West Hampton Golf Club

[Thomas MacWood]

George
Have you ever heard of Charles L. House and Jimmy Rosser before? Both evidently were Princeton graduates from 1909, were they part of Raynor's team, assuming he had a team?

[George_Bahto]

Have you ever heard of Charles L. House and Jimmy Rosser before? Both evidently were Princeton graduates from 1909, were they part of Raynor's team, assuming he had a team


House no, Tom, but Rosser sounds familiar

[TEPaul]

"TE
I think you may have missed the point. No one is saying Macdonald, Raynor or Barker invented the punchbowl green, rather Macdonald and Raynor never produced a punchbowl par-3, at least thats my understanding. Where as Barker designed one at Detroit. "


Mr. MacWood:

No, I didn't miss your point at all, I simply made another point about punchbowl greens and the probablility of Raynor or Macdonald's familiarity with it. You say Raynor never designed a punchbowl green but he certainly did if he designed Westhampton. Also note what SPDB just said about punchbowl greens in the vicinity of Raynor's home.

This is why this website and some of the discussions on here are beneficial----eg this kind of information gets fed in here, and it helps in the analysis of architectural history and attribution.

[TEPaul]

GeorgeB:

Didn't you say to me that to your knowledge Seth Raynor never constructed a golf course for another designer other than C.B. Macdonald?

Also, in a post from yesterday you said that you believe Westhampton has or had what you referred to as a "concept" drawing by Raynor of Westhampton. It has always been my understanding (The Creek being an example) that a "concept" drawing, particularly by Raynor is a drawing that PRECEDED the actual construction of a golf course. Would you agree with that?

My point being if a "concept" drawing essentially preceded course construction and the Raynor "concept" drawing for Westhampton matches the way the course was laid out and designed it would seem to point to Raynor as the designer.

This of course does not mean at all that Barker may not have helped him (as the Westhampton history suggests) but if Barker was the type of architect Raynor was then one wonders where Barker's Westhampton drawings are (noone seems to mention such a thing from him) or if he even did such a thing. We are aware indirectly that he said he did a "rough sketch" in 1910 for a real estate developer in the process of trying to sell land to MCC but to my knowledge noone I know of has seen that Barker Merion "sketch".

[Thomas MacWood]

The questions I have about the drawing:

1. Why is there a rough drawing of the original drawing in the history book instead of the original? The original Banks drawing is in the book.

2. Does the club still have the drawing? I don't believe the drawing is hanging in the pro shop today.

3. Is the drawing dated? The Banks drawing is dated May 1928.

4. Who drew it? Is Raynor's name on it or was it just assumed he drew it?

5. What was its purpose? Pre-construction, post-construction, informal working drawing, survey, landscape plan, subdivision plan, formal plan for framing, a redesign plan...


In 1914 Seth Raynor, Civil Engineer, advertised his services as follows:

Landscape Engineer and Surveyor

Grounds, Formal Gardens, Golf Courses laid out according to approved designs to conform with surroundings

Plotting and Subdividing of Tracts

Title Surveys

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The 11th hole at Westhampton was lengthened by Green Chairman.

It would appear to be the classic "short" hole, with the truncated volcano like foot pad surrounded by a moat like bunker.

In addition, the putting surface has the classic internal movement found on most CBM-SR-CB shorts.

The 14th has the plateau green found at so many CBM-SR-CB courses.

In addition, the 15th green and surrounds is also a punchbowl configuration.

The 6th is a pretty good Redan given the flat topography

The analogy between # 17 at WH and # 12 at GCGC is interesting.

Both had horseshoe shaped bunkers fronting the green.
However, # 17 green at WH is more of an extreme plateau in the back of the green, almost identical to the green on # 6 at Piping Rock, and not that different in principle from the 14th green at WH.

The green on # 12 at GCGC was flat, front to back, with flanking mounds.
There are no such mounds at WH, and the back of the green at # 14 and especially # 17 is raised well above the fronting tier/putting surface.

As to # 16 at WH being a mirror image of # 5 at GCGC, that's more of a stretch, especially in light of the topography, but, I can see similarities.

You have to remember that CBM was a member of GCGC, hence the adoption of a hole from GCGC, or principals as evidenced by a hole at GCGC would seem quite natural for CBM and/or SR.

In reviewing each hole and the pronounced features of each hole at WH, they certainly seem to have a CBM-SR-CB flavor, from the bunkering to the construction, to the internal putting surfaces, and, the relationship of those items to one another.

What I find interesting is that the plans for WH evidently differ from the "as built"

I'd like to see where the two plans differ.

George Bahto,

Can you shed some light on the major differences in the two plans ?

[George_Bahto]

I'll check it out as soon as I can Pat

also about Garden City:

There were a number of occasions Raynor referred to holes at Garden City as an inspiration for holes he was designing ...... such as "similar to Garden  City's hole 7th" or whatever .... now don't ask me to find out which they were because I don't have the time to go thru that material

Raynor also referred to a few holes at Nassau as inspiration

[Patrick_Mucci]

George Bahto,

That makes sense.

GCGC was a, if not "The" championship golf course in their day.

There's an old aerial photo of Nassau hanging in the locker room.
It appears to have been a spectacular golf course.

Let us know how the pre-construction plans differ from the "as built"

Thanks

[George_Bahto]

Tom Mc:
"The questions I have about the drawing":

1. Why is there a rough drawing of the original drawing in the history book instead of the original?  ........ who knows.....     The original Banks drawing is in the book.

2. Does the club still have the drawing? .........   it is "around" .... I don't believe the drawing is hanging in the pro shop today. ... it isn't, I'm sure....

3. Is the drawing dated? ........  I don't remember. It was Sept 1997 when I traced the individual holes from the original blueprint  (in this case an off-white print  ) ......  The Banks drawing is dated May 1928.

4. Who drew it?  ......  don't know .....  Is Raynor's name on it or was it just assumed he drew it?  ..... I think it was, Tom

5. What was its purpose? Pre-construction, post-construction, informal working drawing, survey, landscape plan, subdivision plan, formal plan for framing, a redesign plan... ..........  Raynor's drawing was the plan for the course - it may have even had topo lines (certainly they were small)  ..... the original Oneck drawing was there that day as well .......

sorry I can't do color!! maybe Pat will teach me

[George_Bahto]

Tom Mc: the reference to the Raynor advertisement:

He closed down the business in Southampton at just about that time .... probably 1915 - later he and Banks opened an office in New York City

[Thomas MacWood]

Pat
You're right about the 11th being lengthened. On the old map the hole is 130 yards with a bunkerless green.

Do you see any similarities between the horseshoe bunker at WCC #3 and the old 12th at GCGC? That bunker may actually be a closer cousin.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat
You're right about the 11th being lengthened. On the old map the hole is 130 yards with a bunkerless green.

Do you see any similarities between the horseshoe bunker at WCC #3 and the old 12th at GCGC? That bunker may actually be a closer cousin.

Tom,

I think they're very similar.

The greens are quite different.

Westhampton has made # 17 a very nice Biarritz.

The green goes right up to the fronting bunker.

Hole locations up front, and on the top tier are a real challenge.

It's a wonderfully sporty golf course that gets lost in the shadow of its neighbors down the road.

[George_Bahto]

The Westhampton Short has an enormous green, twice as wide as it is deep, close to 10,000 sq ft - 130 ft by about 75. Unfortunately the club, looking for scorecard yardage, altered the original intent of the hole, a Short, into near 190-yard non-Short from the back yardage.

Fortunately, they do not seem to use the back tee very much.

[Gene Greco]

Raynor designed a punchbowl par 3 at  Southampton.

   There is no Punchbowl par 3 at Southampton GC.

There is a Short (#3) with a thumbprint green, a Redan (#7), an Eden (#10) and a Biarritz (#14) which was modified in the 1960s removing all the qualities of such.

The Punchbowl is #16 which is a 350 yd par 4 which had a Principal's Nose bunker removed in the 60s as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Gene Greco,

Is there any interest in restoration on the club's part ?

One would think that with CBM and SR nearby, that Southampton would restore those features that are identified with their work.

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood said:

"I have found numerous cases where clubs are either uncertain or confused about their course's origins."


So have we. Off the top of my head those courses would include:

1. Concord CC. Once called Brinton Lakes. The club thought the course was designed by Ross. We proved it was designed by Flynn by producing his preconstruction drawings that were the same as "as built". The club now considers the course to be Flynn.

2. Philmont North. The club believed the course was Flynn and we and Bob Labbance proved the course was a Willie Park Jr. design. I believe the club is prepared to recognize the course as a Park design.

3. Merion East. The design work done by Flynn in the teens and early 1920s in conjunction with Hugh Wilson, and some design work done by Flynn following Wilson's death. The club now recognizes the design contribution by Flynn. As to the original course designed in 1911 and opened for play in 1912 the club's administrative records (board meeting minutes) explain the course was designed by Hugh Wilson and his four man committee. Those club records explain that MCC and Wilson and committee were helped on three occasions by C.B. Macdonald and H.J. Whigam via a day at Ardmore looking over proposed land, about nine months later in a day and a half visit to NGLA and a day visit in April to review Wilson plans and the ground prior to construction. It has been suggested in an essay on here that Macdonald and Whigam routed the course in 1910 and that they were the "creative force" in the design of Merion East. I do not believe the club finds that suggestion or implication credible given the club records that indicate to the contrary that the course was laid out and designed by Wilson and his committee. I expect the design attribution of Merion East and West will continue to be Wilson/Flynn.

4. Kittansett G.C. The club believed the course was designed by club member Frederick Hood. When shown, about 5-6 years ago Flynn hole by hole preconstruction drawings which the club had not previously seen and were unaware of the club now recognized Flynn as the architect. The confusion may've arisen by the fact that Hood may've hired his own local crews to construct the course rather than using Flynn's construction division.

5. Jeffersonville GC. The municipal course thought it was a Ross. The course operaters had no records of that. Ross's foreman J.B. McGovern was then considered to be the designer from evidence from his daughter as well as an unusual bunkering scheme that matched the bunkers of Aronimink that McGovern worked on as well as the fact he was a member. Eventually, on prompting by the course operaters billing records were found in an attic in Norristown that indicate the Ross Co. was paid for the project.

6. Shinnecock G.C. For a time the club thought Dick Wilson was their designer. Apparently Wilson told them that on a visit in the late 1950s or early 1960s. The production of Flynn preconstruction drawings that the club was not previously aware of indicate Toomey and Flynn designed the course. The club now attributes the design accordingly.


Should Westhampton G.C. who has always attributed the design of their course to Seth Raynor now look into altering their design attribution to H.H. Barker on the strength of a single article in 1915 in Golf Magazine? Secondly, should they look into the details of why their history credits Raynor for their design? I think they should. If they are lucky enough to have administrative records as indicative as Merion's or drawings as indicative of Concord's and Kittansett's the answers to this question should be close to confirmed. Unfortunately, I do not believe Philmont's administrative records from the time of the creation of Philmont North exist any longer, but there seems to be ample and credible contemporaneous letter writing evidence that the design was by Willie Park Jr. That letter writing was between the club member responsible for the creation of the course and well-known Philadelphia golfer J. Wood Platt just after the opening of the course.

[Thomas MacWood]

In reviewing each hole and the pronounced features of each hole at WH, they certainly seem to have a CBM-SR-CB flavor, from the bunkering to the construction, to the internal putting surfaces, and, the relationship of those items to one another.

Pat
Considering that Raynor was at the very least involved in the construction of the course one would expect a CBM-SR-CB flavor, and Barker was certainly not opposed to collaboration. During his brief career he worked with Travis, Colt, Way, Auchterlonie, Adair and Raynor....that we know of. Its interesting you mention the internal putting sufaces, in Doak's Confidential Guide he said the greens at Westhampton were the most radical Raynor greens he had ever seen.

[Thomas MacWood]

Should Westhampton G.C. who has always attributed the design of their course to Seth Raynor now look into altering their design attribution to H.H. Barker on the strength of a single article in 1915 in Golf Magazine? Secondly, should they look into the details of why their history credits Raynor for their design? I think they should. If they are lucky enough to have administrative records as indicative as Merions or drawings as indicative of Concord's and Kittansett's the answers to this question should be close to confirmed. Unfortunately, I do not believe Philmon't administrative records from the time of the creation of Philmont North exist any longer, but there seems to be ample and credible contemporaneous letter writing evidence that the design was by Willie Park Jr.

TE
You say Westhampton has always attributed the design to Raynor. What is the earliest mention you have found claiming Raynor designed the course?

[TEPaul]

Mr. MacWood:

I have never looked into the design attribution or the architectural history of Westhampton G.C. other than spending some hours there on a few occasions with Mike Rewinski. And I did play in their VERY BIG three day member/guest perhaps ten years ago (that was the time my partner and I teed off first at 5:47am ). So I do not know what the earliest attribution to Raynor was. What I suggested above is the club should probably look into that if they feel a single article in Golf Magazine from 1915 suggesting that H.H. Barker was the designer is credible enough.

One small "timeline" note I might make to you and to Westhampton would be to determine as exactly as possible when the final design plan was generated as well as when the course first went into construction. If all that happens to be AFTER that article was written I think even you may be able to see why it may not be accurate. If, on the other hand, the article was AFTER the course was designed and went into construction as it opened then that article could be inherently more credible. These are the kinds of things I feel go into a credible arhitectural and historical analysis.

Again, I do not see it as an intelligent analytical process to simply proclaim a course was designed by someone on the strength of a single newspaper article as apparently you do. There is always a lot more to look into and the club itself is the best place to begin, in my opinion.