Flynn's Formulaic's

[Adam Clayman]

Having just experienced a sampling of the man's work, and having discussed some of the nuances with one of the greater Philly gentleman, who posts in this forum, I wanted to try and start to clarify what I've seen. Please add, correct, or, discuss any of the following topics

Flynn, for the most believed....and designed....

...Along ridge lines, not over them.

....Water should be either be easily carried, or not reachable. 

... Placed Trees 40 yards from the center of the DZ.

Yesterday I was fortunate to play Cherry Hills in Denver. I was somewhat surprised at how different it was from the courses I had just experienced in Pennsy. Some of that could be chalked up to club's culture, but most of of my surprise was ground related. The course was much flatter than expected. Plus, that Island green 17th seemed to violate one of the above formulas.

Thoughts?

Help?

[Rory Connaughton]

Adam:

  Curious to know what exactly you are referring to by the following:

           Along ridge lines, not over them

I can think of one obvious example of this but am thinking about 3, 5, 8 at LCC
and 14 at RG as inconsistent with this.  My guess is that my definition of "over" may be broader than yours

[Adam Clayman]

Rory, I'm actually only repeating what I was told. My interpretation, or understanding currently, has to with major ridge lines, versus the smaller hills that both Lancaster and RG scale. Hopefully, Mayday will chime in and tell us all what a dummy I am, for not understanding better what he meant.

After seeing Cherry Hills, I was fondly recalling Lancaster. I say fondly because there was very little at CH reminiscent of LCC, which was a disappointment, with only one or two examples that were similar in look and feel of those wonderful uphill approach shots at LCC.

Specifically, # 3 at LCC goes down that major ridge separating the two sections of the site, not technically over. #5 cleverly uses the bridge to get back up. But, since I pushed my shot, Mitch was thoughtful enough to have me avoid the bridge, and, I scaled the hill well to the right where it was a more gentle climb.

I would assume, while Flynn may have had his druthers, like all good gca's, strict adherence to formula, can create missed opportunities. Or, was he a hack? (esoteric joke for Mayday)

[Dan Herrmann]

I think Rory is correct.  I can think of several examples from Lehigh that don't conform to that "ridge lines" paradigm either.

Same for Rolling Green - Besides #14, I'd propose that #11 is an "up and over" type hole.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Adam,

Doesn't it all depend on the land?  Flynn's Woodcrest in Cherry Hill, NJ is a relatively flat course with no ridge lines that I can remember.

[JSlonis]

Adam,

I don't know if I'd agree with your point about Flynn's use of water.  In the Philadelphia area, at several courses, Flynn uses ponds and creeks very strategically.  I wouldn't say they are easily carried or not reachable.  I can think of several holes at Huntingdon Valley, Manufacturer's, Philly CC, Lancaster & even Rolling Green to a lesser extent where Flynn uses water hazards as a prominent feature in the design of the hole.

[JESII]

Mayday...you got some 'splainin to do...

Adam, did he say the trees were exactly 40 yards from the center?

[mike_malone]

 If I said "ridge" I used the wrong word. Usually I say Flynn preferred to find slanted land  so that interesting lies prevail throughout the hole versus laying the holes straight up and down the hill.

    As for trees, the only extensive study I have done is at Rolling Green. Here trees that were PLANTED early in the club's life were generally "out of play, separated holes, provided a backdrop, and shade on a hot day". They are usually  AT LEAST 40 yards from the center of the fairway. When there was a push to replace some removed evergreens on #4 with hardwoods we saw that the original design called for plantings there----30 yards past the target  in the DZ and 40 yards from the middle of the fairway. Trees that were there before the course was built are a different issue.

   In Flynn's USGA Green Section Bulletin of October 1927 he writes

      "One natural hazard, however, which is more or less of a nuisance is water. This is not nearly as bad when it parallels play and forms a picturesque landscape feature of the course. But when water is between the objective ( the green or driving area ) and the player , it may be that the man who plays only a foot short of the objective is much worse off than the one who makes a very poor shot that does not reach the water.

    In the first place the player is penalized a stroke with no chance of recovering it whereas the second player having played a worse shot gets by without penalty and may regain lost ground with a fine second shot. Water hazards absolutely prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps the best shot in the game. "

 In most instances at Rolling Green this is true. Only #8 fails the test but I wonder if that is mostly a function of how far tee balls go now .

    

[mike_malone]

 The most significant formulaic I heard was that greenside bunkers tend to be "2 low and 1 high".

[Adam Clayman]

Mayday,
 Well, he's no hack if he felt the recovery shot was the best in the game.

I think Mike's addendum about not traversing straight over hills, preferring the cant of a glancing assault, is interesting and really good stuff.

As for the current examples of water hazards that may not have been in keeping with his preference, could they be explained away because of owner's requests, or modern modifications? Did he really design the Island Par 5 on Cherry Hills' penultimate hole?

From my few samplings of his work, I'm interested enough to see more. Both Lancaster and Rolling Green had great atmosphere's at their clubs, quality golf, and, a member or two who know enough about GCA, and the sport, to convince their respective green's committee's, to respect their origins.

If ya'all could list your favorite Flynn course, maybe a good reference list could get started and be helpful for others going forward. 

[JSlonis]

Mayday,

It would appear to me that Flynn didn't practice what he preached.

I'd cite for example # 5, 11, 12, 13, & 17 at Huntingdon Valley. # 5 & 6 at Philly CC, # 4, 6, 7 & 11 at Lancaster. There are a couple at Manny's as well. I'm not that familiar with Lehigh but aren't there a couple there as well.   

[Dan Herrmann]

My favorite Flynn is Lancaster.
My least favorite is Woodcrest (not because of Flynn, but because of the fact that it's now almost an arboretum)

[Adam Clayman]

Dan, I was very impressed with Rolling Green's tree management. Even the dogleg left uphill 15th, which has the trees on the left side, were not as offensive as some others think.(or so i'm told) The shot was a testing one, and the trees helped define that shot's test.

According to Mayday, and from the photographic evidence, they have kept the lower branches high enough, to allow air flow and for views of adjoining holes.

Lancaster's variety of holes and the scale of the property was very impressive. Their tree management is ongoing, and from what I could tell they don't have far to go. In no way did either course feel claustrophobic. The same could not be said for Denver's Flynn.

[Sean_A]

I have only played one Flynn, Rolling Green, and that I am told is not terribly representative for Flynn's in the Philly area let alone his entire resume.  In any case, the things I noticed were

1. Use of bunkering as the primary hazard.  Very few holes (if any) don't rely on bunkers.

2. A lot of approach/2nd shots from low areas to high areas/greens.  These shots get flattened out and are difficult to control once the ball lands - so loads of downhill putts.

3. Hard sloping back to front greens sometimes with an additional slope from a wing. 

4. Angled greens placed on natural plateaux. 

5. Fairways running a bit obliquely along hills, but not overly so - meaning there is space for a ball to come to rest given the conditions.

6. Well varied par 3s.   

I don't know about trees because this usually has nothing to do with the archie, but I thought RG could lose a ton mostly for visual effect, but also for playability reasons on a few holes.  I could also see the width of fairways in combo with mature trees and sloping fairways being an issue if f&f conditions were ever considered.   

I would like to see the course again since I understand bunker and tree work have been carried out. 

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

If I said "ridge" I used the wrong word. Usually I say Flynn preferred to find slanted land  so that interesting lies prevail throughout the hole versus laying the holes straight up and down the hill.

    As for trees, the only extensive study I have done is at Rolling Green. Here trees that were PLANTED early in the club's life were generally "out of play, separated holes, provided a backdrop, and shade on a hot day". They are usually  AT LEAST 40 yards from the center of the fairway. When there was a push to replace some removed evergreens on #4 with hardwoods we saw that the original design called for plantings there----30 yards past the target  in the DZ and 40 yards from the middle of the fairway. Trees that were there before the course was built are a different issue.

   In Flynn's USGA Green Section Bulletin of October 1927 he writes

      "One natural hazard, however, which is more or less of a nuisance is water. This is not nearly as bad when it parallels play and forms a picturesque landscape feature of the course. But when water is between the objective ( the green or driving area ) and the player , it may be that the man who plays only a foot short of the objective is much worse off than the one who makes a very poor shot that does not reach the water.

    In the first place the player is penalized a stroke with no chance of recovering it whereas the second player having played a worse shot gets by without penalty and may regain lost ground with a fine second shot. Water hazards absolutely prohibit the recovery shot, perhaps the best shot in the game. "

 In most instances at Rolling Green this is true. Only #8 fails the test but I wonder if that is mostly a function of how far tee balls go now .

    

It hadn't dawned on me until this very point, but perhaps that feeling is why Flynn actually dammed the creek to create the pond in front of the 13th at Huntingdon Valley and the one that used to be in front of C-4 there.

Both are practically all carry from the tee.

[Dan Herrmann]

Adam - I was talking about Woodcrest being the arboretum, not Rolling Green.  RG has done a wonderful job with their tree program.

Sean - At one time, Rolling Green was a overwatered slog.  But not today - their new superintendent does a great job keeping the course playable and, dare I say, in line with Flynn's probable intent.

[mike_malone]

 Kyle,

   That is a good point. Forcing everyone to carry the water would not violate his writings.

[mike_malone]

 Sean,

      I think of Rolling Green as economically bunkered. The original design was around 60 bunkers on the whole course. There were none  to affect tee shots on 6 holes ( 4-7-8-13-15-17 ).  Indeed , the course tests your ability to approach greens that are above you, however,  all of the uphiil greens were originally designed with openings that allow a well crafted runup.  Presently the par three #6 has rough which is contrary to the original design.

   Most of your observations are spot on.












9

[Sean_A]

Adam - I was talking about Woodcrest being the arboretum, not Rolling Green.  RG has done a wonderful job with their tree program.

Sean - At one time, Rolling Green was a overwatered slog.  But not today - their new superintendent does a great job keeping the course playable and, dare I say, in line with Flynn's probable intent.

Dan

I can't say how RG is kept as I played RG after rain of biblical proportions.  The course played fine, but my experience tells me that few US parkland courses can really be considered f&f.  This is one reason why I want to see HVCC as it vwould seem that is none of the firmest kept courses around.  

Mayday

I could rip out at least 20 bunkers from RG - many of the cluster sort, but they may have been done already.  It was my impression the club recently went for fewer, but larger and deeper bunkers.  If true, this is a good move that would fit well with trees coming out so interior views would be on offer - smaller bunkering on this sort of grand site isn't to scale, but it is important to tie greenside bunkering visually with fairway bunkering if trees are torn out.   My issue with bunkers is they nearly always don't look good and they nearly always (even if 60 are on a property) are predictably and inefficiently placed. 

Ciao    

[archie_struthers]

 

I've always thought that Flynn linked triangles, typically stacked or diamond shaped in his green complexes to a great extent. They often have "noses" in front, sides or back end of many greens. Not sure there's been much agreement as to this ,  but I'm more of a fan than an expert on the architect.

Lots of the greens at Indian Creek in Florida have these "diamond shaped noses" that make for some great pin placements . Lehigh CCC and Philly CC  (think #1 and #18 ) also

[Adam Clayman]

Archie, Not sure if they are the same, but, widow peaks above bunkers help move water away from bunkers and create interest on approach, chipping and putting (if carried through into the green)

[archie_struthers]

 

Adam nice point as to the architectural merits of "widows peaks " but Flynn's stuff that I am talking about doesn't fit the bill.
The "diamonds" or noses tend to have nothing but fairway or closely mown areas surrounding ....they are elevated.  Balls that miss the nose often have tough recovery shots associaited with them.

[Adam Clayman]

There was another feature repeated that had me wondering...

They reminded me of L&M's bunkers that intrude perpendicularly into the line of instinct, except these cross type bunkers were angled opposite the way L&M has them. In other words. the long side to carry was nearest the fairway and the green with the short side deeper into the rough. Imagine a clock pointing towards 11 when on the right side of the fairway and to 2 oclock when on the left.

To me this seemed very odd indeed because L&M's cross carry bunkers encouraged the shorter hitter to try and be heroic, in a similar manner they challenged the longer hitter. One other major difference between the Flynn and the L&M's was that on the L&Ms the reward is a turbo boost down the fairway, where on the Flynn they was no reward at all because foir all intent and purposes the bunker was in the rough.

If I'm not mistaken, team Doak created one of these on the ninth fairway at Cherry Hills? (correct me if in err) If so, they did it the way Flynn would've.

[Kyle Harris]

There was another feature repeated that had me wondering...

They reminded me of L&M's bunkers that intrude perpendicularly into the line of instinct, except these cross type bunkers were angled opposite the way L&M has them. In other words. the long side to carry was nearest the fairway and the green with the short side deeper into the rough. Imagine a clock pointing towards 11 when on the right side of the fairway and to 2 oclock when on the left.

To me this seemed very odd indeed because L&M's cross carry bunkers encouraged the shorter hitter to try and be heroic, in a similar manner they challenged the longer hitter. One other major difference between the Flynn and the L&M's was that on the L&Ms the reward is a turbo boost down the fairway, where on the Flynn they was no reward at all because foir all intent and purposes the bunker was in the rough.

If I'm not mistaken, team Doak created one of these on the ninth fairway at Cherry Hills? (correct me if in err) If so, they did it the way Flynn would've.

Not sure what you're getting at here Adam though Flynn often angled greenside bunkers to face one part of the fairway for the approach from the ideal angle but then function as cross bunkers from the non-ideal side. See: left bunker on 15 and 16 at Huntingdon Valley or the bunkers on the 8th of the same course.

[Adam Clayman]

No Kyle, These were DZ features, but, in the rough. They weren't all on the same course, it's a feature I've seen on almost everyone of the three Flynn's I've seen in the last 10 days. Now, it's possible they weren't originally in the rough, and the modernization of shrinking fairway widths have left them enshrouded in rough grass. But, I'm more perplexed by their orientation. I see them as backwards.

Maybe my description of the feature is flawed? Anyone else confused?

Here's an attempt to link the ninth at Cherry Hills from google maps satellite image. You may have to zoom in to find the 9th hole. It heads back up towards the clunhouse. The feature in question is on the inside right side of the fairway.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Cherry+Hills+Country+Club,+Denver+Metro,+Cherry+Hills+Village,+CO&sll=41.105585,-101.729451&sspn=0.009944,0.026178&ie=UTF8&hq=Cherry+Hills+Country+Club&hnear=Cherry+Hills+Country+Club,+Cherry+Hills+Village,+Arapahoe,+Colorado+80113&ll=39.642962,-104.963851&spn=0.00254,0.006545&t=h&z=18

Compared to an L&M at Lawsonia

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Lawsonia+Golf+Courses,+South+Valley+View+Drive,+Green+Lake,+WI&sll=39.642962,-104.963851&sspn=0.003139,0.008256&ie=UTF8&hq=Lawsonia+Golf+Courses,&hnear=S+Valley+View+Dr,+Green+Lake,+Wisconsin+54941&ll=43.824047,-89.016606&spn=0.005883,0.016512&t=h&z=17