Beyond Aesthetics: Deconstructing C.B. Macdonald

[DMoriarty]

A few weeks ago, Peter Pallotta asked for identification of the fundamental strategic design principles underlying Macdonald's designs, including his supposed template holes.   While I dismissed the question at the time, I keep coming back to the question in my mind, and think it might be a very useful exercise.   So, I'd like to apologize to Peter and pursue the question, and have come up with an artificial construct in which to examine these principles.

When we try to understand CBM's work, one obstacle often detours our confuses our pursuit:   It is very difficult for many to distinguish between Macdonald's design work and Raynor's aesthetic style.   So my suggestion is that we try to remove Raynor from the equation all together.   In fact, let's remove Macdonald's stylistic and aesthetic concerns from the process as well, and get down to the design principles.  

If Macdonald designed a golf course, and someone else built it according to CBM's plan but using their own aesthetic stylings, what would we end up with?

I think it will help if we avoid using the "labels" so that we don't think in terms of templates but in terms of design principles.

Some of you may note that  Doak and Company are in the process of doing this right now, and I think that is very, very cool.    But my understanding is that they are focusing on Macdonald's original inspirations.  My question is slightly different in that I am focusing not on his inspirations, but on how he incorporated them into his designs.  

I'll give an example of the difference that will also hopefully get the ball rolling . . .

According to Bahto, Macdonald generally included a "hell bunker" on the longest hole on the course, based loosely on the hell bunker at St. Andrews.    But Macdonald generally placed his Hell bunker about 300-320 yards off of the tee (so a carry would might leave an appr. 175 yard shot in or less.  In contrast, St. Andrews' "hell bunker" was placed much closer to the green, so that one would only have 140 or 150 yards if they laid up short of the bunker, and only have about 90 yards if they carried it. [this was all just discussed in the thread on Old Macdonald.]   Doak is placing the hell bunker in the position of the bunker at St. Andrews, in contrast . . .

On the longest hole on our hypothetical course I would expect to find a large bunker in the center or left center of the fairway, approximately 300-320 yards from the tee.

What are some of the things you would expect to find on this course?  

[RJ_Daley]

What are some of the things you would expect to find on this course? 

in jest:  Skeletons from various folks closets...

Honestly, if I understand the exercise correctly, one would have to review the 9 principles Macdonald wrote of in determining the quality of the course or prospect to design such, and apply someone else's styling in terms of bunker work, or contouring of greens or teeing ground orientations of shapes and sizes, and bunker stylings, etc.   That would leave the strategic angles and distances to hazards, the proximity of greens to next tees, and de-treeing to reveal the natural contouring, and relationship with the course routing with firm ground and wind.

[Peter Pallotta]

David -

thanks. As broad and open-ended questions go, I thought it one of my best...

I was asking about the nature of the strategic principles that CB valued and promoted, and I've been thinking about that myself in the last week (and about the "principles of gca" in general).

I think it was about the original Redan hole that CB said: "it's a golf hole that makes you think"....in part because the line of play from the tee is at an angle to the titlted green.   And, rightly or wrongly, that reminds me of the John Low line about golf being "a contest of risks".

So that leaves me with thinking that for CB a fundamental principle of good golf holes is the proper use of angles, such use calling for both (mental) assessment and decision-making and (physical) testing and execution of golf shots with a "risk-reward" element.

But that's as far as I can get with my thinking...Maybe RJ will post again (good post RJ, as always)   

Peter

[George_Bahto]

"According to Bahto, Macdonald generally included a "hell bunker" on the longest hole on the course, based loosely on the hell bunker at St. Andrews.    But Macdonald generally placed his Hell bunker about 300-320 yards off of the tee (so a carry would might leave an appr. 175 yard shot in or less."

DM:

I'm not sure about the 300-320 yds off the tee you're talking about.

He didn't really build that many courses so to try to define where he placed a Hell Bunker complex is not that easy - his "pattern" so to speak.

The placement of the complex (CBM) would be more aboput the distance left to the green.

SR and Banks usually used a series of bunkers up both sides of the fairway at various distances up the fairway (not at set distances). These were well wide of the "normal" fairway width .......   they were in play in the early days but not now with most fairways shrunken the way the've been.

Lido was the exception.

I'll post a drawing of the Lido hole later this evening.

gb

[DMoriarty]

Peter and Dick,

Those are good general suggestions.  Our builders would not use trees strategically,  and would ideally vary the directions of the holes so that the angle of the wind will vary from hole to hole.    Speaking of angles, they will be a key component of many of the holes.   
_________________________

George, I did not go back to the book and pulled out the 300-320 number off the cuff, without checking what you had said.   Sorry about that.   

I think you said that, with the exception of the Lido, the second shot carry on the long-hole was watered down for membership play.  Looking at your diagrams of NGLA and Piping rock, it appears that the second shot carry was somewhere around mid-hole.   

Also, didn't the drive usually feature a diagonal carry requirement, sometimes created by offset bunkers on each side of the landing area?

Generally, where possible, I want to try and stay away from Raynor and Banks interpetations, and focus on how someone else might build a CBM designed course.   

Given that the Lido was "the exception" my hypothetical build will try to find a place for a long hole with a less daunting second shot carry.  But for those who want to build a more challenging course, the carry bunker really ought to be closer to the green. 

[George_Bahto]

The Evangelist of Golf included the courses I thought were the courses Macdonald was most involved in (sort of) - (hard to define exactly).

The representation of the “Long” hole on these courses and the associated strategy follows:

   Piping Rock:

Long was hole 6th, originally 526-yds with an interesting set of diagonal cross bunkering ranging on average, 200-yds from the green but still in the 2nd shot landing area of the day (1911-1912). However there was an additional bunker that covered one-half the right side of the fairway further down range that left the golfer some 125-yds to the green if he either skirted the 2nd bunker or just carried it.

This is a very good example of a Long for its day.

   Next was Sleepy Hollow (1911-1914)

On the original CBM course there was only one hole over 500-yds, the original 16th hole, which is the shortened version of today’s 17-th hole (the original tee was much further back than today’s version and was on some of the land the course sold off).

There is no surviving information on the bunkering on that hole so this example cannot be used.

   St. Louis:

Here again there was only one original hole over 500-yds, the 9th, called Ladue. The hole was 513-yds with a diagonal “deep hollow” varying between 160 and about 115-yds, so the remaining yardage if you carried the hollow, varied from some 100 to 140 yards to the green.

The distance to the hollow was about 400-yds from the tee - again the 2nd shot landing area but a “hollow;” not a representation of Hell Bunker but good.

Pretty good example for its day.

   Old White at the Greenbrier:

Originally the Long was hole 10th at 525-yds. There were 4 fairway bunkers down range but a bit wide, two of which pinched in the second shot landing area but left a fair amount of room between them and there was another fairway bunker down range on the right.

Pretty good example of “boogering-up” the second shot and this was similar to the setup at Piping Rock (see above for basic yardages).

   Lido was next - 565-yds, and as I stated, this example is just about perfect for the day.

Nearly a full (non-diagonal, by the way) single crossbunker at was downrange for the second shot carry or lay up, and if you carried it you were left with the requisite 125 (or so) yards to the green. Lay up and you were at about 150-160.

pp. 180 in my book shows a interesting comparison of this hole (17-Lido) and 14-St. Andrews.

   Shinnecock (Macdonald course) - 1960 thru 1930:

The Long was the original 16th hole with again a diagonal crossbunker set (of 3?) at 150 from the green.


   Ocean Links - Newport, RI:

Long was 545-yds, pinched in bunkering half way to the hole but a bit further, close to the green were two bunkers, one on each side of the fairway. These were quite a bit off the line of play (these two bunkers look to me a lot like bunkering used on the “Narrow” holes).

Nice bunkers but not in the second shot landing area.

Also the super wealthy T. Suffern Tailer may have had a hand in some bunkering on the course.


   Links (1918-1919) North Hills, Long Island:

At 498-yds, the 14th (same # as St Andrews) was the longest hole on the course.

The hole used natural land forms with just a bunker at the corner of the right-hand dog-leg but this was in the 185-yds from the green area. I do not know the topo of the course so what was in the 2nd shot area is not know to me but perhaps Tom Doak can recall.

Unless there was a main topographical feature in that critical area this was probably a good hole but not a better example f what we are speaking about.

“a par 5 that went out with the first two shots, then angled, dog-leg right with a short 3rd, sort of a "fish-hook" off to the right on the 3rd - problems at the corner of the dog-leg prevented players to go at the green with their second  shot”

   Womens National Golf & Tennis Club:

The longest hole on the course was the 15th but only had right side bunkering thru much of the hole but there seemed to be a “feature” of sorts pinching in the critical area in question.

??

   Gibson Island Club

The Longest hole on the course was just 409-yds so the strategy is a non factor.


   Creek

The 7th hole was built at 521 yds, no second shot bunkering to contend with but there was left side, sightly off fairway bunkering about half way to the green.

   Deepdale (William Kissam Vanderbilt course) 1925-1927 (one of Mr, Macdonald’s close friends)

At 540-yds the 16th was named Longacre, again the longest hole on the course, had a sizable pinched in area on the left side of the second shot area that certainly created havoc. It seems in the “correct” spot leaving a 1256-yds shot in to the green.

   Mid Ocean:

The second hole was built at 440 and called Long.

Unfortunately we have not come up with any definitive plan surviving, at least to date, so I do not have sufficient information on that hole.

Yale University course:

Perhaps even a worse example of the Long than the 9th at NGLA is the 16th at Yale, certainly the worse hole on that great course.

Yale had few fairway bunkers and there was none on this hole.

That’s about it.

[DMoriarty]

Thanks George,

Hardly  a "template hole" by your description.  If I understand you correctly, if there was a common demoninator, was it that there was a large hazard either either at half way, or closer to the second shot landing area, or maybe some of both?  Did the holes have some sort of diagonal carry or issue off the tee as well?


Maybe something at the other end of the spectrum?   How about the short holes?

-- Macdonald often designed one short par three of around 130 yards.  Terraced above the surrounds, trouble all around, wild green, but not particularly small green(?)    The tee could be slightly elevated so as to make the distance more deceptive.  I think I read that the bunkers were not intended to be extremely deep so that one had a chance at recovery if they missed their drive.  Was that you, George, who wrote that?

To me hole generally seems to be be more about shot testing than strategy.  I always feel like short par 3s work best if position in a location with tricky wind, so that the golfer has some doubt as to the correct club and trajectory. 

Anyone have any other take on the strategic merits, or lack thereof?   Is his a good concept for a golf hole? Worthy of being included on most courses?

Are there any Macdonald courses without a "short hole?"

Most had sand all around them, but here is a photo of the short at Mid-Ocean with water. 


 
Macdonald also usually designed a medium length par three (around 170 yards) generally modeled after the 11th at St. Andrews. Maybe someone else can take a shot at explaining the eden to me.   I loved NGLA's, but conceptually I don't know if I have played the hole.   Is this one where you have to know the original to understand?    What makes it special and worthy of inclusion on most of Macdonald's courses?   

One interesting distinction with Macdonald's holes.  They sometimes played over water or some other hazard, so that the golfer could not putt from the green for fear of challenging the hole.   That is disappointing to me because I'd love to be able to putt off a tee to a green!

Here is an early photo purporting to be this hole at NGLA. What two things are wrong with this photo?

[Peter Pallotta]

David -

The par 3s are harder for me to get a handle on, strategically-speaking -- and I know even less of what, in particular, appealed to Macdonald about a hole like the Eden. That is, I assume that the fun and challenge and playability of almost ALL Par 3s are (ideally) affected by differing pin positions, wind/changing wind, and maintenance, e.g. firm and fast. But after that,  I'm not sure what the "design" element is, unless -- like the orginal Eden -- it's mostly a big green that's NOT surrounded by bunkers but that has slopes to it and mounding around it, all of which offer more "options" and might interact with the wind and turf conditions and pin positions to offer even more.  But I just don't recall ever reading much from Macdonald (or others) about Par 3 holes, except for the Redan, and maybe that's because there's not all that much to say about them....(I'm joking, sort of)
 
Peter

PS - you mention putting from tee to green, and I think it was Mackenzie who mentioned that ideally you should be able to use only a putter on a Par 3 (I assume because that would mean that there was always at least one clear and continuous and hazard-free 'line' from tee to green.) Boy, he really took that playable by all mantra seriously! I don't know that CB shared the same view...

[TEPaul]

GeorgeB:

The general play concern on Piping Rock's #6 (Long) was a slight diagonal ridge on the right in the tee shot area falling off on the right into a long depression. If you went down in there the rough was generally tough because it was low and a depression in there. From there the next shot was pretty tough to try to get it over the crossbunkers in the middle of the hole and come up short of the bunker farther out. With a good drive the decision on how to deal with that right bunker about 130 yards from the hole was something of a tough one too. That bunker in that position farther up the hole was very well placed in this way for most players.

With The Creek's 7th, as you know there was no bunker in the fairway on the last half of the hole but in 1926 Macdonald himself recommended one eating well into the fairway from the left side app 30-50 yards from the green. That bunker is now being seriously considered and will probably be done. It will be strategically significant for the better player on his second shot but the shorter player will generally not be able to get to it on his second shot.

As I've mentioned on here before the LONG that I think definitely needs something on the second shot to make it more strategically interesting and challenging is NGLA's #9. It seems Macdonald had an idea for that but for whatever reason it was never done.

[DMoriarty]

David -

The par 3s are harder for me to get a handle on, strategically-speaking -- and I know even less of what, in particular, appealed to Macdonald about a hole like the Eden. That is, I assume that the fun and challenge and playability of almost ALL Par 3s are (ideally) affected by differing pin positions, wind/changing wind, and maintenance, e.g. firm and fast. But after that,  I'm not sure what the "design" element is, unless -- like the orginal Eden -- it's mostly a big green that's NOT surrounded by bunkers but that has slopes to it and mounding around it, all of which offer more "options" and might interact with the wind and turf conditions and pin positions to offer even more.  But I just don't recall ever reading much from Macdonald (or others) about Par 3 holes, except for the Redan, and maybe that's because there's not all that much to say about them....(I'm joking, sort of)
 
Peter

PS - you mention putting from tee to green, and I think it was Mackenzie who mentioned that ideally you should be able to use only a putter on a Par 3 (I assume because that would mean that there was always at least one clear and continuous and hazard-free 'line' from tee to green.) Boy, he really took that playable by all mantra seriously! I don't know that CB shared the same view...

Peter, I think that when we look at the par 3s there may be a more general design principle at work, and that is that every hole on the course ought to be unique and present a unique set of problems.   Thus the varying distances on the par threes; generally a pitch, a Mid-iron, a long-iron, and a brassie.  My understanding is that the Eden holes varied greatly and substantially departed from the original, so maybe the more important aspect is the distance, and the difficulty resulting from the locations of the bunkers.

As for using a putter, Macdonald's comment  may have been somewhat tongue and cheek.  If I recall correctly it involved an older player using his putter on the 16th at CPC, and essentially putting all the way round the hazard.

Macdonald was very much a believer in providing alternate routes for lesser or less daring players.  In fact this may have been is most significant design tenant.  But I also think he wanted those routes to come at some potential cost, either a longer next shot, poor visibility, an uneven lie, a bad angle, intervening bunkers or hazards, or any combination thereof. 

[Thomas MacWood]

If Macdonald designed a golf course, and someone else built it according to CBM's plan but using their own aesthetic stylings, what would we end up with?

My guess is it would take the style and personality of that architect. Monterey Peninsula is an example of a Raynor course that was completed by Mackenzie & Hunter and at the end it looked a lot like a Mackenzie course. I believe Blind Brook was routed by Macdonald but completed by someone else. George Low? That might be a good course to look into. Somerset Hills has some elements from M&R, and it has its unique look & feel. Tilly incorported existing M&R holes (laid out by Emmet) into his redesign of North Shore...in the end it came out with a lot of Tilly's personality.


On the longest hole on our hypothetical course I would expect to find a large bunker in the center or left center of the fairway, approximately 300-320 yards from the tee.

What are some of the things you would expect to find on this course?

A redan-like par-3, a principal's nose and cape. Ironically these three elements are found on many modern golf courses.

[David Stamm]

I think a 'short hole' is something every course should have. It's supposed to be an examination of the players control with a short club in his or hers hands. In our own neck of the woods, I think 8 at Rustic and 10 at Wilshire are great examples, although quite different from each other. I think the green at Riviera's 16 qualifies, but the yardage is too long for the formula.

[Michael]

Still a question I'd liked answered,

 How much is/was a designer constrained by the land he is allotted? I know with today's earth moving equipment it may be less then in the 1900 time frame, would certain features favored by a particular designer be discarded simply by the "lay of the land" or perhaps a certain prevailing wind?

[Tom_Doak]

Michael:

Doing the routing for Old Macdonald was a very interesting exercise for me because it was a very different experience to what I usually do. 

On my own designs I first go out and try to find interesting tidbits [undulations, views, trees or shrubs] that strike me as potential features of golf holes, and design holes around those.  At Old Macdonald, I was looking for SPECIFIC features that would be the making of particular template holes.

Such specific features were easier to find than you would imagine.  For example, Macdonald himself said that the routing of National started coming together when he found a site for the Alps and Redan back-to-back.  I would contend that the Redan is probably one of the easiest holes to find on any property, if it's one of your priorities ... all you have to do is locate a ridge which is falling from one end to the other, and locate a tee 190 yards away on the diagonal.  Likewise, at Old Macdonald, we found natural plateau green sites suitable for the Eden and Short holes, a bit of a tabletop for a Road green, a promontory for the green of the Bottle hole, and a natural low plateau for the green of the Cape, all without much trouble, and then had to piece together the routing from those.

So, I think a designer with a formula that isn't too complicated could probably find many of his holes on any given site.  The only hard part is to try and include ALL of them ... there are almost inevitably going to be a couple of pieces that don't fit well into any given site, which is why most "template" designers have 20-30 fallback holes.

[ChipOat]

David Moriarty:

"What 2 things are wrong with this picture".

1) The bunker looks like #2 (Sahara) or, maybe, a couple of others at National, but it looks nothing at all like the Eden #11).

2) There appears to be some kind of building in the background  - there's no room behind the Eden green for anything (at least, not since the road was built sometime pre-WWI).

3) Eden at NGLA is #13 although the original clubhouse was behind the current 9th green so today's #13 could have been the original #4, I guess (the 9's were switched, I think?).

I haven't done any research in The Evangelist of Golf before taking a swing at this, so what's the answer(s)?

[DMoriarty]

chip,

The building is one, and you are of course correct about the hole numbering, but that was not what I had in mind for the other.   The bunker does not look like the ones at the Eden, but it apparently was.

According to the 1909 article from which the photo came, this bunker was soon to be filled with water to become the pond in front of the hole! 

Don't know why the bunker was built then replaced, but if I recall correctly this is pretty low ground, so perhaps it was difficult to keep the water out.

[TEPaul]

The other and far more logical answer is this material, apparently like a lot of other reserarch material some of you people depend on as "fact" is just flat-ass wrong.

[DMoriarty]

The other and far more logical answer is this material, apparently like a lot of other reserarch material some of you people depend on as "fact" is just flat-ass wrong.

About what is it wrong, Tom?

[TEPaul]

Maybe the photo isn't of NGLA's Eden hole. Where is the high bunker on the left and the pond is considerably short of the green certainly not where those two people are. I've never heard of a building behind it either. Maybe George Bahto knows something about that.

You don't know the basic concept of NGLA's Eden hole? I guess that's not surprising.

[DMoriarty]

Maybe the photo isn't of NGLA's Eden hole. Where is the high bunker on the left and the pond is considerably short of the green certainly not where those two people are. I've never heard of a building behind it either. Maybe George Bahto knows something about that.

I don't think you should assume that this bunker is greenside.  I see no flag.  Nor would one necessarily see the bunker left from the bottom of this bunker/lake bed.

I wasn't there so I don't know if the lake was originally a bunker, or not.  Were you?

The article notes that the hole was being played with a wide bunker short of the green, but that "according to C. B. Macdonald," the bunker would eventually be filled with water to make a lake between tee and green.

I am having trouble imagining exactly what would lead to such a report if it were not actually the case.   

What bunker do you think that is at NGLA, or do you claim that it is not even NGLA?

________________________________________________________________


Back to the shortest hole for a moment.

Here is what H.J. Whigham wrote about designing a short hole:



So our hypothetical course would most likely have a short hole (120-140 yds) with the tee elevated, with a tricky green which requires a precise shot to hold; difficult bunkers/trouble in front, with less severe trouble behind, so that the golfer could recover from a shot that barely ran through the green.

Anyone have any comments on what else we might need on a short hole?