[Jim Nugent]

Tom, where do you think he might have put additional bunkers, if not for the depression?  Given that routing and site, would have you built more bunkers, and if so, where? 

[Bret Lawrence]

Tom and Bob,


Here are two articles from Golfdom that may or may not help sort out your argument?  The first is Mackenzie's obituary including quotes from Mackenzie defending his stance on bunkering, at least on side bunkering.  (found under Mackenzie's Course Principles) Mackenzie also admits to having penned an article titled  "Too Many Bunkers" at least twenty years prior to this publication.

http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/1934feb15.pdf


The second article was written by Mackenzie and he reiterated that he has been advocating less bunkering and reduced maintenance for 20 years. He also mentions on page 3 (Answer to Some Complaints) that he originally planned 36 bunkers for Augusta, but eliminated several of them, because they had no meaning.



http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/1933aug10a.pdf


Bret

[Sven Nilsen]

American Golfer, Feb. 1914 -

[Sean_A]

Tom and Bob,


Here are two articles from Golfdom that may or may not help sort out your argument?  The first is Mackenzie's obituary including quotes from Mackenzie defending his stance on bunkering, at least on side bunkering.  (found under Mackenzie's Course Principles) Mackenzie also admits to having penned an article titled  "Too Many Bunkers" at least twenty years prior to this publication.

http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/1934feb15.pdf


The second article was written by Mackenzie and he reiterated that he has been advocating less bunkering and reduced maintenance for 20 years. He also mentions on page 3 (Answer to Some Complaints) that he originally planned 36 bunkers for Augusta, but eliminated several of them, because they had no meaning.



http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/golfd/article/1933aug10a.pdf


Bret

Dr Mac is well known for advocating less bunkering for practically his entire career.  Paradoxically, he often didn't

practice what he preached....or is the property at Augusta somehow far less deserving of bunkering than practically every other site he worked on? It is only right that a person and his work is seen in the light of his time. There is one sure event which could alter one's perception of the relative term "less"....


Ciao

[Tom_Doak]

Sean said what I was going to say ... I look at what people do, not what they say.


Perhaps the best interpretation is that MacKenzie wanted to build fewer bunkers all along, but it took the Depression (plus his higher standing in the industry) to give his message more weight.

[BCrosby]

Sean -


I think that's right. MacK often didn't practice what he preached. But Bobby Jones was a unique boss who understood golf architecture better than most and gave MacK more freedom than he usually got.


Might it be that the effect of the Great Depression was less about changing MacK's thinking about bunkers than it was about changing the thinking of the people that hired him? That is, until the economy turned, everyone wanted lots of pretty bunkers, so MacK felt obligated to build them. Then the GD hits and the expense of bunkers suddenly becomes an issue, at least for the few courses built after 1930.


Bobby Jones, however, had fairly sophisticated tastes in gca and didn't need the GD to see the virtues of what MacK wanted to do. Just thinking out loud.


Bob   

[Sean_A]

Bob

I often wonder if Bobby Jones should be given more credit for Augusta.  Maybe it is no coincidence that a radical departure in bunkering occured with Jones in the seat next to Dr Mac.  Of course, we shall never know, but I do believe that if Dr Mac built the course he wanted to build then that PoV must be viewed in the light of the times and people involved...which means we have to ask why did he want a course which was a such a departure from his recent norm?  It is hard for me to believe that without influence from any direction that Dr Mac suddenly did a U turn.

Ciao

[Peter Pallotta]

Just an aside:
I remember being struck by the sense that for Bobby (and Cliff) this was to be a true *members* club, and by the fact that the members tees were placed on average only about 15-20 yards in front of the championship tees. Maybe Bobby did envision The Masters. But maybe Bobby and Cliff also wanted to ensure that, with money in short supply during the depression, they didn't p-ss off or exclude any potentional northern-based members by having too many hazards.

[Sven Nilsen]

Was it really such a departure, or u-turn?


Seems to me Mackenzie's entire body of work followed his espoused principles fairly coherently, allowing for minor deviations where the site so demanded or suggested.


Scale seems to be the principle we are dancing around here, which in my mind is a site driven concept.


The irony of this is that we are discussing ANGC's original bunkering scheme, which is perhaps the course where Mackenzie's ideas have been altered the most.


Sven

[BCrosby]

Sven -


In their writings during and after ANGC was built MacK and Jones were proud of it having just 22 bunkers. They seemed to think it was a feature that distinguished the course. That's a lot fewer bunkers than MacK built at Pasa or Cypress or other of his mid-20's California courses. So it made sense to me that they thought of ANGC as a break from previous designs, at least in that sense.


Or are you getting at something else?


Sean -


Maybe. Jones' biggest contribution might have been simply to let MacK do what MacK wanted to do. Jones always insisted that his role was a minor one. I'd guess it was not false humility.


Bob   

[Thomas Dai]

Ref MacKenzie's work, ANGC and Jones input.
Should the number of bunkers be the characteristic focused on or should the size of the bunkers also be considered?
Atb

[Jim Nugent]

Jim:


Maybe MacKenzie wouldn't have put any more bunkers at Augusta, because of all the water.  But his other courses done after 1930 had far less bunkers, too, even on sites with no water hazards.  I believe he was trying to reduce labor costs by building fewer bunkers.

I thought ANGC was Mac's last course, and his only other significant course of the 1930s was Royal Melbourne, built in 1930, which is famous for its bunkering.  i.e. not much of a sample to choose from.   

With all the changes made at ANGC, starting in the 1930s and continuing till now, by so many top golf course architects, it surprises me they didn't add lots more bunkers -- if the course seemed to lack them. 

I know I've asked twice, so maybe third time is the charm: where would Mackenzie have put more bunkers, if not for the depression?  Are there glaring spots that would have made the course better, or subtle ones for that matter? 

[Sean_A]

Jim:


Maybe MacKenzie wouldn't have put any more bunkers at Augusta, because of all the water.  But his other courses done after 1930 had far less bunkers, too, even on sites with no water hazards.  I believe he was trying to reduce labor costs by building fewer bunkers.

I know I've asked twice, so maybe third time is the charm: where would Mackenzie have put more bunkers, if not for the depression?  Are there glaring spots that would have made the course better, or subtle ones for that matter?

I think the answer lies in where Dr Mac put bunkers prior to the depression.

I have long thought that the originalish Dr Mac Augusta bunker scheme was one of the most fantastic I have ever not encountered. Looking at overheads, I can't tell what the meaning of these bunkers were.  Usually, its dead obvious what is going on with a design by looking at bunker schemes.

Bob, like Tom, we shall have to agree to disagree.  Something happened to make Dr Mac want to build a course with far fewer bunkers.  Maybe you are right and that it wasn't the depression and thus a long term financial issue.  If so...why the huge left turn? 

Ciao 

[Sven Nilsen]

Looking at overheads, I can't tell what the meaning of these bunkers were.  Usually, its dead obvious what is going on with a design by looking at bunker schemes.

Sean:


I think you would have needed to see those bunkers from ground level to fully appreciate their impact.  Mackenzie was the master of visual deception.


Sven

[Sean_A]

Looking at overheads, I can't tell what the meaning of these bunkers were.  Usually, its dead obvious what is going on with a design by looking at bunker schemes.

Sean:

I think you would have needed to see those bunkers from ground level to fully appreciate their impact.  Mackenzie was the master of visual deception.

Sven

Exactly.  Even then, I am fairly confident it would have taken a few walk arounds to get it.  So why the esoteric scheme at Augusta compared to previous efforts?  Are folks really saying that Augusta was Dr Mac's one and only true effort without constraints?  If so, that seems very far fetched.  If not the economic downturn, what else explains the shift in (I can't say philosophy) architectural practice?


Ciao

[Sven Nilsen]

If I had to guess at one predominant reason for the low number of bunkers at ANGC, I would chalk it up to Jones and Mackenzie striving to build a course that would be a challenge for the pros but also not be a back breaker for the player that makes 5's and 6's.  Others touched on this concept earlier in the thread, and it was a mantra that was repeated often in early descriptions of their intentions.



What better way to make for a pleasurable round for the hack than to limit the number of bunkers, especially when there were plenty of natural hazards for them to contend with.

[Sean_A]

If I had to guess at one predominant reason for the low number of bunkers at ANGC, I would chalk it up to Jones and Mackenzie striving to build a course that would be a challenge for the pros but also not be a back breaker for the player that makes 5's and 6's. 

So Dr Mac's earlier work was back breakers for handicap players?


Ciao

[Sven Nilsen]

If I had to guess at one predominant reason for the low number of bunkers at ANGC, I would chalk it up to Jones and Mackenzie striving to build a course that would be a challenge for the pros but also not be a back breaker for the player that makes 5's and 6's. 

So Dr Mac's earlier work was back breakers for handicap players?


Ciao

Maybe so.  I see plenty of players on a daily basis that struggle getting out of bunkers.

As an aside, here's an article from 1931 discussing his plans for Bayside.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 22, 1931 -

[Sven Nilsen]

There hasn't been one mention in this thread about AM's 1920 book "Golf Architecture," the precursor to TSOSA.


The book's subtitle is "Economy in course construction and green keeping."  Seems like he was espousing Depression-era savvy practices well before the market crashed.


In that work, like the 1914 article posted above, he notes most courses had too many bunkers.  The discussion touches on how bunkers should be placed not to punish, but add to the thrill of the game.  Perhaps at ANGC Mackenzie thought there was enough thrill in what the ground presented that additional challenges were not necessary.


Sven

[Jason Way]

Any of the Donald Ross experts around these parts have thoughts about the effect of the Depression and WWII on his work? 


In the teens, he did Wannamoisett, Essex County, Plainfield, Oakland Hills and many many more.  1929 was Seminole.  Was there a design evolution happening over that decade+ that was clear?  If so, where might it have gone?  Are there any hints in his tinkerings at Pinehurst?  Or any further evidence from the limited post-war-pre-death body of work that his evolution had been altered or derailed?


George Wright was done during the GD, and that was not lacking in boldness.  Food for thought...

[Sean_A]

If I had to guess at one predominant reason for the low number of bunkers at ANGC, I would chalk it up to Jones and Mackenzie striving to build a course that would be a challenge for the pros but also not be a back breaker for the player that makes 5's and 6's. 

So Dr Mac's earlier work was back breakers for handicap players?

Ciao

Maybe so.  I see plenty of players on a daily basis that struggle getting out of bunkers.

As an aside, here's an article from 1931 discussing his plans for Bayside.

Brooklyn Daily Eagle, April 22, 1931 -

Yes, Bayside....post depression start, few bunkers.  The concept is playable as you state.  Which begs the question I raised earlier, did folks think Pasa and CPC were unplayable (ie too difficult)? They must have been quite difficult for the capper, but then that wasn't at all unusual for many high profile US designs.  I would have thought AGNC would have been quite diffcult for the capper as well...water, tough greens, many uphill approaches. I don't think I have ever come across the suggestion that Dr Mac was building unusually tough courses.

Ciao 

[Jim Nugent]

I would have thought AGNC would have been quite diffcult for the capper as well...water, tough greens, many uphill approaches.

Ciao

I wonder.  ANGC has/had very few bunkers (a big nemesis for average golfers).  The water back then was entirely streams (no ponds at the time), which shouldn't have been so hard to avoid.  Virtually no rough or trees.  Wide open spaces for bogey golfers to hit their shots.  Not ultra long.  My guess is the course played quite well for average golfers, when they played the right tees. 

[Matthew Mollica]

I've loved reading this exchange. Sorry to have arrived late.


I find myself siding with Sven and Bob. To that end, the Jockey Club of Buenos Aires warrants a mention here. Cashed up client, with huge construction cost, and design undertaken pre Great Depression. MacKenzie wrote the following of the course in Spirit of St Andrews.

[Matthew Mollica]

And Jim - MacKenzie designed Royal Melbourne in 1926. Not 1930. He also did the bunkering scheme at Kingston Heath at that time, and there were significantly less bunkers in his plan than there are on the course today.


As to your question regarding where MacKenzie might have placed additional hazards at ANGC - his own words give a hint.

[Sven Nilsen]

Quick followup on the conversation earlier in this thread.

The following article appeared in the Aug. 3, 1929 edition of the Pittsburgh Press.  I suppose we could get into a history debate as to when the Great Depression actually started, but this was certainly pre-market crash.  In any case, the article echoes sentiments Mackenzie had laid out in 1920 when "Golf Architecture" was published.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()