[Bill_McBride]

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.

But do you like pina coladas?

[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.  

    

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.  

So now you're a victim?  If you had a nickel for every time I told you I didn't appreciate your posts then you would have two nickels.  Both of which came at the result of you telling either a friend of mine or myself that you didn't approve of they way they did things.  I didn't ask you to post in this thread and I didn't ask you to attack me or my "style" of questions.  Keep in mind that my post to you came as a result of you attacking me, unsolicited, as opposed to just ignoring my thread.  If you think I have a trademark or that I'm over the top, why don't you just stay away?  What is to be gained from you coming on the thread and saying you don't like my style?  

Again, I don't care how you would have asked the questions I asked.  If you think it drives away those that have been value adding then I guess you don't think very much of Tom Doak, Bob Crosby, Peter Pallotta, Sean Arble, Mike Hendren, Bill McBride, Mac Plumart and Eric Smith.

The only downside of my questions is that it brought you out to once again grace me with your superiority and your willingness to label people based on how you interpret their posts on this discussion board.

[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.

But do you like pina coladas?

And getting caught in the rain. 

For some reason, Peter Pallotta has the same rhythm in the way it is said as Pina Colada does, so I think of that song when I see his name.

[Tim Martin]

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.

But do you like pina coladas?

And getting caught in the rain.  

For some reason, Peter Pallotta has the same rhythm in the way it is said as Pina Colada does, so I think of that song when I see his name.

If you like Peter Pallotta...... J.C. that`s on the money and sounds better than Pina Colada. Probably the bigger question here is if you were at a bar called O`Malley`s would you order champagne? Just asking so please don`t anybody jump down my throat. Thanks.

[Ben Sims]

If you had a nickel for every time I told you I didn't appreciate your posts then you would have two nickels.  Both of which came at the result of you telling either a friend of mine or myself that you didn't approve of they way they did things.  I didn't ask you to post in this thread and I didn't ask you to attack me or my "style" of questions.  Keep in mind that my post to you came as a result of you attacking me, unsolicited, as opposed to just ignoring my thread.  If you think I have a trademark or that I'm over the top, why don't you just stay away?  What is to be gained from you coming on the thread and saying you don't like my style?  

Again, I don't care how you would have asked the questions I asked.  If you think it drives away those that have been value adding then I guess you don't think very much of Tom Doak, Bob Crosby, Peter Pallotta, Sean Arble, Mike Hendren, Bill McBride, Mac Plumart and Eric Smith.

The only downside of my questions is that it brought you out to once again grace me with your superiority and your willingness to label people based on how you interpret their posts on this discussion board.

JC,

Whatever dude.  You do your thing, I'll do mine.  Just don't be surprised when someone calls you on BS.  I didn't get bent when you told me I was stupid for telling Tom about soil.  You were right.  

[Sean_A]

JC

Your question remains interesting even if folks are taking swings at you rather than a dead man.  Ross gets kicked in his would be teeth for his mail-in/drop by designs while Dr Mac garners praise while not even seeing many of his best courses in a finished state.  I suspect that his good fortune was not just down to the people he selected to work worth, but the sites/projects he selected to work on.  The biggest difference between his England projects and his Aussie/US projects are the sites.  Dr Mac had a much better selection and he had experience on how to take advantage of the great sites.  There probably isn't anyone in history who so blessed with sites for golf.  It must have been nearly impossible not to be a top notch archie.  Consider Dr Mac's place in the pecking order before he left England.  He was, no matter how you term it, a second fiddle associate of Colt who's rep was no better and likely not as good as that of Colt, Fowler, Alison and maybe even Park Jr.  Now he is considered the king of the pile.  

Ciao    

[Ian Andrew]

Dr Mac had a much better selection and he had experience on how to take advantage of the great sites.  There probably isn't anyone in history who so blessed with sites for golf.  It must have been nearly impossible not to be a top notch archie.  

Don't agree at all on this one. Greatness is an equal measure of opportunity and talent.

I have seen a lot of great sites wasted by mediocre architects - past and present.
It's one thing to get the opportunity - it's another not to drop the ball.

Is he overrated - perhaps - is he among the very best - absolutely.

[JC Jones]

Is he overrated - perhaps - is he among the very best - absolutely.

Ian,

This is exactly right.  Nobody said MacKenzie was not good.  The problem is some people don't read questions as questions anymore.

Sean,

I think there might have been some other reason why MacKenzie was so fortunate during his time.  I once asked Tom Paul if he knew why, after Raynor died, Mackenzie was chosen over anyone else and he responded as only Tom Paul does with "well, Jason, that's a very interesting question."

Perhaps MacKenzie, through his published work and his well thought of philosophy or even through his being the life of the party was able to build relationships better than others were.  Through his writings, was he the thought/opinion leader of his time?  I can only imagine his intoxicating personality with his stories of trips around the world and his willingness to share the bottle.

[George Pazin]

Dr Mac had a much better selection and he had experience on how to take advantage of the great sites.  There probably isn't anyone in history who so blessed with sites for golf.  It must have been nearly impossible not to be a top notch archie.  

Don't agree at all on this one. Greatness is an equal measure of opportunity and talent.

I have seen a lot of great sites wasted by mediocre architects - past and present.
It's one thing to get the opportunity - it's another not to drop the ball.

Is he overrated - perhaps - is he among the very best - absolutely.

Now THIS is a brilliant post.

-----

Starting a thread with an over the top statement is a great way to draw attention and discussion. You just end up having to weed out the crap to find the discussion. Some folks can post simple things and get responses, others have to work a little harder to get attention. That's the Big Wide World Theory applied to internet discussion boards, baby.

-----

Finally, if anyone has ANY substantive evidence of the Raynor routing - or any non-Mackenzie routing - for Cypress Point, I am begging you to please please please post it.

[Melvyn Morrow]

If my memory serves me correctly Ran mentioned in preliminaries of GCA.com that we need to try to relate the courses we play to the equipment that they were designed to accommodate. Then perhaps we may be able to make a comment on who may or may not be overrated

A very similar point was made to me by my father in the 1960s & 70’s and still remains true to this day. Many I believe would be horrified to see their score if they did use the correct tools, but I believe that would be offset rather quickly by the new experience that opens outs one game giving back that which we may seek but seldom achieve today when playing golf.

I feel we each have to ask ourselves have we played the course as it was designed or have we played it governed by our modern ideals based upon the confidence of the latest equipment. Did we lose something it the mix or was it not quite as good as I remember it the last time I played it – this point of course is aimed at the older generation of 60 and over who have seen much change in the last 50 years.

Melvyn   

[Tom_Doak]

JC

Your question remains interesting even if folks are taking swings at you rather than a dead man.  Ross gets kicked in his would be teeth for his mail-in/drop by designs while Dr Mac garners praise while not even seeing many of his best courses in a finished state.  I suspect that his good fortune was not just down to the people he selected to work worth, but the sites/projects he selected to work on.  The biggest difference between his England projects and his Aussie/US projects are the sites.  Dr Mac had a much better selection and he had experience on how to take advantage of the great sites.  There probably isn't anyone in history who so blessed with sites for golf.  It must have been nearly impossible not to be a top notch archie.  Consider Dr Mac's place in the pecking order before he left England.  He was, no matter how you term it, a second fiddle associate of Colt who's rep was no better and likely not as good as that of Colt, Fowler, Alison and maybe even Park Jr.  Now he is considered the king of the pile.  

Ciao    

Sean:

As with Ian, I don't agree with much of any of your post, but of course I wouldn't.

If you are one of those who takes the view that "all architects are overrated," which I wouldn't disagree with, then you could extend that logic to "the best architects are the most overrated," and I couldn't really argue with that, either.  But that sort of turns around the meaning of calling someone the most overrated architect of all time.

Hardly any of the architects who you cited in your diatribe spent a whole lot of time on the ground observing the construction of their work.  It just wasn't done much, back in that era, perhaps in part because construction moved very slowly and clubs did not want to pay a professional to stand around for days on end.  Dr. MacKenzie did most of his work in the UK and Ireland in the space of a couple of days per course, because that's all they were willing to pay for, and I would guess the same was usually true for Colt and Alison and Braid and Park, too.

I think the main difference between MacKenzie's work overseas vs. at home was that the clients were more willing to listen to him and to do everything he recommended.  I think in the UK there was the sense that he shouldn't be taken seriously because he was not a great player, and he had to go to America and to Australia to find someone who accepted his expert credentials wholly.

There is no doubt that great sites have a lot to do with making an architect's reputation, but you have to make the most of them.  As Ian said, there are lots of projects that had wonderful sites that don't get talked about too much.  I can assure you, it is far from automatic to get the best course out of a great piece of ground.

[Sean_A]

Dr Mac had a much better selection and he had experience on how to take advantage of the great sites.  There probably isn't anyone in history who so blessed with sites for golf.  It must have been nearly impossible not to be a top notch archie.  

Don't agree at all on this one. Greatness is an equal measure of opportunity and talent.

I have seen a lot of great sites wasted by mediocre architects - past and present.
It's one thing to get the opportunity - it's another not to drop the ball.

Is he overrated - perhaps - is he among the very best - absolutely.

Ian

My apologies.  I assumed we were talking of Dr Mac as an obviously very good archie.  Alwoodley proved that right out of the gate.  

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

Serious Question.  Did Mac’s writing ever mean that much back in the day?  I suspect we revere it now much more than ‘they’ did then.

JC Have you played any of the courses? I’ve only seen two of his courses and I can believe all the hype.  Anxious to see a lot more.  He was an outlier ...it’s not unknown where the arts are concerned. 

Who here has heard of Carlos Kleiber? Does the small body of work mean he’s overrated?  The proof of the pudding....   


“Carlos Kleiber has today been crowned the greatest conductor of all time by a selection of 100 of today's finest maestros.

The poll, carried out by BBC Music Magazine, asked leading conductors including Sir Colin Davis, Gustavo Dudamel, Valery Gergiev and Mariss Jansons to reveal who they are most inspired by. Kleiber, the Austrian maestro who conducted just 96 concerts and around 400 operatic performances in his 74 years, was voted ahead of Leonard Bernstein and Claudio Abbado, who took second and third places respectively.

Susanna Mälkki, Music director, Ensemble Intercontemporain, and one of the conductors polled, commented: "Carlos Kleiber brought an incredible energy to music… Yes, he did have about five times as much time to rehearse than conductors do today, but he deserved it because his vision was remarkable, he knew what he wanted, and his attention to detail was truly inspiring."

Jeremy Pound, Deputy Editor of BBC Music Magazine, added: "Asking 100 of today's conducting greats to name their idols and inspirations was a fascinating experience. Not least when so many named Carlos Kleiber, who in the course of his whole lifetime conducted fewer concerts than most of them manage in just a couple of years. Kleiber's incredible attention to detail, sheer enthusiasm for music, and astonishingly accomplished level of performance could never be doubted – perhaps 'less is more' is the real path to true greatness?"

Of the top 20 conductors voted for, no fewer than seven are still regularly seen on the rostrum today, including Brits Sir John Eliot Gardiner and Sir Simon Rattle. Conducting may have enjoyed its famous Golden Age in the mid-20th century but, in the opinion of those who know the art better than anyone, today's leading maestros also undoubtedly rank with the best of all time.

The 20 greatest conductors of all time will be published in the April issue of BBC Music Magazine, on sale 17 March, priced £4.60.


NOTES TO EDITORS
In November 2010 BBC Music Magazine asked 100 leading conductors to name the maestros they admire above all others. When the votes were added up, the following top 20 emerged:

BBC Music Magazine's 20 greatest conductors of all time are:

1. Carlos Kleiber (1930-2004) Austrian
2. Leonard Bernstein (1918-1990) American
3. Claudio Abbado (b1933) Italian
4. Herbert von Karajan (1908-1989) Austrian
5. Nikolaus Harnoncourt (b1929) Austrian
6. Sir Simon Rattle (b 1955) British
7. Wilhelm Furtwängler (1896-1954)
8. Arturo Toscanini (1867-1957) Italian
9. Pierre Boulez (b1925) French
10. Carlo Maria Giulini (1914-2005) Italian
11. Sir John Eliot Gardiner (b1943) British
12. Sir John Barbirolli (1899-1970) British
13. Terenc Fricsay (1914-1963) Hungarian
14. George Szell (1897-1970) Hungarian
15. Bernard Haitink (b1929) Dutch
16. Pierre Monteux (1875-1964) French
17. Yevgeny Mravinsky (1903-1988) Russian
18. Sir Colin Davis (b1927) British
19. Sir Thomas Beecham (1879-1961) British
20. Sir Charles Mackerras (1925-2010) Australian”

[JC Jones]

Tony,

This has nothing to do with the quality of the golf courses that are attributed to Dr. Mac. 

[Peter Pallotta]

Ian's post #58 and Tom's post #62 (among a few others) more than justifiy this thread. That few golden age architects spent much time on site during construction because "it just wasn't done much, back in that era, perhaps in part because construction moved very slowly and clubs did not want to pay a professional to stand around for days on end.." is an important point. I have read for years here (and I believe) that so much of what makes a modern course great occurs precisely during this construction phase, and that what some architects consider minor details  -- e.g. the 'tie ins' from fairway to natural vegetation -- are precisely those details that other architects and their crews focus on so much during construction, with obvious and wonderful results.  This difference is worth noting/exploring -- and suggests that perhaps much of the charm and naturalness of the old great courses has come about simply because of time and wear and use...which if nothing else is interesting.

Peter

.

[Sean_A]

Tom

I am not in the least convinced that Colt didn't spend considerable time (as much as most top notch archies of today for sure) on his principle projects.  Of course, once he got cranked up with Franks Bros he had a group of guys he trusted to do good work.  Colt had the huge advantage of living near a handful of these famed projects.  It seems hard to believe he showed up only handful of times.  I also think Folwer was well known for hangin' about, but then his workload wasn't onerous.

Ciao

[JC Jones]

Tom

I am not in the least convinced that Colt didn't spend considerable time (as much as most top notch archies of today for sure) on his principle projects.  Of course, once he got cranked up with Franks Bros he had a group of guys he trusted to do good work.  Colt had the huge advantage of living near a handful of these famed projects.  It seems hard to believe he showed up only handful of times.  I also think Folwer was well known for hangin' about, but then his workload wasn't onerous.

Ciao

Building on that, Crystal Downs had the great benefit of the architect of Old Town, Prairie Dunes, etc. on site for 2-3 years. 

In fact, looking at the Golf Digest Top 10 and the classic courses therein, it appears that many of them had some significant time spent on site by the GCA with tweaking over time.

1  Augusta National GC
2  Pine Valley GC
3  Shinnecock Hills GC
4  Oakmont CC
5  Cypress Point C
6  Pebble Beach GL
7  Merion GC (East)
8  Winged Foot GC (West)
10 NGLA

 

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

I am not in the least convinced that Colt didn't spend considerable time (as much as most top notch archies of today for sure) on his principle projects.  Of course, once he got cranked up with Franks Bros he had a group of guys he trusted to do good work.  Colt had the huge advantage of living near a handful of these famed projects.  It seems hard to believe he showed up only handful of times.  I also think Folwer was well known for hangin' about, but then his workload wasn't onerous.

Ciao

Sean:

You're just projecting what you want to project.  Can you document what you want to believe?  I used to think all those old guys spent tons of time on site watching things get built.  The reality has not matched up with that belief, in many of the individual cases I've studied.  Then again, some people would say my 25 or 30 days on site per course lately is not that much.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

I am not in the least convinced that Colt didn't spend considerable time (as much as most top notch archies of today for sure) on his principle projects.  Of course, once he got cranked up with Franks Bros he had a group of guys he trusted to do good work.  Colt had the huge advantage of living near a handful of these famed projects.  It seems hard to believe he showed up only handful of times.  I also think Folwer was well known for hangin' about, but then his workload wasn't onerous.

Ciao

Building on that, Crystal Downs had the great benefit of the architect of Old Town, Prairie Dunes, etc. on site for 2-3 years. 

In fact, looking at the Golf Digest Top 10 and the classic courses therein, it appears that many of them had some significant time spent on site by the GCA with tweaking over time.

1  Augusta National GC
2  Pine Valley GC
3  Shinnecock Hills GC
4  Oakmont CC
5  Cypress Point C
6  Pebble Beach GL
7  Merion GC (East)
8  Winged Foot GC (West)
10 NGLA

 

JC:

Don't you think it's just possible that these ten are the top ten courses BECAUSE you've been sold on those foundation stories for so many years?

I am not saying they aren't great courses, I'm on record that they are.  But some of the exercise of rankings is about myth-making, and it cannot be just a coincidence that the top ten are also the courses whose myths have been honed to perfection for the past 75 years.

P.S.  How much time did Flynn spend at Shinnecock? 

[Duncan Cheslett]

I am fortunate to belong to a club with the foresight to have engaged MacKenzie to design its course 100 years ago. All evidence suggests that Dr Mac spent a couple of days at most on site plus a follow-up visit a year or so later when he voiced displeasure at the way that some of his instructions had been carried out, insisting on remedial work. This was apparantly done but there is no suggestion that MacKenzie ever returned.

There appears to have been a mytholigising of MacKenzie's work in recent years. Just how much 'architecture' could be fitted into a couple of days spent walking over farmland other than a basic routing and designation of tee and green sites? When playing with members of the 'Dr Mac Fan Club' I am often mildly amused by assertions that the wierd borrow on a certain green or the cunning placement of a particular bunker is down to the 'genius' of MacKenzie. How so? The bloke was hardly there long enough to say more than 'I think we'll put a green in that dip over there'. I've even heard such statements of devotion expressed over parts of the course which didn't even come into existence until a quarter of a century after Dr Mac's involvement!

MacKenzie has clearly gained something of a cult status over the years, and like all cult figureheads a certain hyperbole has developed among his devotees. Normally one would absolve said figurehead of responsibility for this; in Mac's case however, the origins appear to lie with himself. He was after all, clearly no mean spin doctor in the interests of developing his own reputation!

None of this should take away from the important truth though. He was the designer of some very fine golf courses. I suspect he is over-rated only by a few over-enthusiastic disciples...

[Sean_A]

Tom

I am not in the least convinced that Colt didn't spend considerable time (as much as most top notch archies of today for sure) on his principle projects.  Of course, once he got cranked up with Franks Bros he had a group of guys he trusted to do good work.  Colt had the huge advantage of living near a handful of these famed projects.  It seems hard to believe he showed up only handful of times.  I also think Folwer was well known for hangin' about, but then his workload wasn't onerous.

Ciao

Sean:

You're just projecting what you want to project.  Can you document what you want to believe?  I used to think all those old guys spent tons of time on site watching things get built.  The reality has not matched up with that belief, in many of the individual cases I've studied.  Then again, some people would say my 25 or 30 days on site per course lately is not that much.

Tom

You are a designer.  If you woke up in your own bed less than a few handful of miles away from a project you are working on, do you only check in a few times to see how things are going?  If this isn't the case, I don't know why you expect any less of Colt.  Of course I can't prove it, but Colt was a very meticulous character and it would seem out of character for him not to want to check on his projects.  Of course its understandable that he had far too many projects on the go to keep personal tabs on all of them, but the ones close to home?  So far as Fowler goes, I would love to know a lot more about the man and how he did business, but I do recall Darwin(?) writing that Fowler spent a lot time on his projects, but then he wasn't all that prolific. 

Ciao

[MikeJones]

Would Cypress be so great if Raynor hadn't routed it and Marion Hollins hadn't insisted the 16th be a par 3?

One of the traits of great men is knowing whose advice to take and whose to ignore.

[Tom_Doak]

Tom

You are a designer.  If you woke up in your own bed less than a few handful of miles away from a project you are working on, do you only check in a few times to see how things are going?  If this isn't the case, I don't know why you expect any less of Colt.  Of course I can't prove it, but Colt was a very meticulous character and it would seem out of character for him not to want to check on his projects.  Of course its understandable that he had far too many projects on the go to keep personal tabs on all of them, but the ones close to home?  So far as Fowler goes, I would love to know a lot more about the man and how he did business, but I do recall Darwin(?) writing that Fowler spent a lot time on his projects, but then he wasn't all that prolific.  

Ciao

Sean:

You are projecting again, based on a modern viewpoint.  It's like saying fathers back then must have spent more time with their kids than we do today, because they didn't travel so much.  Expectations were just different back then.  I don't know the details of Colt's m.o. and number of days on site, but it would surprise me if he spent much more time on a project than others did.  After all, he let an overbearing founder of one course he was working on (Alwoodley) get so involved that he claimed the course for himself, and later made the guy a partner.

[Anthony Butler]

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".

There is something to that... it can't be coincidence that Mackenzie designed so the courses and somehow the the construction was left in the hands of people who somehow miraculously made the work better. In much the same way as creative directors in my line of work are judged by the talent they hire, most of the architects on this board would probably agree that choosing the right employees/partners is an essential part of their job.

Two other things:
• When Mackenzie did the routing for RMW and NSW, the construction crews found that his topographic/routing maps had less than three foot
   variation in terms of elevation or position. Somehow that seems relevant to the actual capabilities of the man.
• The Valley Club.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom - the picture I'm getting is of great old architects who were masters of routing a course, and who in fact felt that their work was basically synonymous with that routing, such that they cared not much about appearance (of naturalness or bunker shapes or tie-ins with the surrounds)...even when they spent more time on a site than they normally did.  I find myself looking at those courses on that top 10 list in a different light (not a negative light, just different).

Peter

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()