Gentlemen,
I found the aforementioned newspaper response by MacKenzie quite difficult to read. I have inserted it below in the hope that this will make it easier for others and perhaps spawn, as Pete Pittock suggested, a thread of its own. Enjoy a leisurely read!
SITWELL PARK GOLF COURSE.
Moor Allerton Lodge, Leeds. February 26th, 1914.
Sir --- I have had cuttings from The Sheffield Daily Telegraph of February 21 an 24 sent to me by three friends with a request that I should reply to the criticisms. My remarks were quoted that the 12th. 15th. and 18th.greens at Sitwell, after the first burst of virulent criticism were got over, would become extremely popular amongst the members.
I have got accustomed to measuring the ultimate popularity of a hole or course by the amount of criticism it gives rise to in the first instance. "The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Sitwell which has got the natural advantages of at least three other Sheffield courses, like St. George's Hill which is undoubtedly the most popular of the recent London links, will have a great future. Its members will find other courses dull and uninteresting in comparison.
The criticism in your paper, however, is much fairer and milder than I anticipated. It is only natural that players who have been spoon fed on insipid, flat unintersting stuff(?) should view with a considerable amount of suspicion anything which is undoubtedly out of the ordinary. Your critic makes a mistake in comparing the Sitwell greens with St. George's Hill. The fact of the matter is, the only crab of St. george's Hill is not that it is too undulating, but that it is not rolling enough.The St. George's greens are on too much of a slope and if they had been made more undulating there would be more available hollows or flat places in which to p;ut the flag. In an undulating green it is absolutely essential that the place for the hole should never be on a side slope, but always on the flat.
Criticisms have been made that at Sitwell the putting is going to cost you more. The exact opposite is the case: the putting is going to cost less. It is inaccurate approaching that is going to cost you more. A man who has approached with great accuracy is helped towards the hole, and will frequently be down in one putt.
I would ask my critics in what other way would it have been possible to utilise the terrific slope on which these greens are situated and yet to have given the same natural appearance? Unless the hollows were made large enough and deep enough it would be impossible for anyone putting from the top of the green to remain anywhere near the hole when placed in a hollow at the bottom, and in a green of this kindit is only intended that the hole should be placed in a hollow or on the flat.
All these greens are large: in fact, thirty or forty yards wide. Each hollow is almost as large as an ordinary punch bowl green and has a big advantage over the ordinary punch bowl in three respects - firstly, they are visible; secondly, an innaccurate shot rolls away from the hole; and thirdly, there still remains a chance of recovery with a putter instead of a niblick out of the rough.
I do not agree with you statements that at the short twelfth two tee shots perfect in length and direction may have unequal treatment and, even if this were so, do you suggest that the element of luck should be eliminated entirely in golf?
I can ensure you that you can no more do so than in cricket. A certain amount of luck is responsible for some of the fascination of both games,and,if you succeeded in eliminating it you would only succeed in making both cricket and golf uninteresting.
Yours faithfully,
A. MacKenzie.
Cheers Colin