Can you Name that Designer?? C. B. MACDONALD

[DMoriarty]

A few weeks ago Patrick asked whether or not one could identify the designer by only examining his work.  I thought we could try it out with some old photos of features and holes reportedly designed by someone who you may have heard of despite that he apparently designed relatively few courses. 

NOTE:  Some of you may be familiar with these photos or the holes, but I'd rather you hold off on throwing out names of courses or designers right away until we have a chance to figure out the "tells" of the designer or the distinguishing features of his design.    Thanks. 

Sorry about the quality, I had my camera set on "ugly."

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

So what are the distinguishing features of the designer's design style?

[David Stamm]

Trick question perhaps? I see vastly different styles in the photos of just the bunkers. I recognize some of the photos and know what the course is (I think), but the look is so different from photo to photo that I started to second guess myself.

[DMoriarty]

Trick question perhaps? I see vastly different styles in the photos of just the bunkers. I recognize some of the photos and know what the course is (I think), but the look is so different from photo to photo that I started to second guess myself.

Trick question?   I don't think so, but maybe it depends on the answerer.  There is more than one course shown, and the pictures are from a fairly wide range of years.   There may even be a few photos of the same feature from different years.  Also, I've tried to present the features and holes so as to not make them a give-away.  That way we can focus on the designer's distinctive style, if there is one.

Speaking of which . . . you see vastly different styles in the bunkers?  How would you describe the different styles that you see?   

____________________________


I added the last photo above.

[DMoriarty]

I guess maybe it was a trick question.

Maybe this will clarify.  The photos are all from NGLA or Mid Ocean, attributed to Macdonald.   I flipped a few pics and took out some distinguishing features, like the clubhouse and flag at NGLA. 

Do the features in these photos look like Macdonald-style features?   

Are they consistent with what we usually associate with Macdonald?   

[Dan Herrmann]

Perhaps too, a touch of Flynn influence, no?   

[Jim_Kennedy]

That feature, the small mounding that creates a mini-punchbowl/backstop that wraps around part of the green in your last photo, was employed by  Raynor when he built out ninth green. We have a severe drop off, similar to the one in the photo, and I think the feature was created to help stop the much lower and hotter shot (but only a reasonably good one) that was expected back then.

By the way, doesn't that green just sit so well in it's site? What is that called, 'genius of place' ?


edit: it was removed at our course a long time ago, probably when ride-on equipment became popular.

[DMoriarty]

That feature, the small mounding that creates a mini-punchbowl/backstop that wraps around part of the green in your last photo, was employed by  Raynor when he built out ninth green. We have a severe drop off, similar to the one in the photo, and I think the feature was created to help stop the much lower and hotter shot (but only a reasonably good one) that was expected back then.

By the way, doesn't that green just sit so well in it's site? What is that called, 'genius of place' ?


edit: it was removed at our course a long time ago, probably when ride-on equipment became popular.

Jim, I really like the way that green sits as well.  As for the little lip on the back of the green, I hadn't even really noticed it.   It looks like it may be more prevalent around the small portion on the left.    I believe the hole (18) is a reachable par 5 and presuming it was reachable then, you may be right about the purpose.   Is your 9th Hole a hole where a longer club might have been used on the second shot.   

 I've seen Gil Hanse do something similar on a green or two, but haven't otherwise noticed this feature.   

I believe that Patrick started a thread on such features a few years back.   

Here is a photo from about 5 years later.  The bunker is no longer being maintained with a sand face.   The feature you pointed out is less visible, I think, but still there. 

[TEPaul]

This is just an observation and certainly not a criticism and should not be taken as one because I definitely don't mean it to be but with certain exceptions I believe I can tell the difference style-wise between Macdonald and Raynor alone (if I can see it on the ground and in person). When it gets sort of tricky and complicated is the courses where there is very likely a little of both, seemingly design-wise. The Creek Club (1922-24) or even their early Piping Rock very well may be one of those and there is a bit of interesting documentation to back it up (by Whigam, of all people with The Creek! ). I guess what I mean to imply is I think sometimes Macdonald gets the added reputation for a real engineered look when in fact people are looking at a course done just by Raynor. I think too often the two of them get always lumped together when in fact it really didn't always happen that way. I think Raynor was always pretty much with Macdonald in what C.B. did but the opposite is nowhere near as true as so many seem to think.

[Patrick_Mucci]

David,

I think it may be easier to determine who didn't do the work, rather than who did.

However, if I photoed the bunker to the left of # 7 green at NGLA, NOONE would be able to identify it as a CBM bunker, so, looks can be deceiving.

[Jim_Kennedy]

David,
Yes, it would have been a long-ish approach to our 9th, a 'Road' hole. Additionally, if you missed the green to the right you'd find yourself in a long strip of bunker (used by Raynor as the 'road') and the backstop would have been a blessing when blasting out, especially in the pre-s.wedge days.   

[DMoriarty]

tom Pqul

I don't disagree.  What do you see as the differences?

Patrick

Not sure I understand.  Could you explain?

[Bradley Anderson]

Some of these features look as if nature has had more of her way with them than the architect did. A lot of instability in the shifting sands and wind in these environments, that the grass hasn't gotten under control here.

These photos strike me as being representative of efforts that were made prior to upgrades in the sciences of grass and irrigation. Is that why I am seeing more variation here than I associate with this architect? Did his features become more stylistic after those sciences developed?

But even still, there is every kind of bunker here, and with as much variation in the bones of these features as one may find with any architect since.

[DMoriarty]

Some of these features look as if nature has had more of her way with them than the architect did.

I think the architect would be pleased to hear this, given that he long tried to make the hazards look as natural as possible.

A lot of instability in the shifting sands and wind in these environments, that the grass hasn't gotten under control here.

These photos strike me as being representative of efforts that were made prior to upgrades in the sciences of grass and irrigation. Is that why I am seeing more variation here than I associate with this architect? Did his features become more stylistic after those sciences developed?

More stylistic?    As I said above, he wanted them to look natural, and like the ones on the real links courses, so I find these photos to be quite "stylistic."    But definitely that style changed over the years, although I am not sure it was CBM who was solely responsible for changing it.

When were the upgrades in grass and irrigation to which you refer?  Surely before 1926, almost two decades after they began building the course?  Can you tell which two photos are from 1926?  Can you tell which photos depict the oldest features?   

But even still, there is every kind of bunker here, and with as much variation in the bones of these features as one may find with any architect since.

I agree and would add that it is pretty incredible that many try to pigeonhole CBM as one who only built industrial, unnatural, and simple geometric features.   

__________________________

I've added numbers to the photographs.   Does anyone care to try and date them from oldest to newest?  Some are pretty easy, but there are a few tricky ones.