[DMoriarty]

I've read in numerous posts that MacDonald's work at NGLA (and others) resulted in features which looked "engineered" and/or "manufactured" rather than natural.   This seems at odds with MacDonald's writings in Scotland's Gift, especially where he comments that he strives to make his bunkers look as natural as possible.  

Perhaps NGLA looked more natural closer to its opening, but evolved into its more engineered/manufactured look over time?

[DMoriarty]

For example, here are a few pre- 1920 photographs of some NGLA bunkers  . . .

[corrected: Sahara] Greenside Bunker. . . .


Alps Cross Bunker (I think) . . . .


Sahara Bunker . . . .


Sahara Bunker closer . . . .


Bunkers on Home hole [Correction: on the First Hole] . . .


. . . While I don't doubt that they are manufactured and engineered, they look to have been made to look as if they weren't.  

[Bill_McBride]

". . . While I don't doubt that they are manufactured and engineered, they look to have been made to look as if they weren't."

David, your comment sounds like a criticism.  But isn't that THE WHOLE IDEA??!!  

The best golf architecture makes construction look like it was always there on the ground, just waiting to be discovered.

Maybe you were being admiring rather than critical.  But it didn't come off quite that way.

[DMoriarty]

Bill,

Criticism? No.  Not of the pictured bunkers, at least.

Take a look at the quote in context with the opening post, also mine.  

[TEPaul]

Maybe it's just in the eye of the beholder but there are certainly various aspects of the architecture of NGLA that are engineered looking to me. I think certain of the features there were intended to look that way simply because some of the holes that were borrowed from Europe are that way. The original sleepers in front of "short", the berm behind "Alps", the "Road" green, the entire amazingly leveled up Bottle hole green, the green on #11, and the back of the 15th and 17th greens to name a number of the more prominent of the engineered looking features. Some of those early bunkers do look somewhat more random than they do now, though.

To me the engineered look of NGLA is no criticiism at all---I think it's just the early era and the fact that many of the holes are copies of some early European holes.

[Pat_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

I believe that your last photo is of the 1st hole, not the 18th hole.

I can't comment on a golf course that I never saw or played.
But, I can comment on the NGLA that I'm familiar with.

The course is far from natural, yet it's a comfortable fit with the land, enjoyable to walk and play.

The superstructure of the greens, including the bunkering is far from natural, and the same could be said of many of the tees.

I don't know that the architect is the best source of objectivity, or an honest evaluater/critic of his work.

The pictures you posted are very interesting, especially the greenside bunker on # 3.

I'd be interested to know how that bunker evolved into its present state.

[ChipOat]

Patrick:

I'm usually the first defender of "changes" to classic courses (conceptually, at least) and one of the first to question what is so damn sacred about the original characteristics of a golf hole.

Buit the early version of the greenside bunker on #3 is awesome!  Perhaps some "restoration" is worth considering?

[gholland]

Patrick -

Based on the clubhouse it certainly loods as if this photo is # 1 and not 18 as you posted.

[gholland]

Patrick -

Is it possible that those bunders are the waste area to the left of # 1 and the green and fairway are to the right ....not pictured here?

George

[DMoriarty]

TEPaul.   There are aspects of NGLA which look engineered to me as well.   Yet I found these photographed features-- particularly the bunkers-- to look surprisingly natural.  

I dont mind the present manufactured look either, and wasnt meaning to judge either eras one way or another.   Rather, I am trying to set the record straight, or at least get to the bottom of whether or not NGLA had an overwhelmingly manufactured look.  

As for most of your examples, I dont really know what they looked like in, say, 1915.   Do you?  

Here is a photo of the Short from around 1910 . . .


. . . The photo is pretty vague.  While the green appears to be buttressed with railroad ties or something, the bunkers look pretty random to me, with the exception perhaps of the one on the left.   Overall, though, the bunkering looks much more random than today.

Patrick and Mr. Holland,

My mistake on mislabeling the first and last holes.  On my single play at NGLA I was so far left on No. 18 that I was almost playing over the clubhouse.  I assumed that the vestiges of bunkers left of No. 18 were the ones in these photos.

I believe that the flagstick on No. 1 is vaguely visible on the left side of the photo.  If so, wouldnt those visible bunkers have to be between Nos. 1 and 18?

A bunker is barely visible on the far right of the photo.  Is this a fairway bunker on No. 18?  If so, about where is/was it located.

Patrick:

I have no quarrel with you regarding whether or not the greens and surrounds are actually natural.  Rather, I am talking about whether or not they looked manufactured and/or engineered.   The conventional wisdom around here seems to be that the features have always had the early industrial age look they currently have.   I think these photos may bring that somewhat into question.

I for one was surprised at how different the course looks in these photos as compared to now.   These following photos dont have any really telling bunker shots, but in general the course does not have an unnatural, manufactured, or engineered look.

The first hole


[Corrected:  Wider view of the Alps Hole from behind the tee, with Cross Bunker in middle of the picture] . . .



The Redan . . .


The thirteenth . . .


Cape Hole from tee . . .


Two different pics of Cape Hole Green . . .

[TEPaul]

Not that it's all that important but I think a few of those photos are of the wrong hole. All those photos are in albums in the big room at NGLA but I certainly never wrote down which was which. I have a feeling the first photo is of the old 2nd green before MacDonald moved it farther back. The third one is sort of a mystery to me--not sure if it's the Alps but it may be a bunker on the right of the green. I think Pat is right that the one with the clubhouse might be the 1st hole not the 18th.

But they all are interesting and it certainly does seem they were not exactly engineered looking, more like some of the massive scale style of some of that early course. Frankly, although many say NGLA is engineered looking it never looked as engineered to me as some of the later Raynor courses.

Don't forget that MacDonald did change and/or move some of his original greens. That old cape hole green has always been fascinating to me---too bad the road moved it left.

There's no question in my mind that NGLA certainly did deserve its reputation as the first really good 18 holes in America and Macdonald deserves his place in American architecture for conceiving of and doing it. That fact that about half the holes are semi-templates from Europe makes the course and its time in the evolution of American architecture all the more noteworthy---an appropriate nexus if you stop and think about it.

I've always felt that not only should Macdonald be known as the father of American golf architecture, but that in a formal way he probably should be seen as the father of Amrerican golf itself---and frankly his project in Chicago is probably an even better example of that. It's pretty poignant to read his own account of what he called his "dark ages" when he was back over here from his education in St Andrews and basically there was nowhere for him to play golf for a number of years. That band of Englishmen who arrived in Chicago during the World's Fair sort of changed all that. He finally had someone he could even talk to about golf!  

[Pat_Mucci]

DMoriarty,

I believe that what you describe as a bunker in the far right of the photo may be the tidal beach area that is now the practice range and the adjacent area.

I believe the black & White nature of the photos and their dark quality contributes to the perception on the part of some that the course had a more naturual quality.

Just look at the length of the shadows in your last photo.
They would seem to indicate that the picture was taken late in the day when the sun was limited and low.

I am puzzled by the photo you listed as the alps greenside bunker.  What puzzles me is the crowned hill behind the green.
I don't think it's the bunker to the right of the green due to the angle it's taken from and the configuration of the nearby green, the low flagstick and the high flag pole.  It looks as though the photo might have been taken from the hill to the left of the green, toward the 16th green.  That would provide the elevation, the orientation of the lower left side of the green and the higher right side, but, that hill is still a puzzle.
Perhaps it was later excavated for soil use elsewhere, or perhaps to form the rear berm and other features around the golf course.

I don't think you can draw conclusive opinions based on a limited number of dark photos of limited quality, taken at a specific angle.  However, I don't think you could say that the railroad ties create a natural look.

George Holland,

I think those bunkers are the same bunkers that currently form the left side carry from the tee, although today's version isn't as extensive.

What would be interesting would be comparing black & white photos taken today, from the same angles

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I think the second photo (alps bunker) is of the old 2nd green (before it was moved) and the photo that says "alps bunker (I think) may be of the 5th green looking northeast (before maintenance buildings).

[Mike_Cirba]

This is AWESOME.

Thanks, David.

The Alps greenside bunker is amazing and I imagine Tommy N. would want to roll around in that one.  

How did that ever get lost??!?!  

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

Yes, that bunker is awesome. Only trouble is it's not an Alps bunker and it never was. It was the bunker on the left of the old 2nd green which does not exist. Macdonald changed the 2nd green and moved it farther back. Can you imagine someone obsoleting a bunker that looked that cool? That redesigning C.B. should've been shot for screwing around with the great Macdonald/Raynor original NGLA like that!

[Scott_Burroughs]

Is that the water tower behind #16 that is now "disguised" as
a windmill?  I must say the windmill look is an improvement.

[ForkaB]

Is that the water tower behind #16 that is now "disguised" as
a windmill?  I must say the windmill look is an improvement.

Yes, Scott

The Evanglelist of Golf was also the Emperor of Eye Candy.

[DMoriarty]

A number were mislabeled, but hopefully have been corrected.   Sorry about that, I inexplicably transposed alps and sahara on a few of them.  

Patrick, the grain and age of the photos may somewhat contribute to the more natural appearance, but I dont think  we can completely discount these photos based on late in the day photography (in one pic) or your 'black and white film bias' theory.

Again, sorry about the confusion on the labels.  Any other mistakes or needed changes, let me know.  

[THuckaby2]

David: fantastic stuff, many thanks for taking the time to post.

So it looks to me pretty conclusive that there was a "natural" look before which isn't present today, at least not in such quantity.... that is, that the course did evolve into today's more engineered look, as you query.

Why do you think this happened?

Because courses normally go in the opposite direction... don't they?

[TEPaul]

I guess the thing that should be mentioned along about here and now---and I'm not sure it ever has been mentioned---is whether or not there is some identifiable differences in an engineered (manufactured) look between golf courses that had a good deal of Macdonald input and others that are most definitely Raynor alone.

Thinking over some of the courses that definitely were a lot of Macdonald input, NGLA, my old home course, Piping Rock, perhaps Mid Ocean, Lido, maybe even The Links (a course I used to play as a kid since my Dad belonged there) it seems like most of those didn't have so much of a manufacturered or engineered look. I must say when I was a kid at PRCC I never thought of that. The Creek, Yale and a few others that were clearly Macdonald input seem a little bit more so to me.

But many of the courses that were solely Raynor seem a lot more so to me---certainly one I just saw for the first time the other day--C.C of Charleston. Admittedly, Westhampton, Raynor's first solo course is on exceptionally flat land but that one really looked manufactured and engineered to me, as good as it is to play. Others from Raynor alone I know--eg Fox Chapel, Mountain Lake do seem more engineered to me---although mostly Fishers Island does not (unless one happens to look at some of the greens from behind!!).

Again, I'm not saying at all that there's anything wrong with that style of engineered or manufacturered looking but it is different to look at---at least for me.

And the last thing that should probably be reiterated again, is that Macdonald did not really partner with Raynor anywhere near as much as some seem to think he did. The thing to keep in mind with C.B. Macdonald is he seemed to wear out or tire of it pretty early, and whatever he took on at all was pretty selective.

George Bahto seems to think Raynor may've done up to 100 or more courses but I doubt Macdonald had much to do with more than about ten of those. The courses Macdonald talks about in his book are probably the only ones he really had much to do with and the list is not that long.

And in the final 12-13 years of Macdonald's life when he basically just retreated back into NGLA he did say he worked hard to improve the course and make its bunkering and such look even more natural. Maybe C.B. Macdonald had a different idea about what natural looking bunkers meant if he really did spend his last years making his bunkers look more natural because those very early photos on this thread (all probably before 1911) show bunkering that looks more natural to me than what's out there today!

[DMoriarty]

TomH said . . .

So it looks to me pretty conclusive that there was a "natural" look before which isn't present today, at least not in such quantity....

I am not sure that the photos are conclusive.  To be fair, I did come across photos of non-bunker features that looked less natural, and more manufactured.  At the very least, the bunker photos muddy the conventional wisdom.  

A 1914 photo of the Sahara-- just kidding-- the Alps green . . .



As for why the course evolved, I have no idea.  These photos are of the course before two World Wars and the Depression, so I imagine cost saving maintenance practices could have had something to do with it.

TEPaul,

I've often wondered if the grouping of MacDonald and Raynor together does either or both of them a disservice.  This may be one area where a somewhat meaningful distinction can be drawn between the two.  

The photos are from articles printed in 1910 and 1914, and a few are from 1910.  Many are also printed in George Bahto's excellent book.

[TEPaul]

DavidM:

There're about half a dozen wonderful old photo albums just laying on the huge center table in the bigroom at NGLA that have all those photos and many more in them.

As to whether it did a disservice to Macdonald or Raynor to group them together---I can't imagine why since they worked together seemingly contentedly in a number of projects. I think the only possible disservice would be to assume that Macdonald was involved in all Raynor's projects because he just wasn't. That would probably be a disservice to both of them because it's simply not accurate.

As for whether there are architectural features on that course that looked or look manufactured and less than natural we can all see one of the best examples on the course in that photo above---eg the massive berm immediately behind #3 green---obviously designed to hold balls up from a very long blind approach shot from running onto the tee behind the green. It's fine by me if someone wants to claim that looks anything other than manufactured but I certainly do not have to believe them and I never will. I'm not saying I don't like it---just that it certainly looked man-made manufactured to me. I believe that's just the way it was with a lot of architecture from that very early time. It wasn't always necessarily supposed to look beautiful----more like functional---and that it was and is.

[Punchbowl]

It is also interesting to note how different the back of the 14th green is in these photos.  There is mound behind the green and behind that there are two bunkers.  Now the green just falls off into one large bunker that goes all the way across the back of the green.

[DMoriarty]

As to whether it did a disservice to Macdonald or Raynor to group them together---I can't imagine why since they worked together seemingly contentedly in a number of projects. I think the only possible disservice would be to assume that Macdonald was involved in all Raynor's projects because he just wasn't. That would probably be a disservice to both of them because it's simply not accurate.

Assuming that they utilized the same bunker style might "simply not [be] accurate;" such assumption might do either or both of them a disservice.   Pray tell, to what other possible disservice did you think I could have possibly been referring?

I believe that's just the way it was with a lot of architecture from that very early time. It wasn't always necessarily supposed to look beautiful----more like functional---and that it was and is.

You may be right, but your opinion raises more questions than it answers.  To name a few. . .   Why the concern for making bunkers natural, but not some of these mounds?   In other words, if one is trying to go beyond functionality to an aesthetic with bunkers, why not do the same with other features such as mounds and bulkheads?   Was the mounding around the Alps green an exception, or a rule?  

You and many others have stated opinions about why NGLA was the way it was, but what do the facts tell us?  

[SPDB]

It is also interesting to note how different the back of the 14th green is in these photos.  There is mound behind the green and behind that there are two bunkers.  Now the green just falls off into one large bunker that goes all the way across the back of the green.

Punch (A.O. Sulzberger?)-
It is not surprising that you notice the differences in the 14th green. The pictures of the 14th green feature the old green. It was moved inland a few years after this picture to make way for Sebonac road. The differences concern not only the ones you note, but the entire green.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()