News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Patrick_Mucci

Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« on: December 05, 2007, 08:34:24 PM »
York presents an excellent opportunity to study how Donald Ross and William Flynn chose to route and design a golf course on the same property.

Why hasn't this golf course been studied in greater depth ?

Not just in its existing form, but in the potential form had the other architect been chosen ?

What are the substantive differences in the routing ?

What are the substantive differences in the features found in the drawings ?

What philosophical design differences are revealed by an overlay of the two designs ?

Doug Braunsdorf

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« Reply #1 on: December 05, 2007, 08:44:47 PM »
Pat;

  Because Wayne and Tom want us to pay for that discussion by buying the book ;)
Seriously, it's a great question and one that would probably gain a lot of opinions over which routing is the 'better' of the two, better being a subjective word, based on each of our tastes and preferences.  

I think it would be hard to view the true 'potential' of the Flynn design, based solely on a plan drawing, absent of seeing anything on the ground.  

However, I think examining the two has merit as a side-by-side comparison as to how two architects would use the same piece of property in two different ways.  

This is a golf course I would very much like to see, walking, having driven by it several times and knowing the pedigree and the history, as well as the 'rivalry' between York and Lancaster.  
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 08:53:35 PM by Doug Braunsdorf »
"Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear, or a fool from any direction."

Sean Leary

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« Reply #2 on: December 05, 2007, 08:47:14 PM »
Forgive my ignorance, but did they each do 9 holes?

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« Reply #3 on: December 05, 2007, 08:53:59 PM »
I think there was thread on this topic awhile ago. Perhaps Wayne can find it. I can't.

"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

TEPaul

Re:Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« Reply #4 on: December 05, 2007, 11:14:31 PM »
"York presents an excellent opportunity to study how Donald Ross and William Flynn chose to route and design a golf course on the same property.
Why hasn't this golf course been studied in greater depth?"

Patrick:

Probably because about less than a dozen people are even aware that Flynn offered a routing and design of York CC's property.  

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« Reply #5 on: December 07, 2007, 09:33:16 PM »
TEPaul,

Now that EVERYBODY knows it, could you or Wayne provide the two routings for a side by side comparison ?

wsmorrison

Re:Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« Reply #6 on: December 07, 2007, 09:42:22 PM »
Pat,

I sent you the materials a long time ago.  Have you had time to consider the differences?  I'd post the routing maps on the website, but I think they'd be too small to recognize the topo lines and that is key to understanding the differences.  

However, I'll post the Flynn drawing with Ross's stick routing in blue and see how it looks in such a small format.  We all don't have Tom Paul's 36" monitor :o

« Last Edit: December 07, 2007, 09:47:44 PM by Wayne Morrison »

wsmorrison

Re:Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« Reply #7 on: December 07, 2007, 09:48:16 PM »

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« Reply #8 on: December 07, 2007, 09:52:27 PM »
Wayne,

That's great, thanks.

Do you know what would really be interesting ?

To just present the topo and let others, including architects, create their own routing.

Could you do that and delete the Flynn and Ross schematic ?

wsmorrison

Re:Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« Reply #9 on: December 07, 2007, 09:52:44 PM »
That's not bad.  Craig Disher did the overlay and all graphic work for our analysis.  That Atlanta slowpoke, Bob Crosby, has done a thorough write-up on his interpretation of the differences, but he and Craig are supposed to collaborate on perfecting this chapter.  That's not why the book is overdue.  I hope we can get together and finish it as it is a unique opportunity.  I gotta do a southern tour and kick some butt in Washington, DC and Atlanta.  I'll be sure to take my Newtown Square one-man goon squad with me.

By the way, those are 5' topo lines.

wsmorrison

Re:Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« Reply #10 on: December 07, 2007, 09:56:30 PM »
Wayne,

That's great, thanks.

Do you know what would really be interesting ?

To just present the topo and let others, including architects, create their own routing.

Could you do that and delete the Flynn and Ross schematic ?

I have another version with just the Flynn plan.  I could remove the Flynn drawings and let others take a crack at the routing.  However, first I'd rather hear from architects and others on the site regarding their take on the differences in the routings and the ways the two courses would play differently.  what should be readily apparent to the non-architects is the way the topography was used, the reverse routing of some holes, the different areas for hubs of tees and greens, and the fact that a number of the holes are perpendicular to one another.  It is important to bear in mind that the clubhouse was fixed (an old farmhouse).  So even thought the starting and ending points were the same, the courses are very different.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Why isn't YORK CC studied more ?
« Reply #11 on: December 07, 2007, 10:23:25 PM »
Wayne,

Aren't the terms Newtown Square and One man goon, redundant ?

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back