In his treatise on Architecture in the Chicago District written in 1915, William Langford writes somewhat similarly but maintains the link to nature more than RBH.
"It doesn't follow that because a yawning sand pit is a naturally pleasing and effective hazard on seaside links that the same feature will be as pleasing in appearance in the fertile prairies of northern Illinois. As the natural features in this locality consist of rolling ground, ridges, brooks, small ponds and abandoned clay and gravel pits, so should our Chicago hazards endeavor to be, as far as possible, imitations of these familiar and omnipresent features. Such a result can only be achieved by a careful and appreciative study of the natural features of the adjacent countryside and hazards that conform to and are imitations of their surroundings."
Some have speculated that his deep hazards are knockoffs of Raynor, but there is no evidence he ever met him, or followed his career. To me, this suggests that his gentle hazards are reflections of the countryside, and his steep ones are attempts to mimic small quarries found in those days all over the Midwest.
In the 40's both Harris and Langford wrote of "streamlined" design. Golf course architect's of the WWII era were very interested in "modernization" and designing something completely new, rather than a knockoff. It appears that they felt as strongly about getting away from the traditions of gca then as some feel about returning to it now. Given the time frame, and knowing that industrial designers like Raymond Loewy were shrouding steam locos to make passenger trains look more like new airliners, and were also active in other areas of industrial design, and that cars were going to newer designs, etc. I was struck how they must have been influenced by other design areas more than old Scottish golf courses, which they may have never seen, unlike CBM.
BTW, according to Ron Whitten, Langford had formulas for nearly everything, from ideal routings to width of green openings, to calculating uphill and downhill shots. He mentions fair and scientific golf often in just the few writings I have seen. As an aside, gca William Mitchell worked for him and I know an old timer who worked with Mitchell and told me that "Mitchell had a formula for everything, listing about the same things Whitten listed for Langford! Dick Nugent also had similar forumulas for the same things, which I think came from RBH, so it seems that the Chicago guys were all influencing each other to some degree.