How I Would Alter Alwoodley by Dr MacKenzie

[Niall C]

In the Machrihanish thread there has been some interesting discussion on whether or not we should be tampering or tweaking classic courses. Opinions have ranged from "leave well enough alone" to "better is better". Reference is often made to the golden age and ODG and there seems to be an assumption that they were infallible. However in the 1920's Golf Illustrated (UK) ran a series of articles from various golfing personalities on how they would alter well known courses. Many chose to use a pen name but typically Dr MacKenzie was happy to see his name in lights, and what's more he happily wrote about what he would change in his first creation. This article is from 9th January 1925 and I'll post it over several posts.

"When the Editor of Golf Illustrated requested me to write an article on “How I Would Alter Alwoodley” I thought he had chosen an individual whose natural predilections were to leave the course alone, and this to a very great extent is the case. When the existing course was designed some years ago it consisted of fourteen ragged fields surrounded by hedges, a sub-soil surrounded by heavy boulder clay, and most of the ground such a bog that it was not unusual for hunting men who ventured over it to have to drag their horses out with ropes. With the exception of some gorse and patches of heather, there were few natural features, and opinions had been expressed by golfers of national reputation that it would not make a golf course in twenty years.

Alwoodley has been entirely artificially created; the hedges were completely removed, and the whole of the ground was drained. The draining was done at a comparatively small cost because, as far as I know, it was the first golf course, where a system of mole draining was employed, and it speaks well for this form of drainage that after over sixteen years there is little sign, if any, of the mole drains being blocked up, and the course is almost as good in winter as it is in the summer months. When the formation of the Alwoodley Golf Club was first proposed it was the opinion of the members of the two existing clubs that the City could not possibly support a third, as neither of the existing ones was well off, either from the point of view of membership or financially. Alwoodley became a brilliant success in every respect. It was entirely different from anything seen in the North before, and perhaps more closely approached the old idea of golf as exemplified by the Old Course at St Andrews than any inland course constructed before or since.

The influence of Alwoodley was so great that the two existing clubs in Leeds had their courses reconstructed, and they in turn became far more popular and prosperous in every respect. Since then nine additional new courses have been constructed in Leeds under the supervision of the writer. All these courses show signs of becoming increasingly popular and the clubs more and more prosperous. Alwoodley is not as famous as it might have become had it not originated as a semi-private club with a restricted membership of a hundred and seventy five members. The Committee also has never sought competitions there, although the qualifying rounds of the Daily Mail and News of the World tournaments have both been held at Alwoodley." 

[Niall C]

"Alwoodley is so interesting that it does not appear to be a long course, although it is about six thousand three hundred yards in length and could easily be stretched an additional two or three hundred yards if required. The long holes are full of character and interest, and the four short holes are all entirely different, visible from the tee, and giving good variety of play according to the position of the flag, direction of wind, etc. The characteristic of all the long holes is that the tee shot has to be played with extreme accuracy for the approach to become an easy one and par figures to be obtained. The average score at Alwoodley is a high one, but owing to the visibility of the greens, the trueness of the approaches, and the almost complete absence of blindness perfect golf receives its true reward, as is evidenced by the fact that J. W. Gaudin the clubs professional, has done successive rounds of sixty-six, sixty-seven, and sixty-eight in one day.

Alwoodley having been constructed under the writers supervision, the work has been carried out in according to his ideas. Every hole, although interesting and exciting, is absolutely fair, and there is a complete absence of freak greens, a danger which is often likely to arise when the work is carried out by the clubs own ground staff without sufficient supervision by the architect. A course like Alwoodley not only provides an interesting and pleasurable test of golf to all classes of players, but it caters for such a high standard of play that it has a great effect in improving one’s game. As an example, the professional at Alwoodley although verging on the age of fifty, improved his game out of all recognition since he came there a few years ago. Since he came to Alwoodley he has been Northern Professional Champion, Yorkshire Champion (three or four times), winner of the Leeds Cup, and runner up in the News of the World tournament, and French Open championship."

[Niall C]

"The improvements I would suggest at Alwoodley are the following:

Third Hole- At this hole there is an ugly looking hummock for the tee shot (one of the few features about the course that has an artificial appearance). This was largely due to the fact that it was the greenkeeper’s first attempt at making a hummock. It would be desirable to alter it or alternatively construct a line of bunkers running in echelon from left to right from the tee.
 
Ninth Hole- Here again there are some hummocks which might possibly be said to be of an artificial appearance and should be reconstructed so that like most of the features at Alwoodley they appear indistinguishable from Nature herself.

Tenth Hole- This is the only hole where green alterations should be made. The present green was always intended to be a temporary one and it is the only green on the course which is a natural one. The original intention was to extend the hole to the field beyond, which is not at present in our lease, but I think great efforts should be made to obtain sufficient ground in this field to construct an entirely new green. Everyone is agreed that this hole is a blot on the course, but if the original intention were carried out it could be constructed into by far the best one, and more over the next, the 11th, would be vastly improved as the new tee would be placed on a higher level and would give a much better view of the green.

If this suggestion were carried out the tee should be moved slightly forward and some whins removed so as to give the long driver the opportunity of driving over the “out of bounds” that juts into the course in the form of a tongue, and would make a magnificent tee shot hazard. The weaker player would have the alternative of playing his tee shot as it is done at present.

Twelth Hole- Here there is a hummock which should be enlarged so as to make it visible beyond the whins that have grown up so high that they block out the view.

Fourteenth Hole- This green, which somewhat resembles the 11th at St Andrews, has been recently enlarged. The new construction work has not been particularly well done and it should be altered to give it a more natural appearance. The bunker, which corresponded to Strath at St Andrews, simply looks like a hole in the ground and not like a natural bunker. The only other suggestion the writer has to make is that the sand in the bunkers should be renewed by sharper sand similar in character to that at Sand Moor, which course almost adjoins Alwoodley.”   

THE END

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall,


In fairness, the point you are making here bears no resemblance to the discussion on the Machrihanish thread.


If you are a perfectionist, there are always small things that you are not 100% happy with by the end of the build. I say to my construction partner that if we finish a bit of work and there’s no little detail left that annoys me, then we have succeeded.


The golden age guys were not infallible. And Ryan was right: “better is better”. But a general principle is that you should do as little as possible for the biggest gain. And I am seeing things getting changed for the sake of it, not providing “better”.

[Ally Mcintosh]

And on the other point, I could recommend “improvements” to every course I’ve ever seen. Doesn’t mean they should be implemented or that everyone else would agree that they are a good change.


Nice paper exercise though.

[Tom_Doak]

The problem is that "improvements" are always a matter of opinion, and it's better when the guy making that call doesn't have a financial incentive in favor of making changes.


My old friend Ken Macpherson at Walton Heath used to tell the story of former club professional James Braid, who was once asked by a member what he thought of recent improvements to the course.  Braid's response was, "You mean the alterations."


"Nobody is infallible" also includes the second architect, after all.

[Ben Stephens]

I think the thread should be "how I would alter Sandmoor by Dr Mackenzie'


Alwoodley does not need major changes, restoration or alterations IMO - Sandmoor does as the previous re design to replace holes lost to development botched up the course    and there is potential to make it even better even relocating the clubhouse as well

[Jon Wiggett]

Ben,


yes the new holes on the whole are dreadful though the second shot to the 4th and the green complex are passable. Sandmoor is greatly improved if you walk from the first green to the fifth tee and leaving out the13th. The rest of the course is however very good. The club should really look at a major tree felling operation with the trees down the right side of 11 and 12 being clear felled to open out the views across the lake.


Jon

[Sean_A]

Jeepers, this basically reads like a pat my own back article.  Lets see, x number of words talking myself up then throw in a few very minor changes. The man had no shame.


Ciao

[Niall C]

In fairness, the point you are making here bears no resemblance to the discussion on the Machrihanish thread.

Ally

I think if you're being fair you'd recognize that there are several discussions going on on that thread and while my intro to MacK's essay could probably have been better written (as is most stuff I write in a hurry) I think the gist of it is true. I'd been intending to post the MacK article for a while but it was the discussion on the Machrihanish thread, particularly with Tim, that prompted me to post it.

I think the main thing to take away from the MacK article in relation to the Machrihanish discussion is that here we have one of the shining lights of the golden age and the architect who more than any other talked about finality in design, recognizing where improvements could (should ?) be made on one of his own most important designs. As an aside, the reference to the 14th green already having been altered also illustrates that courses do largely evolve rather than being set in stone at day 1.

Sean

Absolutely. MacKenzie was nothing if not a self publicist for his own work and ideas. In truth if you read a lot of it it does become a bit repetitive and I think over the period Simpson's writings were more entertaining and diverse. In modern terms Tom D is probably the closest to these guys in self publicity, and I don't mean that in any bad way, indeed he writes very well and covers a lot of ground.

Niall     

[Tim Gallant]

In fairness, the point you are making here bears no resemblance to the discussion on the Machrihanish thread.

Ally

I think if you're being fair you'd recognize that there are several discussions going on on that thread and while my intro to MacK's essay could probably have been better written (as is most stuff I write in a hurry) I think the gist of it is true. I'd been intending to post the MacK article for a while but it was the discussion on the Machrihanish thread, particularly with Tim, that prompted me to post it.

I think the main thing to take away from the MacK article in relation to the Machrihanish discussion is that here we have one of the shining lights of the golden age and the architect who more than any other talked about finality in design, recognizing where improvements could (should ?) be made on one of his own most important designs. As an aside, the reference to the 14th green already having been altered also illustrates that courses do largely evolve rather than being set in stone at day 1.

Sean

Absolutely. MacKenzie was nothing if not a self publicist for his own work and ideas. In truth if you read a lot of it it does become a bit repetitive and I think over the period Simpson's writings were more entertaining and diverse. In modern terms Tom D is probably the closest to these guys in self publicity, and I don't mean that in any bad way, indeed he writes very well and covers a lot of ground.

Niall   

Niall,

Thanks for posting - great to read this and agree with Sean that the first two parts largely are the Dr. blowing his own horn


If anything I believe this backs up what I've been trying to say: mainly, there are no reasons to alter an already great golf course. Mackenzie thought that Alwoodley was great, and from the notes you've published, I consider the amends he suggested to be cosmetic and very minor (less than for example the changes that were being proposed at Machrihanish). Only the 10th green amend is large and even then, it was always the plan to make the change he suggested, so it isn't like he thought he made a mistake in some respect.


Of all that you published, here's what I took away:


I thought he had chosen an individual whose natural predilections were to leave the course alone, and this to a very great extent is the case.


Leave well alone

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall,


I think that every architect sees something he might have done slightly differently by the time he gets to the end of a build. That happens even with those amongst us who are on-site nearly all the time. Usually they are small details and are not worth highlighting. Occasionally an opportunity arises to tweak that something.


What MacKenzie is highlighting are things that weren’t constructed to his satisfaction either because he wasn’t on-site or because someone constructed them after the fact (that and a new green site on new land). This is pretty normal. He’s the original architect after-all. At least he’s seeking the best final golf course in line with his original vision.


All of the above bears no resemblance to new architects coming in to carry out revisions for the sake of generating work, often blowing up initial design intent in the process.


There is a line. It is not always clear. But there are definitely changes that cross that line and are both unnecessary and in some cases a reduction in overall quality / flow / feel. There are also changes that are both necessary and/or an obvious step up in quality. It is subjective but there’s no point pretending that all change is good just because courses have always changed.

[BCrosby]

Niall -


As you know, the Mack piece on Alwoodley in the British GI was one of a series of pieces in which prominent architects of the time were asked what changes they would make on certain of their courses. I do not have copies of the entire series, but remember it as being well done. Striking was how articulate so many of the Golden Age architects were, which is not news to this forum.


A modern version authored by prominent modern architects would also be very interesting. I would be curious to see who would be willing to contribute.


Bob

[Tom_Doak]

It strikes me that renovation of golf courses seems always to be a matter of situational ethics.  Dr. MacKenzie surely wouldn't have wanted anyone else to change Alwoodley, but a significant % of his best projects [from Lahinch to Royal Melbourne to Crystal Downs] were, in fact, renovations.


Pete Dye, on the other hand, was constantly tinkering with his own courses, and didn't believe that any of his work was sacred . . . but he almost never did renovation work on other designers' courses.



I would never suggest that any architect was infallible . . . but I've suggested here before that the great architects ought to have a few examples of their work preserved, instead of "restored" or "updated" or "renovated".


The more I think about it, while the ethics for a green committee should be "leave well enough alone," for an architect it goes back to the much older standard, "Do unto others as you would be done."  I generally don't propose alterations to great courses, because I wouldn't want someone to propose alterations to mine.


If only the designers doing these renovations had more original work they'd want to preserve, we'd be all set.

[Ally Mcintosh]

The more I think about it, while the ethics for a green committee should be "leave well enough alone," for an architect it goes back to the much older standard, "Do unto others as you would be done."  I generally don't propose alterations to great courses, because I wouldn't want someone to propose alterations to mine.

This is perfectly put.

[Ben Stephens]

Ben,


yes the new holes on the whole are dreadful though the second shot to the 4th and the green complex are passable. Sandmoor is greatly improved if you walk from the first green to the fifth tee and leaving out the13th. The rest of the course is however very good. The club should really look at a major tree felling operation with the trees down the right side of 11 and 12 being clear felled to open out the views across the lake.


Jon

Agreed Jon! Also the 18th was the former 16th which was originally 18th tee to practice putting green (correct me if I am wrong) and the clubhouse is in the way! Most UK courses need a tree programme as they are too overgrown and affects the quality of the agronomy big time

[Niall C]

Niall,


I think that every architect sees something he might have done slightly differently by the time he gets to the end of a build. That happens even with those amongst us who are on-site nearly all the time. Usually they are small details and are not worth highlighting. Occasionally an opportunity arises to tweak that something.


What MacKenzie is highlighting are things that weren’t constructed to his satisfaction either because he wasn’t on-site or because someone constructed them after the fact (that and a new green site on new land). This is pretty normal. He’s the original architect after-all. At least he’s seeking the best final golf course in line with his original vision.


All of the above bears no resemblance to new architects coming in to carry out revisions for the sake of generating work, often blowing up initial design intent in the process.


There is a line. It is not always clear. But there are definitely changes that cross that line and are both unnecessary and in some cases a reduction in overall quality / flow / feel. There are also changes that are both necessary and/or an obvious step up in quality. It is subjective but there’s no point pretending that all change is good just because courses have always changed.

Ally

Let me start at the bottom of your post and work my way up.

With regards the charge that I said all change is good, that is emphatically not the case and neither have I hinted at that. My point about courses evolving is that it is very doubtful if many of those cited would be anywhere near as good if they hadn’t. In a post on the Machrihanish thread I gave the extreme example of Carnoustie. I’m pretty sure the Allan Robertson and Old Tom courses would be no better than pitch and putts by today’s standards. Imagine if the good town folk of Carnoustie had called a halt to any further changes at that point, you’d likely never have heard of the place. A less extreme example might be Muirfield. If HCEG had decided to call it quits after Harry Colt did his stuff or indeed Simpson had subsequently come along and said, no sorry can’t touch that as it would be contrary to Colt’s/Old Tom’s design concept, would Muirfield be as good now ? Possibly, but I’m going to take a punt and suggest not. 

As to your suggestion that modern day architects carry out revisions in order to generate work, that is the sort of statement which I’d respectfully suggest should only be made with substantiations in specific situations otherwise it reflects badly on not just you but the profession as a whole.

Finally in terms of your first two paragraphs there’s not much I’d disagree with however the final line in your second paragraph begs the question of what takes precedence, the architects design intent or the members wishes ?

Niall

[Niall C]

Niall -


As you know, the Mack piece on Alwoodley in the British GI was one of a series of pieces in which prominent architects of the time were asked what changes they would make on certain of their courses. I do not have copies of the entire series, but remember it as being well done. Striking was how articulate so many of the Golden Age architects were, which is not news to this forum.


A modern version authored by prominent modern architects would also be very interesting. I would be curious to see who would be willing to contribute.


Bob

Bob

I've been thinking about this for a while and yet another golfclubatlas project that has been sitting in the pending file gathering dust. My thought was to post some of the articles from Golf Illustrated by way of an introduction, and then post some modern versions from some of the great and the good on this site. Believe it or not I actually drafted something myself on Machrihanish.

Of course the thought occurred to me that just as back then, modern day architects might be a) reluctant to hand out free advice b) not want to be seen to be critical of potential clients, and c) take on any sacred cows, but then that was why most (MacKenzie and Hilton being the only exceptions I think) used pseudonyms.

You had articles along the lines of "Only an idiot would want to change this splendid course, only a complete buffoon, someone with no sense, taste or understanding of golf architecture....... but if you were to change it this is what I'd do.....". All good to get the discussion going.

However given the response to my Machrihanish suggestions, it would appear that this group is quite a conservative lot, even more than a history buff like me.

Niall

[Jon Wiggett]

Ben,


you are correct that the putting green was the original green for the present day 18th. I believe the current practice ground was purchased after the course was altered but am not 100% sure. It would be a possibility to move the clubhouse on to the end of this piece of land restoring the last (old 16th) to its original format.


Sean,


Mackenzie had a massive ego which he never hid in his many self promotional writings. On the other hand, he certainly was a massive talent when it came to GCA so maybe he can be forgiven for blowing his own trumpet


Tim,


As you say the 10th was a complete new build but done in alignment with the original plan that Mackenzie had. It is for me the only green on the course that looked wrong and I suspect this is partly to do with the fact that apart from the location Mackenzie had no input. Having said that the 11th is also a complete new hole done around the same time. The original 11th green can still be found in the trees to the right of the path on the way to the 12th tee. The sixth green is also not original being firther back from the original site.


There have been lots of changes at Alwoodley in the 30+ years I have known the course with multiple new tees, greens altered, bunkers moved, filled in or created. Indeed, the course now has altered significantly since Mackenzie left so I would reach the exact opposite conclusion to that which you reach. Yes, Mackenzie did conclude the course needed very little alterations but then he did believe his work to be perfect in the first place. I wonder what alteration he would suggest for Machrihanish if he were about today? I am pretty sure he would have a bunch of 'improvements' to suggest


Jon

[Ally Mcintosh]

Niall,


I think that every architect sees something he might have done slightly differently by the time he gets to the end of a build. That happens even with those amongst us who are on-site nearly all the time. Usually they are small details and are not worth highlighting. Occasionally an opportunity arises to tweak that something.


What MacKenzie is highlighting are things that weren’t constructed to his satisfaction either because he wasn’t on-site or because someone constructed them after the fact (that and a new green site on new land). This is pretty normal. He’s the original architect after-all. At least he’s seeking the best final golf course in line with his original vision.


All of the above bears no resemblance to new architects coming in to carry out revisions for the sake of generating work, often blowing up initial design intent in the process.


There is a line. It is not always clear. But there are definitely changes that cross that line and are both unnecessary and in some cases a reduction in overall quality / flow / feel. There are also changes that are both necessary and/or an obvious step up in quality. It is subjective but there’s no point pretending that all change is good just because courses have always changed.

Ally

Let me start at the bottom of your post and work my way up.

With regards the charge that I said all change is good, that is emphatically not the case and neither have I hinted at that. My point about courses evolving is that it is very doubtful if many of those cited would be anywhere near as good if they hadn’t. In a post on the Machrihanish thread I gave the extreme example of Carnoustie. I’m pretty sure the Allan Robertson and Old Tom courses would be no better than pitch and putts by today’s standards. Imagine if the good town folk of Carnoustie had called a halt to any further changes at that point, you’d likely never have heard of the place. A less extreme example might be Muirfield. If HCEG had decided to call it quits after Harry Colt did his stuff or indeed Simpson had subsequently come along and said, no sorry can’t touch that as it would be contrary to Colt’s/Old Tom’s design concept, would Muirfield be as good now ? Possibly, but I’m going to take a punt and suggest not. 

As to your suggestion that modern day architects carry out revisions in order to generate work, that is the sort of statement which I’d respectfully suggest should only be made with substantiations in specific situations otherwise it reflects badly on not just you but the profession as a whole.

Finally in terms of your first two paragraphs there’s not much I’d disagree with however the final line in your second paragraph begs the question of what takes precedence, the architects design intent or the members wishes ?

Niall

Niall,


Apologies if I have appeared to paint you at one end of the spectrum regards change with me at the other. That was not the intent for I know you and I are quite close in the way we look at our links courses. Also I’m not ruling your Machrihanish suggestion out. If nothing else, it’s the kind of paper exercise that I enjoy doing myself.

But you shouldn’t ask me to substantiate examples of architects generating work for themselves. I’m not going to name names and let’s be honest: it comes with the territory. People have to sell to make a living and it’s very tempting to do more rather than less when you are given a great canvas and the club are driving you to make changes.


I’m in the lucky position that I earn some money outside golf so I can be a little choosy. Someone else like Tom gets so many leads he can also be a little choosy. Many architects can’t.


Regardless of this, too many architects are too quick to alter classic courses. I think there is sometimes a level of arrogance in it. Maybe I’m wrong. Speculation.

[Tom_Doak]

Niall -


As you know, the Mack piece on Alwoodley in the British GI was one of a series of pieces in which prominent architects of the time were asked what changes they would make on certain of their courses. I do not have copies of the entire series, but remember it as being well done. Striking was how articulate so many of the Golden Age architects were, which is not news to this forum.


A modern version authored by prominent modern architects would also be very interesting. I would be curious to see who would be willing to contribute.


Bob

Bob

I've been thinking about this for a while and yet another golfclubatlas project that has been sitting in the pending file gathering dust. My thought was to post some of the articles from Golf Illustrated by way of an introduction, and then post some modern versions from some of the great and the good on this site. Believe it or not I actually drafted something myself on Machrihanish.

Of course the thought occurred to me that just as back then, modern day architects might be a) reluctant to hand out free advice b) not want to be seen to be critical of potential clients, and c) take on any sacred cows, but then that was why most (MacKenzie and Hilton being the only exceptions I think) used pseudonyms.

You had articles along the lines of "Only an idiot would want to change this splendid course, only a complete buffoon, someone with no sense, taste or understanding of golf architecture....... but if you were to change it this is what I'd do.....". All good to get the discussion going.

However given the response to my Machrihanish suggestions, it would appear that this group is quite a conservative lot, even more than a history buff like me.

Niall:


Not necessarily.  In a previous volume of The Confidential Guide, I've named the courses I would most like to work on.  Bel Air took me up on it.  Of course, my plan was a complete restoration, rather than a redesign . . .


I think you're right that many architects would be too politically correct to pass on the assignment today, but I am not one of them.  I'll be glad to contribute if you get your project going, though I honestly have no idea at the moment what course I'd want to write about.


P.S.  Tom Fazio told me once that he would love to have worked on the land on which Fishers Island was built.  He thought it was a miss considering the ground they'd had.  Maybe you could ask him if he wants to put that in print   

[MCirba]

In the case of Alwoodley, Dr. MacKenzie's claim that very little would/should ever need to be modified may have been self-promoting, but in this case is also quite correct.

[Jon Wiggett]

In the case of Alwoodley, Dr. MacKenzie's claim that very little would/should ever need to be modified may have been self-promoting, but in this case is also quite correct.

Mike,


I am sorry to burst your bubble but whilst what the good doctor said might be true the reality is the course has altered a lot since his days. Hell, in the 30 years I have known it the course and clubhouse has changed massively. Whilst what is there today is a great course for the modern game I do pine for the more dilapidated maintenance style with the forgotten bunkers and overgrown pathways giving it the feeling of a mythical course, lost in a twilight zone.

[Duncan Cheslett]

In the case of Alwoodley, Dr. MacKenzie's claim that very little would/should ever need to be modified may have been self-promoting, but in this case is also quite correct.

Mike,


I am sorry to burst your bubble but whilst what the good doctor said might be true the reality is the course has altered a lot since his days. Hell, in the 30 years I have known it the course and clubhouse has changed massively. Whilst what is there today is a great course for the modern game I do pine for the more dilapidated maintenance style with the forgotten bunkers and overgrown pathways giving it the feeling of a mythical course, lost in a twilight zone.

Not to mention the fact that Alwoodley have replaced all MacKenzie's original greens with USGA versions...



... meanwhile Reddish Vale and Cavendish have changed very little since Dr Mac's day -  largely because both clubs have been completely skint for the last 100 years!

[MCirba]

Jon & Duncan,

Thank you for enlightening me.

Playing it three years ago was a joy, so I can only imagine from your descriptions how good it must have been prior.