And all this time I thought that

[Sean_A]

Pat

1. You asked a question/made statements which don't have certain answers - so why exactly would expect there to be no conjecture in the responses? 

2. I think everybody understands they are making educated guesses to develop responses.  Its what people do when in a conversation without definitive proof and meant to be entertaining (you aren't under the illusion that anything you write on this board makes a difference - are you?  You poor, poor man) when the answers are not known.  Any simple headed moron understands this. But then with statements such as these below it is clear you aren't a simple headed moron, its just that you act the part now and then.

it seemed to me that MacKenzie wasn't the creator of that style

It certainly doesn't appear to be MacKenzie

3. Please point out who stated the Cali style for bunkers was solely due to Dr Mac?  Classic Mucci switch and bait tactic likely used back at ND when trying to brow beat pimply faced undergrads.   

4. In my experience, archies knowingly or not copy the work of previous archies a lot.  I see themes repeated often.  Some believe there is little else original an archie can come up with.  If this is the case, it is hard to be in business and not use old ideas.  Besides, there is good reason to use some old ideas, so I am not sure there is anything wrong with using tried and tested concepts. 

5. Please put forward your evidence which makes it clearly obvious that the Cali style is wholly independent and original.  Or were you expecting people to do your research for you?

Ciao     

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat

1. You asked a question/made statements which don't have certain answers -

How can statements require answers ?
How do you know if a question I asked doesn't have a answer ?
You may not know the answer, but that doesn't mean there isn't an answer.
Which questions were you specifically referencing.so why exactly would expect there to be no conjecture in the responses?  

2. I think everybody understands they are making educated guesses to develop responses.

I thought, if people didn't know the answer, that they'd say so, rather than speculate, especially when that speculation seems to be based on emotion rather than fact


Its what people do when in a conversation without definitive proof

Isn't that a form of "wishful thinking" ?

and meant to be entertaining (you aren't under the illusion that anything you write on this board makes a difference - are you?  
Judging by the IM's and emails I get, to your disappointment, yes


when the answers are not known.  

How do you know that the answers are unknown.
Just because you don't know the answer, doesn't mean that THE answer is unknown

Any simple headed moron understands this. But then with statements such as these below it is clear you aren't a simple headed moron, its just that you act the part now and then.

it seemed to me that MacKenzie wasn't the creator of that style

Yet, the esteemed Tom Doak seemed to take issue with that statement.
Ditto RJ


It certainly doesn't appear to be MacKenzie

3. Please point out who stated the Cali style for bunkers was solely due to Dr Mac?  

Tom and RJ seemed to lean in that direction
And initially, until Neil Crafter made his post, so did others

Classic Mucci switch and bait tactic likely used back at ND when trying to brow beat pimply faced undergrads.  

You're wrong again.
Law school

4. In my experience, archies knowingly or not copy the work of previous archies a lot.  

Would you cite your vast experience where Archie's copy the work of others in the U.S

I see themes repeated often.  Some believe there is little else original an archie can come up with.  If this is the case, it is hard to be in business and not use old ideas.  Besides, there is good reason to use some old ideas, so I am not sure there is anything wrong with using tried and tested concepts.  

Wouldn't that result in the perpetuation of the "geometric" school of architecture in California ?

5. Please put forward your evidence which makes it clearly obvious that the Cali style is wholly independent and original.  
I never made that statement.
That's your disingenuous attempt to distort my position.

My premise, which you obviously didn't understand, was that MacKenzie was not the author of the "California" or "Lace Edge" bunker in California.

Or were you expecting people to do your research for you?

Is this tired phrase the best you can do ?
  

[Sean_A]

Pat

So you weren't expecting answers/responses to your premise?  How can a conclusion be drawn if not for answers/responses leading to a conclusion?  Or perhaps you thought someone was going to present a definitive conclusion with absolute evidence to either affirm or dispel your premise?  I suspect this isn't the case because that would be a moronic expectation.  

I think everybody either said they didn't know the answer or implied it to be the case.  I don't recall reading anything that I would call a definitive response to your premise.  I believe you know this to be the case or you tacitly admit to being a moron.  

If your friends think you write anything on this board that makes difference they are delusional and spots should be reserved for them at Happydale Farm.

I can't speak for anybody else, but I only have one wish for the outcome of this thread and it has nothing to do with Dr Mac's prowess as a bunker designer.  But then I already told you that I could care less the about result of your enquiry. In your wisdom, you seem to know what others want to be true even when told otherwise.  Some could label one displaying that sort of behaviour as a moronic.  

You must have some compelling reason(s) to state your premise - this is why they were requestd.  I haven't read anything on this thread which is nearly enough for you to conclude the following - vague as they are.  

it seemed to me that MacKenzie wasn't the creator of that style

It certainly doesn't appear to be MacKenzie

I suspect my tired statement of you looking for someone to do your homework is about the only thing that we conclude thus far. You can do better than fish about.  

Ciao



 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I’m no academic.  I sit here with mud on my boots.  I concede all of your points.  I haven’t read Mackenzie’s “Golf Architecture,” but I did download a copy of it a few days ago, thanks to info from this site, and look forward to doing so.   

I’ll happily agree that my post was complete speculation.  I said “no proof, just speculation...”  I never said a word about Mackenzie’s influence on those working in California prior to his arrival.  I simply supported as more logical Sven’s and others’ contention that that the Californians were not working in isolation to what was happening in the rest of the golfing world. 

And that's where I think we disagree
The California landform was unlike anything these fellows had ever seen.
It was distinct, unique, with nothing in their past to prepare them for that terrain and climate.
I often think that we attribute modern day communications to an era far removed from what's routine for us.
The oceans were a huge buffer, responsible for creating the isolationist movement.

Is their anything in the UK, topographically and climate wise that convey a connection with California, from an architectural perspective ?

So, I tend to discount the contemporaneous, collaborative theory.

Your observation that California-styled bunkers appeared there before the Good Doctor ever came west certainly seems true enough. 
Yet, others resisted that notion and seemed bent on attributing that style of bunker to MacKenzie despite his never having set foot in California.

However, your conclusion that they were first created there without influence from any other design style or school, and particularly Dr. Mackenzie, is also, well, speculation. 

Not so sure about that.
The uniqueness of the terrain and climate in California would seem to demand a different bunker style.
Don't know how you can attribute same to a man who never set foot in America prior to 1926

You have no proof to back this conclusion because there is no primary source evidence for this in your arguments.  It may exist and you may be right.  Your case just isn’t convincing to me.

I think I've provided adequate proof that MacKenzie is not responsible for that style bunker in California pre 1926.

I'm hoping to have additional, documented proof for you and others within the next week


It seems worth saying that history is often a matter of interpretation of events and known facts and even may involve speculation and creative filling in of voids between what we know (and think we can prove) and what it means or is significant or interesting to other people.  You’ve done that and some of us have offered other opinions or questioned your arguments.  It’s a discussion of ideas, from which we’ll all draw our own conclusions and what we think is true, logical, probable, or not.

Agreed

You can save your wind for other debates.  I’m not your opponent and I don’t have time for protracted semantics and endless argument.  You don’t have to brow-beat me into submission that you are right and I am wrong.  You might be right; you might be wrong.  So freaking what?  Does it really matter?  Not to me.  I come here for amusement, pleasure, and perhaps I may learn something useful along the way. 
Me too !


I respect those that have made the site what it is.  You are certainly one of those guys that have been here a long time and contributed enormous amounts of your time to the discussions here.  I’m sure you have made many friends from your activities here.  Although a stranger to me, I’d bet that you are a fine, sensitive, and highly intelligent man.  Your passion oozes from your every green word.  You like to debate.  That’s great.  Keep up the good fight.  But I must admit, I skip most of what you write because of your aggressive, contentious, sometimes abusive, style of putting your points across.  That’s my loss.  It’s also no big deal because I’m nobody.  Just a guy that shares your passion.  But it may be your loss as well.  There are many fine minds here.  Granted, we are talking about stuff of relatively minor significance in the overall scheme of things and, perhaps, some of those fine minds should not be wasting their talents amusing the rest of us.  But if folks aren’t listening to you and the effort you are putting into it, and, in turn, you are not listening to them, it seems a great waste of opportunity and time.

Dave, i don't think you get it.
I suppose I could either remain silent or initiate posts that ask which is the best halfway house, burger and tee markers.
But they don't promote interesting discussion, do they ?
So instead, I choose topics which will encourage debate, and often, I fuel that debate.
Perhaps, if you'd see the movie, "Man on the Moon" especially the part featuring Jerry Lawler, you'd get it

Just a bed time thought.  Enjoy your golf.  I'll be back when I can.

Spring is just around the corner and I have to rehab my knee, so perhaps it is time to "enjoy my golf"[

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate them./b]

[Dave McCollum]

Dave, i don't think you get it.
I suppose I could either remain silent or initiate posts that ask which is the best halfway house, burger and tee markers.
But they don't promote interesting discussion, do they ?
So instead, I choose topics which will encourage debate, and often, I fuel that debate.
Perhaps, if you'd see the movie, "Man on the Moon" especially the part featuring Jerry Lawler, you'd get it [/b][/size][/color]

Just a bed time thought.  Enjoy your golf.  I'll be back when I can.

Spring is just around the corner and I have to rehab my knee, so perhaps it is time to "enjoy my golf"[

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate them./b]

I think I get it.  I'm not saying that you don't promote or fuel debate.  You're a Jedi Master of debate.  I just suggested that it might be a bit more productive if you avoided personally attacking those you are debating.  Not exactly style over substance, but style matters. 

Strange that you mention "Man on the Moon."  I've either forgotten most of it or couldn't sit through it in the first place.  My brother-in-law was one of the camera/video operators on that show and I visited him on the set at one point.  He had good stories about that shoot.  I need to watch it again.  Thanks for the nudge.

Good luck with your knee.  We were just getting ready to turn the golfers loose in carts yesterday.  Unfortunately, that was before it dumped four inches of wet white stuff on us Tuesday night.  Quite a few of our most avid golfers don't golf if they can't ride.  It's been a long winter for them.  Me too, and it explains why I am stirring up trouble here.  I'm a foul weather poster.           

[RJ_Daley]

Pat Mucci says:

I think I've provided adequate proof that MacKenzie is not responsible for that style bunker in California pre 1926.

I'm hoping to have additional, documented proof for you and others within the next week

Well this I gotta see.  I hope you are saying you have some photos representative of what you have defined as the 'California style' bunkering, and can tell us which courses and what architect designed them, say between 1915-1930.  Would that be a fair time frame for you to work with in your show and tell of what "'IS'" a california style bunker, what makes them so, and why they are representaative of this genre you seem to assign to California, as an independent movement- not influenced by MacKenzie's work, in earlier times??

How about doing some extra work and please list 10 courses existing in California pre-MacKenzie arrival to the Golden State, that had what you deem, California Style bunkering.  (I realize even you aren't "that" old and have not actually seen and played them and have to rely on grainy old black and white photos to make this determination - but hey, it is your claim and you must have made these judgements based on seeing something)  Then... list 5-10 courses in Cali you think where "California Style' bunkering still exists today, if you can.  Finally, please tell us of those you believe are California Style bunkering, what sets them apart from MacKenzie's California design work. 

Or, do you think now that MacKenzie came to Cali to copy Thomas, Behr, Bell, etc....?

We are all sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for this promise of 'documentation'. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci says:

I think I've provided adequate proof that MacKenzie is not responsible for that style bunker in California pre 1926.

I'm hoping to have additional, documented proof for you and others within the next week

Well this I gotta see.  I hope you are saying you have some photos representative of what you have defined as the 'California style' bunkering, and can tell us which courses and what architect designed them, say between 1915-1930. 

I'm hoping to have some by next week

Would that be a fair time frame for you to work with in your show and tell of what "'IS'" a california style bunker, what makes them so, and why they are representaative of this genre you seem to assign to California, as an independent movement- not influenced by MacKenzie's work, in earlier times??

I think 1910 to 1925 would be good, but, I'll go to 1930

How about doing some extra work and please list 10 courses existing in California pre-MacKenzie arrival to the Golden State, that had what you deem, California Style bunkering. 

You can start with Riviera and La Cumbre.
I'll get back to you with others

(I realize even you aren't "that" old and have not actually seen and played them and have to rely on grainy old black and white photos to make this determination - but hey, it is your claim and you must have made these judgements based on seeing something) 

Then... list 5-10 courses in Cali you think where "California Style' bunkering still exists today, if you can.

That's irrelevant to my initial thread, but, if you want to start a thread on that subject, feel free to do so. 

Finally, please tell us of those you believe are California Style bunkering,

Like "obscenity", you may not be able to precisely define them, but you know them when you see them.

what sets them apart from MacKenzie's California design work. 
Or, do you think now that MacKenzie came to Cali to copy Thomas, Behr, Bell, etc....?

I don't think that was his purpose in coming to California, but Sean seems to think that those ODG's copied one another, so would it be a surprise if MacKenzie lived up to Sean's claim ?

We are all sitting on the edge of our seats waiting for this promise of 'documentation'. 

Me too

[Patrick_Mucci]

I think I get it.  I'm not saying that you don't promote or fuel debate.  You're a Jedi Master of debate.  I just suggested that it might be a bit more productive if you avoided personally attacking those you are debating.  Not exactly style over substance, but style matters. 

Dave,

Go see the movie.
And pay attention to the part Jerry Lawler plays.
If you don't, I'll have to begin calling you a moron.

Strange that you mention "Man on the Moon."  I've either forgotten most of it or couldn't sit through it in the first place.  My brother-in-law was one of the camera/video operators on that show and I visited him on the set at one point.  He had good stories about that shoot.  I need to watch it again.  Thanks for the nudge.

Good luck with your knee.  We were just getting ready to turn the golfers loose in carts yesterday.  Unfortunately, that was before it dumped four inches of wet white stuff on us Tuesday night.  Quite a few of our most avid golfers don't golf if they can't ride.  It's been a long winter for them.  Me too, and it explains why I am stirring up trouble here.  I'm a foul weather poster. 

4 inches of snow in Arizona in late February ?  ?  ?          

[RJ_Daley]

How about doing some extra work and please list 10 courses existing in California pre-MacKenzie arrival to the Golden State, that had what you deem, California Style bunkering.

[g]You can start with Riviera and La Cumbre.
I'll get back to you with others[/g]

Pat:  "courses in California PRE-MACKENZIE ARRIVAL TO THE GOLDEN STATE".  

That is asking for some documentation of what you deem a California style, not influenced by MacKenzie.

Here is a photo of Dr. MacKenzie, AT THE PRE CONSTRUCTION SITE OF RIVIERA, with sketch book in hand, obviously in conversation or consultation with Thomas and Bell, quite possibly giving them design and construction ideas!


See what we did there?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

You have your facts wrong on the visit to Riviera,,

For clarification on his visit to Riviera go to the official MacKenzie website and see how they characterize his visit.

Not what you claim, is it ?

Who supplied you with the photo ?

[Dave McCollum]

I think I get it.  I'm not saying that you don't promote or fuel debate.  You're a Jedi Master of debate.  I just suggested that it might be a bit more productive if you avoided personally attacking those you are debating.  Not exactly style over substance, but style matters. 

Dave,

Go see the movie.
And pay attention to the part Jerry Lawler plays.
If you don't, I'll have to begin calling you a moron.

Strange that you mention "Man on the Moon."  I've either forgotten most of it or couldn't sit through it in the first place.  My brother-in-law was one of the camera/video operators on that show and I visited him on the set at one point.  He had good stories about that shoot.  I need to watch it again.  Thanks for the nudge.

Good luck with your knee.  We were just getting ready to turn the golfers loose in carts yesterday.  Unfortunately, that was before it dumped four inches of wet white stuff on us Tuesday night.  Quite a few of our most avid golfers don't golf if they can't ride.  It's been a long winter for them.  Me too, and it explains why I am stirring up trouble here.  I'm a foul weather poster. 

4 inches of snow in Arizona in late February ?  ?  ?          

I’ve almost made it.  Took me 5 years to lose my “Jr. Member” status.  Only 50 more posts and Patrick Mucci  is threatening to call me a moron.  Yahoo!   In three or four years, if I don’t get whacked, I’ll be a made man:  Treehouse lunatic.  Do I get a tattoo or something?

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, you got me.  I admit my source for that photo wasn't the most reliable.  Here it is:

http://www.therivieracountryclub.com/html/history.cfm

But thanks for letting me play....  

PS:  I'll give you one thing, the Riviera site probably mistates the date as 1926, and the timeline places him in that community around March 5-13, 1927.  But, you'll note that the Riviera club is not completed at that time.  What do you think was on those papers Dr. MacKenzie was holding in the photo; The Racing Form and who was running at Santa Anita? 

[Bill_McBride]

Pat, you got me.  I admit my source for that photo wasn't the most reliable.  Here it is:

http://www.therivieracountryclub.com/html/history.cfm

But thanks for letting me play.... 

I certainly hope you aren't planning to inject facts into this "discussion."

[Sven Nilsen]

While we're waiting for the grand reveal, thought those paying attention might enjoy this 1921 article from Norman MacBeth discussing the early struggles with building grass greens in California.

http://gsr.lib.msu.edu/1920s/1921/2106107.pdf

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

I'm glad you reminded me.
I have the book, "Riviera Country Club, A Definitive History"

In the club's book, it states that Thomas and Belll measured and remeasured the land several times and drew up 15 routing plans with his last plan being the final plan.

It never never indicates that MacKenzie had anything to do with the design of the golf course.

It clearly states that MacKenzie visited the course after the design had been completed, DURING  CONSTRUCTION.

It further QUOTES MacKenzie as stating "That THOMAS' design was as nearly perfect as man could make out."\

As to your question, what was MacKenzie holding in his hands, the answer is obvious, he was holding THOMAS' plans.

Bill McBride,

Were those the "facts" you were looking for.

In addition, photos of the course from the construction phase show the "California" or "Lace Edge" bunker style.

What's amazing is that the site is almost treeless

[Bill_McBride]

There are no "facts," it's all conjecture.

And bunkers aren't built during design, they are constructed and shaped DURING CONSTRUCTION.  I doubt Mackenzie instructed Thomas, but it's conjecture to state he did or didn't influence Thomas or the other "California  style" designers and builders.

[RJ_Daley]

Pat, as we've already covered, but I'll say it again; the lace edged blended into surrounds naturally rather than stark crisp line is not native or original to California.  We have seen countless photos of MacKenzie designing and presenting that sort of naturally blended, uneven and unlevel edged bunker at the early courses in GB, in the early 1900-1915s.  When you keep harping on 'lacey edges' as somehow a signature design of California transplant from east coast arhies like Thomas and Behr, you are trying to give a name to something that already existed in that uneven edged - natural blended presentation.  How many times do all these people pointing that out to you, does it take?

Personally, if I were pinned down to describe what suggests to me a California style, it is the epitome of California style and grace to say Thomas's bunkers at Riviera, including how maintenance continued to refine and present them in their ideal form with the capes and bays, tongues and curvilinear shapes, with waved over sod rolled top edges.  Yet, the curvilinear, capes and bays can be seen in exquisite form at MacKenzie's Valley Club, and Cal Club presentations- though in my opinion, Thomas's are the most ideal. 

Do you think MacKenzie brought a Califonia inspired bunker design presentation to ANGC, particularly when seeing his treatment of the original 10th, then greenside bunker at Augusta?  Next, you'll tell us that ANGC is really a Thomas inspired design, and Mac was just copying the new fade of the Cali archies.... 

[Sven Nilsen]

Bill -

What strikes me is not that there aren't any facts, but that what we're going to see is an incomplete and selective exercise in presenting evidence that supports a predetermined theory.

Ask any "academic" researcher, and they will tell you exactly how ass-backwards this is.  An academic would perform research, analyze that research, and then, based on the evaluation and analysis of the information contained in the sources, develop their thesis.

In this case, a thorough examination of all sources would require the researcher to review the bunker work done by all members of the "California School" whether while working in California or at other locations prior to moving out west, as well as any work that influenced their designs. 

In one sense, you are spot on.  I don't think the record exists to allow a thorough examination of all of the facts.  Too much of the work that was done was either not recorded or any record thereof has slipped through the cracks of time. 

So we're left with conjecture, or an exercise in determining what makes the most sense.  For some reason, I don't think the protagonist (antagonist?) of this thread will be either willing or able to step back from his preconceptions while trying to develop a sensible thesis in light of the facts that are available.

Sven

[Patrick_Mucci]

There are no "facts," it's all conjecture.

Bill, so MacKenzie's statements are now deemed to be conjecture ?
You have a unique way of defining "facts" and "conjecture"

And bunkers aren't built during design, they are constructed and shaped DURING CONSTRUCTION.  

They're built as they're designed.
And, if you look at Thomas' drawings of the holes, pre-construction, you can see that style in evidence.
In addition, Thomas' pre-construction drawings of LACC reveal the same bunker configurations.
MacKenzie visited Riviera after construction had begun.
MacKenzie credits Bell and Thomas and NEVER states that he assisted in design, in any manner, shape or form, on the drawing board or in the field.

I doubt Mackenzie instructed Thomas, but it's conjecture to state he did or didn't influence Thomas or the other "California  style" designers and builders.

MacKenzie's own statement indicates that he didn't influence Thomas and Bell at Riviera.

You just want to perpetuate a myth, absent any evidence, and take a contrarian position to mine.

There's absolutely no proof you can present substantiating MacKenzie's influence over Thomas at Riviera.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat, as we've already covered, but I'll say it again; the lace edged blended into surrounds naturally rather than stark crisp line is not native or original to California.  

That's not the issue.

We have seen countless photos of MacKenzie designing and presenting that sort of naturally blended, uneven and unlevel edged bunker at the early courses in GB, in the early 1900-1915s.

That's irrelevant to their introduction to California  

When you keep harping on 'lacey edges' as somehow a signature design of California transplant from east coast arhies like Thomas and Behr, you are trying to give a name to something that already existed in that uneven edged - natural blended presentation.  

Not true.
They didn't exist on the East Coast.
Would you point out to me ten courses on the east coast were the "lace edge" bunkers, similar to those in California, existed ?

Tillinghast didn't use them at Five Farms, Baltusrol, Shackamaxon, Somerset Hills, Forest Hills, Winged Foot, Fenway, Shawnee, and other courses.

Thomas didn't use them at Spring Lake or Whitemarsh.

And where exactly, back east, did Behr employ them.

So who was using them ?
And, on what courses ?

You keep presenting "wishful thinking" scenarios without a shred of evidence.

And that's my point about the lack of an academic approach.
You want to perpetuate a myth, you want MacKenzie to somehow be responsible for their introduction in California.
But, to date, you can't find a shred of evidence to substantiate your "wishful thinking"

How many times do all these people pointing that out to you, does it take?

Pointing out what ? Phantom courses ?
Present the same number of courses you requested of me, ten courses on the east coast where the "Lace Bunkers" were the universal theme.
Show me the courses on the East Coast where "Lace Edge" bunkers were the theme.

Personally, if I were pinned down to describe what suggests to me a California style, it is the epitome of California style and grace to say Thomas's bunkers at Riviera, including how maintenance continued to refine and present them in their ideal form with the capes and bays, tongues and curvilinear shapes, with waved over sod rolled top edges.  Yet, the curvilinear, capes and bays can be seen in exquisite form at MacKenzie's Valley Club, and Cal Club presentations- though in my opinion, Thomas's are the most ideal.

I'm not so sure.
My thoughts are that MacKenzie took that style to new heights in California.
The terrain almost begs for them to be set into those flanking and fronting slopes/banks  

Do you think MacKenzie brought a Califonia inspired bunker design presentation to ANGC, particularly when seeing his treatment of the original 10th, then greenside bunker at Augusta?

Yes, but not systemically.
I think he sited them where the terrain and visuals lent themselves to them.

Next, you'll tell us that ANGC is really a Thomas inspired design, and Mac was just copying the new fade of the Cali archies....  

Like Marion Hollins ?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill -

What strikes me is not that there aren't any facts, but that what we're going to see is an incomplete and selective exercise in presenting evidence that supports a predetermined theory.

Ask any "academic" researcher, and they will tell you exactly how ass-backwards this is.  An academic would perform research, analyze that research, and then, based on the evaluation and analysis of the information contained in the sources, develop their thesis.

In this case, a thorough examination of all sources would require the researcher to review the bunker work done by all members of the "California School" whether while working in California or at other locations prior to moving out west, as well as any work that influenced their designs. 

In one sense, you are spot on.  I don't think the record exists to allow a thorough examination of all of the facts.  Too much of the work that was done was either not recorded or any record thereof has slipped through the cracks of time. 

So we're left with conjecture, or an exercise in determining what makes the most sense.  For some reason, I don't think the protagonist (antagonist?) of this thread will be either willing or able to step back from his preconceptions while trying to develop a sensible thesis in light of the facts that are available.


Sven,

And yet, you're willing to accept that it was MacKenzie who introduced that bunker style to California, as is RJ and others, with nothing in the way of "academic" discipline.  There's a blind adherence, with every excuse in the world as to why MacKenzie introduced those bunkers, despite the fact that he'd never set foot in America, let alone California, prior to 1926, years after that style was in existance in California.

[Bill_McBride]

There are no "facts," it's all conjecture.

Bill, so MacKenzie's statements are now deemed to be conjecture ?
You have a unique way of defining "facts" and "conjecture"

And bunkers aren't built during design, they are constructed and shaped DURING CONSTRUCTION.  

They're built as they're designed.
And, if you look at Thomas' drawings of the holes, pre-construction, you can see that style in evidence.
In addition, Thomas' pre-construction drawings of LACC reveal the same bunker configurations.
MacKenzie visited Riviera after construction had begun.
MacKenzie credits Bell and Thomas and NEVER states that he assisted in design, in any manner, shape or form, on the drawing board or in the field.

I doubt Mackenzie instructed Thomas, but it's conjecture to state he did or didn't influence Thomas or the other "California  style" designers and builders.

MacKenzie's own statement indicates that he didn't influence Thomas and Bell at Riviera.

You just want to perpetuate a myth, absent any evidence, and take a contrarian position to mine.

There's absolutely no proof you can present substantiating MacKenzie's influence over Thomas at Riviera.  

Your last line appears to agree with my position:  It's all conjecture because there's no proof.  No evidence that Mackenzie influenced what you call the California architects.  No evidence that he didn't.  That's why I call it "conjecture."  It's an interesting discussion but saying you're doesn't make you right.  No matter how many times.

[Patrick_Mucci]

RJ,

Photos of Wilshire, Norman MacBeth's 1919 gem, show evidence of the "California"/"Lace Edge" style.

I'm hoping to have a series of photos of Wilshire, circa 1919, sent to me by next week.

In addition, Riviera and LACC had them as well, I'm also hoping to have some very early photos of LACC as well.

California's topography was quite unique, as was the weather.  
Los Angeles was a desert, not the tropical paradise it is today.

In addition to the sloping terrain, unique barrancas and arroyos sliced through many sites and when combined with those bunkers, offered something never seen in golf before.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,

If the California architects were building the "California" or "Lace Edge" bunkers before MacKenzie's arrival, either in print or in person, I think prudent men can conclude that MacKenzie had no influence.

And, if MacKenzie and others, contemporaneously, credited Thomas, Bell and others with designing a course, prudent men can again conclude that MacKenzie had no influence.

The preponderance of physical and written evidence indicates that the "California" bunker style was in existence in California prior to MacKenzie's presence, in print or in person, and there's NO documented evidence indicating that MacKenzie influenced, directly or indirectly, the bunker style in California, pre 1926 and 1921.

You want MacKenzie to be credited with influencing the bunker style in California, despite the lack of any physical or written evidence supporting your claim. 

[Sven Nilsen]

Bill -

What strikes me is not that there aren't any facts, but that what we're going to see is an incomplete and selective exercise in presenting evidence that supports a predetermined theory.

Ask any "academic" researcher, and they will tell you exactly how ass-backwards this is.  An academic would perform research, analyze that research, and then, based on the evaluation and analysis of the information contained in the sources, develop their thesis.

In this case, a thorough examination of all sources would require the researcher to review the bunker work done by all members of the "California School" whether while working in California or at other locations prior to moving out west, as well as any work that influenced their designs. 

In one sense, you are spot on.  I don't think the record exists to allow a thorough examination of all of the facts.  Too much of the work that was done was either not recorded or any record thereof has slipped through the cracks of time. 

So we're left with conjecture, or an exercise in determining what makes the most sense.  For some reason, I don't think the protagonist (antagonist?) of this thread will be either willing or able to step back from his preconceptions while trying to develop a sensible thesis in light of the facts that are available.


Sven,

And yet, you're willing to accept that it was MacKenzie who introduced that bunker style to California, as is RJ and others, with nothing in the way of "academic" discipline.  There's a blind adherence, with every excuse in the world as to why MacKenzie introduced those bunkers, despite the fact that he'd never set foot in America, let alone California, prior to 1926, years after that style was in existance in California.

For the umpteenth time in this thread, you are claiming I've made statements that I haven't made.  I never stated MacKenzie introduced the style to California.  I did claim he was one of many influences on the guys who were building these courses.  There's a difference between the two statements, which you seem unable to grasp.

Reading comprehension 101.  They offer online classes these days.  Makes me wonder what they were teaching you kids back in the day.

You have yet to prove that this style of bunkering was unique to California.  As Bill has stated, all you've done so far is offer up conjecture.

Its your thesis, its up to you to prove it.  But as we all know, its a thesis you developed prior to doing any real research.