And all this time I thought that

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are you confusing Fowler with MacBeth regarding the 1911 work?

No.

C&W list Fowler as the architect on LACC South in 1911

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

That's your distorted view of my premise, an inaccurate one at that.

Would you agree that if other architects employed that bunker style in California prior to 1926 that that bunker style in California can't be Makenzie's bunker style ?

Anyone who equates logic and deductive reasoning with cyber-bullying and "the Notre  Dame School of Debate" ie Bludgeoning, is admitting that they can't engage in an intelligent discussion/debate, and as a diversionary tactic tries to demonize the views of another.

Notre Dame has nothing to do with this topic, nor does cyber-bullying.

If you can't participate in an intelligent discussion on this topic then you shouldn't participate

This is why this site has deteriorated.

Rather than present a reasoned position, because of your own inadequacies, you resort to name calling and demonizing.

You add nothing to the discussions and have now corrupted this thread.

I must be on to something here, you have "fired all your guns at once and exploded into space."

Do you seriously believe that Mackenzie arrived in California and looked around and said, "Wow, these Americans are on to something here, I had better copy their bunkering style."

From everything I have ever read about Dr. Mackenzie, he had far too large an ego to ever copy anyone else's style. 

Attacks on me are not going to solve your underlying problem here. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tommy,

Thanks for the photos.

They would seem to confirm that the "California"  style existed prior to Mackenzie's arrival in California  in 1926.

If you have additional pre 1926 photos that would help.

Thanks

Sven,

I'm familiar with Mackenzie's 1920 book and the photos that appear in it.
Remember, I was the one who first referenced it.

One of my purposes in mentioning the book and photos that appear in it was the fact that the footpads and the bunkers were artificial ,
constructed on certain sites that were flat.  I'm trying to recall flat courses, not desert courses, in California.
Perhaps Tommy can let us know of any flat course in the LA area and elsewhere in California (non-desert)
Even Wilshire had rolling, interesting terrain.

If, the photographic evidence pre 1926 shows the existence of  that "California" style bunker, then those bunkers can't be deemed a bunker style imported by Mackenzie.   That's an indisputable fact

[Sven Nilsen]

Pat:

I'm not disputing that the style of bunker you are discussing existed in California prior to 1926 (although I'd still like you to clarify what, if anything, about that style was unique to California courses).

It doesn't surprise me in the least that architects in different parts of the world were developing similar styles.  Golf design was still a small world, and the major influences all spread from the same sources.

If you're trying to assert that the bunkers MacKenzie built in California were the result of borrowing from the style used by others on other California courses, please stop with the speculation and lay out some facts that back this assertion.

Until then, all we are left with is your Eureka moment, which catches you up with the rest of kids in the class.

Sven

[RJ_Daley]

What it says in the photographic evidence of courses MacKenzie laid out in GB prior to 1915-20 was that this genre of bunker styling and design was one that the Good Dr. used before the guys in Cali were using it.  Or, that they saw the naturalness either themselves on early trips to
GB, or learned from another contemporary associate fellow who had seen it in person, and adopted the preferred natural aesthetic along with effective construction and perception questions that could be brought into a design to make it more desirable.

And BTW, this site is certainly not deteriorating for any suggestions that Wild Bill has made about the origins and time frame for adoption of these MacKenzie principles and aesthetic in Cali.  It may suggest you unfairly made unfounded assertions and then cast detraction on Bill, wrongfully.

[RJ_Daley]

Regarding the subject at hand, there are enough photographs of MacKenzie's work at Alwoody, Sitwell Park, Dunwoody, and several others of the 1900-1915 era to clearly demonstrate the Good Dr. was using a form of scab, lacy, or uneven edged bunkering ahead of the California contingent.  Have you seen Tom Doak's book on Mackenzie and photos from that era pre-1915?  And, without paging through many others, I know I have seen other photos of such. And to paraphrase the gist of some of MacKenzie's comments on bunker construction resultant from his supervision of the placement and array of defensive positions on the battlefield to camouflage and blend those positions; natural terrain that is dug out to hold troops dug in, needed to have irregular and random edges of illusion to not appear as a dug out position.  Thus, his trenches and fox hole positions had edges that were irregular and blended into the surrounding vegetation (lacy if you will) with varied front and backside irregular elevations rather than obvious man made hard edges.  The hard edges gave away the manufactured position too easily, whereas the irregularity more mimicked nature, and gave depth perception illusions, so that even if artillery was directed at a position, the depth perception would lend more safety in creating confusion as to trajectory and distance to targets. 

It seems logical that once the golf courses moved away from the dunes and links of sandy coastal area, up into the heathland and into the inland, if there were going to be hazardous sand pits to be presented in golf course architecture, it was MacKenzie's mission to do what he could with the knowledge he had to emulate those sandy bunkers with a style that blended in, offered some gamesmanship illusion, and was not a violation of the randomness of nature.  That is where the lacy edges came from.  And, that was what those Americans that were going over to the British Isles to study, brought back with them, or others who had visited -shared with Americans that hadn't made the trip, but were building our courses here on the principles set forth on the old sod.  That is the process of learning CB took upon himself to study, that is why Wilson went to study, etc.  They wanted to undertake and build their own ideas upon the principles of GCA that had already evolved in a certain way back at the cradle of the game.  And, the Good Dr.'s work was surely one of those prime influences to be emulated. 

As Bill said, it is preposterous to think that Alister MacKenzie went to Cali to study the new crop of golf archies there.  It was AM, that they wanted to learn and improve upon. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

What you and Bill don't get and have somehow twisted into an inverse proposition is the following, which is at the core of my premise.

If the "California" or "Lace Edge"  bunkering style on the California courses existed prior to 1926 then Mackenzie couldn't have imported that style.

Only a moron can't understand that simple statement.

It's not a premise that's open to debate.

Photographic evidence will either support or refute the premise, not ridiculous personalized allegations.

And, so far, a limited number of photographs from prior to 1926 seem to prove the pre-1926 existence of that style.

Ergo, the "California" or "Lace Edge" style of bunker in California had little or anything to do with Mackenzie's introduction. D

[RJ_Daley]

Pat what this humble moron is trying to tell you is that what you characterize as "California style, lacy edged bunkers' (that Sven rightly tries to get you to more specifically identify examples of as they existed in the time frame you speak of) was not "imported" by MacKenzie to this regional assembly of California architects of that era, per se.  These bunkering styles were part of his repetoire from his earliest efforts back in GB at the turn of the century.  If anything, the Cali contingent saw this stylized presentation, that emulated the bunkers of the true links and coastal dunes land of original courses, and was adapted to a satisfactory aesthetic and function, when it was brought inland, and that was in the next generation or half generation of architects learned repetoire as they adapted those ideas in California. 

Why don't you call this style you seem to thnk you can identify as California style, MacKenzie-esque presentations, adapted from pre-California golf course expansion era as first seen in the British Isles? 

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:

Dr. MacKenzie never went to Gaylord, Michigan in his life, so were the bunkers Gil Hanse and I built at Black Forest our own original idea?

Or did we just go to California and figure out how to build bunkers like we admired there?

In fact, MacKenzie built bunkers with the lace-edged style at Alwoodley in 1907 and at Headingley in 1913.  [Incidentally, neither of those courses is flat at all.]  Photos of both were in his 1920 book.  Most of these Californian architects, being avid enthusiasts -- Tommy N. will back me up on this -- surely read MacKenzie's book and saw examples of his bunker style.

I'm not sure MacKenzie invented the style.  He himself said he was only trying to copy the forms he saw occurring naturally in sand dunes.  Maybe Billy Bell had the same idea, instead of seeing it in a book.  But I don't know how you could PROVE that.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just looking through Geoff Shackelford's "The Golden Age of Golf Design" and saw some photos of La Cumbre and LACC North and the bunkering, pre 1926 has the "California" "Lace Edge" look.  With LACC North in 1921 and La Cumbre in 1920-1925, it's clear that Mackenzie had no imput.  Probably the same is true at 1927 Riviera.

[Sven Nilsen]

Who are you trying to prove wrong other than your own self-admitted misconception?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Dr. MacKenzie never went to Gaylord, Michigan in his life, so were the bunkers Gil Hanse and I built at Black Forest our own original idea?

Or did we just go to California and figure out how to build bunkers like we admired there?

Tom,

Let me see if I understand the question.

You're trying to equate modern day communications technology with the communications technology of a century ago.

Digital imaging, the internet, fax's, phones, satellite imaging ?

In fact, MacKenzie built bunkers with the lace-edged style at Alwoodley in 1907 and at Headingley in 1913.  [Incidentally, neither of those courses is flat at all.]

The caption under the pictures states that the land was flat.
Was Mackenzie lying ?
Look at the captions on pages 41, 52 and others

Photos of both were in his 1920 book.

Look at the captions under those photos  

Most of these Californian architects, being avid enthusiasts -- Tommy N. will back me up on this -- surely read MacKenzie's book and saw examples of his bunker style.

That's pure conjecture on your part.
And, if they did read it, there's no telling in what year they read it.
Could have been 1927.  Doubtful it was 1920 unless they Fed-Xed copies to LA.


Tom, what's really interesting is the following.
I want to know how a book published in 1920 influenced the design and construction of bunkers built from 1911 to 1919 ?
Explain that to me because I'm having a problem grasping the concept.

Tom, for a smart guy, you don't get it.

If the "California"/"Lace Edge" bunkers were in the ground in courses in California in the early part of the 20th Century, between 1911 and 1925, then, those bunkers were NOT the product of Mackenzie's doing.

They were independent of Mackenzie.

They were the work of Fowler, Bell, Thomas, MacBeth, Watson and others, and NOT Mackenzie

I'm not sure MacKenzie invented the style.  He himself said he was only trying to copy the forms he saw occurring naturally in sand dunes.  Maybe Billy Bell had the same idea, instead of seeing it in a book.  But I don't know how you could PROVE that.

I don't have to.
The proof is in the ground pre 1926 when MacKenzie arrived in California and pre 1920 when Mackenzie published his book..
Those "California"/"Lace Edge" bunkers were already in existance before  Mackenzie set foot in California or published his book.
Hence, that bunker style in California can't be attributed to Mackenzie.

Unless of course, like the great Carnac and Kreskin they possessed unusual abilities

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat what this humble moron is trying to tell you is that what you characterize as "California style, lacy edged bunkers' (that Sven rightly tries to get you to more specifically identify examples of as they existed in the time frame you speak of) was not "imported" by MacKenzie to this regional assembly of California architects of that era, per se. 


RJ,

First,  you're not that humble 

Second, than you, me and Sven agree, that style of bunker existed in California pre 1920 and 1926.

These bunkering styles were part of his repetoire from his earliest efforts back in GB at the turn of the century. 

That's not the issue.
The issue is the introduction of that style to California, not its existence elsewhere.

If anything, the Cali contingent saw this stylized presentation, that emulated the bunkers of the true links and coastal dunes land of original courses, and was adapted to a satisfactory aesthetic and function, when it was brought inland, and that was in the next generation or half generation of architects learned repetoire as they adapted those ideas in California. 

Really ?
And where exactly did the California architects see this "stylized presentation" ?

Why don't you call this style you seem to thnk you can identify as California style, MacKenzie-esque presentations, adapted from pre-California golf course expansion era as first seen in the British Isles? 

Seen by whom ?
And when ?

To date no one has presented pre 1920 and 1926 dates documenting any of the California architects visiting the UK.
Doesn't that cause you to question your theory ?

[Sven Nilsen]

Let's not get carried away.

You have yet to present any evidence that the style existed pre-1920 (my comment was pre-1926).  There weren't that many guys working in California before 1920 (Watson, Reid, MacBeth, Bendelow and Bell (just getting his toes wet) and a few others).  The bulk of the work out there was done in the 20's, including the renovation/reconstruction of many of the courses that had been built earlier.

Since I can't get an answer from you on the parameters of the California Style, does the following qualify?



Sven

[Sven Nilsen]

Are you confusing Fowler with MacBeth regarding the 1911 work?

No.

C&W list Fowler as the architect on LACC South in 1911

C&W, as you've noted, aren't infallible.

You have so much to learn, and I only have so much time to devote to teaching you.

[Sean_A]

Pat

This is a potentially good thread if you are willing to drop the act.

Two issues arise with your stance.  No definition of California style of bunkering and no definition of import.

You stated:

If, the photographic evidence pre 1926 shows the existence of  that "California" style bunker, then those bunkers can't be deemed a bunker style imported by Mackenzie.   That's an indisputable fact

If you assert that importing an idea means that the idea had to be implemented in California to be an import than this conversation is a waste of time and teaches us nothing. 

If, however, you reckon importing an idea has nothing to do with the concept being carried out by the originator of the idea than we have a potentially good thread. 

I may be on shakey ground, but it would seem that if the thread is to have any value then and in the seeming absence of evidence, I would take the position that it is highly likely the Cali contingent knew all about Dr Mac and his work in GB&I.  If this is the true, it stands a good chance
that the style(s) of Dr Mac's bunkers were also known.  That said, I think it also highly likely that Dr Mac learned from the Cali contingent once he was in California.  While I think the rudiments of Dr Mac's style is borne from his work in GB&I, there is no doubt that the style was aesthetically improved (and perhaps the construction-wise as well) far beyond what was achieved in GB&I. 

1. Do you think its possible that the Cali contingent saw photos of Dr Mac's British work pre-1926? 

2. Do you think its possible that some of the Cali contingent saw some of Dr Mac's pre-1926 work in person? 

3. Do you think its possible the Cali contingent style of bunkering was developed simultaneously and completely independently of Dr Mac's style(s)? 

Ally - I can't recall, but I am not sure if there is any evidence that Simpson made the trip as advertised and if so to what effect.  I too would like to know the scoop.

Ciao

[Tommy Naccarato]

Most of these Californian architects, being avid enthusiasts -- Tommy N. will back me up on this -- surely read MacKenzie's book and saw examples of his bunker style.

I'm not sure MacKenzie invented the style.  He himself said he was only trying to copy the forms he saw occurring naturally in sand dunes.  Maybe Billy Bell had the same idea, instead of seeing it in a book.  But I don't know how you could PROVE that.

Yes, 100% agreed!  Early California bunkering went from very natural to none, then to Geometric at some places and then even trench-like which could have been easily confused as Seth Raynor's.  Eventually Bell bunkering made its way on to a lot of course, but ironically, he had a style that was used later on that was very muscleback like. HUGE muscles!

The bunkers at Wilshire were much trench like and rugged until a later remodel, which its been speculated, could have been a Norman Macbeth trip to Cypress Point. (pictures of him and MacKenzie there, and there is always the Max Behr connection to MacKenzie for Macbeth. (Max and Mac were friends as we know)

Regardless, the artistic bunkering seen in the images I posted at Oakmont gave us that unrefined very natural look; You could also find it at early NGLA if some of you were looking! (Right Tom?!?!?)

From British Golf Links circa 1896 from the hired eye for Horace Hutchinson:




I think the important thing to note here is that Pat is meaning--I think he is meaning that he is seeing for the first time rugged bunkers in California architecture previous to MacKenzie being in California. I think he as well as everyone else knows what a bunker looked like in Great Britain, but then again......

I'D RATHER SEE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT LAND FORMS AND SHAPES IN THE APPROACHES IN AND AROUND THE GREEN!

[Sven Nilsen]

While MacKenzie might not discuss the "frilly" or "serrated" edge bunker in any detail in Golf Architecture, he does discuss the general concepts behind their creation, including the following excerpts:

"The course should have beautiful surroundings, and all artificial features should have so natural an appearance that a stranger is unable to distinguish them from nature itself."

"In constructing natural-looking undulations one should attempt to study the manner in which those among the sand-dunes are formed.  These are fashioned by the wind blowing up the sand in the form of waves, which become gradually turfed over in the course of time."  [He's discussing undulations in the green here, but the idea translates to the ground around bunker edges, and how the uneven edges are the result of undulating ground extending into the bunker areas.]

"The chief object of every golf architect or greenkeeper worth his salt is to imitate the beauties of nature so closely as to make his work indistinguishable from nature itself."

"Square, flat greens and geometrical bunkers have not only been an eyesore upon the whole landscape, but have detracted from the infinite variety of play which is the heritage of the game."

In nature, the edges between blowout areas and turfed areas are not straight lines.  They have curves that follow the lay of the land, and the transition may be "frilly" or "jagged."  These are the types of transitions that MacKenzie looked to create.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In an attempt to clarify matters:

From Jan/Feb of 1920 when "Golf Architecture" is first published in London (number of copies unknown at present) until January 29th 1926, when MacKenzie arrives in San Francisco, there's not one recorded meeting between MacKenzie and any of the "California" architects in his diary/timeline.  In addition, there's no record of any correspondence, in letter form or telegraph, between MacKenzie and any of the California architects.

In addition, Mackenzie did NOT move to America in 1926.
He visited California briefly in 1926, for about a month,
from Jan 29, 1926 to late February and departs NYC for the UK on March 2, 1926.
It's unclear to me if it was his brother Charles or Alister who visits in July/August.

He's in the UK in August, 1926 and sails for Australia on Sept 19, 1926.
He remains in Australia/NZ for months and arrives back in San Fran on Feb 18, 1927,
where he spends less than a month, going to Philadelphia in Mid-March
and then departing NYC for Southampton on March 26,  1927.

He returns to NYC on Jan 20, 1928
Arrives in California on Jan 29, 1928
Less than a month later he sails from NYC to Southampton on March 17, 1928

August 18, 1928 CPC opens and MacKenzie is not there.

On August 18, 1928 Mackenzie sails from Southampton to Quebec, Arriving on August 26, 1928
He's in California in early October, and goes to Chicago around Oct 16-20, 1928
And then sails from NYC to Southampton on Oct 24,1928, arriving on Oct 31, 1928.

On Jan 28, 1929 he arrives from Southampton, and is at Pasatiempo on Feb 4, 1929.

He's back in the UK attending the Ryder Cup at Moortown in April 26-27, 1929

He arrives back in NYC on July 26, 1929.
In California August 3-13, then back east On Sept 30, 1929
In Chicago Dec 2, 1929.

On Jan 24, 1930 he sails from NJ to Argentina, arriving on Feb 10-12, 1930

April 9, 1930 he sails back to Southampton, arriving April 27, 1930.

Gets married to Hilda a few days later in London on May 9, 1930.

He sails from Southampton on June 7 and arrives in NYC on June 13, 1930

He's in California in late June/early July and moves in to his California residence in Santa Cruz in November 1930.
He did not come to reside in America until four (4) years later in 1930.

So, the notion that MacKenzie was in residence in the U.S begining in 1926 is false.
And, he certainly didn't spend the bulk of his time in California from 1926 to 1930.

On his Feb, 1926 visit to California it's recorded that he and Hunter spent time visiting courses in the Bay area, thus dismissing Sven's claim that there weren't many courses in California at the time.  When he visits Los Angeles he does the same thing, visiting Riviera and Merwick.  So we know that courses such as Riviera, Merwick, Ojai, Palos Verdes, Red Hill and other were already being played and that a good number of other courses were already under construction or built, awaiting grassing by the time of his visit.

 

[Bill_McBride]

I went back to the original post and have to wonder, why all the fuss?  Did anyone ever say that Mackenzie originated the "California bunkering style?"    There were talented architects practicing in California and farther up the West Coast who designed beautiful bunkering schemes.  Mackenzie came a bit later, no argument.   So I guess the question is, why have you posed a straw man argument if not merely to generate a couple of argumentative pages of posts?

[Thomas Dai]

Nice thread.

One interesting aspect - the absence in all the above photos of trees.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I went back to the original post and have to wonder, why all the fuss? 
Did anyone ever say that Mackenzie originated the "California bunkering style?"   

That's a really foolish question.
One only has to view the histrionic arguments posted by others, stridently defending Mackenzie's introduction of that style to California

There were talented architects practicing in California and farther up the West Coast who designed beautiful bunkering schemes. 

Bill, you may have missed it, but, that was one of my points.

Mackenzie came a bit later, no argument. 

Oh but there's been plenty of argument.
Even the talented Mr Doak chimed in claiming that those same architects had read and looked at the photos in Mackenzie's 1920  book, "Golf Architecture", which in turn served as the inspiration for their work.

As I pointed out, I'm still puzzled how architects designing and building courses in 1911-1919 could gain their inspiration from a book written in 1920.
But, I'm willing to learn.

Others suggested that those talented California architects had either met MacKenzie, visited his courses in the UK or saw pictures of them, and that it was MacKenzie's style that they adopted, not their own.  

So I guess the question is, why have you posed a straw man argument if not merely to generate a couple of argumentative pages of posts?

That's your biased opinion and erroneous conclusion, moronic as they may be.

Suffice it to say, that as usual, you're wrong, so continue to ponder the reason and I'll let you know when you discover the right answer      .......doubtful as that may be.

But, I am glad that you're one of those who agree that the "California"/"Lace Edge" bunker was introduced to California courses prior to MacKenzie's arrival, either in person or in book form.

[Patrick_Mucci]

So I guess the question is, why have you posed a straw man argument if not merely to generate a couple of argumentative pages of posts? [/b]

Bill,

It's interesting, in a quick review of the last 15 pages of threads, I couldn't find a single thread that you created/initiated, not one.

So, for a guy who contributes so little in the interest of promoting discussion by initiating interesting threads, you sure have a lot of negative things to say.

Instead of whining, why don't you try something different, like trying to use your brain to create some interesting threads about architecture.
If that's beyond your ability, we understand.

[Bill_McBride]

So I guess the question is, why have you posed a straw man argument if not merely to generate a couple of argumentative pages of posts?

Bill,

It's interesting, in a quick review of the last 15 pages of threads, I couldn't find a single thread that you created/initiated, not one.

So, for a guy who contributes so little in the interest of promoting discussion by initiating threads, you sure have a lot of negative things to say.

Instead of whining, why don't you try to create some interesting threads about architecture.

What's negative about the remarks above?   

As far as posting new threads, I was posting photo tours of cool courses like Pennard and Painswick years before you figured out how to post photos.   I'm not as big a beard puller as you are so I'll just have to settle for enjoying yours. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

So I guess the question is, why have you posed a straw man argument if not merely to generate a couple of argumentative pages of posts?


What's negative about the remarks above?   

Only a moron wouldn't understand what's negative about your remark above.

As far as posting new threads, I was posting photo tours of cool courses like Pennard and Painswick years before you figured out how to post photos. 

WOW, posting photos, alot of intellect required for that task huh.
How about creating threads that stimulate discussion, that challenge one's intellect, or haven't you learned how to do that yet ? 

I'm not as big a beard puller as you are so I'll just have to settle for enjoying yours. 

Then try to keep the whining and erroneous conclusions to a minimum