Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Ed Oden on September 22, 2011, 09:59:02 PM
-
I have been sitting on this thread for a few months in hopes that the muddied waters of my mind might eventually settle into some clarity of vision. Sadly, my thoughts remain as murky as ever. So I’m just going to plunge ahead anyway since I seriously doubt further procrastination will spawn any meaningful inspiration. But before I do, a little background is in order.
I was born in Oklahoma and played my first rounds of golf on a 9 hole course in Enid that can only hope to one day attain goat track status. We moved to NJ when I was about ten, before I had any idea there was anything better out there. So my experience with golf in the state of my birth was pretty much limited to places with a maintenance budget suitable for the Dollar Store. When my Mom got cancer and it became apparent she was fighting a losing battle, my Dad moved her back to Oklahoma City so she could spend her last days closer to family. He stayed after she died. That was 14 years ago. Now, I visit pretty much every year during the holidays, but never have the time for golf. So I’ve been thinking for some time that I would like to combine a visit to see my Dad with a tour of Perry Maxwell courses in the region. The only Maxwell designs I had played previously were Old Town and the old Austin Country Club course (now Riverside Golf Club). So I was anxious to get some broader exposure to his work - not just his famous designs, but those of lesser note too, with an eye toward getting a real feel of what he was about. I finally made the pilgrimage in late June and thought I would share some thoughts on the experience.
A few disclaimers: First, I don’t know to what degree Maxwell’s designs have been altered at the courses referenced in this thread. It is entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that I will attribute holes or features or concepts to Maxwell that are somebody else’s handiwork. If I do, please forgive my ignorance. Second, other than Old Town, I have only played these courses one or two rounds on a single day. So my thoughts are a reflection of the aggregate experience of limited play at multiple Maxwell courses rather than any meaningful experience on individual courses. Finally, I know enough to be dangerous. Consider me the Cliff Clavin of gca.com. One more thing - this will not be a traditional photo tour (I’ve pretty much given up on those). But I will use pictures to show examples of what I am talking about. For those who can’t live without seeing complete sets of pictures of the courses mentioned in this thread, you can find them by clicking on the flickr link at the bottom of any of my posts.
And with that, here goes…
When I think of Oklahoma, interesting terrain does not immediately spring to mind. Yet what sticks out to me more than anything else is the quality of the land Maxwell’s courses are sited on. Each course I played was not only on a nice piece of property, but to my eyes may very well have been on the BEST land for golf in the area. I can only assume that Maxwell had much to do with selecting the sites. If so, the man could pick a nice piece of property. It’s like he found little islands of spice in a sea of blandness. Seriously, driving into Ardmore is not particularly inspiring. It is only when the Garmin girl says “In 0.7 miles, turn left on Country Club Road” that you notice things are getting interesting. And I swear I was getting nervous approaching Hutchinson, Kansas. Prairie Dunes may be sewn inside a pocket of dunes, but it’s damn near all prairie until you get there. I wish I’d had the foresight to take pictures of what things looked like in the areas surrounding some of these courses. But I wasn’t prescient enough to do so.
OK, so Maxwell had some nice sites. What did he do with them? Well, for one thing, when he found a striking natural feature, he pretty much bashes you over the head with it. I’m not sure I have seen any other architect use bold features as aggressively as Maxwell. For example, at Oklahoma City G&CC there is an amazing creek which snakes its way through the southern portion of the property…
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj310/eko_gfl/OKCGCC.jpg)
Maxwell managed to incorporate that creek in varying ways into every hole on this piece of the course. On the 10th, it is a crossing hazard on the approach…
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6019/5892831466_bca19ddf4b_b.jpg)
At 11, it catches your eye from the tee to avoid missing short right…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5079/5892259635_d9cf435b17_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5305/5892258381_0e574725e5_b.jpg)
But you also don’t want to bail out left since it is over there too…
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj310/eko_gfl/OKCGCC11.jpg)
On the 12th, it must be carried off the tee…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5195/5892796682_19b539079e_b.jpg)
…and then splits the fairway again past the dogleg, posing a real threat for those who want to be aggressive off the tee on this short par 4…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5066/5892794964_42b95ef5f3_b.jpg)
…and continues on to guard the left side of the green on the approach…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5236/5892210657_8600ffe668_b.jpg)
At 13, it wraps around behind the green to catch those who err long or right…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5316/5892203617_24a843529a_b.jpg)
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj310/eko_gfl/OKGCC13.jpg)
Finally, on 14 it guards the green on the approach…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5267/5892751472_5237b1224c_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5316/5892748758_64a9afcac4_b.jpg)
Maxwell’s use of the creek at OKC is reminiscent of his work at Old Town, where the predominant natural feature is also a creek. At Old Town, Maxwell emphasized the creek to such a degree that he packed 3 tees and 3 greens (including a fabulous double green) into a parcel of less than two acres…
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj310/eko_gfl/OldTownGoogleEarth.jpg)
Then there is Dornick Hills. The “cliff” at Dornick Hills is a massive rock outcropping cutting through the back nine. While Maxwell utilizes the cliff as an elevated tee on both the 15th and 17th holes, it is the way he incorporates this feature into the 16th hole that is as bold of an architectural move as I have seen anywhere. How many architects would set the green on a risk/reward reachable par 5 on top of a 25 foot high natural rock wall? Maxwell did...
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6057/5882671405_a2298bf130_b.jpg)
I can honestly say that going for the green in two on the 16th at Dornick Hills is one of the most exhilarating and memorable shots I have ever encountered. It is right up there with the approach on the 8th hole at Pebble Beach and the tee shot on the Road Hole at St. Andrews. Pulling it off and having an eagle putt is a stroke I will remember for the rest of my life. Is there a greater compliment that can be made to a course than it has a shot that is so indelibly etched in my mind that my adrenaline will start pumping every time I think about it? My only regret is that I did not fail to reach the green in two so that I could see what it is like to play this shot as a third…
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6028/5883228506_70c1453454_b.jpg)
If I was limited to a single word to describe what I see in Maxwell’s routings, it would be “movement”. He liked him some dogleg for sure. But it’s more than that. Take the 3rd hole at Twin Hills in Oklahoma City for instance. From above, it looks pretty much like a straight hole…
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj310/eko_gfl/TwinHills3GoogleEarth-1.jpg)
However, the view from the tee tells a different story. Not only is this hole substantially uphill, it also subtly weaves its way right, then left and then back to the right again…
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6057/5899060755_5f9c425acd_b.jpg)
But that’s not all. The fairway heaves back and forth all the way from tee to green…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5264/5899055225_b206c75466_b.jpg)
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6060/5899053749_c0382537f1_b.jpg)
When you add it all up, you have a largely straight hole that actually moves in 3-D. The net effect is a constant sense of motion. While the 3rd at Twin Hills is admittedly an extreme example of this trait, I see the same quality in Maxwell’s other work. Maybe that is to be expected given Maxwell’s lay of the land philosophy.
Now I’ve seen commentary suggesting similarities between Maxwell and Ross since they both commonly designed holes with elevated tees and greens. I can understand that analogy. However, I also see similarities to Flynn in the way they both utilized canted fairways. For example, the 7th hole at Dornick Hills…
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6024/5882942373_75ba17d458_b.jpg)
…the 6th hole at Twin Hills…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5273/5898992623_8d9f4fdcb7_b.jpg)
…#10 at Southern Hills…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5112/5907580966_33133e4941_b.jpg)
…and #9 at Old Town…
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3144/2747126264_df4a01a847_b.jpg)
I’m no Flynnoholic, but these holes seem to resemble what I’ve seen at Huntingdon Valley and Cascades. I know Maxwell worked some in the Philly area. I’d be curious if anyone knows whether there is any connection/influence between Maxwell and Flynn.
I have read that Maxwell was a fan of CBM and incorporated template concepts into his designs. While I don’t see templates holes in the CBM vein, I do see certain features that keep popping up. One of the most common is a tee shot over a rise to a blind fairway. Maxwell must have loved this shot since he did it too many instances to count. But a few examples are
#10 at OKG&CC…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5319/5892280989_bf19ea2eb9_b.jpg)
#7 at Southern Hills…
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6034/5907622776_e62b4390b3_b.jpg)
the 4th hole at Oakwood…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5306/5893965412_e81752df2d_b.jpg)
#16 at Twin Hills…
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6008/5899412458_b359c0a4a7_b.jpg)
the 13th at Dornick Hills…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5036/5883351420_6213298955_b.jpg)
and the 10th at Old Town…
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3275/2746288925_a0e0348d0f_b.jpg)
Another noticeable trait is the remarkable scarcity of fairway bunkers. At Twin Hills, there are only 4 holes with fairway bunkers. Ditto for OKCG&CC. At Dornick Hills, there are only 2 holes with fairway bunkers. And at Oakwood, there are only 2 fairway bunkers on the ENTIRE COURSE. Even Southern Hills has 6 holes with no fairway bunkers, which I suspect is comparatively low for a major championship site. And I’d be willing to bet that many of the fairway bunkers that do exist at Southern Hills were added as part of subsequent renovations to prepare the course for those championships.
Interestingly, the paucity of fairway bunkers does not, in my opinion, diminish the strategic character of Maxwell’s designs. Rather, in lieu of bunkers, Maxwell uses other methods to create the interest. Like the 16th at Twin Hills, where he uses the rolling contour of the land...
(http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6054/5899410916_83701601ab_b.jpg)
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5235/5899407746_d9f1604b57_b.jpg)
…or striking natural features like the cliff at Dornick Hills #16 (sorry, I can’t get enough of this hole)…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5078/5882672875_39b19bedf7_b.jpg)
… or a unique hole routing like the horseshoe 13th at Oklahoma City…
(http://i275.photobucket.com/albums/jj310/eko_gfl/OKCGCC_13.jpg)
I actually chose those three holes as examples because they are all par fives. One would think that designing par fives with no fairway bunkers affecting either the tee shot or the second shot would be a recipe for gruel architecture. But that’s not case with these holes and many others Maxwell designed without fairway bunkers. Not to go all Sean Arble on everyone, but it’s a nice lesson learned that you don’t need to have a lot of fairway bunkers to create interesting, strategic golf holes.
Of course, Maxwell is known for his greens. Although you hear about the “Maxwell rolls”, it would be a mistake to assume that all of his greens are boldly contoured. More than anything else, they exhibit tremendous variety, ranging from subtle…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5035/5899675836_c8fc6045a4_b.jpg)
…to wild...
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5272/5889075383_fcae33cac6_b.jpg)
Tiered…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5302/5882748337_06194687e0_b.jpg)
…, with spines…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5076/5914700434_4f5f8ef5bb_b.jpg)
…, ridges…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5231/5914600254_c14d22a84b_b.jpg)
…and humps and bumps…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5112/5906825919_21fb0edd9c_b.jpg)
At grade…
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3057/2747114046_97132b6e0d_b.jpg)
…and push up…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5264/5883426114_429437645f_b.jpg)
Back to front…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5270/5889695298_1ca6aa8bef_b.jpg)
…and front to back...
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5068/5892372723_8b0325cd70_b.jpg)
Importantly, that variety isn’t just from one course to another. It is within each individual course too. There is a fine line between inconsistency and variety. We’ve all played courses where one or two greens stand out as being different from the rest. Sometimes that is just as much of an indictment against the greens that “fit” as it is against those that appear out of place (i.e., the reason a few greens stick out is because the rest of the greens are too similar). From my perch, that is inconsistent architecture. On the other hand, when greens lack uniformity to such a degree that none stand out as unusually out of place with the others, that’s a sign of variety. Maxwell’s greens walk that line and achieve variety without crossing over into inconsistency.
I’ve lived in Charlotte for a long time now. One of the things I love most about golf in North Carolina is the imprint Ross has left throughout the state. Drop me anywhere in the state and I’ll bet I can find a Ross design not more than 30 minutes away. Maxwell has a similar lasting legacy in the Southwest. His designs dot the landscape here and there throughout the region. More importantly, his courses are solid start to finish, chock full of interesting holes and loads of fun to play. I’m not saying they are without flaws or that I put Maxwell at the top of the ODG food chain. But it’s good stuff any way you slice it and I feel very fortunate to have had the opportunity to sample such a broad range of his work. The best part of Maxwellpalooza, however, was sharing the final round at OKCG&CC with my Dad. His health has not been particularly good in recent years. He can’t play anymore, but he was able to ride around in the cart with me. This is the smile of a man feeling the joy of being on a golf course for the first time in 8 years…
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5271/5892124663_5b867383ef_b.jpg)
Thanks for the indulgence!
-
Ed, thank you for the hard work in putting this together. I really enjoyed it.
-
Ed, thank you for the hard work in putting this together. I really enjoyed it.
Ditto. Excellent job.
-
Awesome. This is the kind of post that makes clicking on this site every day work it. Well done!
-
a nominee for thread of the year!
-
a nominee for thread of the year!
Seconded!
-
Lovely, Ed. I clearly remember my last round with my dad, 35 years ago.
-
Great stuff. Interesting and educational. Loved it.
-
Really nice. Thank you, Ed.
-
Ed,
Thank you. Extremely well done and obviously from the heart! I especially enjoyed how you pointed out examples of Maxwell's tendencies, almost as much as seeing you with your dad. I agree with the others that this type of thread is what makes this place so special. Thanks again.
-
Fantastic post Ed. How about that rock wall protecting the green on the par-5? Wow!
-
Ed-5 stars for an awesome presentation. Thanks for a great effort.
-
Great post Ed, I really enjoyed learning about these courses, which are now on my "to play list".
Double points for the thread title!
-
Thanks for all the very kind compliments! However, I didn't start this thread to get a pat on the back. What I'd really like to see is some discussion develop. So I'll toss a few things out there in hopes of getting the ball rolling:
For those who have played other Maxwell courses besides those I mention, do you see similar things? Crystal Downs anyone?
The MacKenzie/Maxwell partnership has always seemed a bit odd to me since I don't see much commonality between their courses. For those who have greater experience with Dr. Mac's designs, how do they compare?
And how about my Flynn question? I don't have the Morrison/Paul treatise on Flynn since my NASA-sized servers haven't been installed yet. Does anyone know if there is any connection between Maxwell and Flynn?
Mark, would you believe that at one point I had visions of a "Get Smart" theme for this thread? Of course, that idea missed it by that much!
-
I know as much about Perry Maxwell as the Chief and Agent 99 combined -- so all I can do is give you a pat on the back.
If anyone wants to know how to combine words and pictures (including those Google aerials) into a package that communicates efficiently, point them to Ed's post.
Great work, Ed.
-
I know as much about Perry Maxwell as the Chief and Agent 99 combined -- so all I can do is give you a pat on the back.
If anyone wants to know how to combine words and pictures (including those Google aerials) into a package that communicates efficiently, point them to Ed's post.
Great work, Ed.
+ 1. Thanks Ed. There are stretches of those courses that remind me of the bits of Belvedere that I've seen/read about. I can't get enough of the simiplicty.
-
Ed,
I was thinking just this week that I hadn't heard from you in a while.
What a triumphant return!
Thanks for this wonderfully documented and thoughtful piece.
The 3rd (perhaps 12th?) hole at the RTJ Golf Trails's Oxmoor Valley Ridge course has a par 5 with a green perched on top of a shale outcropping. It's a really cool whole - perhaps the most interesting that I played on all of the Trail courses. I am trying to find a picture online, but have not been successful yet.
-
Great stuff, Twin Hills is one of the best under the radar courses you will find anywhere.
-
Fantastic thread, one of the very best I've ever seen on here, period. I will be bookmarking and saving it.
Hopefully Chris Clouser will chime in. I will try to send him a message/email.
-
Ed,
I know your back is starting to get a bit sore but that's possibly the best, most concise and most educational thread that I've read on this site in the 2+ years I've been dialed in. Next to the one of carts and private clubs, of course...
I haven't played a Maxwell but now I really want to. I wonder how far my 3 wood approach would richochet off the cliff at Dornock Hills?
Thanks for the effort you invested in that and thanks for getting me to think of my Dad today.
-
Ed, This is brilliant. The photography and writing and the thought behind it all. Well done.
I have only played Old Town, so I'm not helpful in a discussion here.
Bruce
-
Good thing you decided to come to Oklahoma during the hottest summer in the history of the US!! :o
Oh yea and the worst drought since the dust bowl years.
Nice write-up.. too bad Chris Clouser isn't around anymore. :(
-
Thanks for all the very kind compliments! However, I didn't start this thread to get a pat on the back. What I'd really like to see is some discussion develop. So I'll toss a few things out there in hopes of getting the ball rolling:
For those who have played other Maxwell courses besides those I mention, do you see similar things? Crystal Downs anyone?
The MacKenzie/Maxwell partnership has always seemed a bit odd to me since I don't see much commonality between their courses. For those who have greater experience with Dr. Mac's designs, how do they compare?
And how about my Flynn question? I don't have the Morrison/Paul treatise on Flynn since my NASA-sized servers haven't been installed yet. Does anyone know if there is any connection between Maxwell and Flynn?
Mark, would you believe that at one point I had visions of a "Get Smart" theme for this thread? Of course, that idea missed it by that much!
Ed
I'll give you a pat on the back anyway!
To your question concerning other MacMax designs, for sure UofM uses uphill blind tee shots over crests of hills - #s 2 & 4 come to mind. They also used a blind tee shot on #8, but it is all downhill.
UofM also has a scarcity of fairway bunkers. From memory I think there are six holes with no sand in the fairways. No hole has more than two fairway bunkers - I think. Unusually, on the 6th, the greenside bunkers (at least the front bunker) can be considered fairway bunkers because the hole is driveable.
I would agree with the quality of the land issue concerning Max. I only know Old Town and UofM and both are very good properties offering a full range of ball flight shots, but for the greens which have ground the entrances they are very tricky - one must be in A 1 position to attempt it on most holes so essentially both these courses are of the aerial approach style.
Concerning the natural rock wall, UofM has a somewhat similar par 5, #3, which turns hard left and then heads steeply uphill to the green. I can't tell the shapr of the green you reference, but UofM's is very narrow and wide with seriously sharp slope leaning back toward the tee.
I would like to play a lot more Maxwell courses! One question, why do you seem to think Mac and Max were not necessarily compatible archies?
Ciao
-
As always, Ed, pure class. The best thread on this site in years and you should be commended (not that it will stop me from getting in your pocket this weekend ;) )
On Crystal Downs and fairway bunkers:
Neither of the par 5's (8 or 16) have fairway bunkers. Also, on par 4's, 7,10,12,13,15,17 and 18 are without fairway bunkers.
On Crystal Downs and blind shots:
I guess how it is that you define "blind." If you consider not being able to see the landing area, I would say 5,7,8(somewhat),12(somewhat) and 17.
On Crystal Downs and doglegs:
No shortage here. 4,5,6,8,12,13,16,18. Some are severe like 18 and 5. Others are more a play on angles like 8 and 13.
A brilliant course for sure. I find your observations on Maxwell, generally, incredibly enlightening as I reflect on my rounds at Old Town and Crystal Downs.
Maxwell might not be the most celebrated ODG but I certainly think he was one of the best.
Thanks again for this thread.
-
Ed:
Terrific thread! I saw that shot of the par 5 at Dornick Hills pop on a GCA thread a few years ago, and thought it then being one of the coolest holes I'd seen. Thanks for bringing it back up -- not often you see that kind of blind/semi-blind second shot on a par 5 into a gree -- maybe the 6th at Pebble? Doesn't seem to be a common tactic.
One course profile maybe worth examining is Ran's look at Canterbury in Cleveland, a well-maintained Herbert Strong design. Strong used a similar approach in laying out his fairways, as Ran notes that the golfer will be able to see his drive's outcome on less than half of the drives off tees: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/courses-by-country/usa/canterbury/
-
Ed,
It seems like no one else recognizes the spiritual eruption that it took to compile and post this thread, so I'll be the first to tell you that it is, without question, the best thread I've read since I joined GCA. I don't know why the rest of the guys on the site haven't taken the time to read it and comment, but hey, it's their loss and Charlotte's gain.
When I was a freshie at Wake Forest, Coach Haddock let me try out for the team. I played my one and only round at Old Town, realizing then and there that I didn't have what it took to make the team. One thing I did not realize, however, was that I was treading over greatness and I've been aching (despite Kye Goalby's best efforts to meet up) to get back there. That's what sucks about teaching...can't just up and head south for Homecoming during prime teaching months.
I believe that Mr. Maxwell had an incredible gift. I would love to know what his formative years and influences gifted him, in terms of lay of the land. We know what Mackenzie did, regarding his war service. How was Maxwell influenced as a youth and teenager? As you say, the ability to weave the creek into nearly every hole of a space of property, without making it seem forced, is transcendent.
Looks like America's heartland, for the new builds of SH, DC, BN, et al., and the great classics of PM is the new dream trip.
-
Ed,
A very nice thread indeed. As I have not played any Maxwell courses I cannot add to the discussion. However I have been given a tutorial in golf course architecture by yourself and Maxwell! To my mind the majority of GCA principles and ideas are presented in your piece here and in a very accessible manner.
I was particularly taken with your sequence of nine to ten descriptions of Maxwell greens covering the gamut (I think) of putting green architecture. As you suggest a testament to his ability.
Your description of "movement", vertically and laterally, supplemented by the aerials and photos allows me to interpret much more meaningfully this aspect of golf course architecture. Fairway shape and bunker placement, or lack thereof, clearly articulated.
Your writing captures the essence of the hazardous nature of a seemingly benign creek as it snakes around the greens. Once again the aerials and photos add that extra dimension allowing me to recognise the twisting, sinuous nature of an innocent stretch of water and how well it can be incorporated into the design.
I bet your Dad enjoyed every minute of his golf with you.
Thanks for all that (except I now have another unattainable goal; I want to play Maxwell courses!)
Colin.
-
Ed:
Great thread. Not all of the pictures come up as I am reading this from China ... perhaps their bias against golf courses is stronger against photos of good ones? Anyway, your observation that I found most striking was this:
"when he found a striking natural feature, he pretty much bashes you over the head with it. I’m not sure I have seen any other architect use bold features as aggressively as Maxwell. For example, at Oklahoma City G&CC there is an amazing creek which snakes its way through the southern portion of the property…"
I have written much the same about Dr. MacKenzie. Of course, he and Maxwell worked a bit together, and their first bit of collaboration was the very same Oklahoma City G&CC. I don't think MacKenzie was very involved there ... I believe Maxwell had already signed up the job when the Doctor came through town on his way to California. But he might have gone out and looked at a routing and suggested squeezing things together.
For MacKenzie, this tendency was sometimes a flaw. Wherever his courses have been altered or narrowed by trees, safety between two holes in close proximity is usually the culprit. I don't know if that's true for Maxwell's courses also.
-
Thanks for all the very kind compliments! However, I didn't start this thread to get a pat on the back. What I'd really like to see is some discussion develop. So I'll toss a few things out there in hopes of getting the ball rolling:
For those who have played other Maxwell courses besides those I mention, do you see similar things? Crystal Downs anyone?
The MacKenzie/Maxwell partnership has always seemed a bit odd to me since I don't see much commonality between their courses. For those who have greater experience with Dr. Mac's designs, how do they compare?
And how about my Flynn question? I don't have the Morrison/Paul treatise on Flynn since my NASA-sized servers haven't been installed yet. Does anyone know if there is any connection between Maxwell and Flynn?
Mark, would you believe that at one point I had visions of a "Get Smart" theme for this thread? Of course, that idea missed it by that much!
IMO both Crystal Downs and Univ of Michigan course have much more of a Maxwell feel than a Mackenzie feel.
I have not seen a direct connection between Flynn and Maxwell, but I wouldn't be surprised. Another similarity they share is the grass island or islands you will occasionally find in their bunkers. Unfortunately a few of those Maxwell bunkers have disappeared, or have been altered, over the years.
Excellent piece.
-
Oklahoma City is one of my all time faves! Not only the windingburn, but the great terrain and the wondrous routing and great green complexes. That is a hidden gem the quality of a Silmaril! Love it!
-
Thanks to all for the compliments I've received, both publicly and privately. I'm a bit embarrassed, but grateful nonetheless.
One question, why do you seem to think Mac and Max were not necessarily compatible archies?
Sean, I'm not sure I can give a good answer. Visually, their styles appear different to me. Maybe its mostly the bunkers. It seems they used them very differently. I also don't see that Maxwell emplyed the visual deception that MacKenzie did. And I thought Maxwell pretty much lived at his courses during design/construction while Dr. Mac played hit and run. At the end of the day, it's more a gut feeling than anything else.
-
Thanks to all for the compliments I've received, both publicly and privately. I'm a bit embarrassed, but grateful nonetheless.
One question, why do you seem to think Mac and Max were not necessarily compatible archies?
Sean, I'm not sure I can give a good answer. Visually, their styles appear different to me. Maybe its mostly the bunkers. It seems they used them very differently. I also don't see that Maxwell emplyed the visual deception that MacKenzie did. And I thought Maxwell pretty much lived at his courses during design/construction while Dr. Mac played hit and run. At the end of the day, it's more a gut feeling than anything else.
While I wouldn't go so far as to say Mac and Max weren't compatible (how can I when their collaborations are so widely praised?), but I do think you have hit onto something. If it is the case that UofM was originally routed by Max then altered a bit (making it a much better course imo) by Mac, it is that extra flair or risk taking in the design which makes the course a keeper. Other than the difference of bunker style and quantity, from what I can tell Mac seemed to want to be bolder in his green shapes. Perhaps Max was more likely to keep things simple. In general though, I think both guys seized on interesting features and tried to route course to get the maximum out of those features.
Ciao
-
Great stuff, Twin Hills is one of the best under the radar courses you will find anywhere.
Sam, I agree entirely. Twin Hills is really good and I think worthy of mention among Maxwell's top designs. While working on this thread, the two courses I kept coming back to were Dornick Hills and Twin Hills. All of the qualities and characteristics I wanted to talk about were exhibited at those two courses. I could have done this thread by using examples from Twin Hills and Dornick Hills alone. But I doubt I could have done it without mentioning those two courses. Some commentary is out there on Dornick, since it was Maxwell's first design. So I had some idea what to expect there. But I was not prepared for the quality of Twin Hills. It's just a bunch of very good holes.
-
Ed
I agree with the others, a very well written piece. I have long been an admirer of Maxwell, in my mind the contours of the greens are the heart and soul of his work. In my early years of discovery I remember making the loop from Denver to Firethorn to Prairie Dunes and back to Denver several times. I have always thought the other Maxwell courses that I have had a chance to explore leave me with the same feeling you expressed in your piece.
I believe that Maxwell was a wonderful addition to Mackenzie's portfolio of work. I am curious if you think Perry is in the same vein with Mackenzie and Ross and others
-
Jim, any architect that can claim full or co-credit for Prairie Dunes, Southern Hills, Crystal Downs and Old Town has a portfolio of top courses that merits attention. For me, however, the next tier down is just as important. I saw nothing in Maxwell's lesser known designs that would give me cause to pause. On the contrary, in my opinion, he produced consistently solid golf courses. I think Maxwell deserves to be discussed with the other top architects of his generation. Where he falls in the pecking order is a matter of personal preference.
-
Thanks for this extensive and informative look at Perry Maxwell. I've never been able to see such a concentrated examination of his work before. Having never played one of his courses, I can't add any comments of an architectural nature. However, after reading your post, I'm inspired to seek out one of his designs and experience it in person. Great post!
-
Thanks for this, Ed. A well done look at some of Maxwell's work and style. Makes we want to see Dornick Hills even more.
If I might offer a slight bit of criticism, it's with the name of the thread. I didn't really know what it was about from the name or would have clicked on it sooner. You might get even more attention and comments if the subject were clearer.
-
Oops - doubly posted somehow. Sorry.
-
I too love the thread. I grew up on a Maxwell course in Monroe, La. The childhood moments playing this course, working during the summers there and watching the best amateur golfers play match play there will never leave my mind.
-
If I might offer a slight bit of criticism, it's with the name of the thread. I didn't really know what it was about from the name or would have clicked on it sooner. You might get even more attention and comments if the subject were clearer.
John, sorry about that chief! Would you believe I was trying the old golf architect/1960's TV show double entendre thread name trick? Guess I missed it by that much! ;D
-
Ed,
This really was excellent as others have written. Wonderful!! Thanks.
-
Ed,
EXCELLENT post and commentary. I think it is a really fine synopsis of why Maxwell's work is so intriguing and definitely worthy of more study.
Mike
-
Ed,
I was thinking just this week that I hadn't heard from you in a while.
What a triumphant return!
Thanks for this wonderfully documented and thoughtful piece.
The 3rd (perhaps 12th?) hole at the RTJ Golf Trails's Oxmoor Valley Ridge course has a par 5 with a green perched on top of a shale outcropping. It's a really cool whole - perhaps the most interesting that I played on all of the Trail courses. I am trying to find a picture online, but have not been successful yet.
Morgan, I have played that hole too and immediately thought of it when I saw Ed's photo of the hole at Dornick Hills. It's the perfect length at about 495 yards to cause a lot of anguish for longer hitters!
-
Ed
I would mainly repeat what the others have said complementing the thread and the courses.
If I may offer a criticism.... have you any idea what the hell is that new tree doing planted in front of that wonderful rock scarp. Totally out of place
-
Thanks for all the kind words. They are appreciated even though I don't feel they are warranted.
If I may offer a criticism.... have you any idea what the hell is that new tree doing planted in front of that wonderful rock scarp. Totally out of place
Ward, the only thing I can think of is that maybe it was planted to replace a large that died in that spot. It sure does look out of place though.