News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
I'm putting together an online tutorial on greens design for student members of the European Golf Course Architects and by way of an introduction plan to use the iconic photo of Mackenzie's green at Sitwell Park.

It has generally been accepted that this is a picture of the 18th green at Sitwell, even though the caption labels the picture as being of a 140-yard Par 3.  Now, I've trawled through a fair few threads here and around the internet and there seems to be a general feeling that there was only one wild green at Sitwell Park.  It seems pretty clear to me now that there were two, side by side and that the iconic photo is of the par 3 12th hole.  There is a much grainier picture of the adjacent 18th green in Mackenzie's book, which was equally curvaceous.  Apologies if you lot already know this, but I can't find anything on this site to dispel the myth that there was only one.

The picture below is a good reproduction of the famous photograph.  In the top right hand corner you can clearly see that there is another golf hole between the trees and a wooden shed on the hillside beyond.




Here is an aerial image of Sitwell Park showing the 12th green to the left and the 18th green to the right.  It matches the previous image exactly, even down to the shed in the trees.  



Mackenzie's famous green is the 12th, not the 18th.

I've asked my brother, who lives nearby to run down to Sitwell and get current ground shots of the two greens.  When he has them I will post them here for comparison.






« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 04:41:53 AM by Robin_Hiseman »
2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

Bill_McBride

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #1 on: September 23, 2011, 09:01:35 AM »
....and maybe he can take his chain saw.   :o

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #2 on: September 23, 2011, 09:50:32 AM »
It would also explain why the people are standing where they are....Two hole locations on two greens.

Mike Nuzzo

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #3 on: September 23, 2011, 10:38:36 AM »
Thanks Robin
I hope you don't mind the temporary thread jack...
What is a student member of the European Golf Course Architects?
Cheers
Thinking of Bob, Rihc, Bill, George, Neil, Dr. Childs, & Tiger.

Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #4 on: September 23, 2011, 11:15:55 AM »
Sean:  The picture is only of the 12th green.  The 18th green is behind the trees to the right.

Mike:  The EIGCA is running an education programme for fledgling golf architects.  I've been asked to do the tutorial on form v function in green design.  This green is a prime example of awesome form but flawed function.  It's in there as a cautionary tale.

My brother is off to take the photos of the current greens this evening, so I should have the comparison uploaded on Monday.
2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #5 on: September 23, 2011, 11:42:37 AM »
Below is the old photo of the 18th green at Sitwell Park.  It is clearly not the same green as the other photo.  The bunker at the back of this green can be seen through the trees at the mid right of shot on the picture of Green 12.




Robert Hunter mislabelled the picture of 'The Home Green at Sitwell Park', in his book 'The Links', by incorrectly identifying it as 'a short hole of 140 yards'.

2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

Alex Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #6 on: September 23, 2011, 02:58:43 PM »
This is a great find!

And as if more proof was needed, the fence in the background gives it all away too.

Dónal Ó Ceallaigh

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #7 on: September 23, 2011, 06:27:11 PM »
Robin,

I'm not convinced by your argument. In my opinion, it's two pictures of the same green taken from different angles, and possibly on the same occasion. The first picture was captured from the front left and the second was captured from the front right (but not far enought to the right to include the bunkers on the right). There seem to be too many coincidences. Look at the positions of the players; they're almost idenitical. The guy holding the flag has a white cap in both pictures. The man in the white shirt sleeves is standing in the middle-right part of the green in both pictures. The man at the front of the green is in the same position. Look at the bunker at the back of both pictures. There is a portion that juts upwards in both pictures. If the first picture was captured from a position a bit more to the right, you would be unable to see the feet of the man in the white shirt sleeves, which is the case with the second picture.

I also find the greens in both pictures very similar. The top right portion of both greens is on the highest ground. Then you have a middle tier on the right where the man in the white shirt sleeves is standing.  The the middle-right and top-right portions are higher than the other portions of the green in both pictures. Two almost identical greens on the same course?

I don't see how the fence proves anything. It's behind the green in both pictures.

I will admit that the bunker at the rear of the green in the second picture is very prominent, and not so prominent in the first picture. Could this be because of the different angle?

OK, now I need to match each tree one-by-one to make my argument watertight. ;D


Neil_Crafter

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #8 on: September 23, 2011, 07:16:01 PM »
Robin
I am certain that you are right, and that there were at LEAST two wild greens on Sitwell Park. One needs only to go as far as Mackenzie's own book "Golf Architecture" from 1920, which I am lucky enough to have a copy of, to confirm this.

As the frontispiece of his book Mackenzie included a photograph of the "140 yard Short Hole", while on p28 he placed a photograph captioned as "The Home Green at Sitwell Park". Clearly Mackenzie has shown these as two different holes. I have attached scans of the photographs in his book.

I can't imagine that there were only two wild greens built by Mackenzie at Sitwell Park, and that all the others were flat. I would expect that there were many other greens that he built there that had elements of wildness, although the two most extreme would be the Short and the Home Holes.

There was strong criticism early on of Mackenzie's greens at Sitwell and this was focussed on three greens in particular, the 12th (the short hole), the 15th and the 18th. I have attached Mackenzie's reply that was published in The Sheffield Telegraph on 28 February 1914.

So Robin, it would appear that there were in fact at least three dramatic greens at Sitwell that were subject to criticism. Two we have photographs of, the 12th and the 18th, but alas I have never seen one of the 15th.

Donal, the photographs are clearly of two different greens. And Mackenzie knew that they were! On the 18th there is no bunker at middle right, while the front bunker is more to the front left. On the 12th there is a middle right bunker and the front bunker is before the green and is a very different shape to the one on the 18th. Not to mention the differences in the backdrops.






Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +2/-1
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #9 on: September 23, 2011, 10:13:09 PM »
Mike:  The EIGCA is running an education programme for fledgling golf architects.  I've been asked to do the tutorial on form v function in green design.  This green is a prime example of awesome form but flawed function.  It's in there as a cautionary tale.

My brother is off to take the photos of the current greens this evening, so I should have the comparison uploaded on Monday.


Robin:

I should get you a picture of the 13th at Barnbougle, just to show your students that you can pull off this kind of stuff.  Even "flawed" function is a matter of taste.

I hate that I didn't go to Sitwell Park during my year overseas.  I met someone who grew up nearby and was familiar with the course, and asked if there was any evidence of the wild green still there, and she replied "What wild green?"  So I was pretty sure there was nothing left to see.

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #10 on: September 23, 2011, 10:21:14 PM »
Fantastic picture from behind the 13th green at Barnbougle Dunes -- courtesy Bryan Izatt:



And a far lesser pic from he tee courtesy of moi:



I'm confident Herr Henderson has something that would get bodily fluids flowing, if you wanted that sort of thing... ;D

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #11 on: September 24, 2011, 12:01:56 AM »
A (bile? mucous? urine?)-inducing shot for stateside Scott.

"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Scott Warren

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #12 on: September 24, 2011, 12:05:24 AM »
There you go!

Kyle Henderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #13 on: September 24, 2011, 12:19:40 AM »
There you go!

Shouldn't you be getting some rest before your prolonged stroll beside the Great Peconic?
"I always knew terrorists hated us for our freedom. Now they love us for our bondage." -- Stephen T. Colbert discusses the popularity of '50 Shades of Grey' at Gitmo

Pete_Pittock

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #14 on: September 24, 2011, 07:39:55 PM »
Robin
I am certain that you are right, and that there were at LEAST two wild greens on Sitwell Park. One needs only to go as far as Mackenzie's own book "Golf Architecture" from 1920, which I am lucky enough to have a copy of, to confirm this.

As the frontispiece of his book Mackenzie included a photograph of the "140 yard Short Hole", while on p28 he placed a photograph captioned as "The Home Green at Sitwell Park". Clearly Mackenzie has shown these as two different holes. I have attached scans of the photographs in his book.

I can't imagine that there were only two wild greens built by Mackenzie at Sitwell Park, and that all the others were flat. I would expect that there were many other greens that he built there that had elements of wildness, although the two most extreme would be the Short and the Home Holes.

There was strong criticism early on of Mackenzie's greens at Sitwell and this was focussed on three greens in particular, the 12th (the short hole), the 15th and the 18th. I have attached Mackenzie's reply that was published in The Sheffield Telegraph on 28 February 1914.

So Robin, it would appear that there were in fact at least three dramatic greens at Sitwell that were subject to criticism. Two we have photographs of, the 12th and the 18th, but alas I have never seen one of the 15th.

Donal, the photographs are clearly of two different greens. And Mackenzie knew that they were! On the 18th there is no bunker at middle right, while the front bunker is more to the front left. On the 12th there is a middle right bunker and the front bunker is before the green and is a very different shape to the one on the 18th. Not to mention the differences in the backdrops.

Pictures of greens 12 and 18 deleted for brevity.




Neil,
That is a fascinating letter by Mackenzie, worthy of a thread by itself.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 07:43:03 PM by Pete_Pittock »

James Boon

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #15 on: September 25, 2011, 04:04:20 AM »
Robin,

Excellent stuff!

I was recently in Buxton, but this time instead of MacKenzie's Cavendish, I came across his old putting course, and the first thing I thought of when viewing the contours, was what I thought was the one green at Sitwell Park. fascinating to find out that there were two. Now if only someone could be convinced to rebuild them (or restore the Buxton putting course) we could all stop taking this damn game so seriously and have some fun!

Here is a photo of Buxton...


Cheers,

James
2023 Highlights: Hollinwell, Brora, Parkstone, Cavendish, Hallamshire, Sandmoor, Moortown, Elie, Crail, St Andrews (Himalayas & Eden), Chantilly, M, Hardelot Les Pins

"It celebrates the unadulterated pleasure of being in a dialogue with nature while knocking a ball round on foot." Richard Pennell

Colin Macqueen

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #16 on: September 25, 2011, 10:10:03 PM »
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
"Golf, thou art a gentle sprite, I owe thee much"
The Hielander

Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #17 on: September 26, 2011, 04:37:57 AM »
Scott/Tom

I'm pleased to report that I'd already scooped that photo from Barnbougle as an example of a modern day interpretation!  Thanks for the link though.

I walked Sitwell Park once and the hillside is REALLY steep.  Though I don't doubt that if you managed to put your ball in the same pocket of green as the hole was located it would have been fine, they would have been absurd greens from a functional point of view.  Still a crying shame that they weren't softened in keeping.  I'm hoping that my brother will be getting me the current photos soon, so that you can all see just what became of them.  

Neil: Thanks for the articles.  The next challenge is to find a shot of 15.

James:  Never knew about that gem.  A great find.  Is that the High Speed Rail Link?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 04:52:21 AM by Robin_Hiseman »
2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were THREE wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #18 on: September 26, 2011, 05:49:53 AM »
Colin,

Thanks for translating.

Neil, Robin,

I think I almost agree with Donal that the photos are of the same green.  Atleast it is a possibility that is not easily discounted.  Imagine that the a photo of the scene is taken from the red dot on the second photo (crest of small bunker).  The first photo is a plausible representation of this.  





I think it is quite easy for greens to look different from different angles.  

If you had not been to Barnbougle, would you think these two photos were of the same green with the same pin position.  Certainly not immediately.



« Last Edit: September 26, 2011, 06:03:50 AM by David_Elvins »
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

James Bennett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were TWO wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #19 on: September 26, 2011, 07:06:35 AM »

Barnbougle Dunes Golf Course
Bridport, Tasmania.  March 8th,  2011.

Sir.......

Criticisms have been made that at Barnbougle 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 thirteenth 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,
         C. Macqueen (and about 20 other Boomerangs)


I think the good Doctor's response can equally apply yo Barnbougle.  It is easier to understand the design at Barnbougle having read the Doctor's treatise above.

Apologies Colin - thanks for transcribing the article.

James B
Bob; its impossible to explain some of the clutter that gets recalled from the attic between my ears. .  (SL Solow)

Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were THREE wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #20 on: September 26, 2011, 07:20:36 AM »
David

The 12th and 18th greens are adjacent and share similar design features and I dare say the same guys posed in approximately the same way on both greens, but they are assuredly two different greens in those old photos. 

Robin
2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

David_Elvins

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were THREE wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #21 on: September 26, 2011, 09:16:27 AM »
Quote from: Robin_Hiseman link=topic=49745.msg1127377#msg1127377
but they are assuredly two different greens in those old photos. 

Robin

Robin,

What evidence are you basing this opinion on.

And why don't you think the green worked from a functional point of view?
Ask not what GolfClubAtlas can do for you; ask what you can do for GolfClubAtlas.

Robin_Hiseman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were THREE wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #22 on: September 26, 2011, 10:02:20 AM »
Quote from: Robin_Hiseman link=topic=49745.msg1127377#msg1127377
but they are assuredly two different greens in those old photos. 

Robin

Robin,

What evidence are you basing this opinion on.

And why don't you think the green worked from a functional point of view?

David

I've been to Sitwell Park and observed the two greens close together, which have very similar backdrops, as the aerial view in my opening post shows.  Perhaps the most compelling evidence comes from Mackenzie's own book in which the two photographs are separately described as 'the 140-yard short hole' and 'the home green'.  The left hand green in the aerial photo is the 12th, a 140-yard par 3 and the right is the 18th.

Looking at the photos themselves, observe the proximity of the wooden fence to the back of the green.  Behind the short hole green it is far in the distance, well beyond a thick screen of trees.  Behind the 18th it is just behind the bunker and a single line of trees, much closer to the putting surface.  This same fence can be seen beyond the distant 18th green in the 'famous' photo to the top right of frame.  Also, the large bunker behind the 'Home' green isn't present behind the 'Short Hole' Green.  As it rises above the putting surface it would certainly be visible from the point of view of the cameraman.  These are two different greens.  I am certain of it.

From a functional point of view they were flawed, though Mackenzie mounts a staunch defence.  I've read that these greens sloped about 10-feet from front to back.  The truth is that they sloped well in excess of 15 feet, perhaps even 20-feet and you can't contain that amount of slope within a putting surface and present more than a mere handful of hole locations, even if the greens are running at less than 6 on the stimp.  These greens would have had to been maintained at meadow height to have a chance of slowing down the momentum of the ball.  I bet we would have had a ball putting on them, but it would have been crazy golf.  Mackenzie can't beat the law of physics.  They were too steep for a green.

Don't get me wrong.  I love undulating greens and have designed my fair share of greens that others have thought were borderline unfair.  I've even used the same defence that Mackenzie uses, that undulating greens don't penalize putting, they punish wayward approach play.  The photo below is of my 18th green at the Royal Golf Club, Bahrain, that I designed with a definite nod to the spirit of the Sitwell greens.  That's Paul Casey approaching the flag, about to hole out to win the Volvo Golf Champions.  There is just less than five feet of elevation change from the front to the back of this green, perhaps only a third of the Sitwell greens, maybe even just a quarter, yet this is a seriously challenging green.  I certainly wouldn't want to put any more contour in it.



In seeking to maximise the naturalness of these greens, Mackenzie misjudged their requirement for functionality...in my view.  I still love them though and mourn their demise, but they could never have survived in this guise..
2024: RSt.D; Mill Ride; Milford; Notts; JCB, Jameson Links, Druids Glen, Royal Dublin, Portmarnock, Old Head, Addington, Parkstone, Denham, Thurlestone, Dartmouth, Rustic Canyon, LACC (N), MPCC (Shore), Cal Club, San Fran, Epsom, Casa Serena, Hayling, Co. Sligo, Strandhill, Carne, Cleeve Hill

Tyler Kearns

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were THREE wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #23 on: September 26, 2011, 10:30:08 AM »
Quote from: Robin_Hiseman link=topic=49745.msg1127377#msg1127377
but they are assuredly two different greens in those old photos. 

Robin

Robin,

What evidence are you basing this opinion on.

And why don't you think the green worked from a functional point of view?

David,

In comparing the shape of the front left bunkers in both photographs, they appear to be quite different.

TK

Niall C

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Sitwell Park: There were THREE wild Mackenzie greens
« Reply #24 on: September 26, 2011, 02:06:20 PM »
Excellent thread.

It raises a number of questions for me. Firstly, MacKenzie only built three of these wild greens at Sitwell why not 18 such greens, was it that he was taking advantage of a steep hillside for the 3 green locations or was he forced into it by the routing ? Secondly, if he was so convinced by the design merit of these greens, why did he not replicate the idea elsewhere, or perhaps he did and they didn't survive either ?

The other thing I would be interested to know, is what exactly is left ? Are any of the greenside humps and hollows remaining ?

Niall

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back