[T_MacWood]

Extremely simple bunkering, geometric in a Raynor-like vein--unlike his other designs a lot of straight edges.

Why do you consider Glen View a Flynn course, isn't it esentially the same course that Tweedie laid out?

[TEPaul]

"Why do you consider Glen View a Flynn course, isn't it esentially the same course that Tweedie laid out?"

I guess that depends on what you mean by 'laid out'. Much of the routing of Glen View is the same progression as was the original Tweedie course (many of the holes are in the same position) but Flynn did a comprehensive redesign of the golf course meaning all architectural features, bunkers, positioning, greens etc. Furthermore, and probably most important if one thought to still call Glen View a Tweedie design, wiping away all the highly rudimentary and geometric design features of the former Tweedie course by Flynn would seem to indicate otherwise.

But I guess anyone could call the course whatever designer they wanted to. But calling this course a Tweedie wouldn't be that much different from calling the present day Shinnecock a McDonald/Raynor course.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I was under the impression that Flynn created a new routing at Shinnecock.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW:

Essentially, and comprehensively Flynn did create a new routing at Shinnecock--or let's say a completely new routing progression. What he did regarding Macdonald Raynor's previous course is to reuse an existing hole and various parts of other existing holes in a comprehensive redesign.

Flynn did a comprehensive redesign at Glen View but to a far greater degree than at Shinnecock he left the Tweedie routing and basically it's progression in place. Many or most details of the original Flynn redesign plan were accepted by the membership in 1922 but not all. Holes #2, #4 and #9 are probabaly the best examples of that.

Flynn's Glen View project is most similar to what Flynn did at ACCC--where basically he left one nine of the old Reid routing in place as well as Park's nine and simply redesigned both nines.

[Scott_Park]

It certainly is sensible to expect and see that architects have a style to their designs, just as many of us have styles that we prefer playing.  

But the point about range is on mark when evaluating architects- those who can lay out top notch designs over drastically different terrain deserve praise, while architects that pump out carbon copies get the D.

Is it 'range' that seperates the big name archies form the regional ones?  It seems that a lot of regional designers do the same boring, shallow bunkered, blah, blah, blah, 6800 yard course.

[Mark_Fine]

A bell curve analogy is probably a poor one on my part.  Maybe someone has a better idea.  I just seem to find as I play and study more and more of one architect's designs, that there is some "common ground" that they often stick to.  Scott references that in his post.

A while back I made some detailed posts on observations on Ross, Flynn and Tillinghast.  I was simply trying to summarize their styles and design philosophies.  I know this is not easy and of course their will always be exceptions, but the idea was if someone came up to you and asked you to descibe the design concepts of one of these guys, how would you answer the question in two minutes or less?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()