cover photos for Flynn book

[TEPaul]

Kelly Blake:

I love what you said there in your post! I feel the same way you do! But everyone in the business of writing books says that the attention span of the golf audience is very limited and that it's the photos that really sell the books!

In other words almost everyone just looks at the pictures and never really reads much in the book.

I think Wayne just wants to write a really good book on William Flynn though, his courses, what made him do the things he did, what he was like, who had architectural influence on him, who he influenced, and of course always the how and why of that etc. I want to do the same.

Flynn also appears to be a most interesting man, period. He was a little Irish guy from Milton Mass who moved to Philly early and it's no secret to us now that he made his life and career amongst some interesting and heavyweight people who became almost his entire career client base!

But more interesting than that to me is he became their real friend too, in many cases, because those people really could be and were elitists and insular and they would deal with anyone but not in all ways! They almost never let those that were not part of their world into their PRIVATE world but they sure did let William Flynn in!!

And the curious and extemely interesting thing to me was the fact the guy was anything but the shrinking violet and a rich man's suckup which was sometimes common in that world!! He appears to be anything but--sort of outrageous in some ways, a daredevil, a guy who apparently didn't mind calling anybody's actions into question, no matter if it was John D. Rockefeller!

But he also appears to have had another side or many other sides, personally! But putting it all together with the man and his work is somewhat mysterious to us but we feel we're getting there fast!

Architecturally, one of the things that most interests me is he really seems to have concentrated on his projects--he didn't take on more work at any time than he felt he could devote the time he needed to on! That's real important, I think, probably essential, to overall quality architecture and certainly when you analyze the quality level of an architect's entire career.

I always felt that Flynn may have had the highest total career quality level of any architect ever (if you consider architects that did more than just a few!). He may not have had as many world beater courses as some others but overall his career inventory was of an unuusally high architectural quality--and probably because his career inventory was not very large--only about forty really!

You show me an architect who built hundreds of courses in his career and I'll bet you I can show you some quality that isn't all that good somewhere in that high production career inventory!

But I like what you say in that post Kelly. We want to write a good book on Flynn and all his work and we want to write a book that treats architectural analysis really honestly! We don't want to make any easy assumptions that turn into unsupportable conclusions, that's for sure.

We seem to see so much of that not only in the past but today too! That part is really important to us---to really create a process to analyze old architecture, it's evolution, influences etc intelligently and honestly always supporting what we say with provable facts and if we can't saying so. This isn't supposed to be a paean of William Flynn and his courses--it's supposed to be an honest look at what appears to be a significant architect who has never been written about! If we find warts and mistakes and problems too, fine!

I can also guarantee you that there are some things we know about Flynn, the way he evolved, the way he came to think about architecture, where it should go, where it might go, that will very likely piss off some of the people on this website!

But we want it to be honest and accurate and the analysis should be interesting. Then the chips can fall, wherever.

We want to write a good book not just a money making book, and if it's just a good book and not money making so be it! Actually the people who know say it never really can be money making with this subject anyway so who cares anyway, except that it be honest and interesting?!

[Dan Kelly]

Flynn also appears to be a most interesting man, period. He was a little Irish guy from Milton Mass who moved to Philly early and it's no secret to us now that he made his life and career amongst some interesting and heavyweight people who became almost his entire career client base!

But more interesting than that to me is he became their real friend too, in many cases, because those people really could be and were elitists and insular and they would deal with anyone but not in all ways! They almost never let those that were not part of their world into their PRIVATE world but they sure did let William Flynn in!!

There's your title, gentlemen: "In Like Flynn."

Make it a great book -- which will require both great pictures and great text. There's absolutely no contradiction there!

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

wsm and tep,

I am glad I vented a little bit because your responses have given me much reason to be excited about the book.  You have set some high standards.  I agree that you need plans and photos to tell the story as well.  The big photos get in the way of the reading I guess, and you need a large format to see the plans if you want to present plans to be viewed.  Maybe all of this material is in an appendix, fold out plans, pictures that get to the subject, that focus on the matter at hand, and the text is kept uninterrupted expect by small illustrations, or footnotes indicating which plates to refer to in the appendix.  And I sometimes get irritated when people nose poke into my work!  Listen to me telling you how to design a book.

[TEPaul]

grampa;

I'm very glad you asked those questions about kittansett!

We don't really know the facts of exactly who designed and built that golf course yet, so we can't answer you yet as to Flynn or Hood and who really did what!

As I said to Kelly Blake Moran, though, on the post above, Wayne and I mean to apply a logical and sensible PROCESS to what we can find to determine who did what!

That's the way we plan to research everything about Flynn and his courses! We don't ever plan to get into falling for and using what we call "easy assumptions" to arrive at "easy conclusions". Both of those things can so often lead to incorrect assumptions and incorrect conclusions and we are even finding that the history of architecture is riddled with such things! Incorrect information and conclusions have a nasty way in architecture of perpetuating themselves, in our opinions.

Basically to draw a conclusion we want and will need real proof and if we can't find that in any aspect of this research we will only say; "We believe this or that (and here's why) but we can't prove it."

There are all kinds of interesting ways of researching with this logical PROCESS, which most people, even some good architectural analaysts, have apparently not thought to do!

Too often even good architectural analysts tend to say; "X architect must have done this because I think it looks like he did." That kind of analysis is not good enough for us to draw a conclusion and we're never going to do things like that.

But just as an example, Grampa, using your question to us about who did Kittansett. Frankly we're more interested in who designed what Kittansett is today than who actually built it (assuming it was "as built" to Flynn's plans-that we have)-which it was from photos and aerials!

But let's assume, as you suggested, that maybe Flynn merely did an "as built" plan and hole by hole drawings for Fredrick Hood AFTER Hood both designed and built the golf course (as apparently the club has always believed).

But what if we could prove that Flynn's plans were drawn BEFORE the course was built? What would that mean to you Grampa? I know what it would mean to me! But I suppose we should also consider that, in that particular case, Hood may have written or called Flynn and told him in minute detail what to draw on those plans before the course was built!

That's certainly possible, I suppose, but highly illogical and unlikely to us! We've never seen Flynn do anything remotely like that and also Flynn's very consistent and usual style of "CONSTRUCTION INSTRUCTIONS" are on those hole drawings too! That's more indicative to me than anything else so far!

Why would Hood have asked him to add those onto the hole drawings AFTER the golf course had already been DESIGNED and built by Hood?

So that kind of process is the one we try to use. But who did what at Kittansett we cannot draw a completely accurate conclusion on---yet!

[grampa (Guest)]

TEPAUL

hopefully you can shed some light on plans as they pertain to golf architecture. today some of the better architects rarely use detailed plans they rather work in the field with the land creating interesting architecture. these groups seem to have ties to the classic architects from my era( ha ha ). most of these designs are praised by the regulars on this site for their styles. styles that match the early architects as being at the site on a daily bases working with the men and designing great courses. so i guess i have to wonder about a couple things. 1. why would we consider that flynn used detailed drawings for kittanset. was he an on-site guy or did he use detailed plans on his other course? do you have any evidence of other courses were detailed drawings were involved? and didn't flynn work with toomey who was an engineer and created plans?  couldn't the plans be from toomey instead? 2. if the onsite architecture is superior to detailed plans then why are all these courses going back to a certain date and restoring ? some of these courses are praised by guys on this site (aronimink). really confused by the criteria used to distinguish when plans are appropriate and when they are considered useless.

thanks for your help

gp

[TEPaul]

Grampa:

Whether Flynn used detailed plans and some other Golden Age architect didn't really has nothing to do with the quality of the architecture despite what some on here might say!

Some architects like to interpret in the field and maybe some don't as construction is proceeding. If you're asking me how Flynn worked, I'd say he did plenty of interpreting in the field but he put down on topos and such continuous "iterations" of what he was interpeting in the field before getting into the construction phase.

Grampa, we have just about every course's plans that Flynn ever did!! It all came out of a box that had probably been in an attic for fifty plus years! I tell you it's a treasure trove of amazing material!

So we can see in detail how he worked. His method was what I descibed above which were then transfered to individual hole drawings with very specific "construction instructions" on the right side of them above of the green site grid!

What I've seen of Ross's habits it was done somewhat the same but Flynn probably did far more iterations to reach the finished drawings!

Again, whether detailed plans are done or whether the architect interpreted mostly in the field has nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of the architecture, just the personal working habits of the architect!

[wsmorrison]

grampa,

I echo Tom's statements regarding our disciplined discovery process and how all matters will be presented:  as fact when we have substantial evidence; as strong assumptions with supporting materals; or as educated assessments with as much as concrete evidence as possible to back up the assessments.  This project is not to glorify the man, it is a study of his design work, his agronomy efforts, his seminal work as green keeper, and of the man himself.  Flynn worked in the golden age of golf architecture, but it was also an interesting age both in America and the world.  We intend to put all aspects of his life in the proper perspective.  Flynn was part of the Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, really) school, worked for and interacted with America's aristocracy, and played golf with some of the greats of all time.  He will be presented in completly honest terms.

Regarding Kittansett, it is not unreasonable to conclude with the evidence at hand that Flynn had much to do with the design of the course, if not the entire routing and design.  While it has always been part of the oral history of the course that Flynn did the routing, how did this lore come about?  There is nothing in the Kittansett archives to prove this, it just was part of their oral history.  That seems odd in that Flynn never operated in that way in any of the other courses he was involved with.  Now, we have in our posession the hole drawings of Kittansett in Flynn's style on his stationary, and with the construction plans completely consistent with previous projects.  These drawings do not describe in the explanatory notes the course as having been built, it describes the construction process as it was going to take place, according to the specific directions on the drawings.  The course was built exactly as depicted in the drawings.  Now, what evidence do we have of Hood's work on the course?  Nothing but brief mentions in the 2 club histories that we went through during our visit.  It was stated simply that he "built" the course.  He was a powerful force behind the project, no doubt about that.  Perhaps he did oversee the construction of the course, but were the instructions his?  It would appear at this point doubtful.  What was his background (I confess I do not know if he was trained as an engineer or anything about his education and will find this out) that would have enabled him to design and build a course that required so much given that it was on flat ground with groves of trees and tons and tons of rocks and boulders?   Basically, nearly  all features (fairways, rough, hazards, and greens) had to be built literally from the ground up.

Shouldn't the same standards for applying attribution to Flynn apply to Hood?  If so, the hole plans as they are speak volumes.  We are open minded to any evidence that supports or overturns our present view of the design.  It will take more research to present the notion that Flynn was the designer of Kittansett as a matter of fact.  We do not deny this and hope to get to the bottom of it as I expect we will.  The procedures we follow are of the highest standards and we will present this and other stories in their true light.

[grampa (Guest)]

wsmorrisom and tepaul

i cannot wait for the book to eventually be printed i'm sure it will be interesting and i wish you both the very best.

wsmorrison,
i would have to question whether the drawings from flynn re: kittansett could have been drawn prior to construction in that much detail. The amount of rocks and boulders that make up those unusual mounds could have only been as a practical form of construction. with the influence of the bay and tidal pools that occur throughout the course i would have to believe that the course is more of an engineering marvel then a design one. i would have to think that the influence of the bay had to have a great influence on the architecture. something that ,in that time period, would have to of been worked out in the field. do you know whether flynn spent much time on-site during construction? what about toomey could he have been flynns draftmen? thus the similarities in drafting styles?

tepaul
you keep saying that whether an architect works off plans or interprets in the field has nothing to do with the architecture. but what about the architect who sends plans to a site and the plans are interpreted by a field designer? wouldn't that design then be greatly influenced by the people in the field and impact the architecture in a serious manner? in the timeframe course were built in that era and the travel conditions, architects had to trust the work being done in the feild. they wouldn't have time to travel back and forth approving work as some of us blieve todays architects do. for flynn to of been in denver, atlantic city, virginia and mass. seems unlikely. i would have to agree with cornish and whitten and say that flynn is responsible for the routing and hood was responsible for the architecture in the ground with great influence from the environmental conditions at the site.   sorry but i'm a stubborn old man

[TEPaul]

grampa:

Now you see, you've starting to make some poor assumptions there to make a point, in my opinion.

Of course, if an architect was sent a topo and he designed a golf course that way and mailed the plans back to the course that might effect the quality of the architecture and depend on who was on site during construction to interpret the plans!

But there is no evidence that Flynn was mailed a topo and mailed plans back to Kittansett! We have no evidence that Flynn was at Kittansett but that certainly doesn't mean he wasn't, does it? And as far as we can tell Kittansett has no evidence he wasn't there either! And either do you.

We can see from his other projects how he worked! He spent a good deal of time on site developing the routings and hole designs of his courses and then "iterating" those ideas from the field into designs onto blueprints (site topos) that were developed into course routings and then individual hole drawings!

That's the way he worked and he had to have spent a good deal of time on the site to work that way.

Also you say things like he needed to be in Denver, Atlantic City, Virginia, Mass etc so how did he get to all those places and do the work?

We do not know at this time who did the construction work for Flynn--the crews, in other words, with the exception of some courses like Shinnecock. But if you're looking at the fact that six courses appear to have opened in 1923 that can certainly be misleading!

And 1923 was Flynn's apparently busiest year! That was the same year that Donald Ross had 30 golf courses under construction!

But at this time we are looking through his design plans, comparing those plans to early photos and early aerials to determine how close to "as designed" his courses were built and so far remarkably so! And then we've been going to the courses to see how they are now and how they've evolved and in some cases talking about things like restorations.

Happy to answer questions grampa but let's not turn this into 20 questions at this point! We have a lot more research to do and I would rather talk more about the process of doing that than what we're finding out! Wait for the book on that!

I don't think Wayne and I want to try to write the whole book on here in ongoing question and answer sessions!

 

[brad_miller]

did I read the opening correctly, isn't #7 at Shinnecock the only remaining CBM/Raynor hole?

[TEPaul]

Brad:

Shinnecock's present #3 is almost in whole Raynor/MacD's #13. Obviously the green and bunkering has been changed but the routed hole and essential placements are the same hole! Same with #9! Bascically that was Raynor/MacD's #18! #8 green is the old #17 green site to a hole coming from next to the present #16 green and the first 2/3 of #1 are the same. The bunkering fairway right on #1 are basically the old greenside bunkering left on Raynor's #1 green. And  green #2 is the old green site of Raynor's #12 (a par 5). And of course, as you said #7 was the Redan, the old #14! The green-end bunkering was changed by Flynn!

[ET]

Wayne - I've taken many photos of golf holes and find it  very difficult to shoot an entire hole, in fact impossible. A great shot for your cover might be 1st hole at Phila. Country. I can show you some from different angles and light if you want. We had some taken at daybreak. The hole was designed as # 16 as you know but is a perfect 1st hole. Email me if I can help.
ET

[wsmorrison]

ET

I private messaged you.  It would be great to see your photos and get some advice on this aspect of the book project.  Both Tom and I are rookies when it comes to photography (I thought he was going to break his wife's camera at Kittansett!) and welcome the help.  Please get in touch and we can get together if you're in the area.  At least let's speak by phone.  See the private msg for contact info.
Best regards,
Wayne

[Kelly_Blake_Moran]

In my earlier posts I was trying to describe how a golf book should be presented.  I just received Shackleford's "The Captain".  That is a well done book.  Picture and illustrations sizes are modest and just right.  Type and symbols are nice and appropriate.  Do not appear to be any superfilous items.  A real book.  Simple, tasteful, now on to reading.  

[buffett_guy (Guest)]

I played Cascades today and there were many picturesque holes with colorful leaves in the background. I haven't played many of the "great" courses, but after today I think I'm starting to understand what the great courses are all about.

My vote for a Flynn photo would be #3 at Cascades. It's a downhill par 3 with little room to bail out. The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the hole was that hitting the green would be like landing a dime on the glass plate at the carnival except from a lot further away than 5 feet. I can't imagine there are many courses with better par 3's that The Cascades.

My runner-up would be #10 which has a steeply descending, two-tiered, drop off dogleg right.

I guess the biggest difference between most of the upscale daily fees I play and The Cascades is that with daily fees you often have wide open fairways and only on the approach shot do things get more interesting. At The Cascades every shot has your full attention.

[buffett_guy (Guest)]

My vote for a Flynn photo would be #3 at Cascades. It's a downhill par 3 with little room to bail out. The first thing that crossed my mind when I saw the hole was that hitting the green would be like landing a dime on the glass plate at the carnival except from a lot further away than 5 feet. I can't imagine there are many courses with better par 3's that The Cascades.

Of course, I was referring to the par 3 #4 not number #3 which is an outstanding short par 4. Sorry.

[TEPaul]

Buffet guy:

We're very interested in determining to what length Flynn might have gone to create either difficulty or extremely high demand holes! We feel he may have had a penchant to do that but only if he was given those instructions by his client on certain projects. Perhaps more than any architect of his era!  

It appears what he created at Mill Road Farm (NLE) for Albert Lasker may have been otherworldly difficult particularly for that era! Also possibly the "C" nine at Huntingdon Valley!

How do you view that kind of thing Buffet guy? Particularly after what you said about a few of his par 3s at the Cascades being super hard? Is a super hard hole one you think deserves to be considered a good hole or a great hole, and for that reason? Is a super hard golf course one you think deserves to be considered a good or great course? And if so why?

[archie struthers]

TEPaul et al

great stuff, this book of William Flynn!!!

Make sure you talk to Tim DeBaufre as he has a wealth of knowledge and a superb eye for quality.

Also, I am a huge Indian Creek FAN!!!  As I will be going there for a week soon, I'll nose around for any history or drawings that you may not be common knowledge. Wish we could get into the qualities of this Flynn beauty some day, as it is vastly underrated as to the complexities that exist here, particularly in the green complexes. Did Flynn lay out the range? Who pushed the dirt around?    

[TEPaul]

Archie:

We have the construction drawings of Indian Creek, they're beautifully done, and we'll be going to visit the course this winter.

The entire playable course was raised from 2-35 feet above the grade of that man-made island!

[buffett_guy (Guest)]

TEPaul,

Please accept this as the response of a weekend duffer with little knowledge of golf architecture.

I don't think that Flynn set out to make The Cascades a particularly hard course - he simply had no choice. Given the terrain, it would be nearly impossible to make The Cascades (TC) any fairer than it is. However, it is obvious to me, that Flynn and his backers realized that they were creating a course that was going to be of championship caliber. The only modern feature TC lacks is length (6600 and change from the tips). However, when it was built this thing must have been a beast, and it's pretty darn tough right now. I guess my point is that imho Flynn and backers set out to create a championship course on terrain that would almost inevitably create inspiring, difficult shots.

I know nothing about the objectives of the developers were when the course was developed. But, if it is true that Flynn wanted to create challenges I can see why he accepted this assignment. Even if the backers requested a moderate kind of challenge Flynn could have pleaded "just look at this land and tell me how to make it any easier."

The greatness in TC, aside from the mountain scernery which is wonderous, is in playing it. Many golfers (myself included) would not notice the elements that make TC so great just by walking around the course. It is not tricked up in any way that screams out "come and get me!" The best example of this is the greens. The greens look completely harmless to the innocent bystander. But, try to putt them! Ha. They are mostly round and flat right? Wrong. The lack of apparent slope hides the fact that many putts on this course break a whole lot. As I walked off the course an attendant told me that he tried to play the course a couple of days after the greens had been double cut for a tournament. He four-putted the first two holes and then walked off the course. Hellooo!

More to your question - I don't think a super hard hole automatically deserves to be called great. And, I also don't think that the par 3s at TC are super hard. But, 4 out of 5 of them are pretty tough. I like holes that make me say to myself, "That son of a @#%$%! Flynn, what is he trying to do to me and how in the world am I going to make par here?" And yet, even without a heroic shot I am able to make a bogey or double bogey and have an outside shot a par with a great up and down. That is a hole that is exciting, challenging, and fair.

[Craig_Rokke]

Buffet guy-
I agree with your depiction of the Cascades greens. They look pretty tame, but they are some of the most subtly challenging
greens I've ever experienced. The breaks seem to come out of nowhere--at least that was a feeling I remember having on a number of occasions.

I have print of #17 at the Cascades. From a behind-the -green vantage point, the painting looks back towards the fairway, with the stream and the mountain in view. It makes
me want to go back and play there again!

[buffett_guy (Guest)]

Sorry to bring this thread back up, but I really had to. Just opened the latest Washington Golf Monthly and saw something that made me do a spit take.

Back on Oct. 19 I posted that the number 4 hole at Cascades would make a pretty pic for a Flynn book. Well, there is the pic staring me in the face in the latest WGM. Does the photo ed. of WGM read golfclubatlas? I certainly don't know anyone who works there.


<img src="http://www.geocities.com/buffett_guy/4th.jpg">

[buffett_guy (Guest)]

Maybe this link is better...

http://www.geocities.com/buffett_guy/4th.jpg

Highly recommend Washington Golf Monthly which can be found at www.thewgm.com. I could not find a photo credit so this may be a "stock" picture that appears regularly. All credit to the photographer tho for taking a nice pic. Color of the trees suggests it was taken around Sept.

[buffett_guy (Guest)]

Sorry, sorry.

Try one last time then I'll just say get a copy of the mag...

http://www.geocities.com/buffett_guy/index.html

[Tim Weiman]

WMorrison:

Being from Cleveland, I'll have to second Tom MacWood's nomination of the 17th hole at country.

Kelly Blake Moran:

It sounds like you must have been a fan of the Labbance and Barclay books on Travis and Tompson. My view is that they are worth reading, but disappointing with respect to photography.

There has to be a balance between serious, insightful writing and photographic documentation, in my opinion. If there is one thing I wish George Bahto had included more of, it would be more photos of Yale. I think that would help people appreciate what an awesome course Yale is.

I might also mention one other book that people might dismiss as a coffee table book: the Wynn/Fazio Shadow Creek book.

Obviously, we got a lot of John Henebry and his sister. but, we also got as much documentation about what Wynn/Fazio were trying to create with each hole as anything I've seen on a single course. Not a bad combination even if it does look coffee table ish.