C.B. MacDonald vs. Seth Raynor

[Biarritz]

I have noticed in old pictures that Mr. raynors grens appear to be more squarish than Mr. MacDonald. It also appears that his bunkers are narrower and steeper than Mr. MacDonald. In old pictures some of Mr. Raynors bunkers were only 3 feet wide in spots and up to 30 yards long. Do you think it was because of his surveyor background and he was more linear and angular? Wish we had old photos from all their designs!!!

[TEPaul]

Yes, definitely! Merely the extremely organized mind of a well trained engineer!

An architect friend of mine said the other day that you can always tell an engineer by just looking at his workspace or livingspace. Obviously that would mean his golf course too! Everything is very organized, very precise, extremely neat. It seems to me that Raynor's style shows that to a great degree.

I don't know about Howard Toomey though--W. Flynn's engineer/partner. He was clearly an accomplished engineer but their work didn't really reflect that preciseness to me--far more natural and random looking actually.

Maybe the reason was that Toomey was a drinker--something I'd encourage all architects today to do more of--matter of fact--do much, much more of it.

We heard a great remark from Toomey to Flynn the other day recounted by Flynn's daughter. Apparently when Toomey realized he was dying he told Flynn; "Bill now you're going to have to do all the drinking for the firm".

But again, all architects today should drink much more. Do it like Tillie and Mackenzie did it too--do it on the job.

Matter of fact, if you want to get really efficient and creative about it, and probably a bit generally heathier, use Tommy Armour's modus operandi and do all you're drinking at the golf course.

Don't drink before you get to the course and as soon as you leave the course, stop drinking, go home, have your wife cook you a nice dinner, and then go to bed early and get plenty of sleep. That way you'll be rested and fresh the next morning to get back to the course early to start drinking again.

Come on guys--do it--it does wonders for your creativity and your inhibitions! The more booze you consume on the construction site the smarter you get and the more hibited you get!

[Dan Kelly]

"Hibited" is one of the great words, ever!

It sounds just like the kind of word that would come from the mouth of a belching drunk. Thanks, Tom I.

(Apologies to anyone who thinks this didn't advance the discussion sufficiently. If you've read it and considered yourself cheated, just chalk it up to a bad break.)

[CHrisB]

Some would say Raynor was drinking when he designed the 11th at CC of Charleston!  I can see him way down in the pit where the right bunker would be, with a dazed look in his eyes and drinks in both hands, shouting up to his workers atop the plateau green: "Let's make it taller (hiccup)! And let's cut the front slope as a green!"





Of course, I love the hole (still trying to figure out how to play it...), so maybe I've been drinking too much!

[TEPaul]

"It sounds just like the kind of word that would come from the mouth of a belching drunk"

Dan;

You're right, I hadn't thought of that. If one says it that way it displays unusual onomatopoeia.

(Which might inspire a certain seemingly broken and ruggedly natural ground contour in any talented architect).

[TEPaul]

Honest to God, sometimes I just don't know what to make of Seth Raynor's style--I love playing the courses I have of his though. One thing anyone can say about it is it's super recognizable. The man sure could be precise with his architectural "lines" just looking at the photo of that C.C of Charleston green.

If all engineers were like Seth Raynor I still can't figure out whether they should be enthusiasticaly encouraged to get into golf architecture or banned from it.

[George Bahto]

That hole at CC Charleston is so wierd!

Many good player in tournaments there so not go for the green but play to the top of the ramp.

Henry Picard was the pro there in to old days and he was the one who started to lay up on the hill to the green then try to get up and down (this way you made 3 or 4) - which is the way many good players still play it today. This takes the nasty bunkers out of play and takes 5's - 6's and higher scores out of the players score.

The front bunker is tough -the bunker beyond the green is harder.

It made the list of the 100 worst hole in golf but ....... I think it is pretty unique. Not a great hole but boy is it fearsome! I can't see "grading" it. It's there - live with it.

#11 CC Charleston! Reverse Redan

Their 16th there is one of the great Raynor holes:  Punchbowl with a Lion's Mouth bunker guarding the green right smack in front of the green with a "ramp" up to the green on either side of the bunker .....  the yardage is a heavy 440+ leaving you a heck of a long second into that green complex.

[CHrisB]

Tom and George,

In the Azalea Invitational held each spring, the club members hang like vultures over the 11th at CCofC to watch the carnage, and there is a guy with a big fan rake that meticulously rakes the bunkers after anyone plays out of them, because if you draw a poor lie in the bunker you'll be there for a while and play will definitely back up!

Agreed on the greatness of the 16th green complex; I like to refer to the shape of the green as a "tooth", with the roots of the tooth sandwiching the Lion's Mouth, and deep bunkers on the outside of the roots as well.  When the pin is on or near either root, the target is very small and the choice (often with a mid iron) is: fly it over the Lion's Mouth and accept a 50-footer, or try to squeeze it in and possibly leave yourself with a deep bunker shot to a shallow tabletop?

Incidentally, the 14th green is one of the best green complexes I've ever seen for a 330-yard hole, from the front left "car hood" section to front right swale, to the middle left diagonal plateau to the back right finger of green running away with falloffs, all elevated above the fairway, firm and fully exposed to the wind.  

Wow--I feel like hopping in the car, driving 1200 miles and playing there again!!!

[Biarritz]

I can't remember if it was one or two years ago but they actually have made the hole at cc of c less severe. I don't have any pictures but the removed about 3-5 feet off the top of the green so it would be wider. The main problem was that if you were in one of the severe greenside bunkers there wasn't enough room to stop the ball on the green so you would play tennis/volleyball and go back and forth or hit your shot infront of the green from the bunker and try to make 4. With the greens rolling 11-12 during the Azalea more than 1/2 the field would lay up. Not a very good hole but better now. Plus most redans have some sort of backstop or slope on the green but not at cc of c it was flat.


                  
                   ___                
                  /    \               ____
                 /      \             /      \
                /        \           /        \

[CHrisB]

Biarritz,

Last year was the first year I played #11 CCofC post-changes, and although they did take 1-2 feet off the height of the tabletop, they didn't widen it as much as they turned it into more of a saddle, with the left side raised higher than the right.  The result was that the right bunker was easier than in years past, but the left bunker might have become tougher.

Before last year, I almost always laid up (unless I was mad!).  Last year was the first time I went for the green all 4 times, and I hit it in the right bunker all four times, and I made 3 bogeys and a par, which is probably as good as I ever did laying up.

The first time I ever played the hole I laid up but came over the top of it.  It hit the sideslope and ran through the left bunker into the dormant bermuda, so I had to play my 2nd to the 11th tee and...man, I don't want to go any further with that story!

[Tom Doak]

The 13th at The Links Club was a bit like the hole at CC of Charleston, but even more severe, if you can believe it.  The hole was a full 220 yards, and the green was cocked a bit more so you were playing to the green more cross-ways than at a 45-degree angle like most Redans.

A couple of members at CC of Charleston tried to convince me to do the work to #11, saying that it must have been built wrong and that Raynor wouldn't have deliberately built the green that severe.  But after having seen The Links, I couldn't agree.

P.S.  The only time I ever played the 11th at Charleston I hit a 4-iron to six feet and made two.  I'm never trying it again!

[jimhealey24]

Early photos of Chicago GC show square greens on several holes.  ALso remember, many bunkers were removed at many courses during the 30's, so what remains is just that, what's left.  Sad but true.

Aerial photography (from planes) didn't really start until the mid-late 20's and then it was scarce.  Government aerial files for many courses don't date back much earleir that the mid-late 30's.  So finding shots for club histories and the like is very tough.

[ChipOat]

A par 3 where laying up for Henry Picard (and others of his caliber) is the smart strategy?

With all due respect to Seth Raynor, that sounds like a TERRIBLE golf hole.

[TEPaul]

Chip:

Not to disagree per se with what you just said about Picard and the 11th hole at Charleston (being a TERRIBLE hole)--but I would move (as I have before) for a point of understanding, particularly among the regular contributors to this site, about what constitutes (or constituted) a terrible hole now compared to that era or another era in golf and architecture!

Some may think a hole like that one a terrible hole now but at the same time they should, at least for historical understanding, realize it may not have always been CONSIDERED a terrible hole at another time.

Matter of fact, in another era it very well may have been considered a very "prized" hole. I shouldn't even say it very well may have been, I should more accurately say--it was!

The reasons those perceptions changed (not the holes) is the more interesting part of this entire subject. It's frankly one of the most interesting things of all about not just Macdonald but particularly Seth Raynor!

[Mike_Sweeney]

One thing that I recently thought about is their Par 5's. Certainly George Bahto knows better but of the courses that I know best (Yale, Southampton (Raynor alone), National and Mid-Ocean), all but Southampton end with dramatic Par 5's. Are National and Mid-Ocean great strategic Par 5's, or are they beautiful dramatic Par 5's along Peconic Bay and the Atlantic Ocean? Yale's 18th is controversial and dramatic, but is it great? Certainly the 16th at Yale is my least favorite hole at Yale. Southampton's two Par 5's are good but basic. Thus, do CB and Raynor have any great Par 5's?

[George Bahto]

Mike - I'd have to think about that a bit - but I'd say they were the "weakest" group of holes. We should also think about those par-5s in the context of when they were built not in today's context.

I have many scorecards of theirs where holes of 450-460-yards were carded as par-5s - so consider the equipment of the day.

I have a 575-yarder here at The Knoll - certainly long for its day (1928) - but today ........  the big guys are flirting with getting home in two (not pros - just long hitters). In the 20s it certainly was 2 good whacks then a middle iron for a good player - you think?

[ChipOat]

Tom Paul:

I'm sure you're right as the concept of having to "get it up and down" for par was likely an accepted part of early golf hole design.  The notion of "greens in regulation" would probably have drawn a huge scoff from CBM, if not a vituperative tirade.

Although I'm a big fan of the ground game and the whole Golden Age thing, I'm also a believer that holes should be designed so that 2 putting for par is the end result of a scratch player's ball "normal" ball striking.  Whether the optimal way to hit a green in regulation is through the air or on the ground is not the issue to me.  However the GIR is accomplished, the hole should still be designed such that, except for an exceptionally creative pin position, attempting to achieve GIR is the preferable strategy.

I have a bit of a problem with "High Hole In" (a.k.a. "Eden) at TOC for that reason.

But then, I don't care for Tillinghast's intentional use of Stupid Trees, either.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TE,
I think the nearly-impossible-to-make-a-3  single shot hole should be used more frequently on today's courses. It laughs in the face of technology and is rarely reviled as being "unfair". After all, how lame are you going to sound if you complain about a short hole? Save the complaints for the 475 yd. par 4 with four tiered green or triple dogleg 600 yd. par 5 island green hole.
A buddy of mine after bogeying a hole like this is fond of saying "I'll take eighteen 4s just like that and be a happy boy". Three on these holes is a bonus and the occasional deuce is cause for great satisfaction. These holes won't necessarily wreck a round. They are probably the only holes where good play resulting in bogey doesn't send the player into a tailspin.
I think every course should have at least one par 3 hole where the greater probability is that you aren't going to score a three.

[Bill_McBride]

Mike Sweeney, it's been 10 yrs since I played Mid-Ocean, but I'm pretty sure the 18th was a pretty ho-hum uphill par 4, maybe 400 yds, ocean on the right but not in play.  It was anti-climactic after the great Redan 17th.

[bill_k]

Shivas,
 CBM did indeed design the original golf course but it was completely redesigned by Raynor in the 1920's. As far as I know, the only hole that remains in the present routing is #18. I believe the 10th green is an original as well. As you walk the first nine holes you can see vast grassy areas on the periphery to the left. The member I played with explained to me that those grassy areas were where the CBM course had existed. Quite a few large mounds remain in play from the original, however - but if you look at photos of the original course there is no question they are two completely different courses. There are also plans to clear out trees and lengthen a couple of holes for the Walker Cup.

[bill_k]

Very little remains, just the mounds, the location of the tenth greensite (which might have been numbered differently) and the eighteenth tee and fairway. A huge polo field originally occupied the center of the property but was later converted to the present practice range. George Bahto replied to a thread that I started this summer that posed the same question. He stated that the CBM connection was far more prestigious for the club and that it has only recently become fashionable to credit Raynor with many designs due to the renewed interest in his work in the last 5-6 years.

[TEPaul]

It would be nice to know what the partnership of Macdonald/Raynor was exactly and how long it lasted as even a semi-functional partnership. I'm getting the impression that some think that Macdonald might have had something to do with most, if not all the Raynor designs that Raynor alone was responsible for.

And I'm also getting the impression that Macdonald might have withdrawn back into NGLA, maybe earlier than most think, like around the mid 1920s and basically tired of involvement in golf architecture.