downhill punchbowls

[paul cowley]

Great topic....I love GCA!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat Mucci might think that green to tee crossovers is a design flaw, I do not when the technique results in excellence such as at Lehigh and Merion.  

Actually, those weren't my thoughts.
They were the thoughts of others who were highly critical of Rees Jones, citing, the crossovers at Atlantic as design flaws.

In rebuttal, I merely cited the crossovers at Merion, insinuating that they couldn't have it both ways.

However, my own thoughts are that it is a design flaw, irrespective of the finished product.  When the product is outstanding, as I believe Merion is, the flaw tends to get minimized or accepted.  But, from a purist perspective, you can't believe that crossovers aren't a design flaw ... can you ?[/color]

Don't Flynn's own words in his letter dispel the notion that he was a "naturalist"?  And that he was as much of a "constructionist" if not more so than other architects ?

I completely disagree with Pat's characterization of Flynn as a constructionist.  

Wayno, in Flynn's own writings he labels himself a constructionist and he does so in the context of comparing himself to his peers.  How can you refute Flynn's written words ?[/color]

That label applies much more so to Raynor and Banks, neither of whom knew much about golf or green keeping.  

It was easier for Flynn because MacDonald led the way with Raynor at his side.  Each successive generation always benefits from those who went before them.[/color]

Flynn is a naturalist in my opinion because he used nature as much as possible, but his goal was to create the most interesting golf, and championship golf when allowed.  To do this he would often add architectural features but took great care and sometimes expense to make them look natural.


But, he did so vis a vis heavy construction.

He said so himself.

While I agree that he wanted to blend the constructed with the natural to present continuity, he did so by NOT leaving the land as he found it, but, by altering the land to accomodate his design, and he altered the land vis a vis heavy construction.[/color]

Naturalism in golf is not simply using what nature provided, that to me is minimalism.  Naturalism includes using what nature provided and disguising man-made features (architecture) as looking natural.  

That sounds like your personal "spin" of convenience.

While I agree with you on Flynn's intent, I don't believe that I'd label it as "naturalism"[/color]

Coore and Crenshaw were minimalists at Sand Hills.  But they, Doak, and other modern architects tend to be naturalists in many of their efforts.

I'd grant C&C the minimalist label at Hidden Creek and Southern Hills, two courses I'm slightly familiar with.

As to your categorization of Doak as a naturalist, I'd be interested in his perception of his work at Pacific Dunes and Sebonack[/color]

Flynn called himself the nature faker.  He brought more material in for good reason even if Pat would somehow spin it to having a constructed look.  

That's not what I said.
I said that by Flynn's own admission, he was a heavy constructionist, moreso than his peers, not a minimalist or a naturalist.[/color]

For the most part, it did not.  This makes determining his green space by eye more difficult (except his scale drawings make it simple) as his greens tend to tie into the surrounds in natural ways (in general as do his bunkers) while other architects such as Macdonald, Raynor, Banks and early Ross leave no doubt where the green ended and natural grade began.

Flynn had the luxury of following CBM-SR and early Ross.

You keep forgetting that Charles Blair MacDonald was the "Father" of American Architecture.[/color]

While this may mute abrubt lines and fool many golfers/observers, it would appear that this process could only succeed where funds were plentiful.

That would seem so, but I think not Pat.  

In the short term, building golf courses efficiently and with less fill to tie them in would be less expensive.  
Agreed[/color]

Flynn believed that spending more in the beginning would allow you to spend less over time in terms of maintenance cost that will be far more costly in the long run than initial construction expenditures.  

I don't know that I accept your premise, especially circa 1929 and shortly thereafter when Flynn built a number of courses.

You can only recapture the additional construction costs vis a vis reduced maintainance costs over time IF the golf course survives, and survives for a long, long time.

The early architects were quite frugal and/or efficient.
Flynn openly states that he was extravagant by comparison when it came to construction.

Your response that he was betting on the "come" would be an especially risky one, circa 1929 and thereafter.[/color]

So Flynn's approach would not only look better but be better for the club over time.  

At a club I'm fairly familiar with, they renovated their ballroom/dining facilities, claiming that it would enable them to host larger functions.  Let's say that the club spent
$ 1,200,000 to do so.  How many years do you think it would take to recapture that expense, based on the profits created by the additional affairs booked due to the expansion of the facility.  1 year ? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years or NEVER.

Your argument regarding Flynn's additional construction costs reminds me of that situation.[/color]

In many regards, like building in elasticity and recognizing the future effects of technology and better athletes on the length of courses, his long term approach enables his courses to stand the test of time better.  

I agree that he was a visionary in some areas, but, sweeping his heavily constructed courses under the carpet, or denying his methods, contrary to his own written words, is carrying his banner with blinders on. [/color]

This is true in terms of maintenance cost and challenge.
 
His courses are less changed than most and his courses remain championship courses longer than most with the preplanned lengthening that is allowed.

I don't know that I agree with that statement.
While I haven't played as many Flynn courses as you have, I don't find your statement applying to some of the Flynn courses I've played, such as Atlantic City, Springdale and Woodcrest.  

I do like Flynn's work/courses, but, presently, I'm not ready to elevate him to MacDonald's level.[/color]  

Macdonald, Raynor and Banks either were not hired to provide these sorts of courses or they did not foresee the changes that would come.

In your zeal to glorify Flynn, you erringly denegrate CBM-SR-CB, all of whom understood elasticity and that golf wasn't a static game.

Flynn was fortunate in that he followed CBM, the "Father" of American Architecture.

If you examine the works of the triumvirate you'll see that their works have withstood the test of time and remain amongst the most highly regarded golf courses in the country.

Elasticity only works if the property allows for it.
You could say that the routing is a function of the property, but then, we could cite York CC as proving the exception.
Or, we could use that as an excuse to permit crossovers.

Perhaps you could point to the elasticity enjoyed by the 10th hole at Merion.

I don't think you serve Flynn well by denegrating the triumvirate, but, that's just my opinion.[/color]

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

If you allow me my definition of naturalism, that is using nature as much as possible and mimicking nature to hide constructed features, then we can discuss the issue with a higher degree of understanding.  The reason I choose to consider naturalism in the way I do is to differentiate that design process from minimalism, which to me is using the land as you find it.  Minimalist designs include Sand Hills and many links courses.

Pat Mucci might think that green to tee crossovers is a design flaw, I do not when the technique results in excellence such as at Lehigh and Merion.

Actually, those weren't my thoughts.
They were the thoughts of others who were highly critical of Rees Jones, citing, the crossovers at Atlantic as design flaws.

In rebuttal, I merely cited the crossovers at Merion, insinuating that they couldn't have it both ways.

However, my own thoughts are that it is a design flaw, irrespective of the finished product.  When the product is outstanding, as I believe Merion is, the flaw tends to get minimized or accepted.  But, from a purist perspective, you can't believe that crossovers aren't a design flaw ... can you ?

I don't get it.  They weren't your thoughts but they are your thoughts?  Is that what you are trying to say?  Crossovers are not a design flaw when the improvements are worthwhile.  They are the results of design constraints.  How architects surmount those constraints can be brilliant or flawed.  So I believe crossovers can be either one depending upon specific results.

Don't Flynn's own words in his letter dispel the notion that he was a "naturalist"?  And that he was as much of a "constructionist" if not more so than other architects ?

He never calls or labels himself a constructionist, you do.  He called himself the Nature Faker.  Yes, at times he used more construction efforts than other architects but he did so to mimic natural features and rarely had to throughout a golf course (exception is Indian Creek on a man-made island).  This is why I use the term naturalism...not to be confused with minimalism.  Naturalism should not imply the complete reliance on what nature presents or, as you say, leaving the land as you found it (that's minimalism) but rather a respect for and imitation of nature when necessary.

It was easier for Flynn because MacDonald led the way with Raynor at his side.  Each successive generation always benefits from those who went before them.

In any effort, those that follow benefit from those that came before, even if the influence is not readily determined.  Macdonald's earliest efforts at Chicago GC can hardly be considered important architecture.  It influenced the spread of the sport but the design style with its geometric shapes and primitive designs did not reflect the links courses but more so the steeple chase courses in vogue at the time.  NGLA was the first important design by Macdonald.  Flynn already had a course designed by that time.  Flynn never followed Macdonald's process of culling ideas from actual holes in the UK and repeating those ideas on each successive course.  While Macdonald had original ideas and strong ones at NGLA and later on, Flynn clearly rejected the notion as did others.  Flynn and others such as MacKenzie went in a different direction towards naturalism, which has cycled back in this era far more so than I believe will occur as a result of Old Macdonald.  Yes, Hugh Wilson and Flynn were influenced by Macdonald but they, and others, were intent on developing an American style of architecture.  With that came an American way of thinking about golf.  Macdonald could not tolerate the lack of regard for the roots of the game.  In some ways I agree with him, but you cannot stop the will to innovate in America.

As to your categorization of Doak as a naturalist, I'd be interested in his perception of his work at Pacific Dunes and Sebonack

If he uses your definition of naturalism, I have no doubt what his perception would be.  However, I cannot understand why one would use that definition.

Flynn had the luxury of following CBM-SR and early Ross.

You keep forgetting that Charles Blair MacDonald was the "Father" of American Architecture.

Again, Flynn did follow CBM and early Ross chronologically, but their influence on Flynn is not readily apparent.  Flynn could hardly be considered on the same branch of the architectural tree as Macdonald.  Flynn and Ross were more closely aligned.  It would be interesting to consider if Ross's style eventually drifted closer to Flynn's than the other way around.  Flynn's architectural career did not chronologically follow Raynor.

While this may mute abrubt lines and fool many golfers/observers, it would appear that this process could only succeed where funds were plentiful.

I disagree that this process can only take place with Rockefeller type money.  Plenty of other courses were built in the same way.  Yes, there were Tyngs, Geists, Laskers, etc involved.  However, some of the richest clients of all hired Macdonald and Raynor.  Yet, they didn't build the way Flynn did.  I don't see it being a question of deep pockets but more an appreciation of a design style.  Flynn had his fans and Macdonald and his protoges had their own.  Again, when an architect, especially a brilliant router, uses as much of the land as possible he will save money or be cost competitive even if he uses more fill on other holes that required architectural features that were tied better into the surroundings.  The fill was found on site and could be creatively obtained producing features such as bunkers and hollows that add interest while making natural looking tie-ins possible.  You can see the fill scars around NGLA.  Don't you think it was expensive to perch those greens so high there and elsewhere?  Those Knolls, Shorts, Redans, Biarritzes, etc. were not cheap to build.  You conveniently overlook the manufactured greens of MacRayBanks were not cheap compared to a natural low profile style.  Come on, Pat, get with the program  

[wsmorrison]

Flynn believed that spending more in the beginning would allow you to spend less over time in terms of maintenance cost that will be far more costly in the long run than initial construction expenditures.

I don't know that I accept your premise, especially circa 1929 and shortly thereafter when Flynn built a number of courses.

The number of courses Flynn designed after the onset of the Depression was five.  Shinnecock Hills was already started.  He designed Normandy Shores, Plymouth CC (NC), Pocantico Hills, US Naval Academy and complete redesign of Indian Spring finished by Gordon after Flynn's death.

You can only recapture the additional construction costs vis a vis reduced maintainance costs over time IF the golf course survives, and survives for a long, long time.

I think this concept was known to the many golf clubs and developers that hired Flynn.  It is not a modern understanding.

The early architects were quite frugal and/or efficient.

And it often showed.  You should realize that as one of the great green keepers and agronomic minds in American golf, Flynn had a much better understanding of frugal and efficient than Macdonald, Raynor, Banks and a host of other architects.  He designed with cost effectiveness in mind.  Do you think his concept of saving money over time is inaccurate?  I'd like to hear and have asked architects and superintendents to comment.  Certainly his ability to surface and subsurface drain a golf course saves a great deal of money over time.  So does the use of natural angles and natural looking tie-ins.

As for frugal and efficient, do you know how much money the bone-headed design and construction mistakes at The Creek Club cost the club?  Do you know that Macdonald in an ungentlemanly way fingered Raynor?  Do you know of the agronomic failure at NGLA?  They made many costly errors.

Flynn openly states that he was extravagant by comparison when it came to construction.

He does?  Where does he state that?  I believe it is a result of your interpretation rather than any actual statement.  Flynn's statement in the Rockefeller letter said using more fill is more expensive than not.  He was not referring to the overall expense of his golf courses compared to others.

His courses are less changed than most and his courses remain championship courses longer than most with the preplanned lengthening that is allowed.

I don't know that I agree with that statement.
While I haven't played as many Flynn courses as you have, I don't find your statement applying to some of the Flynn courses I've played, such as Atlantic City, Springdale and Woodcrest.

Atlantic City and Springdale were redesigns on a restricted amount of land.  Woodcrest was designed as a public golf course and has been so bastardized that there is very little Flynn left.  I've asked you to come to Philadelphia.  There you will be reacquainted with Merion and see Huntingdon Valley, Rolling Green, Philadelphia Country, Manufacturers, Lancaster, etc.  Then you'll have an idea about his elasticity and test of time record.  

I do like Flynn's work/courses, but, presently, I'm not ready to elevate him to MacDonald's level.

You haven't seen enough of his courses and you have a predisposition to Macdonald.  That's why you need to come to  Philadelphia for more exposure to Flynn and deprogramming    

I don't put him on Macdonald's level either, Pat.  He was much more advanced and original in theory and practice.

In your zeal to glorify Flynn, you erringly denegrate CBM-SR-CB, all of whom understood elasticity and that golf wasn't a static game.

I am not glorifying Flynn at the expense of MacRayBanks, though they do pale in many comparisons.  I am pointing out differences.  I'll let others determine the result of those differences.  Yes, these are preferred differences to me, but the fact is, the Father of American Golf fathered one trick ponies.  He had talent but it was simplified and replicated by his protoges.  You don't like my assessment and I don't mind.  If MacRayBanks understood elasticity, where is it?  If they understood golf was not a static game, where did they discuss it?  If they did know it, I fail to see it exhibited in their architecture.  Please explain.

Perhaps you could point to the elasticity enjoyed by the 10th hole at Merion.

There is none.  However, I can point to hundreds of Flynn holes that were designed with elasticity.  Come down to Philadelphia. I'll show you.  Afterwards, you can buy me dinner  

I don't think you serve Flynn well by denegrating the triumvirate, but, that's just my opinion.

I criticize the triumvirate.  Maybe I cross the line into denigration now and then.  It is only because the supporters of them, particularly Raynor and Banks overlook so much and accept really strange devices.  However, I separate Macdonald from them and criticize him to a far less degree.  I love some of his work, but not all.  The work of Raynor and Banks speaks for itself.  Unfortunately, there are too many deaf ears  

[Mike Hendren]

Macan's 2nd at Fircrest is a doozy.  440 yds from the whites and 450 from the tips.  The blind drive is over a rise some 150 yards from the tee.  From there the fairway drops dramatically all the way to the green with a flat ledge cut at about 250 to 270 from the tee from which most approaches will be played.  

Despite severe downhill approach the front of the green is not visible due to steep mound in the middle of the fairway approximately 20 yards short of the green.  A small berm rings the sides and back of the green to create the punchbowl effect, which wasn't obvious to me until I exited the green.  

Fircrest is a real treat.  

Cos or Tommy, how 'bout a photo of the 2nd?

Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

If you allow me my definition of naturalism, that is using nature as much as possible and mimicking nature to hide constructed features, then we can discuss the issue with a higher degree of understanding.  

Wayne,

If I allow that, then the conclusion is predisposed.

I understand your position, but, you can't couch heavily contstructed features as "naturalism".  If you wanted to call it "pseudo-naturalism" or "faux-naturalism", I wouldn't have a problem with that.  But, categorizing it as "naturalism" is misleading and doesn't reflect the processes that Flynn employed to build his features.[/color]

The reason I choose to consider naturalism in the way I do is to differentiate that design process from minimalism, which to me is using the land as you find it.  Minimalist designs include Sand Hills and many links courses.

I understand, but, "naturalism" is a misleading label.[/color]

Pat Mucci might think that green to tee crossovers is a design flaw, I do not when the technique results in excellence such as at Lehigh and Merion.

Actually, those weren't my thoughts.
They were the thoughts of others who were highly critical of Rees Jones, citing, the crossovers at Atlantic as design flaws.

In rebuttal, I merely cited the crossovers at Merion, insinuating that they couldn't have it both ways.

However, my own thoughts are that it is a design flaw, irrespective of the finished product.  When the product is outstanding, as I believe Merion is, the flaw tends to get minimized or accepted.  But, from a purist perspective, you can't believe that crossovers aren't a design flaw ... can you ?

I don't get it.  They weren't your thoughts but they are your thoughts?  Is that what you are trying to say?  

To "get it",you have to consider, understand and factor in the chronological order of the discussion related to that topic.
When you look at the time frame in which the discussion evolved, it becomes quite clear.[/color]

Crossovers are not a design flaw when the improvements are worthwhile.  They are the results of design constraints.  How architects surmount those constraints can be brilliant or flawed.  So I believe crossovers can be either one depending upon specific results.

Your defensive position   implies that there were NO alternatives, which may not be the case.  And, if there were  design alternatives (routing and individual hole design) that would have produced a good product, then the crossovers can be considered a flaw in the resulting design.

You choose to frame the issue under the assumption that there was but ONE decent design available.  If anything, YORK CC should have destroyed that notion.[/color]

Don't Flynn's own words in his letter dispel the notion that he was a "naturalist"?  And that he was as much of a "constructionist" if not more so than other architects ?

He never calls or labels himself a constructionist, you do.  He called himself the Nature Faker.  Yes, at times he used more construction efforts than other architects but he did so to mimic natural features and rarely had to throughout a golf course (exception is Indian Creek on a man-made island).  This is why I use the term naturalism...not to be confused with minimalism.  Naturalism should not imply the complete reliance on what nature presents or, as you say, leaving the land as you found it (that's minimalism) but rather a respect for and imitation of nature when necessary.

I think you've chosen an inaccurate and inappropriate label for him.

I don't consider faking nature or constructing something to look natural to be a "natural" process.  That's why I think the terms "pseudo-naturalist" or "faux-naturalist" are more applicable.[/color]

It was easier for Flynn because MacDonald led the way with Raynor at his side.  Each successive generation always benefits from those who went before them.

In any effort, those that follow benefit from those that came before, even if the influence is not readily determined.  Macdonald's earliest efforts at Chicago GC can hardly be considered important architecture.  It influenced the spread of the sport but the design style with its geometric shapes and primitive designs did not reflect the links courses but more so the steeple chase courses in vogue at the time.


You can't confine CBM's-SR's architectural efforts to Chicago GC, their work and style was far more expansive than that.
Once again, you've erroneously chosen to take an isolated incident and expand it to a universal truth.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

NGLA was the first important design by Macdonald.  Flynn already had a course designed by that time.  

A course lost in obscurity[/color]

Flynn never followed Macdonald's process of culling ideas from actual holes in the UK and repeating those ideas on each successive course.  

That's not the issue.
The genesis of each's design theories is irrelevant.
It's the building of the product that we're discussing.
The heavy handed construction techniques.[/color]

While Macdonald had original ideas and strong ones at NGLA and later on, Flynn clearly rejected the notion as did others.  

Flynn and others such as MacKenzie went in a different direction towards naturalism, which has cycled back in this era far more so than I believe will occur as a result of Old Macdonald.  Yes, Hugh Wilson and Flynn were influenced by Macdonald but they, and others, were intent on developing an American style of architecture.  With that came an American way of thinking about golf.  Macdonald could not tolerate the lack of regard for the roots of the game.  In some ways I agree with him, but you cannot stop the will to innovate in America.

I understand differences in "style".

I think part of the problem is that many couch the entire body of the work by CBM-SR-CB in the context of templates when their work extended far beyond template holes.

Would you categorize # 18 at Yale as a template or an original concept ideally suited to the "natural" lay of the land ?

Look at photos of the original 18th green at Yale and tell me if there isn't something that might cause you to classify it as a MacKenzie type green and surrounds.

CBM-SR-CB were more original than you give them credit for.[/color]

As to your categorization of Doak as a naturalist, I'd be interested in his perception of his work at Pacific Dunes and Sebonack

If he uses your definition of naturalism, I have no doubt what his perception would be.  However, I cannot understand why one would use that definition.

Flynn had the luxury of following CBM-SR and early Ross.

You keep forgetting that Charles Blair MacDonald was the "Father" of American Architecture.

Again, Flynn did follow CBM and early Ross chronologically, but their influence on Flynn is not readily apparent.  

Of course it is.  Flynn himself, writes that he's a heavy constructionist, far more so than his peers.  He followed, perfectly, in CBM's-SR's footsteps, vis a vis the use of heavy construction to build features.  His departure was that he took additional construction steps to hide his work.[/color]

Flynn could hardly be considered on the same branch of the architectural tree as Macdonald.  Flynn and Ross were more closely aligned.  It would be interesting to consider if Ross's style eventually drifted closer to Flynn's than the other way around.  Flynn's architectural career did not chronologically follow Raynor.

"Styles" usually evolve when given time.
 Some are defined and remain static from the outset.
In terms of construction, Flynn took the path that CBM-SR blazed.  Flynn took the added step of covering his "construction" tracks.[/color]

While this may mute abrubt lines and fool many golfers/observers, it would appear that this process could only succeed where funds were plentiful.

I disagree that this process can only take place with Rockefeller type money.  Plenty of other courses were built in the same way.  Yes, there were Tyngs, Geists, Laskers, etc involved.  However, some of the richest clients of all hired Macdonald and Raynor.  Yet, they didn't build the way Flynn did.  

Sure they did.
They were "constructionists", as was Flynn, who admitted that he was MORE of a constructionist than his peers.
Wayne, you can't refute FLYNN'S own words, can you ?[/color]

I don't see it being a question of deep pockets but more an appreciation of a design style.  

I'm not so sure that it was a preference for his design style, rather, it may have been a combination of factors, like personality, projects in process and convenience.
I see an element of geographical coincidence where Flynn was concerned.[/color]

Flynn had his fans and Macdonald and his protoges had their own.  

I'm not so sure that it was confined to architecture.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Again, when an architect, especially a brilliant router, uses as much of the land as possible he will save money or be cost competitive even if he uses more fill on other holes that required architectural features that were tied better into the surroundings.  

What evidence exists that Flynn was any better of a router than Ross, Dr Mac, CBM, SR or CB.

Courses didn't come into existance by having an architect design them first with the owners buying the land after the product was finished.

Clubs bougth land, sometimes in consultation with a prospective architect, and then built the golf course.

I don't buy your "cost saving" argument.[/color]  

The fill was found on site and could be creatively obtained producing features such as bunkers and hollows that add interest while making natural looking tie-ins possible.  You can see the fill scars around NGLA.  

I"m not so sure of that.
I've debated that issue with TEPaul and others.

What fill scars were you refering to ?[/color]

Don't you think it was expensive to perch those greens so high there and elsewhere?  Those Knolls, Shorts, Redans, Biarritzes, etc. were not cheap to build.  

I'd agree, but, the genius of CBM-SR-CB was finding the appropriate land forms in which to place those holes.
The "Alps" and Redan are perfect examples, and, by finding the right setting or site, construction costs were minimized.[/color]

You conveniently overlook the manufactured greens of MacRayBanks were not cheap compared to a natural low profile style.  

No, I didn't.
But, I also realize that their designs extended far beyond "manufacturing" everything, which is something you haven't acknowledged.  

I defy you to show me how the 2nd or 8th green at Westhampton shows ANY trace of manufacturing.

In your attempt to differentiate Flynn from the Triumvirate, you've determined that EVERYTHING that they designed and built was manufactured, when nothing could be further from the truth.[/color]

Come on, Pat, get with the program  


I've been hearing that request/invitation for 55+ years.
It's a little late for me to "jump on the bandwagon" [/color]

[wsmorrison]

Naturalism in art is the treatment of forms as they appear or might appear in nature.  

The use of the term should be perfectly acceptable.  Architecture by definition (although not yours as has previously been discussed) is man made.  How else would you differentiate between architecture that is meant to look natural and that which clearly is not meant to mimic nature?  Many (although you accuse me, I never said all) greens by Raynor and Banks look man-made.  They took no extra effort to hide that fact.  Early Ross greens and earlier American golf architects likewise did little to hide the hand of man.  Some do not.  Most Flynn greens have a more natural look, not all.

I wouldn't search for terms like faux-naturalist or whatever else you came up with.  Flynn called himself the Nature Faker.  That should suit your needs.



"In your attempt to differentiate Flynn from the Triumvirate, you've determined that EVERYTHING that they designed and built was manufactured, when nothing could be further from the truth."

Please show me where I said EVERYTHING they designed was manufactured looking.  You should know that I am not now saying, nor have I ever said, that this is always the case.  You use one or a few exceptions to refute a trend.  That makes for a poor argument.

"You can't confine CBM's-SR's architectural efforts to Chicago GC, their work and style was far more expansive than that.
Once again, you've erroneously chosen to take an isolated incident and expand it to a universal truth."

I didn't confine myself to that effort.  You made the statement that CBM was the father of American golf.  I chose to cite an example where his earliest efforts (preceding Flynn's) were not very sophisticated nor were they influential on Flynn.

"They were "constructionists", as was Flynn, who admitted that he was MORE of a constructionist than his peers.
Wayne, you can't refute FLYNN'S own words, can you ?

Flynn never admitted any such thing.  You misinterpret his own words.  He didn't say he used excess fill all the time to tie in his features naturally to their surrounds.  He didn't have to do that all the time because his design style and use of natural features as much as possible didn't require that he do so.  Again, all he said was that where he used excess fill to tie in, it is more expensive to do so and takes more time.  Flynn didn't have an output factory like other architects.  He devoted a lot more time on site and made a more natural looking golf course.  Some of the effort to to do cost more than not doing so.  You are the one that extrapolates and says the entire golf course had to be more expensive.  I don't think that is always true.

"In terms of construction, Flynn took the path that CBM-SR blazed."

Such as?

"CBM-SR-CB were more original than you give them credit for."

That isn't true.  Because, while you may believe that I state all their work is template, I have not nor do I feel that way.  I recognize where they are original and where they are not.  The fact remains that template models are not original and restrict design freedom.

"What evidence exists that Flynn was any better of a router than Ross, Dr Mac, CBM, SR or CB."

I didn't say that Flynn was a better router than Ross, MacKenzie, CBM, Raynor or Banks.  Given the methodologies of Raynor and Banks, I think it is easy to imagine why he would be.  As for Ross, there are major differences in their approach to routing.  Depending upon the specific club mandates, one might be better than the other for that specific purpose.  I'll let others determine for themselves which is better.  It would help if the differences are recognized.  Regarding CBM's routing abilities, he probably didn't have enough courses to draw conclusions.  I don't think he selected the best land for NGLA out of all that was available.  Whether this was do to a desire to find sites that suited some of his polled concept holes is debatable.  

I think the chapter that considers Ross and Flynn routings for CC of York that I am trying to finish with the help of Craig Disher and Bob Crosby will be of interest to a great many students and practitioners of golf architecture.

Please explain to me how Seth Raynor used natural landforms to create the Redans at Fox Chapel and the Country Club of Charleston.  How about the Biarritz hole at Fox Chapel?  More than any other architects, by a rather large factor, Raynor and Banks created manufactured green sites perched well above the surrounding grade without tie-ins to blend them into the surroundings in any manner that replicated nature.  

"I don't buy your "cost saving" argument."

It isn't my argument.  It is Flynn's.  I've asked superintendents and architects to comment.  But nobody has.  They probably can't get past your obfuscations  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Flynn believed that spending more in the beginning would allow you to spend less over time in terms of maintenance cost that will be far more costly in the long run than initial construction expenditures.

I don't know that I accept your premise, especially circa 1929 and shortly thereafter when Flynn built a number of courses.

The number of courses Flynn designed after the onset of the Depression was five.  Shinnecock Hills was already started.  He designed Normandy Shores, Plymouth CC (NC), Pocantico Hills, US Naval Academy and complete redesign of Indian Spring finished by Gordon after Flynn's death.

Shinnecock was a redesign of an existing golf course.
Pocantico had unlimited funds available and I"m sure his Southern courses were well funded.  Government contractors seem to have adequate funds available, so I don't think any of those clients considered, let alone weighed the projected maintainance costs in relation to the construction costs.[/color]

You can only recapture the additional construction costs vis a vis reduced maintainance costs over time IF the golf course survives, and survives for a long, long time.

I think this concept was known to the many golf clubs and developers that hired Flynn.  It is not a modern understanding.


You seem to feel that it was a possible linch pin to his selection.  I think it was a non-existant factor.[/color]


The early architects were quite frugal and/or efficient.

And it often showed.  You should realize that as one of the great green keepers and agronomic minds in American golf, Flynn had a much better understanding of frugal and efficient than Macdonald, Raynor, Banks and a host of other architects.  

That's your belief.
How would Flynn's HIGHER understanding of green keeping and agronomy translate into maintainance cost savings vis a vis the design of his greens ?  Especially on greens that were at grade level ?[/color]


He designed with cost effectiveness in mind.  Do you think his concept of saving money over time is inaccurate?  I'd like to hear and have asked architects and superintendents to comment.  Certainly his ability to surface and subsurface drain a golf course saves a great deal of money over time.


How did he design with cost effectiveness in mind ?

When you consider the elevated nature of many of CB-SR-CB's greens, good drainage would be inherent in their designs.[/color]

So does the use of natural angles and natural looking tie-ins.

As for frugal and efficient, do you know how much money the bone-headed design and construction mistakes at The Creek Club cost the club?  

That's disengenuous of you.

The design remains brilliant, even on the hostile portion of the property.

For you to cite a golf course, a portion of which was built on a hostile flood/tidal zone as an example of an error in design/construction costs that resulted in higher maintainance costs is to distort, misrepresent and selectively ignore the material facts[/color]

Do you know that Macdonald in an ungentlemanly way fingered Raynor?  Do you know of the agronomic failure at NGLA?  They made many costly errors.

That's also a gross misrepresentation of the facts.
NGLA was the experimental genesis of American Architecture.

CBM cites the NGLA site as abounding in bogs and swamps, so isolated that it had never been surveyed.  That property was thought to be worthless.  He also cited the difficulty in growing grass on sites on the Eastern End of Long Island, stating that extensive top dressing would have to occur.

There was NO KNOWN body of knowledge with respect to taking golf from the UK with it's soils, grasses and climates and pacakaging and transporting it to America in perfect working order.

To cite the agronomic difficulties at NGLA as evidence of CBM's failure in design and construction techniques is intellectually dishonest.[/color]

Flynn openly states that he was extravagant by comparison when it came to construction.

He does?  Where does he state that?  I believe it is a result of your interpretation rather than any actual statement.  Flynn's statement in the Rockefeller letter said using more fill is more expensive than not.  He was not referring to the overall expense of his golf courses compared to others.[color]

Wayne, how can you ignore Flynn's written word ?
He clearly states that his construction needs and techniques are more expensive than the techniques of his peers.
His words should be irrefutable evidence, even to a Flynnophile such as yourself.

While I agree that his finished products were terrific, you can't deny the heavy hand he himself declared to be in use.[/color]

His courses are less changed than most and his courses remain championship courses longer than most with the preplanned lengthening that is allowed.

I don't know that I agree with that statement.
While I haven't played as many Flynn courses as you have, I don't find your statement applying to some of the Flynn courses I've played, such as Atlantic City, Springdale and Woodcrest.

Atlantic City and Springdale were redesigns on a restricted amount of land.  

Isn't that true of every architect's site ?[/color]

Woodcrest was designed as a public golf course and has been so bastardized that there is very little Flynn left.  

In the paragraph above you declared that his courses are less changed than others, and in this paragraph you declare that his course was so dramatically changed that very little remains.    That's contradictory.

By the way, I think some of the holes at Woodcrest are phenomenal.  I only wish the "across the road" holes had been built as designed.[/color]

I've asked you to come to Philadelphia.  There you will be reacquainted with Merion and see Huntingdon Valley, Rolling Green, Philadelphia Country, Manufacturers, Lancaster, etc.  Then you'll have an idea about his elasticity and test of time record.

I had a detached retina which prevented me from playing golf this July and August, but, I'll definitely make my pilgrimage to Philadelphia, starting this spring.  I'm anxious to see more of his work. [/color]

I do like Flynn's work/courses, but, presently, I'm not ready to elevate him to MacDonald's level.

You haven't seen enough of his courses and you have a predisposition to Macdonald.  That's why you need to come to  Philadelphia for more exposure to Flynn and deprogramming    

The good Lord willing, I'll visit in 2008.[/color]

I don't put him on Macdonald's level either, Pat.  He was much more advanced and original in theory and practice.

In your zeal to glorify Flynn, you erringly denegrate CBM-SR-CB, all of whom understood elasticity and that golf wasn't a static game.

I am not glorifying Flynn at the expense of MacRayBanks, though they do pale in many comparisons.  I am pointing out differences.  I'll let others determine the result of those differences.  Yes, these are preferred differences to me, but the fact is, the Father of American Golf fathered one trick ponies.  He had talent but it was simplified and replicated by his protoges.  

When you confine your understanding of CBM's-SR's-CB's architecture, solely to templates, you're doomed to miss much of their great work.  And, I fear that's what you've chosen to do.  

Let me extend an invitation to you to visit and play some of their work in the Met Area, where you'll be enlightened. [/color]

You don't like my assessment and I don't mind.  If MacRayBanks understood elasticity, where is it?  If they understood golf was not a static game, where did they discuss it?  If they did know it, I fail to see it exhibited in their architecture.  Please explain.

That's because, like TEPaul, your vision tends to be Myopic  

It's evident if you know how and where to look.[/color]

Perhaps you could point to the elasticity enjoyed by the 10th hole at Merion.

There is none.  However, I can point to hundreds of Flynn holes that were designed with elasticity.  Come down to Philadelphia. I'll show you.  Afterwards, you can buy me dinner  

You know that I owe you, in perpetuity, for the tip on the Philadelphia Zoo and 300 Cub Scouts, so dinner on me is the least I can do to repay you.  What could have been one of the worst nights of my life, turned out to be semi-enjoyable, and for that, I'm eternally grateful.[/color]

I don't think you serve Flynn well by denegrating the triumvirate, but, that's just my opinion.

I criticize the triumvirate.  Maybe I cross the line into denigration now and then.  It is only because the supporters of them, particularly Raynor and Banks overlook so much and accept really strange devices.  However, I separate Macdonald from them and criticize him to a far less degree.  I love some of his work, but not all.  The work of Raynor and Banks speaks for itself.  Unfortunately, there are too many deaf ears  

How would you quantify and qualify Toomey's work in relation to Raynor's work ?

I think you have to see MORE of SR and CB's work.
They produced a lot of good products.[/color]

[Patrick_Mucci]

“…our method of building Golf Courses varies somewhat from the general practice in that we use [size=4x]considerably greater quantities of material in developing construction. [/size]

This is brought about by blending slopes naturally into surrounding surfaces, so as to present a pleasing effect to the eye, and not marring the landscape.  

Naturally [size=4x]this sort of construction is more expensive[/size] than that obtained from stereotype ideas, but in the long run great savings may be effected in the maintenance expense by the elimination of costly hand work.”[/i]


Wayne,

And you don't think he was trying to sell and justify his high construction costs to old JD by telling him that his grandchildren would eventually benefit from maintainance savings  [/color]

[Kyle Harris]

Constructionist Flynn:






"Picnic Blanket upon the land" Flynn:













Flynn knew when to be constructionist and when not to be...

[Dean DiBerardino]

#2 @ Fox Chapel GC in Pittsburgh.  A Raynor design.  Classic downhill punchbowl.

Allan,

I agree.  At 473 yards from the member tees, I'm sure it receives many low running shots that feed on to the green from the left side.