The Evolution of C.B. Macdonald's Design Philosophy

[MCirba]

Anyone else besides me believe that a big part of Macdonald's architectural evolution in America during the first decade of the 1900s was due to the influence of his good friend (at the time) and clubmate Walter J. Travis?

[John Challenger]

Mike, Probably some of the members of the Walter J. Travis Society! John

[MCirba]

Mike, Probably some of the members of the Walter J. Travis Society! John

John,


I'm trying to be objective based on the timeline of events and the collaboration in those early years between Macdonald and Travis. While not dispositive, this snippet below from my IMO piece on Travis's role at NGLA seems an early inflection point.


After winning his second consecutive United States Amateur tournament during the fall of 1901, Travis began to think more about the state of the game in America. Imbued with newfound knowledge and exposure to the great courses abroad the previous summer, the analytical side of Travis began to mentally explore what he saw as fundamental differences that largely accounted for both superior courses as well as superior golfers on the other side of the pond.\

This exercise eventually translated into an article for Golf magazine titled simply, “Hazards”. In the piece Travis railed against the American penchant for platform flat greens and tees, shallow cross bunkers crossing the fairways at rote intervals, ramrod straight golf holes, and general malaise in thinking, creativity, and naturalness. Instead, Travis argued that interesting and thoughtfully placed bunkers placed generally along the sides but also towards the desired line of play brought interest, intrigue, challenge, and a sense of adventure to a round of golf, particularly for the better player. Travis felt American courses were too “dumbed down” in a condescending way, often to please the vast majority of club members who were not proficient in the game yet whose egos wouldn’t permit them to face a real challenge lest their ineptness be on full display. Travis felt that only by providing suitable challenge for all players would golfers be forced to improve, leading to an overall greater enjoyment for everyone. However, that is not to suggest that Travis was a penal architect; in fact, just the opposite. He believed that soundly designed courses provided the handicap man with safe, albeit indirect avenues of play but that same duffer could risk taking the more challenging route and dare punitive hazards when feeling his oats.

He wrote; “Speaking by and large, our courses here are not nearly so difficult, in respect to hazards, as those in Great Britain; nor, it may be added, has the game reached the same standard; and until we reach the approximate level of the one we can hardly hope to do so of the other… A really good course, before it can be unprejudicially pronounced as such, must abound in hazards – and good courses develop good players.”

“…Generally speaking, while we have not nearly enough bunkers, there is too much of what we do have. The material is there, but it is not scientifically applied. Let me endeavor to exemplify my meaning. Take, for instance, the regulation bunker for the tee shot. This almost invariably stretches across the entire width of the green. Instead of this, I should put in one, irregularly outlined, of about one-third the width across, leaving clear spaces on either side for the shorter player who cannot comfortably carry it, and from twenty to forty yards further on – according to the distance of the first bunker from the tee – hazards of nearly equal size on either side of the course to catch a pulled or sliced ball, as the case may be…”

…The player carrying the first bunker would have the advantage of practically a clear and unobstructed approach to the green while the more timorously inclined or shorter player could play safely to the side, only, however, to be forced to negotiate the second bunker on his next shot.”

“Hazards arranged somewhat upon the lines indicated rather than slavishly following the system adopted on the great majority of our courses, would, I think, make the game vastly more interesting and more provocative of better golf all around.”

It is insightful to note that this was in 1902, almost a decade prior to the opening of National Golf Links of America, at a time when most of the courses in America at the time, including Macdonald’s vaunted Chicago Golf Club, and Devereux Emmet’s Garden City Golf Club featured much the same type of flat greens and cross bunkering that Travis criticized so evocatively in his article. What Travis was describing as a more creative and inspirational alternative is what we know and take for granted today as “strategic golf course architecture”, yet at the time Travis was writing these were no less than revolutionary ideas in America.

[John Challenger]

Macdonald wrote an article published in December 1897 in which he said, "The ideal first-class golf links has yet to be selected and the course laid out in America...The shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfection of the putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience."


Macdonald says the idea to create such a golf course "assumed tangible form in 1901." It was "inspired by the controversy started in London Golf Illustrated and known as the the "Best Hole Discussion." Several holes from St. Andrews were at the top of the list.


Travis would have followed the articles too and he wrote the piece titled "Hazards" in April 1902. He wasn't a diplomat. In the same article, Travis said about St. Andrews, "the cold fact remains that many of the holes are wofully weak in respect of distance, and are only redeemed from absolute mediocrity by their attendant bunkers."


A few months later in the summer of 1902, Macdonald took his first of three official trips to study the top golf courses of Great Britain to understand what made them so special. He went to St. Andrews. Given CB's love of St. Andrews, he must have wished that Travis had not been so intemperate.


At this point, Macdonald and Travis must have been fast friends who talked constantly about golf course design. It seems unlikely Macdonald was completely surprised by the events a few years later in 1904 at Sandwich. Given his friendship with John Low and Horace Hutchinson, Macdonald must have been caught in the middle. In one way or another, Travis, who was so brilliant and polarizing, must have often left Macdonald in awkward spots. It seems to have come to a head sometime during the creation of NGLA or in the equipment controversy of 1909.

[MCirba]

Good stuff, John!

[MCirba]

John Challenger,


Can you provide the source for this?  I've seen some articles in subsequent years that paraphrase his statement but would love to see the original. Thanks!!


Macdonald wrote an article published in December 1897 in which he said, "The ideal first-class golf links has yet to be selected and the course laid out in America...The shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfection of the putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience."

[John Challenger]

Thank you Mike. Everyone on GCA should read your three-part piece on Walter Travis. I might just go read it for a third time.

I quoted the passage from Macdonald's book, "Scotland's Gift." It's at the start of Chapter IX, which is called "Inception of Ideal Golf Course." Here is the start of the chapter.

"Living in Chicago, I wrote an article, published in December 1897, saying, in part:

'The ideal first-class golf links has yet to be selected and the course laid out in America. No course can be called first-class with less than eighteen holes. A sandy soil  sufficiently rich to make turf is the best. Long Island is a natural links. A first-class course can only be made in time. It must develop. The proper distance between the holes, the shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfecting of putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience.'

Little did I dream I should live in New York and carry out this prophecy."

This second part is italicized by Macdonald. There isn't a footnote that tells what publication he is referring to.

[John Challenger]

Just adding a bit of info.


THE SITE:
- I've seen various descriptions of the site that CBM had to work with at the Lido.  Some referenced 15-20 feet of water over most of the site.  I'm sure that there were some parts that were sticking up, but I really don't think that there was anything there to prompt an idea for the 4th.  He logically used the length of the property for 3 of the 4 par 5s, so my guess is that he wanted to use the width of the property for at least one of them.  The South end was the better end with the Ocean and the starting point was sort of in the middle of that section- therefore I think that the North end was a better spot for it.  Following that logic, it was much more realistic to put an interior body of water on that side.  The lagoon had doors (or whatever they would have been called) to open it and close it from Reynold's Channel. 

Peter, It makes sense that CB would want to use the width of the property at the Lido for one of his par 5s for variety in the wind. I don't quite understand the logic of why he chose to use the north end rather than the south end? Assume they built doors to the channel because they were worried high tide would flood the course? Was it through Reynolds Channel that the water came originally, so that once they closed it up, the land would begin to dry up? Or did Macdonald and Raynor open up an entrance with doors from the channel in order for sole reason of creating the lagoon.


Also, I thought the original Littlestone channel hole did have two routes to the green?

[MCirba]

John Challenger,


Thank you very much.  Terrific discussion!

[Peter Flory]

Just adding a bit of info.


THE SITE:
- I've seen various descriptions of the site that CBM had to work with at the Lido.  Some referenced 15-20 feet of water over most of the site.  I'm sure that there were some parts that were sticking up, but I really don't think that there was anything there to prompt an idea for the 4th.  He logically used the length of the property for 3 of the 4 par 5s, so my guess is that he wanted to use the width of the property for at least one of them.  The South end was the better end with the Ocean and the starting point was sort of in the middle of that section- therefore I think that the North end was a better spot for it.  Following that logic, it was much more realistic to put an interior body of water on that side.  The lagoon had doors (or whatever they would have been called) to open it and close it from Reynold's Channel. 

Peter, It makes sense that CB would want to use the width of the property at the Lido for one of his par 5s for variety in the wind. I don't quite understand the logic of why he chose to use the north end rather than the south end? Assume they built doors to the channel because they were worried high tide would flood the course? Was it through Reynolds Channel that the water came originally, so that once they closed it up, the land would begin to dry up? Or did Macdonald and Raynor open up an entrance with doors from the channel in order for sole reason of creating the lagoon.


Also, I thought the original Littlestone channel hole did have two routes to the green?

Regarding the North coast (Reynold's Channel) vs South coast (Atlantic), there just wasn't enough room on the Ocean.  Due to the geometry of the site, they had about 300 yards on the south edge from the property edge to the physical building that was there.  On the North end, they had about 600 yards. 

For the doors that separated the lagoon from the Channel, I don't know the details for why that was necessary.  I figured that it was just to regulate the height of the water in the lagoon so that it wouldn't ebb and flow up and down with the Channel's water level.  It wasn't so that they could let the land inside dry out or anything.  The water table was just below the surface of the course, which is evident in some of the photos where the bunkers are filled with water after rains (nowhere for the water to drain after saturation). 

At the course, 3 of the par 5s go from North to South and 3 of the par 3s go from South to North.  This is why the North wind is such a helpful one for scoring.  It makes 6 and 7 easily reachable and it allows shots to land more softly on 3, 14.  I personally find 16 easier into the wind as well because it takes the back bunkers out of play. 

[John Challenger]

John Challenger,


Can you provide the source for this?  I've seen some articles in subsequent years that paraphrase his statement but would love to see the original. Thanks!!


Macdonald wrote an article published in December 1897 in which he said, "The ideal first-class golf links has yet to be selected and the course laid out in America...The shrewd placing of bunkers and other hazards, the perfection of the putting greens, all must be evolved by a process of growth and it requires study and patience."

Mike, I just ran into answer to your question. It's in a four-page article written by C.B. in the January 1898 issue of "Golf" on page 22. The piece is entitled "GOLF: The Ethical and Physical Aspects of the Game" and it is dated Dec. 15, 1897. The magazine is in the USGA's digital database.


Another question I had asked was if anybody knew where the 30 or 40 drawings and maps that C.B. Macdonald drew during his three trips to Britain were today. A friend mentioned that C.B. said in Scotland's Gift that he had given them to Seth Raynor, but I haven't been able to find the reference.