on me.  JC, I really doubt you are completely naive to the way in which your questions were asked.  To me they seemed not designed for knowledge, but to challenge and embroil.   It is your trademark and sometimes, it becomes a bit over the top.  

I am not policing, just tired of seeing the same pattern of behavior that seems to drive away those that have been so value adding to the website.  I think there are ten other ways to ask some really good questions about MacKenzie's involvement without being so snarky.  I assume now you're going to ask me to provide some of those, but frankly, I'm tired of getting my internet ass kicked by you.  

[JC Jones]

JC,

I think you have a very good discussion idea, but it's lost in the tone.

I think your Maxwell question involving Crystal Downs would have been excellent. I agree with the notion that Perry Maxwell may be the most underrated architect. He's my choice. Prairie Dunes was so impressive that I inquired about joining despite the complications I would have had trying to get there once a year. His holes at Gulph Mills are so cool that despite a real old school Ross layout, they remain as a wild contrast that you can't ignore - and you would never remove then - there better than the Ross holes. I still think his impact on Augusta at #7 and #10 green created two great holes.

Ian,

I agree with you regarding Maxwell.  It wasn't my intent, however, to have a discussion about Maxwell.  I wanted to learn how an architect who spent very little time on most of the courses he is getting credit for could be given the "best architect ever" label.  Particularly since that is the very criticism that is lobbed at many of the modern architects today.