[RJ_Daley]

Just as AM had his Morcum and Russell's, TD has his team. And C&C have their 'boys'.  Had air travel been available to 'The Good Dr.', he would have had the ability to revisit his designs periodically during construction, and fine tune.  The courses he did have a more frequent or constant presents like Pasa and Cypress seem to have a different flavor.

I also find it a bit silly to rank these ODGs or compare them to modern practitioners of the same trade of GCA.   There are just too many variables from travel ease (I'll bet the jet lagged globe trotters don't exactly find it 'easy), and the availability of modern equipment and turf species/cultivar selections. 

Even the economics of sustainability or viability of modern era archies seems to face a different set of criteria as to how long those courses will survive.  Look at TDs two courses that NLE!!!  Courses of Dr. Mac or other ODGs that have survived as clubs up til now seem to have demonstrated that economically, they have endured all the tough times to date, and are likely debt free, and staid memberships of old money.   Even BallyNeal has gone through an economic crisis due to different economic constraints than the old clubs and development parameters of project involving the designs of the ODGs. 

Maybe we should rank the ODGs including Dr. MacKenzie by the pearls of wisdom they left in their writings?  Do their conceptual and philosophical values of what constitutes great architecture abide?  In that case several of 'the dudes abide'...

[Niall C]

If he isn't #1, he's certainly on the Mt. Rushmore of architects, along with Tillinghast, CBM/Raynor, and Ross.

But you could certainly make the case he's the overall #1.

Interesting choice of candidates. How do you think they stack up against Colt, Simpson, Fowler, Alison and Braid ?

Niall

[Garland Bayley]

Turning this around for a moment.

We hear regularly about MacKenzie's best work.

Was it all good? Any not so good or even, dare I say it, bad?

Just asking.

atb

I'm with Thomas on this one.  Name Mac's least impressive golf course.

Ken

Weston Super-mare

[DMoriarty]

My only problem with CBM is his portfolio is small and I wonder what sort of influence he actually had on future architecture.
Ciao

Do you really wonder what sort of influence CBM actually had on future architecture?

To quote 'William G.' . . . LOL.

[Bill_McBride]

If Mike Keiser would hire him if he were still alive, when are we going to see an AM tribute course?

Don't you think Doak's work fills this bill?   I see a lot of wilder greens, overlapping bunkers, strategic lines of play, lack of rough....

Mackenzie's work is a cut above everybody else to me, based on his California courses, Crystal Downs and Alwoodley.  Everything flows so seamlessly and naturally.  It's important to be in the right place in the fairway, there is really risk - reward. 

[Matthew Mollica]

Bill,

you could also add in Tom's common themes with MacKenzie with regard to routings which exploit the primary topographic features of a site, the existence of a stress-free path to bogey for the less accomplished golfer, the prevalent natural aesthetic, and even routings which consider the prevailing winds well.

MM

[Bill_McBride]

Bill,

you could also add in Tom's common themes with MacKenzie with regard to routings which exploit the primary topographic features of a site, the existence of a stress-free path to bogey for the less accomplished golfer, the prevalent natural aesthetic, and even routings which consider the prevailing winds well.

MM

You know who really took advantage of a pre-existing feature in great style?   Rod Whitman at Cabot Links!   Right in the middle of the course there is a large hill which is apparently mining spoil from the past.  On that one hill you play to four greens  and off as many tees.  This is similar to the hills Mackenzie used in similar fashion at The Valley Club and the Meadow Club, and I understand at Royal Melbourne.   At the two California courses it's a great situation as there are drinks in the kiosks at both and several opportunities to tipple!   No such luck at Cabot Links....

[Josh Stevens]

If a modern day architect did today what Dr Mac did at RM, would we not disparage him for being a bit of a celeb GCA who just flits in, waves his arms about a bit in an imperial sort of way and then buggers off, leaving the underlings to do all the work?

Yes there are always underlings, but in this day and age, the boss is expected to get his hands dirty, make adjustments and guide the crew on a daily basis. 

Dr Mac was not permitted to be hands on at RM because of the restrictions of his schedule, but does that diminish his input somewhat.  Bit like Da Vinci doing a bit of a quick sketch of the Mona Lisa in charcoal and letting some student colour it in.

How much credit then does he get for the overall routing and concept, and how much to the others for actually getting down and dirty to put it into practice without recourse to the boss.  Presumably there is a lot of their own interpretation in there simply because the boss was on the ship and not contactable.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Josh,

Please review the history of flight along with the dates of AM's courses.

Travel was a little different at the turn of the 20th Century

[Gary Slatter]

IMHO Alister MacKenzie is one of the top architects, his best work certainly seems to be lasting well.  He also appears to be quite lucky the way those in charge of his courses have maintained them over the years, not every designer has had the same treatment.  Is that luck, or a rush to preserve great courses?    Geoff, its too early to decide.

[Josh Stevens]

Josh,

Please review the history of flight along with the dates of AM's courses.

Travel was a little different at the turn of the 20th Century

Please refrain from being pompous - I am aware of the bloody limitations as you would have noted had you actually read my post.

My point was, his input was far less than we would now expect..  Yes there are all sorts of valid reasons, but that fact remains.  At the very least today we would expect an architect to pop back a few times during construction, at most, be there all the time.

The Dr did neither because he wasn't able to.  That's a fact of the times, but regardless of that, a lot more credit needs to be given to the underlings who carried out the work, often on the back of rather scant drawings and sketches and perhaps one example hole.

[Bill_McBride]

Josh,

Please review the history of flight along with the dates of AM's courses.

Travel was a little different at the turn of the 20th Century

Please refrain from being pompous - I am aware of the bloody limitations as you would have noted had you actually read my post.

My point was, his input was far less than we would now expect..  Yes there are all sorts of valid reasons, but that fact remains.  At the very least today we would expect an architect to pop back a few times during construction, at most, be there all the time.

The Dr did neither because he wasn't able to.  That's a fact of the times, but regardless of that, a lot more credit needs to be given to the underlings who carried out the work, often on the back of rather scant drawings and sketches and perhaps one example hole.

I think Robert Hunter in California and Mick Morcom in Australia have been given lots of credit.  Not as sure about the credit due Perry Maxwell but presumably quite a bit. 

The reality is that travel and perhaps fiscal constraints limited Mackenzie's time on site, but the proof is in the pudding.  He had marvelous colleagues who carried out his plans. 

[Tom_Doak]

If a modern day architect did today what Dr Mac did at RM, would we not disparage him for being a bit of a celeb GCA who just flits in, waves his arms about a bit in an imperial sort of way and then buggers off, leaving the underlings to do all the work?

Yes there are always underlings, but in this day and age, the boss is expected to get his hands dirty, make adjustments and guide the crew on a daily basis. 

Dr Mac was not permitted to be hands on at RM because of the restrictions of his schedule, but does that diminish his input somewhat.  Bit like Da Vinci doing a bit of a quick sketch of the Mona Lisa in charcoal and letting some student colour it in.

How much credit then does he get for the overall routing and concept, and how much to the others for actually getting down and dirty to put it into practice without recourse to the boss.  Presumably there is a lot of their own interpretation in there simply because the boss was on the ship and not contactable.

But if the "best architect of all time" [no matter which of the candidates from the 1920's you favor] built a lot of their great courses without spending so much time on site, what does that say about our modern approach?  Is it really producing superior results, or just a lot higher fees and expenses?

[Mark Pearce]

If a modern day architect did today what Dr Mac did at RM, would we not disparage him for being a bit of a celeb GCA who just flits in, waves his arms about a bit in an imperial sort of way and then buggers off, leaving the underlings to do all the work?

Yes there are always underlings, but in this day and age, the boss is expected to get his hands dirty, make adjustments and guide the crew on a daily basis. 

Dr Mac was not permitted to be hands on at RM because of the restrictions of his schedule, but does that diminish his input somewhat.  Bit like Da Vinci doing a bit of a quick sketch of the Mona Lisa in charcoal and letting some student colour it in.

How much credit then does he get for the overall routing and concept, and how much to the others for actually getting down and dirty to put it into practice without recourse to the boss.  Presumably there is a lot of their own interpretation in there simply because the boss was on the ship and not contactable.

But if the "best architect of all time" [no matter which of the candidates from the 1920's you favor] built a lot of their great courses without spending so much time on site, what does that say about our modern approach?  Is it really producing superior results, or just a lot higher fees and expenses?

Now that's a great question, worthy of a thread of its own.

[Jim Nugent]

But if the "best architect of all time" [no matter which of the candidates from the 1920's you favor] built a lot of their great courses without spending so much time on site, what does that say about our modern approach?  Is it really producing superior results, or just a lot higher fees and expenses?

One big difference is that the ODGs faced far fewer constraints, such as environmental.  They had a great deal more freedom to do what they wanted, where they wanted, with whom they wanted.

I also wonder, were those courses built to the same super-high conditions many of today's top courses are? 

[BCrosby]

"But if the "best architect of all time" [no matter which of the candidates from the 1920's you favor] built a lot of their great courses without spending so much time on site, what does that say about our modern approach?  Is it really producing superior results, or just a lot higher fees and expenses?"

As noted, an interesting observation.

I wonder if part of the answer is that modern crews have the ability to move dirt so easily. Because you can, there is an enormous temptation to do it. Thus the need to ride herd on crews on site today.

The crews of the Golden Agers had less ability to make substantial changes to landforms, hence less need to be monitored. An unsupervised crew could do less harm.

Bob
 

[Keith Grande]

Mac's great quote on how to create undulating greens: 

I simply employ the biggest fool in the village and tell him to make them flat

 

[Tom_Doak]

One big difference is that the ODGs faced far fewer constraints, such as environmental.  They had a great deal more freedom to do what they wanted, where they wanted, with whom they wanted.

I also wonder, were those courses built to the same super-high conditions many of today's top courses are? 

Jim:

I honestly think the "environmental constraints" alibi is grossly oversold.  Certainly, it applies to some properties; it's hard to build as close to a stream today as they did at Merion a hundred years ago.  That's about the only "environmental" disadvantage for modern courses, and it is largely offset by the ability to work on more difficult sites in the modern era. 

I think the main reason the older courses are hard to beat today is that they were simpler to build, generally.  Few of them were corrupted by housing developments and other interference; there were no cart paths to hide, or $2 million irrigation systems to worry about.  They just focused on the golf.  It would make you sad to know what % of the time modern architects are focused on the golf.

[Rich Goodale]

No.

It is is not a fact (i.e. "correct") but rather Geoff's relatively informed, very plausible, but probably slightly biased (i.e he wrote a book that he was trying to sell) opinion of 10+ years ago.

If there were a "Mt. Rushmore" for GCA's, Dr. MacK would be on the short list, but so would OTM, Park Jr., Ross, CBM, Tilly, Maxwell, RTJ, Dye, Coore, Doak, and probably a few that I have forgot.  To fit in all those worthies on one mountain top, you'd probably have to expropriate the unfinished Crazy Horse monument a few miles south of Mt. R.  But, would that be the right sort of tribute?  Rather, maybe near some shrine of golf you could build an 18 hole course that gave homage to each of the above and the others that I have forgot (e.g. Flynn, A Simpson, T Simpson, Wilson, Sutherland, Braid, ANOther...).

I would propose St. Andrews, Castle Course.  Blow that monstosity up and build a tribute course as per above over its smoldering ruins...

Rich

[Patrick_Mucci]

Josh,

Please review the history of flight along with the dates of AM's courses.

Travel was a little different at the turn of the 20th Century

Please refrain from being pompous - I am aware of the bloody limitations as you would have noted had you actually read my post.

I'm not so sure of that

My point was, his input was far less than we would now expect..  Yes there are all sorts of valid reasons, but that fact remains.  At the very least today we would expect an architect to pop back a few times during construction, at most, be there all the time.

WHY ?

Isn't the mark of true genius getting it right the first time ?

The Dr did neither because he wasn't able to.  That's a fact of the times, but regardless of that, a lot more credit needs to be given to the underlings who carried out the work, often on the back of rather scant drawings and sketches and perhaps one example hole.

Would you cite specific examples of what you claim above.

[Patrick_Mucci]

In viewing or comparing the work of good to great architects, did MacKenzie ever design a mediocre or bad course ?

How about the others ?

[Garland Bayley]

But if the "best architect of all time" [no matter which of the candidates from the 1920's you favor] built a lot of their great courses without spending so much time on site, what does that say about our modern approach?  Is it really producing superior results, or just a lot higher fees and expenses?

Are you suggesting your fees are too high?

[Tom_Doak]

But if the "best architect of all time" [no matter which of the candidates from the 1920's you favor] built a lot of their great courses without spending so much time on site, what does that say about our modern approach?  Is it really producing superior results, or just a lot higher fees and expenses?

Are you suggesting your fees are too high?

Well, it's a complicated question.  There are some jobs where I've been paid too much, and others where I haven't been paid nearly enough.  Unlike Dr. MacKenzie, I do pay all of the guys who help to build the course, so the part of the fee that goes to me is a lot less than you might imagine.

What clients should really be paying for is "the design".  Days on site improve the design, but the law of diminishing returns also comes into play.  The question is really, how much does another day matter?  Alister MacKenzie would have been quite happy to leave any of my associates to build the course based on his routing.  For all I know, my courses might turn out better if I did the same thing, but that's not what the clients think.

As an example, I'm just returning from five days on site in New Zealand.  I believe this was my sixth construction visit over the past 2 1/2 years, and it should be the last, to sign off on the last three holes.  Brian Slawnik had most of the details in place when I arrived, so it only took a couple of days to edit the greens at the 12th and 13th, and do some work in the 13th fairway.  Since I had the time, we went back to the 17th green and made some changes to it, that I think will be an improvement.  I would not have done that normally, but the goals for the project are incredibly high.

I didn't get paid any more to put in those extra two days on the 17th; it's all part of the fee, however many days I spend there.  I'd be happy to work on a different arrangement, that paid me by the day for my time, especially if I felt less obligation to keep coming back for minimal returns.  But the whole premise is that we are trying to build "great" courses, and that this requires more of my personal time.

 

[Josh Stevens]

Do you feel you have an obligation to make changes whenever you visit.  Or perhaps in other words, do you sense clients have an expectation that you will

If you showed up, took a look, said its all fine and went home, would there be some grumbling?

[Garland Bayley]

Do you feel you have an obligation to make changes whenever you visit.  Or perhaps in other words, do you sense clients have an expectation that you will

If you showed up, took a look, said its all fine and went home, would there be some grumbling?

Pete Dye was invited to Carmago to review to make changes. His response was there was no problem with the course, the problem was with the members that couldn't appreciate what they had. Don't know if there was any grumbling.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()