[Joshua Pettit]

Tom,

I agree it is futile to make assumptions about Hunter’s abilities as an architect.  But I do believe he had the background and experience to be a successful architect on his own in the way that Alex Russell and Perry Maxwell were.

An interesting counter-factual to consider (maybe just for history wonks) would be:  What if MacKenzie had never come to California and Robert Hunter had designed and built Meadow Club on his own?

To me, the important thing about this entire conversation, and one of the most remarkable characteristics of Dr. MacKenzie, was his ability to find top notch associates every where he worked that could execute his vision with a good deal of consistancy.  Robert Hunter in California, Alex Russell in Australia, Perry Maxwell in the Midwest, Luther Koontz in South America, Wendell Miller on the East Coast, etc.  That’s a pretty impressive record if you ask me.

The question then becomes, if all of those associates had designed and built all those courses on their own without MacKenzie’s involvement, would they have been as good or better?  Could Russell have done as good a job at Royal Melbourne on his own?  Could Maxwell have done as good a job at Crystal Downs on his own?  Even though MacKenzie may have spent as little as only one day on site for some projects I think the answer to all those questions is invariably NO. 

Josh:

I agree with you on all of that.  I just think some people want this discussion to devolve into "Hunter would have been a great architect, if he'd had the chance," based on projects he did with MacKenzie where no one really knows just how much responsibility he had.  And that's a ridiculous discussion to have.  You might as well make the same case for somebody who never actually built a course!

You could have the same discussion for any of my courses.  Would Barnbougle have been just as good if Brian Schneider and Mike Clayton had finished the course and I had never returned to wave my hands around shaping greens?  Maybe, for all anyone knows, but that's pure speculation.

[Jim Hoak]

Sven, I’m not saying that Hunter wasn’t “integral” to the work of MacKenzie; in fact, from what I know, he was very critical to the success of MacKenzie in California.  I just think without any “free-standing” work of his own, and without any way of absolutely attributing specific things to his contribution, it is impossible to determine definitively his independent merit as an architect.  But much like Maxwell and Russell, I think we should never underestimate his importance to the work of MacKenzie.  I am a fan, not a detractor.

[Sven Nilsen]

You've all read his book, haven't you?

Do you still want to maintain there is no way to judge his merit as an architect?  Remember that the book was published prior to the bulk of his work.  Is there anything he did later that is at odds with the principles he espoused in "The Links?"

You could make the same argument about Mackenzie on quantifying the impact on a project. 

Sven

[Ally Mcintosh]

You've all read his book, haven't you?

Do you still want to maintain there is no way to judge his merit as an architect?  Remember that the book was published prior to the bulk of his work.  Is there anything he did later that is at odds with the principles he espoused in "The Links?"

You could make the same argument about Mackenzie on quantifying the impact on a project. 

Sven

Sven, I’ve read the equivalent of Sean Arble’s book (his thousands of very informative posts on here) but there’s a bit to go before I declare him a master architect.


And with that said, I’m going to pull out my copy of The Links today and have a quick re-read.

[Tom_Doak]

You've all read his book, haven't you?

Do you still want to maintain there is no way to judge his merit as an architect?  Remember that the book was published prior to the bulk of his work.  Is there anything he did later that is at odds with the principles he espoused in "The Links?"

I have indeed read his book, though not that recently.  The outstanding parts of it to me are his descriptions of playing with "Johnny" Ball at Hoylake and the spirit of golf a century ago, and also his selections of golf holes that he admired.


But, as Ally says, you don't have to be an architect to get those parts right, do you?


When he and Dr MacKenzie got together, MacKenzie had a bunch of courses in England to his credit, was the consultant to the R&A, and had written a book; Hunter had (maybe) one solo design, and one new commission, and had also written a book.  I'm not saying Hunter didn't play an important role, and by the end of their partnership I'm sure he could create something pretty good; but I guess we might have a different conclusion as to who learned more from whom.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, I’ve read the equivalent of Sean Arble’s book (his thousands of very informative posts on here) but there’s a bit to go before I declare him a master architect.

I must have missed all of Sean's posts on how to design and construct a golf course. 


You do see the difference, don't you?

[Sven Nilsen]

One more for the project list.

June 10, 1927 Oakland Tribune -

[Sven Nilsen]

Some followup on Sharp Park, noting the plans had been drawn by MacKenzie and Hunter prior to Hunter's withdrawal from the business.

Feb. 22, 1930 San Francisco Examiner -

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sven,


Thanks for the news clips.  I have checked my files for my reference to the oddly specific note in my old report that Hunter had "officially retired from golf course architecture on March 16, 1929 for health reasons".  Obviously, Pasa and a few others went on beyond that.  Wonder if you have any info on that?

Would also be interested in any info on just how Jr. kept the construction company going, as a design build firm, if you have it.  Was it Hunter Jr who had the same drafting style, or did they have a staff member drawing plans, held over from the Mac/Hunter partnership? How many projects did they do, etc.  Cornish and Whitten don't mention him at all.

BTW, to answer J

oshua's question, I have seen both the Washoe and OSU overall renderings in photos, not originals.  The comparisons were in the typeface and layout of the drawing.  I couldn't see a lot of detail.

[Sven Nilsen]

Jeff:

Here's the only article I have discussing Hunter's exit from his partnership with MacKenzie.  I believe you are correct to say he left for health reasons.  I don't have any information on who the draftsman was for AGCCC.

March 17, 1929 Los Angeles Times -



Tom's comment on who learned from who raises an interesting point.  Hunter's experiences in golf architecture weren't limited to his efforts at Berkeley, the authorship of a book and the knowledge gained from working with MacKenzie.  He had years of exposure to the great courses in the eastern part of his country prior to his move to California, and counted Travis, Ross and others as his friends.

April 16, 1921 San Francisco Chronicle -



July 30, 1922 San Francisco Examiner -



Add in the de rigueur trip overseas, and you have a more complete picture of the base of knowledge Hunter had developed prior to taking up the profession full time.

I'm not as interested in the respective resumes of Hunter and MacKenzie in 1926 as I am with trying to decipher how their day to day practices worked.  Every single article written between 1926 and 1929 (there are hundreds) discussing their projects paints the two men as equals, describing both of them as renown architects of international fame (or similar language).  Often Hunter is given first billing, and the coverage of some of their projects starts with discussion of Hunter only.  There is not a single mention of Hunter being a "junior partner" or any description of his role that would lead one to think he was.

My gut tells me Hunter was the driving force behind their work.  Partnering with MacKenzie gave him a bit of cachet he probably wouldn't have had on his own, but he was the guy working his local connections, visiting sites, meeting with the members, developing initial plans and once work began managing the construction process.  I have no doubt that the two men conferred on important decisions and worked together to finalize plans, the old articles tell us they did.  But I don't believe this was done in the mode of a master/apprentice relationship. 

I keep coming back to Cypress Point in this exercise.  All of the articles leading up to its opening gave the two men equal billing, and highlighted that it was Hunter who drove the construction process.  Today we only mention MacKenzie.

Sven

[Tom_Doak]

Well, in addition to all his other duties, Hunter was the one who handled the newspapermen.


I wish I could remember who it was who described Hunter's role in the process to me as "the suit".  I think it was John Fleming, whose dad worked with MacKenzie and Hunter.  Obviously, he had his own view of what were the most important roles, too.



MacKenzie's m.o. was to do the routings, draw greens plans, find the right people to build them, and get them off on the right track.  He did it with many different associates - most of whom had never built a great course before their association, but a lot of whom could do so afterward.  If that makes all of the other guys the "real" architect in your mind, so be it, but I think that would mean you'd also have to go back and rewrite the history of practically every other designer in history while you're at it.

[Sven Nilsen]

Tom:


Thanks, in between your misinterpretation of my purpose for this thread, you've answered my initial question.


Sven

[Tom_Doak]

One other note:  one of the reasons we are having this discussion about MacKenzie is because he made his helpers partners, shared the credit, and empowered them to draw outside his lines.


I don't think his level of involvement was less than Donald Ross or Old Tom Morris or Tom Fazio or Jack Nicklaus, but they don't tell anyone who was helping them or let the others talk to the newspapers, so there is a lot less for you to work with to rewrite the credits on their projects.


As you'd imagine, I am sensitive to that because I've shared credit myself, throughout my own career.  I do so because it makes our projects better, but it sucks if that means your grandson will conclude that I was just the front man as a result.  The best courses are almost always the product of multiple talents.

[AChao]

I always liked Hunter Ranch in Paso Robles.  A little on the short side, but a pretty pleasant course.

[Tommy Naccarato]

I always liked Hunter Ranch in Paso Robles.  A little on the short side, but a pretty pleasant course.

Which he had absolutely ZERO to do with, especially considering it was built +/- 55-Years after his passing.

[Tommy Naccarato]

Sven, MacKenzie, and as far as I know of, Hunter had zero input at the Max Behr-designed Capuchino

[Jeff_Brauer]

One other note:  one of the reasons we are having this discussion about MacKenzie is because he made his helpers partners, shared the credit, and empowered them to draw outside his lines.


I don't think his level of involvement was less than Donald Ross or Old Tom Morris or Tom Fazio or Jack Nicklaus, but they don't tell anyone who was helping them or let the others talk to the newspapers, so there is a lot less for you to work with to rewrite the credits on their projects.


[/quote


Tom,


Doesn't it seem like he (with numerous partners) was more consistent in quality than some of the others, notably Tillie, who was credited with a wide variety of styles, which I attribute to different builders doing his far flung work?  Mac worked even wider in the world, but his Australia courses, his CA courses, Crystal Downs (more the front nine) and UM in Michigan, all retain his signature bunkers and some greens, etc.  Tillie was a bunkering genius when Bell was working on the SF bunkers, but a bit blah in MN and a few other places, for comparison.


I wonder what Mac's secrete for success in that regard was.  His green details are nice, but don't seem to convey enough info for everyone to fall in line with his style.  I suspect there were some other photos or verbal/written instructions to go with them?  Inquiring minds want to know.  Or, with little fanfare and credit he sent a trusted shaper to all these jobs?


Of course, for us modern guys, having your own crew, or relying on the relatively consistent talent of a big contractor helps.  I wonder how it got done on the ground in those days, with fewer site visits allowed by travel constraints, etc.

[Tom_Doak]

Jeff:  Dr MacKenzie did, in fact, bring his own shapers to many jobs in the last ten years of his career.  He imported a whole crew of Irish lads to California to build all the courses there under the auspices of Robert Hunter Jr's construction company, and set up his own brother to be the contractor for his later jobs in the U.K.


Perry Maxwell brought the Wood brothers around to all of his jobs, and Mick Morcom's son Vern became the shaper for most of the bunkers on the Sand Belt.  These latter guys did not spend very much time with MacKenzie, but it was enough to convey his ideas about rough edges and scale.

[Sven Nilsen]

Sven, MacKenzie, and as far as I know of, Hunter had zero input at the Max Behr-designed Capuchino

Tommy:


At the very least, they were initially engaged to do the design and worked on plans.  Do you have anything confirming Behr's later involvement?

Sven

July 10, 1926 San Francisco Examiner -

[Tom_Doak]

Sven:  it's a good point to wonder here how many projects like Capuchino are misattributed because someone wrote a newspaper story prematurely based on a press release or something.


A certain number of projects change hands for all sorts of business reasons, so I am pretty careful now never to announce something before there's a contract in place (unless someone from The Golf Channel insists on announcing it first).  Just this year I had a project in Mexico that was announced in some venues, but there were so many twists and turns with the client (who are a complicated joint venture) that I have given up the job now.  But had they or I said anything publicly your grandson would "prove" it was mine.

[Tommy Naccarato]

Sven, MacKenzie, and as far as I know of, Hunter had zero input at the Max Behr-designed Capuchino

Tommy:


At the very least, they were initially engaged to do the design and worked on plans.  Do you have anything confirming Behr's later involvement?

Sven

July 10, 1926 San Francisco Examiner -

Swen,
Yes I do.


The article is wrong.  At least in my opinion, it is.  They’re writer is confusing it with Union League/Green Hills, which was right next door.  Capuchins was designed by Max Behr and built by A. Herbert Wilson.

[Tommy Naccarato]

Sven:  it's a good point to wonder here how many projects like Capuchino are misattributed because someone wrote a newspaper story prematurely based on a press release or something.


A certain number of projects change hands for all sorts of business reasons, so I am pretty careful now never to announce something before there's a contract in place (unless someone from The Golf Channel insists on announcing it first).  Just this year I had a project in Mexico that was announced in some venues, but there were so many twists and turns with the client (who are a complicated joint venture) that I have given up the job now.  But had they or I said anything publicly your grandson would "prove" it was mine.

More accurate words have never been uttered!

[Sven Nilsen]

Swen,
Yes I do.


The article is wrong.  At least in my opinion, it is.  They’re writer is confusing it with Union League/Green Hills, which was right next door.  Capuchins was designed by Max Behr and built by A. Herbert Wilson.

Tommy:

The name is "Sven," not "Swen."

What do you have on Behr and Whiting and Capuchino?  I'd love to see it.  And please understand that I am not trying to maintain the course was designed by MacKenzie and Hunter, I just have not seen anything that confirms any other architects but them had their hands on the project at any time.

As for this article discussed above, everything about it rings true.  It fits in with the timing of the Capuchino course project, and not the Union League project which the idea of was not even touched on in the papers until July of 1927 (after Capuchino had opened).  It would be hard for this to be a mistaken reference to a project that wouldn't take form for another year.

Here are all of the articles I have on Capuchino in order:

Feb. 9, 1926 The Times - First article I've seen discussing the project.



July 10, 1926 San Francisco Examiner - The article posted in the thread above.



Aug. 10, 1926 Los Angeles Times - Noting construction starting.



Aug. 25, 1926 The Times - Discussing the course being under construction.



March 12, 1927 San Francisco Examiner - Discussing some play on the course.



May 14, 1927 San Francisco Examiner - Course nearly complete.



April 14, 1939 The Times - The closing of the course.



If Behr and Whiting came in to the picture, they must have done so some time before Aug. of 1926.  And if the July 10, 1926 article is accurate and MacKenzie and Hunter were involved at one point, that leaves a fairly tight window.

[Tommy Naccarato]

Sven, That was a Spell Correct error.  I know how to spell your name.  It’s the fucking operating system that changes it while I’m not looking!

[Joe Bausch]

Sven, That was a Spell Correct error.  I know how to spell your name.  It’s the fucking operating system that changes it while I’m not looking!

I know what you mean, Tomy.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()