Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Steve_ Shaffer on October 25, 2009, 09:24:59 PM
-
“It is so much of a treat to play. There is such a beautiful mix of holes at Quaker Ridge; it is truly a Tillinghast Gem.” -- Ben Crenshaw
“That may be, but there is quite a golf course down the street.” -- Jack Nicklaus, when asked if Winged Foot was the greatest course in the world.
“I’d like to go on record as saying it would be a tough test of golf for any tournament – the U.S. Open and the PGA included.” -- Jimmy Demaret
(http://perkinseastman.com/idamimages/(S(0xsnts45ekfc1i55n45vu545))/RetrieveAsset.aspx?instance=IDAM_PE&type=asset&size=1&width=600&height=480&id=2400690)
I recently played Quaker Ridge Golf Club on a beautiful, crisp fall day without my camera. The pictures here are culled from various sites. Quaker Ridge is probably one of the least well known of the world's great courses. As is their right, the members like to keep it a low-key affair.I might add that I was very impressed with the clubhouse. The food was outstanding. There is no driving range but there is an indoor teaching facilty and a short game area adjacent to the 18th hole. Golf Digest now rates it 81 in their Top 100. This is a dramatic drop from its previous rating of 33 in 2007. Golf Week rates it 37 in its Top 100 Classics. Golf Magazine has it at 42. What's wrong with GD raters is all I can say.
Quaker Ridge is located in New York's Westchester County, immediately adjacent to Winged Foot, in Scarsdale, New York. The area has a bit of a New England feel to it with its rolling terrain, low stonewalls bordering many properties, and its stately, mature trees. Quaker Ridge takes its name from a group of Quakers who used this land for farming beginning in 1726. The "ridge" part of the name becomes obvious when you play the course. Quaker Ridge is blessed with much better terrain that its nearby neighbor Winged Foot, which is on more-or-less flat ground.
This par 70, 6,880y golf course, designed by A.W. Tillinghast has hosted three Met Opens, two Met Amateurs, two Met PGA Championships,the 1997 Walker Cup and numerous exhibition matches between golfing greats. Throughout its history many prominent club members have attempted to conquer the course as well, among them: Louis Gimbel, Samuel Bloomingdale, Alfred Knopf, and world-renowned American composer George Gershwin.
John Duncan Dunn designed a nine-hole layout here in 1916, and A.W. Tillinghast was brought in during the 1920s to redo the course and expand it to eighteen holes. Tillinghast is responsible for the course that exists today. The course was re-bunkered by Rees Jones who made some other minor alterations before the 1997 Walker Cup. Gil Hanse is restoring many of the original Tillinghast bunkers now. As per GCA member Jaeger Kovich, here is a list of the work that has been done and is being done now:
#17 is a "new" green complex, where he reverted to original design.
#18 the fairway bunker was added, the fairway shifted and expanded and the greenside bunkers were reworked... he wanted to get rid of the right bunker, but the committee wouldn't let it go.
#7 all the bunkers were reshaped and the 2nd half of the fairway was expanded.
#5 the green was expanded, raised the depth of the right bunker, and reshaped them all
#9 (the redan-esque par 3) the bunkers were reshaped for the 2nd time in recent years
... I dont remember how far along the work was when you were there, but
#10 is now finished, the green has been expanded
#11 the fairway bunker on the right has been changed to a series of 3 (The wall over the creek is going to come down and the green expanded to create a false front)
#12 fairway bunker on right is now 2x the size, and fairway bunker on the left has gone back in (original design) and the green-side have been reworked
#13 (Reef Hole) both bunkers and the fairway being expanded
#4 will be getting a new specimen tree on the right (original design)
The defining characteristics of Quaker Ridge are the trees, the out of bounds and the greens. The greens are very good, subtle and very fast; sixteen of them slope back to front. The course is like many courses found in Westchester County, tree-lined-as were the other 2 courses I also played- Sunningdale and Metropolis. The other thing you notice about Quaker Ridge when you begin playing is that the angles you take coming into the greens are of paramount importance. Positioning your tee ball is very important.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_sqBIHPQVTeY/Ru_CB6wiyQI/AAAAAAAAAbg/Tzlm2RymrfU/s400/4th+hole.jpg)
A good example of why the angles to the green are important is the fourth hole above. The fourth is a 430y par four with a narrow fairway and a green that falls sharply off a hill on the left side. As you can see , if you are on the right side of the fairway, the trees come into play, making your approach shot likely to fall off left of the green in a large bunker.
The smarter play on this hole is to hit the ball to the left side of the fairway off the tee. When you stand on the tee, you see a big grass bunker that slashes across the fairway, creating an intimidating line that you have to hit over to a blind landing area. This is a good example of the type of strategic Tillinghast design found at Quaker Ridge.
The same applies at the famous eleventh hole. There are two trees on the left side of the fairway that block your shot to the green if you are not correctly positioned on the right side of the fairway. The shot to the green is over a creek to a narrow green guarded by a stonewall in front . I pulled my tee shot to the left,pitched out to the fairway leaving a 100y shot to the green which I executed perfectly to about 10' and proceeded to make the putt.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_sqBIHPQVTeY/Ru_DMKwiyRI/AAAAAAAAAbo/YSOX48fC3vw/s400/11th+green.jpg)
The first eight holes at Quaker Ridge have an out-of-bounds along the right side of the hole and circle the property counter-clockwise. The next six holes at Quaker Ridge circle back in a clockwise fashion, before play goes back toward the clubhouse. The seventh hole has out of bounds long:
The eighth is a unique Tillinghast hole with a huge grass bunker in the middle of the fairway which rises up a hill and between rows of trees. This hole takes advantage of the terrain. It's a short par4 at 359y from the tips.It is one of my favorites.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sqBIHPQVTeY/Ru_IKqwiyUI/AAAAAAAAAcA/cApOO53-D-0/s400/8th.jpg)
The best stretches of holes on the course are six through eleven. Six and seven are back-to-back, dogleg right par four holes. Six and seven might be as difficult a pair of par fours as you will find on any course. They are the #1 and #3 handicaps, respectively. The sixth has a creek running down the left hand side and is in play off the tee. The right hand side of the hole has a grass slope on the right and the fairway between the slope and water is about twenty-five yards wide. The hole plays longer than its 446y because the shot to the small green plays uphill. The dogleg is quite severe and to add additional difficulty there is a big tree on the right side of the hole that must be avoided off the tee. In his book, The 500 Greatest Golf Holes, George Peper, ranks this hole in an unprecedented three categories of composite courses of eighteen holes. Among the 18 most strategic holes in the world, it ranks as one of the 18 best holes ever designed by A.W. Tillinghast and as one of the 18 most difficult holes in the world.
The 14th, 15th and 17th holes have major undulations in the greens and several ridges and humps reminiscent of buried elephants. They are quite good and add a lot of character to the finish at Quaker Ridge. Most of the other holes at Quaker Ridge have very subtle breaks to the fast greens; these are not subtle.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_sqBIHPQVTeY/Ru_JKqwiyVI/AAAAAAAAAcI/3OD1bSnb3fw/s400/14th+green.jpg)
The course is VERY challenging. I played from the blues which were more than I could handle at my advancing age. Here are the ratings/slopes:
BLACK 6880y 74.5/145
BLUE 6418y 72.6/143
WHITE 6161y 71.2/140
-
This is the new 17th green, which is really the original green before RTJ added a left area siimilar to an upside down L.
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e69/rsfpar/quaker%20ridge/093.jpg)
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e69/rsfpar/quaker%20ridge/089.jpg)
This is the cleaned up 10th. Probably over 50 trees have been removed.
(http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e69/rsfpar/quaker%20ridge/068.jpg)
-
I was there recently for a look as well. Was the grassed mound in the middle of the 8th original or Tilly ?
-
While Bethpage B may reveal Tillie's eye on Pine Valley, QR can be seen to be nodding a bit towards Merion. I don't necessarily mean architectural values, but the serenity of the property (though the Hutchison Pkwy parallels the 4th and the 8th parallels active Griffen Avenue) with a roughly similar sense of flats, valleys and heaving sweeps here and there. Perhaps the layout similarities regarding holes right up against the clubhouse and goodly portions of the property flaring out on both sides of its hub also contribute this feeling, to me.
Though I'm going to spend a paragraph or two stating my opinion on its shortcomings, those shortcomings are only considered when I'm roaming around the Hall of Fame of GCA and considering Hall of Famers against one another. Certainly, Quaker Ridge belongs in any such category; it is a Tillie-typical rigorous set of demands on the approach game, weak shots are not accepted - with little good fortune available for mediocre strikes. The green sites are varied, some welcome shots, some appear dangerous. Lots of beautiful contours. The recent work on the 10th and 17th is first rate. It's picturesque, plays from a fair and solvable yardage and is a pleasant walk through genteel Westchester surrounds.
My hesitations:
1. Only a duo of three-shotters - at the very first minute and then not until the last hour of the round - and back-to-back one-shotters in the direct middle of the round has me crying for relief from the Par 4s at different stages.
1a. In conjunction with the above, the closing stretch of four essentially straight Par 4s in a row, - the last three paralleling one another - rob your round of a little zip. I like the holes individually, especially the 17th, but grouped together there is something flat and uninteresting about the psychology of the end of your round.
2. Numbers 6 & 7 - most written reviews about QR invariably cite these two Par 4s (what else at QR?) as memorable holes and speak of them in lofty terms, but I'm not convinced. While I am willing to say that the land form for 6th - wrapping around a sharp slope hill to a nookish green site - is interesting enough, the right side is far too overgrown for a hole that also presents a lateral hazard all along the left side of the same driving zone. From the white or blue tees there really isn't a way to use that right slope in a pleasing or effective fashion, because of the thick trees and exposed roots on that side. But deficient as I find #6, the seventh just seems like a indefinite and awkward hole, with poor turf that's either rocky or mushy. The combination out-of bounds hard right (another repetitive thing at QR, appearing on 7 of the first 8 holes) and indefinite area, or length, or play in the left side of the drive zone deflect my commitment to a choice of strategy.
Again this is a generally fun, fair and playable course. The stretch from 8-14 is filled with highest degrees of quality, interest, variety and challenge. #9 is one of Tillie's unheralded Par 3s and I have never heard anyone give proper credit to the Par 5 14th which has an impressive look and a unique green site (and is the only dog leg left on the course)
cheers
vk
-
QR is actually a conglomeration of several men. JD Dunn was the original architect and he actually designed 18 holes. The first nine was completed and the second nine only roughed out when the fledgling club ran into financial problems. A new club was formed around a year later (Wiliam R. Hochster was among the new investors) and Tilly was brought in to complete and reform the design. Dunn's original concept was to include famous holes around the world. You can still see some remnants of that concept.
In the mid-20s the course was thought to be too short; it was only about 6000 yards. The two rival Jewish clubs in the area - Century and Fenway - had or were building brand new courses. Hochster, who dominated the Club as president and chairman of the green committee from 1916 to 1933 (when he died), was in charge of the redesign. It appears he was assisted by the greenkeeper Tom Winton. Tilly has mistakenly been credited for this work. Hochster added several new holes and lengthened others. In the 60s RTJ was called and he made a few changes too.
-
In 1917, Tillinghast was commissioned to redesign 7 existing holes and 11 new ones. The new course opened in 1918.
In 1925, after the club purchased additional property at its northern corner, the Club brought Tillinghast back to lengthen the course and change a few holes.
-
I thought that collectively, the first 5 holes at QR were pretty ordinary.
#1 is a pretty good par 5 with some risk/reward elements if you try and challenge the OB and go for the green in two.
#2 and #3 are standard-far par 4s with little to inspire, in fact by the third hole (one-sixth of the way thru the round already) I’m starting to wonder what is supposed to be so special about this course.
#4 in my opinion is quite a strong hole (the best of the first 5), then #5 is a standard pond-in-front-of-the-green par-3, nothing that I haven’t seen before.
At this point of the round I’m also noticing that wow, there is OB right on every single hole so far. Not great variety in that respect.
I certainly recognize that there are some great holes as we get further into the round at QR, but for a course to be considered in the top 50 in the United States I think that the course should be exceptional for the entire round, or at least nearly the entire round.
I respect my fellow GCAs opinions and want to improve my eye for great golf courses. So please tell me what I am missing about QR, in particular the first 5 holes or roughly first 30% of the golf course. I’m just not seeing greatness, at least not “top 50 in the USA type of greatness” given the strength of the overall USA golf landscape.
-
In 1917, Tillinghast was commissioned to redesign 7 existing holes and 11 new ones. The new course opened in 1918.
In 1925, after the club purchased additional property at its northern corner, the Club to bring Tillinghast back to lengthen the course and change a few holes.
Phil
What evidence have you found that suggests Tilly came back in 1925?
-
Tom,
"What evidence have you found that suggests Tilly came back in 1925?"
It is contained in the club's own records and published history.
What evidence do you have that suggests that he did not and that someone else did?
-
"It is contained in the club's own records and published history."
Uh-Oh, Phil, that kind of explanation and answer never worked for me with Tom MacWood. Let's hope it works better for you for some reason!
-
Phil
I'll post what I discovered later today. Actually it was Tilly, George Low and Peter Lees who was engaged by the club in 1917. That trio was fairly active in the late teens. This is another example why relying on club histories can be a little dicey.
-
Phil & Tom;
This question: who did the QR redesign - Phil Young says it was a project completed or begun in 1925 (?) - is something I've wondered about for years.
In "Lost Links," Dan Wexler posed a related question, or perhaps the same question, when he compared the course from 1926 and the one played today. The 1925 or 1926 dates are confusing because a great deal of change to the layout occurred after 1926. I use the date 1926, because aerial photos occurred in that year. All the local Westchester County clubs have access to those aerials and Dan, I assume, used this one. The changes that occurred to QR after 1926 are dramatic. Among them, the 2nd hole, which Dan described as a short Redan-like par-3 was removed to make room for the tennis courts. This begs the question, who built the new(er) par-4, 2nd hole. The old 3rd hole was a par-4 that linked with the current 4th, which was a dogleg left. Another "new" hole is the par-3, 13th. It's a good one, but it didn't exist in '26.
Phil, I would also suggest that without clear club documentation, "oral" histories are often wrong.
-
Thanks for posting these pictures.QR is one of my favorite courses.
-
Phil
Speaking of the club hsitory, what does the club history say about Hochester's involvement?
-
Michael,
I agree with your statement about clear club documentation vs. oral hoistories. Are you stating that the actual published history that the club has put on its website is simply an oral tradition and not based upon club records? If so, upon what do you base this?
One correction to your statement, "Phil Young says it was a project completed or begun in 1925 (?)" The club itself is the one making this statement and what they said, "In 1925, the purchase of additional land at the northern corner of the property prompted the Club to bring Tillinghast back to change a few holes..." is that land was bought in 1925 and they brought Tilly in to change the course. the work appears to have been done during 1925-26...
-
Tom,
I look forward to seeing what you've "discovered"...
-
Phil,
I have no idea what their Club history is based upon. One would hope they have documentation. I am a Sunningdale member and for years our senior members thought our golf course was designed by AW Tillinghast. In fact, he was the third architect of note on the property. It was originally a Raynor design (1918) followed closesly by Travis. Tillinghast made fewer changes thanTravis, but the Club latched onto the Tillinghast aspect of the narrative.
But if QR bought the new land in 1925, how do you account for all the changes made post 1926, suggested by Dan Wexler? Hopefully Tom will shed some light. It does sound like the QR web site has the wrong story, and I predict the answer will reveal that the course we play and admire today is far less of a Tillinhast design than we thought.
-
Michael,
That they unequivocably state that they bought the new land must have SOME basis in fact and documentation as I strongly doubt that someone pulled the date out of thin air. Likewise as the statement that Tilly was brought in by them to do the work, a fact that C&W accept in their compilation of his work.
As for Daniel's claims about changes to the course, he doesn't list actual dates for the alterations that he cites, nor does he name anyone as the person responsible for them.
The club defintively states that Tilly redesigned 7 holes and designed 11 new ones in 1917 and that he did a redesign after land was purchased in 1925. Other than supposition, there has not been a single thing posted that would have anyone think differently. Now beore anyone thionks differently, I have a very open mind on this subject, which is why I honestly stated that I look forward to his post to see what he has "discovered."
-
Phil,
TMac is checking the train schedules as we speak! (Sorry, I couldn't resist......)
In reality, if the documentation is in the official club minutes, I would tend to think its true. I do know that sometimes club histories that are oral in tradition can be skewed. Usually, its in favor of a famous gca having been involved somehow, (just like a few old houses around Chicago claim an FLW connection) but I wonder if there are many cases where a Tilllie actually did the work, and yet, somehow, its not credited, especially when he made recommendations on his PGA Tour?
-
Phil,
Can't wait for Tom to report back.
In my own research at Sunningdale, we came into possession of three documents that made our architectural timeline fact. I hope the keepers of "Tillinghast at QR" have the same.
-
Jeff,
There are a number of examples where course design attribution has been incorrectly given to the wrong person or no one at all, when it may have been someone as famous as Tilly who did it.
In the next edition of Tillinghast Illustrated we will be revealing an example of a course that Tilly designed in 1927 just north of New York City that no one has known of his injvolvement for maqny years now. It was actually discovered by a member who came across a reference to Tilly at the club and who found in the original club minutes incontrovertible proof ranging from direct mentions of his work, a sketch of the layout and even a bill for his services!
-
As some of you know, I've been working at QR for 2 seasons now. I've worked just about every job at the club, and have recently been asked to come up with new designs for our chipping green and 1st tee area. I'm sure Philip and Tom know a bit more about the dates, history and little known designers than I do, so I'll leave that to them...
Robert - You have some good pics of the new/original #17... I think the hole plays much better now. Before, any shot to a pin on the left would play an extra 10 yards, and cause ll sorts of confusion to payers who had never seen it before. Any pin on the left still requires more club because of the high-faced bunker Hanse built, so many of the same characteristics exist, but in a much better way.
Also, you photos of #10 are now out of date! Hanse reshaped all of the bunkers, were in need of some help. Also the green has been expanded in the back (cant wait to see new pin positions back there) and brought the approach/fairway closer to the tee, and around the front bunker.
VK - I understand you comments about the "lack" of par-5s and the back to back par 3's. I dont really think the back-to back par 3's is ideal either, but individually they are great holes, especially #9, which plays hardest compared to par every year in the Hochster Invitation. With the positioning of the clubhouse and lack of space, there is simply no way around the 2 one shotters.
The closing par -4's i think are fairly appropriate compared to the rest of the round. #15 and 17 dont require driver of the tee, and #16 and 18 are challenging, both playing towards the clubhouse.
Neither #6 nor 7 are close to my favorites on the course, although our members and guests seem to love/hate them because of the difficulty factor. Personally I think 7 is much harder. They both require 2 perfect and long shots just to reach the greens, and then they only get harder from there. I have seen plenty of people putt off the green on #7, thats if they dont pick up first. While #6 seem completely original to me, #7 seems to fit in with Tilly design style. I can think of plenty Tillinghast holes that require a near 90* right turn. #1 at BPB and #5 at WF East, to name 2. Plus I think the forced carry/lay-up 2nd is an interesting variation of the "great hazard".
#14 actually is in major need of a renovation, which is supposed to happen next year. A classic Tilly DOUBLE dog-leg, this hole belongs up there with BPB #4... It once had upwards of 20 bunkers, and no creek on the right, into the hogsback green. I hope Hanse puts them back next year, because I'm tired of players asking how far to carry the bunkers on their 2nd shot... I want them to be scared to carry, although its not that far, and lay it up on the right, the only flat part of the hole!
Stu - You say the first 5 holes are ordinary, but I would argue otherwise. #1 is a classic Tillinghast par 5, which must have been a template, because he also used it at Ridgewood, NJ. It provides a solid chance for birdie, an easy par, and probably has more 3-putts than any other hole on the course!... Welcome to Quaker Ridge!
#2 is all about risking the OB... Good luck if you play a draw, because you will either have to take on the trees/white stakes, or you will hit it through the fairway on the left.
#3 - Ill give you that one, its def not my favorite, although it always has the longest drives on the course because they catch the downslope just past the bunker and run.
#4 is awesome and a new/original specimen tree will be going back on the right side... Hit it through the goal posts!
#5 I think is a pretty solid short hole. 150 yrds from the blue, surrounded by hazards. You must find the right side of the ridge (front/back) or you can turn an easy par into a bogey.
In my opinion: Quaker is about the best course, with the least ideal routing I have ever seen! OB on the first 8 holes.. Yikes! Quaker is all about the tee shots and the greens... If you dont place the ball in the right spots on the fairway you will never score, and as a par-70, scoring is hard to begin with. QR is a great example of variety in par-3s. My favorite holes are #11, 9 and #15.
-
Michael,
That they unequivocably state that they bought the new land must have SOME basis in fact and documentation as I strongly doubt that someone pulled the date out of thin air. Likewise as the statement that Tilly was brought in by them to do the work, a fact that C&W accept in their compilation of his work.
As for Daniel's claims about changes to the course, he doesn't list actual dates for the alterations that he cites, nor does he name anyone as the person responsible for them.
The club defintively states that Tilly redesigned 7 holes and designed 11 new ones in 1917 and that he did a redesign after land was purchased in 1925. Other than supposition, there has not been a single thing posted that would have anyone think differently. Now beore anyone thionks differently, I have a very open mind on this subject, which is why I honestly stated that I look forward to his post to see what he has "discovered."
Phil
Is your information taken from the club's website?
-
That is but one of my sources...
Again, what is your new information?
-
Phil
I'd say club websites are even less reliable than club histories, for example the Williamsport GC website claims Tilly designed their first nine in 1909. Hopefully I will be able to post what I have later today.
-
Tom,
As I said, the club website is but one of my sources... not the only source. I am looking forward to your later posting...
-
TEPaul,
In all fairness, we've seen that club histories are not always accurate, even at special clubs like PV.
I'm content to wait until all the evidence is presented before making a judgement.
One of Quaker Ridge's greatest assets, which is also one of their biggest problems is/were the majestic trees that bordered every hole, limiting sunlight and air cirulation.
Quaker Ridge has lost some or most of their green several times in the last few years.
From an outsider's perspective, many clubs gravitated toward lush, green conditions for many years.
Those conditions had a negative effect on play, and eventually, on the health of the golf course.
Quaker Ridge has the basic foundation to be a great golf course, they just have to alter a long standing culture and move toward firm, fast conditions with an emphasis on tree removal.
-
From the Met Golfer archives, probably in the 1980s:
By 1914 most of the land that would soon become QR was owned by Bradford Rhodes, a Larchmont banker,with a small plot to the north owned by Martha LaFurgy. Much of the property was farmland,dotted with apple orchards. Early in 1914 Rhodes sold 112 acres to the "Metropolitan Golf Links," a stock corporation headed by a Westchester entrepreneur named Hipwell and a Scottish accountant by the name of W. John Baird. Metropolitan then leased the land for ten years to to the Quaker Ridge Field and Country club. A 3-hole course was laid out that season and expanded to 9 holes in 1915 by John Duncan Dunn, a nephew of "Young" Willie Dunn and grandson of "Old" Willie Dunn. Once the pro at Ardsley, Dunn's major credit as an architect had been been his collaboration with Walter Travis on the landmark course at Ekwanok Country Club in Vermont.
Although no diagram exists, it is thought that the essence of Dunn's course remains today as parts of the first, 15th through 18th, tenth, seventh,eigth and ninth holes.
The Metropolitan Golf Links was beset by financial problems,however. Baird and Hipwell underestimated the costs and consequently,on December 19,1915,a small successor group of former Quaker Ridge country Club members formed, and chaired by Otto Elsass. At a meeting held in the Hotel Majestic on January 5,1916,the Quaker Ridge Golf Club was founded with 28 original members. Most notable of these was William Rice Hochster,who was added to the organizational committee at this time. The new group purchased the Quaker Ridge Country Club's lease on Febrauary 18, 1916, and legally incorporated on February 21, by this time boasting 92 members. Encouraged by positive recommendations from the leading architect A.W. Tillinghast and Baltusrol professional George Low, they quickly purchased the land they were leasing from Bradford Rhodes for the sum of $175,000.00. Tillinghast then proceeded build 11 new golf holes,while at the same time radically revising seven of the old holes. The new 18 hole course opened for play on June1, 1918, and is now generally regarded as a Tillinghast "original." For several years the course played to a par of 70 at 6173 yards.
When the time came in 1924 for a major revision of the course, Hochster was there to carry out Tillinghast's plans. He lived in a house just to the right of the first green. That change came after the club purchased 28 acres from Martha LaFurgy for $35,000.00. The changes that Tillinghast recommended and Hochster implemented in 1924 brought the course into basically its present configuration. Four new holes(3,4,1213) were built at that time,and two others altered-the first green was moved from behind the fairway bunker, and the second,originally the third, was given its dogleg. At the same time, four holes were abandoned. The old second hole was a short par3 near the tennis facility that played to a punchbowl green. The fourth at that thime played from behind the 14th tee over the 13th green,to the present fourth green,directly over the "pit" to the left of that green today, but which in those days extended completely across the "front" of the green. The old 12th hole was was a par3 to the right of the present 11th green,playing over a creek. And the 13th then was a short par4 that made a sharp turn to the right near its green,which was situated out in front of today's 14th tee.
More to come...
-
During the years 1963-64, Robert Trent Jones and his associate Frank Duane worked on the course.rebuilding/enlarging 16 tees and revising the bunkering. Some 29 traps were eliminated and others "moved" so as to challenge the better players rather than penalize the average ones. The club also supported an ongoing tree planting program since that time to better define the fairways and also to replace old trees that had been lost to storm damage. Over 500 trees have been planted during the past 15 years under the direction of Green Superintendent Anthony Savone.
-
TEPaul,
In all fairness, we've seen that club histories are not always accurate, even at special clubs like PV.
I'm content to wait until all the evidence is presented before making a judgement.
Pat,
While club histories have been shown to be innaccurate from time to time, my impression is that golf club atlas generally believes that they are almost never accurate. Further, some of us ask historians like Phil and any club we discuss to "prove" that their own documentation isn't faluty (i.e., the double negative)
I guess I just don't like the idea that these clubs are guilty of historical treachery until proven otherwise.
I think the real deal is that most club histories summarize their design attributions, mostly because that's about as much as members care to know. Only a few of us would want to drill down into the details, like Frank Duance influencing the 3rd green because RTJ had to go to the bathroom.
I also think the real deal is that because they weren't so inclined to be obsessed by attribution that there tended to be a lot more chefs stirring the pot than just the name gca. Maybe not much has changed today, although the contracts for design and the attributions are more important and formal, but we still have greens chairs, contractors, superintendents, pros, design associates, etc. who all get involved and influence the design somehow.
-
Jeff Brauer:
As long as the Club History doesn't turn out to be "spin." People have forever referred to QR as an AW Tillinghast masterpiece. It may be a very, very good golf course - one of the best in the Met area regardless of its provenance. However, if we find out that the venerated AW Tillinghast only designed let's say half the existing holes at Quaker, can we include it in any comparisons with the other more "pure" AWT designs, like the two Winged Foot courses and Fenway? Those three courses each have 18 greens that are unquestionably AWT.
If it turns out that the course we today call QR was actually designed by a committee of architects over the years, we can love it as much, but the conversation has to change. It can no longer be called the best (or near best) AWT course in the area. It has to be admired in much the same way as Wykagyl , which has a long and interesting architectural narrative.
Let's hear the truth. We can handle the truth! My sense is the AW Tillinghast banner, long flown by the Quaker Ridge membership, might be describing only a small amount the story. Tom MacWood, can you shed any additional light?
This to me is exciting stuff.
-
Jeff Brauer,
Some club histories have a restricted view of history, depending on the author.
Other times the author has limited resources or relies on the memories of friends and/or older members.
Usually club histories are a product of an individual or a few individuals at a particular point in time.
I like club histories, although very few of them are focused on architecture, which is where my interest lies.
I recently obtained the history of several clubs and am enjoying the read.
It would seem that the early part of the 20th Century was a fascinating time, an age of elegance and big undertakings when golf was becoming a popular sport.
-
Here are a number articles dealing with the early history of the club in chronological order. All are from the NY Times with the exception of the dark copy from the Scarsdale Inquirer.
-
.....
-
Hare are a few articles dealing with redesign in the mid-20s:
-
Interesting stuff on Quaker Ridge...
Does anyone know when Tillinghast's par-3 2nd hole was lost and replaced with the par 4? If it was done while Tilly was alive he would have been really pissed off...IMO
I recall reading Tilly's letters on the design and construction of Baltimore CC's five farms course in which he made his case that the tennis members preferred location for the new tennis courrts would severly impact the design integrity of the golf course.
In any event, Tillinghast lays claim to the Quaker as one of his 18 hole designs. He did not classify his work at Quaker as reconstruction or expansion of an existing course. He claims this as in 18 hole design in his 1925/1926 statement of qualifications/brochure, which is posted on the Tillinghast web site at,
http://www.tillinghast.net/cms/node/306
In this piece Tilly lists Quaker 7th in a grouping of 40 "Eighteen Hole Courses." Not sure why he ordered the courses as he did, it is not in alpha order and does not appear to be in date order, although Shawnee is listed first. Quaker Ridge is listed ahead of San Francisco.
An earlier advertisement by Tilly appears to tout the reconstruction work being done in 1920 at Quaker, Shawnee, San Francisco and some others.
-
The dates of the articles are listed by the green paperclips below each.
-
Jaeger,
Thank you for your detailed follow-up to my earlier post which focused on QR "short-comings," which I stress are just small points of notice - when comparing QR with, in and to the pantheon of classic design, especially Tillinghast.
When I read your post I can't help but think we are almost in perfect symmetry when we look at Quaker...first and foremost, we find it enjoyable, fair fun and has a lot of pleasing golf tasks required for success, but in what you cited, I sense an even more specific agreement:
1. We both feel a little flat about the wide spread of time between Par 5s (but like both those fives) especially when further accentuated by back to back threes in the middle (though we both love those 3s - I agree with you the 9th is a just awesome one-shot architecture)
2. Even if we disagree about our preferences regarding the closing stretch, we both, at least, notice that it is a legitimate "quality" or "characteristic" that enters ones reflection on a round of the course. To clarify my views, I look at every course with "Level-Fours" mentality, speaking in terms of Par, a 72. I look at Par3s that way and Par5s that way. "How can I make four or better here?" is what I see on every tee box. So, the number on the card doesn't bother me at all - it's just that with the yardage and specifics of design #17 is the only one that affords me a chance to get on or within 75 yards of the green in one stroke. I don't have to have that everywhere, but sprinkled in my "quest for fours," I want some opportunities use a tee (Par 3) or wedge (Par5) to get my numbers, especially in the close of fine, fine course.
3. We both aren't as crazy about 6 and 7 as many others are. I don't find any charm or worth in 7 at all. I find it an un-friendly, awkward hole, the kind you find on 1970s development courses with property concerns. It wouldn't even be good if the card said "Par 5" on it Maybe it was better in a less overgrown day when the properties adjacent to the inside OB dogleg corner were undeveloped and there were an absence of trees (ie; you could SEE the risk/reward landing spot and hit draws or fades to it) As is, most of the golfing population would be a fool to play that hole near the right, especially at medal play - you can't even ascertain what the proper line or height is to that side to even make a strategic choice. I mentioned it before in the previous post; I don't like the turf in that sweet spot either. It's alternately rocky and bald here, damp and mushy there - I think that fairway doesn't get nearly enough light or air, primarily because of that OB jungle, and the taller sparser trees on the left side of the fairway. You wrote about #7 (and 6): "2 perfect and long shots just to reach the greens, and then they only get harder from there. I have seen plenty of people putt off the green on #7, thats if they dont pick up first." That describes a sour and merely difficult hole to me. I can make a Par 5 here in my living room with a 4 1/2" cup that you couldn't triple bogey, that's no great feat: to make something hard. I think 7 is really, a mediocrely- routed design merely fitted in its way because, "that's how the property goes. I think the analogies to WFE #5 and BB #1 are only in the general sense that they are sharp dog-legs to the right; BB 1 has playing width and better sight of the construct of the hole, no OB or creek; WFE 5 is admittedly similar but more pleasing in that the safe line (to the left) is more clearly defined as well as being shorter to a more interesting and amusing target, yet guarded by an awkward rough slope if you drive TOO safely. Also no creek and the OB isn't near as close as at QR 7
4. We both seem to like the 14th and both fell it is a largely ignored yet superb hole in this well-regarded course. I am eager to see older photographs of what the "20 bunker, no creek version" looked like. I'll bet it was an inspiring appearance. You referenced BethpageB #4 as genetically-linked to this design, I'll give you a better one...Baltusrol Lower #18 (#17 in a way too!) BTW: BB#4 is the finest Par 5 in America, if it were on the Back 9 of Aug.Natl. or more routinely appeared in televised championships, or was the 18th hole of the course - many more would agree with me.
Thanks for your response and thank everyone for the discussion.
cheers
vk
-
Tom,
Those are good articles, thanks for posting them. Unfortunately there isn't a single thing in any of them that contradict what the history of the Club, its records or its website states.
For example, the 7/29/1916 article states that the links are being CONSTRUCTED under the supervision of George Low, Peter Lees and A.W. Tillinghast. CONSTRUCTED, not DESIGNED. Tilly designed the course and the three oversaw its construction, that is all. Tilly designed a number of courses and both employed and worked with others who supervised their construction during these years. That had no bearing on his being the course designer.
As for the course changes in the mid-20's, the 6/27/1926 article states, "the man who has been largely responsible for the improvements is William R. Hochster, the President, who has worked with the might and main to put the club into the championship class anmd who has evidently succeeded..."
How do you take the idea that Hochster DESIGNED the course changes from that? The club clearly states that Tilly was brought back in 1925 to plan the changes and, as the article that Steve posted from the Met Golfer states, "Hochster was there to carry out Tillinghast's plans..."
As Rick pointed out, in 1920 Tilly advertised that he was in the process of "Reconstructing" Quaker Ridge, so Hochster's working with Tilly in this capacity was something that he would have done before...
Here is a copy of that advertisement:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/1920ad.jpg)
-
Phil
I searched high and low and could not find anything suggesting Tilly was involved in the mid-20s. Gil Hanse conducted his own research and came to the same conclusion. What evidence do you have that Tilly was involved in the mid-20s?
-
V Kmetz,
What's your assessment of each of the two par 5's at Quaker Ridge.
Great
Good
Mediocre
Poor
-
Why from the club itself... You also were unaware that Tilly was back doing work there in 1920, something that I believe that Gil was also unaware of...
-
VK - Thanks... here is some more of my comments on the holes...
Pat - I'd say the par 5's fall somewhere between good and mediocre. #1 is a good hole, it works really well for an opening hole, not hard until the green. Offers a chance for birdie, and the easiest shot on the course is the 2nd (layup). #14 is mediocre, but could be excellent if restored properly.
I've said before I don't know the historical facts, but if you think about each of the holes, just about all of them show direct relation to Tillinghast design theory... If Tilly actually made the plans to be like this, not exactly sure, but it sure seems at least the got some really good impersonators to me!
#1, 510 yard par 5. There is a hole nearly identical at Ridgewood Country Club... Plays uphill at the end. Huge bunker 60 yards short of the green making the hole play as a true 3-shotter. I have only seen this green reached by pros, and top-amateur players. The green slopes hard back to front. Bunkers on both sides, grass bunker on right side of fairway has been grassed over and 2 "chocolate drops" on left haven't always been there.
#2, 405 yard par 4. OB Right, a great example of "Tilly" using a dominant tree to define the hole. The large tree on the corner of the dog-leg right forces a fade of the tee to gain distance. A good drive down the left leaves you in the trees. Two tiered green, with bunkers on both sides. "Dominant" tree behind green.
#3, 413 yard par 4, par 5 for women. OB Right, what you see is what you get. Bunkers on both sides of the fairway and green. Green slopes mostly right-left, but dont be surprised if your putt goes the other way. "Dominant" tree behind green.
#4, 384 yard par 4. OB Right Split fairway, forced carry. No problem for most men, extremely difficult for women. You are a fool if you play to the right. Big tree on left blocks out shorter hitter if not accurate. 2 "chocolate drops on left" shared with 12 haven't always been there. Fairway slopes hard right-left in approach. There is a pond on the left (has been expanded over the years) and a squarish green that falls off steep on the left. Bunker on left covers the entire side and wraps around on the front making a forced carry if going for a left pin. Bunker right is shorter than it appears (Tilly deception trick?!) Ridges running down middle of green, when in doubt, it goes towards the water! New/original specimen tree will be planted soon.
#5, 151 yard par 3. OB Right, Water hazard in front. Classic "Tilly" short hole. He never minded a cross hazard on a short hole, bunkers behind the green, and on both sides. The pond has changed over the years, pond has been expanded and wall has been built. Big ridge splits green, so it plays like two. The most misread putt on the course is hear... It will break up the hill on the left! Bunkers were changed last year by Gil Hanse, and there is fescue way left. "Dominant" pine tree behind green, shares with 6 tee.
#6, 434 yard par 4. #1 handicap and most talked about hole on the course. OB Right and Long and creek on left for first 300 yards. Trees have been taken out left by the creek over the years, 2 bunkers have been grassed in over the years, one short of the big tree, the other 110 yards out. I'm not sure if the tree has always been there either, but it clearly dominants this hole, and there is another one at the end of the creek, so you must fade your drive off the tee, carry the tree with a hook, or hit a brilliantly straight drive! Green plays uphill, over the bunker on the left and around the tree, big deep bunkers on both sides of the green. The bunkers have changed over the years, the one on the right may have been grass mounding, and the left bunker may have come down much further in the fairway. Green slopes right to left. Bogey feels like par, I have only made 1 birdie here.
#7 419 yard par 4. the second most talked about hole. OB Right is clearly in your mind on this tee, creek must be crossed, but is very short, only co. The "Tiger-line" can cut off the trees, like at Bethpage #1, "Tilly?!" Trees are in the drive zone left as well, including a "dominant tree"! Long drives not up the right either catch the slope or go through left. Accuracy is rewarded just as distance is because of the angle to the uphill green. A forced carry, most lay up short of the creek, 125 yards out. Bunkers on both sides of the green, and 2, just beyond the creek must be carried. A helping bunker beyond the green protects from Griffen Ave and OB. Front to back Green.
#8, 335 yard par 4. OB Right for the last time. Rough mounding in the middle that split the fairway.They appeared in all the photos I have ever seen, 1925 and on! Easily carried by scratch players, left side is safe, but the ride side gives you the best angle. "Chocolate drops" on either side of the fairway exist now, but not always. Bunkers on both sides of the green, reshaped last year by Hanse. Flattest green on the course. Some might tell you all putts break towards Griffen.
#9 143 yard par 3. Clearly inspired by the redan, a "Tilly trait", this triangular shaped green is fortified by bunkers. Slopes hard right-left and front-back past center. You cant play to front pins. 3rd bunker left sometimes appears in photos, Hanse changed the back bunker pair to a single bunker last fall. Trees have been taken out, but a clear "dominant" tree off the right corner is the target. Right side has changed with addition of 10th tee 1/2 way house and clubhouse renovations. I wonder if "Tilly" designed the cartpath that goes around the back too!!!!
#10 186 yard par 3. The George Washing Tree. "Tilly" has a number of examples where his holes are sighted for historical reasons, ex. the Duel Hole. Surrounded by bunkers. Huge green, Tilly says long par -3s should have bigger targets, fairway for those who cant reach and variety. Recent changes by Hanse
#11 372 yard par 4. Clear example of Tilly's master pit. Forced carry at the green. The wall over the creek has changed and trees have come out right of the green, which slopes towards the water. Tree defines the hole with the master pit, play down the right side or get blocked out on a short par 4. Bunkers short and back left. Hanse changed single fairway bunker to set of 3, more changes to come this fall.
#12 403 yard par 4. Plays very long up the hill. Used to be a chute of trees to drive through, fescue has been added, and a creek must be crossed, not really in play, but pond from 4 and 5 catches snap hooks. Bunker on right side of fairway, just expanded, and trees everywhere. Grassed in bunker 60 yards short left has just been revived with sand by hanse. Both greenside bunkers were just renovated and grass bunker also on right, but I have only seen 3 balls in here ever! Steepest green on course, front to back is the real defense for this hole.
#13, 209 yard par 3. Reef hole with Birritz styled green. Clearly "tilly" here. 2nd bunker on right has been grassed over, looks like it could have been the hole from the tillinghast association logo. "Chocolate drops" left have changed over the years and bunkers are currently being reshaped by hanse. More fairway is also being restored here.
#14 508 yard par 5. Double Dog Leg with a great hazard style forced carry, this hole is clearly related to Fenway 3, Baltusrol 17, and Bethpage Black #4 and many more. Bunkers and trees have changed dramatically over the years. Hogs back green slits into a right and left portions. Classic "Tilly"
#15 375 Yard par 4. The green complex for #15 on WFW is only about a 3-wood from this tee... and they might as well be the same hole! This green is smaller and defined by a large elephant. Dominant tree forces accuracy on tee. Classic "Tilly"
#16 417 yard par 4. Two tee areas. Creek left. Bunkers on both sides of the fairway. Two tiered green with bunkers right, back and left, approach is bent to the left. Long Demanding and straight forward. Dont be long.
#17 344 yard par 4. Dominant tree shared with #15 behind green. Doubles as the driving range in the morning, Bunkers on both sides of the green, forced carry on this short hole... Smells like tilly ideals to me.
#18 410 yard par 4. Drives must negotiate the trees, but a good drive is rewarded with extra distance down the hill. Fairway bends around big tree left. Fairway has been changed by Hanse, as new/original bunker was added 55 yards short right. Bunkers both sides of the green to the biggest putting surface on the course. Plays back to the clubhouse. Long, hard and straight forward finishing hole.
You guys tell me... This place just stinks like Tilly! its one of the best walking courses I have ever played. it has changed a lot over the years, but for some reason it fits what we think his very adaptable design style was. I have a theory that he repeated the same holes at a number of courses and you can see it here. #1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, all fit my definition at least! As Ken Venturi said "Its the best course you will never play!"
Quaker has been like a home to me, and I am very thankful!
-
Philip - Tilly came back while working at WF, correct?
-
Jaeger,
# 3 East at Ridgewood has the similarity of configuration found at # 1 at QR.
-
Pat - I think they had it as #12 on the composite course for the Met-Open, didn't know the actual configuration. They also played it as a
par-4.
-
Tom and Phil,
Quaker Ridge should have some document or report written by the Club President or Green Chairman that went out to the membership describing the renovation from the mid-late 1920s. It's hard to believe they don't have the evidence of who did what in their archives. The Club's Board minutes should mention contracts with architects and consultants. Golf course construction committee updates might be entered as well. In their absence, it is difficult to ascribe proper credit.
Nevertheless, it is reasonable to surmise that Tillinghast was the architect who carried out the wishes of William Rice Hochster, the Club's "driving force."
-
Phil
I knew Gil had access to the club's internal documents, but I didn't realize you did too. When did you go over their material and what did you discover?
Are you certain those courses listed as reconstruction were all in 1920? QR and Shawnee were were reconstructed in 1917, Spring Lake in 1918 and Norwood in 1919. Peter Lees was involved at Glen Ridge too, so that is likely prior to 1920 as well.
-
Jaeger, yes.
Michael,
"Quaker Ridge should have some document or report written by the Club President or Green Chairman that went out to the membership describing the renovation from the mid-late 1920s. It's hard to believe they don't have the evidence of who did what in their archives. The Club's Board minutes should mention contracts with architects and consultants. Golf course construction committee updates might be entered as well. In their absence, it is difficult to ascribe proper credit." What makes you believe that they do not?
"Nevertheless, it is reasonable to surmise that Tillinghast was the architect who carried out the wishes of William Rice Hochster, the Club's "driving force.""
I think that is a bit misleading. Hochster wanted his to be the great championship course and that is what is "driving force" was. He understood the need for someone of Tilly's ability to do the design and he was the person who convinced the membership to spend the money and oversaw the project. He didn't do the redesign and most likely did not run the construction crew beyond what any Club President would normally do. In the mid-1920's Tilly had several crews of his own at work both in the area and elsewhere and most likely would have had his own men supervising the day-to-day work and details.
-
Tom,
The advertisement CLEARLY states that this was "Some Work of 1920..." Tilly tweaked Shawnee a number of times throughout the 1920's.
You also asked, "I knew Gil had access to the club's internal documents, but I didn't realize you did too. When did you go over their material?"
I didn't. I have a trip planned there for early next spring for that very purpose. My 'awareness' of what is there comes from other sources that I trust, and I will leave it at that. If that means that you don't want to accept what I have shared a sfactual I will completely understand.
-
Phil
You included that advertisement in your Tilly book and these are the dates you came up for Tilly's involvement. I would have quoted those dates earlier but didn't because they are obviously wrong:
SFGC - 1918
Fort Worth - 1920
Dallas
Cedar Crest - 1919
Mount Kisco - 1920
QR - 1918
Norwood - 1919
Spring Lake - 1918
Upper Mountclair - 1920
Sound Beach (not in the book)
Glen Ridge -1923
Shawnee - What did Tilly do in 1920?
-
PM,
Re: Quaker's Par 5s
Given the confines of your scale I would say both #1 and #14 are "Good"
If I was scoring them out of 10, I would give #1 a score of 6.0 - 6.5 and #14 a score of 7.5-8.0.
More specifically:
#1: When I last played (Aug 4th) it seems that the left tree-line (shared with 18th) was a little thinner, as was (seemingly) the right side. I don't know if that's accurate or faulty visual memory, but I liked the tee shot better and gave you a little more freedom to start your round. The second shot - for most - has a nice look, but a mediocre strategy. I enjoy that elevated, slippery green and it gets you into the Tillinghast Challenge mindset immediately. If the hole was elsewhere in the round I would probably lower it's score some, but as an opener, it's slightly above average.
#14: I really enjoy the vista and strategy of #14 tee shot, though compromised a bit by the burn on the right. You know it's a good 260-280 to fully cut the bunker hill corner and that is really worth something if you do it, for you can shorten the second shot by 35-50 yards and bring it more realistically in the realm of achievable, yet that big "going-for-it-in-two" hit has it's own risk from a slicey part of the fairway. It's like one risk successfully taken yields another. This, of course, predicated on the fact you do it all, for if you find one of those bunkers, it's going to be hard to make better than six. If you play shorter and safer than the left line then you are faced with a pretty big carry (175-190) to get over the mini-Hell complex, still 120 from the green. The fact that the hole plays in an SE direction adds interest to this to as this makes it downwind 2/3rds of the days.
Somebody mentioned Fenway #3 - I think that Hell complex has only visual interest remaining, as players of all but the shortest stripe, are not even considering it on their seconds.
Cheers
vk
-
Rick,
"Does anyone know when Tillinghast's par-3 2nd hole was lost and replaced with the par 4? If it was done while Tilly was alive he would have been really pissed off...IMO"
Tillie did the work. I posted this before:
"When the time came in 1924 for a major revision of the course, Hochster was there to carry out Tillinghast's plans. He lived in a house just to the right of the first green. That change came after the club purchased 28 acres from Martha LaFurgy for $35,000.00. The changes that Tillinghast recommended and Hochster implemented in 1924 brought the course into basically its present configuration. Four new holes(3,4,1213) were built at that time,and two others altered-the first green was moved from behind the fairway bunker, and the second,originally the third, was given its dogleg. At the same time, four holes were abandoned. The old second hole was a short par3 near the tennis facility that played to a punchbowl green. The fourth at that time played from behind the 14th tee over the 13th green,to the present fourth green,directly over the "pit" to the left of that green today, but which in those days extended completely across the "front" of the green. The old 12th hole was was a par3 to the right of the present 11th green,playing over a creek. And the 13th then was a short par4 that made a sharp turn to the right near its green,which was situated out in front of today's 14th tee.
-
Steve/Rick
I don't believe Tilly had anything to do with it, and according to Hanse the club has no evidence to suggest he was involved in the mid-20s. Was the old par-3 second a Tilly, Low & Lees hole or a Dunn hole?
-
Tom,
As far as the dates from my book, they are not mine. This is what is written about the dates used:
"The courses that are listed above are a composite of the two listings of Tillinghast courses that are given the most credence. One is from the book, The Architects of Golf, by Geoffrey Cornish and Ron Whitten. The other is from the Tillinghast Association web-site, by Rick Wolffe and Bob Trebus. The dates listed are the opening dates of these courses with separate references where they differ. For a number of courses, the date is not known. Dates in parentheses (1920) are the dates of course openings according to the Tillinghast Association. Dates in brackets [1920] are the dates of course openings according to Cornish and Whitten."
In addition, I also wrote the following:
"This, then, is a first effort to reconstruct that time and the work accomplished by the master golf architect of them all. I am hoping that as the reader peruses this, he or she might want to share something that they know in an effort to record this history more accurately for those that will follow. So I kindly ask that you take a moment to send along to me, in care of the publisher, whatever information you may have that we can use to clarify this table in future editions. My grateful thanks for your help."
That being said, your statement that those dates are "obviously wrong" is incorrect. I have been working on a comprehensive timeline for nearly three years now and am able to definitively place Tilly at many sites, locations and projects now at specific dates including a number of them that have been unknown until now. This information will be opublished in Volume II...
I know, your're holding your breathe with anticipation...
-
Tom,
What do you mean by, "...according to Hanse?" Has he published something about his work at QR? His website is devoid of any details of his work there.
-
Pat - I think they had it as #12 on the composite course for the Met-Open, didn't know the actual configuration. They also played it as a
par-4.
That would be # 5 Center nine.
I think # 3 East nine bears a much greater resemblence to # 1 at QR, in topography, configuration and playability.
-
VKmetz,
I think # 1 at QR is a good starter.
With OB right, you can ruin your round in a hurry at QR.
But, when you compare some of AWT's other starting par 5's # 1 at QR seems like a worthy hole.
# 1 at Baltusrol Upper and Lower seem rather tame by comparison.
Both are relatively short and easily reached in two by most decent ball strikers.
The old # 1 at Shackamaxon is another story, that's a very hard starting par 5 with OB right, a creek crossing the fairway on the second shot, and and uphill topography in the second shot LZ.
It would be interesting to compare AWT's starting par 5's.
I think # 1 at QR is a good one.
As to the 3rd at Fenway, the elevated green and dramatically contoured and sloped puttting surface make the hole a difficult one.
However, I wouldn't discount the fairway bunkering as it still has a major impact on drives and second shots.
-
I am a QR member and will refrain from discussing the holes for fear of being tagged a "homer".
On the historical investigation. I've corresponded with Daniel Wexler and he now believes the current 12th, 13th and 3rd holes WERE designed by Tillinghast and that what he wrote in his book was not correct.
A couple of the articles referring to Quaker Ridge "Country Club" I think do not refer to QRGC. I believe the only course in the neighborhood that ever had an affiliation to the NYAC was Winged Foot (hence the name). And given the overwhelmingly German Jewish membership in the early part of the 20th century, many of the names in one of those articles do NOT look like Quaker Ridge names.
-
PM
I believe, "net-net" we're in almost in full accordance on #1 QR. I just believe #14 is a more satisfying strategic Par 5 in and of itself and where it comes in the round, but I would lower its score a might if it were the first three-shotter of the day. I just don't think 98% of players are quite ready to jump right into precise strategic play that #14 demands in greater quantity. Though given reflection on the whole thread and your specific comments, I'm willing to raise my score on #1 QR closer to 7.0 - it is a good hole..
I think it has become canonical axiom that the first hole of a course, that the first shot of the round be a little forgiving on the soul. I believe at one time or another the Grand Poobahs of architecture (Ross, Mackenzie, MacDonald and others) have all weighed in affirmatively on the need for a general sense of liberty and forgiveness on the first strike of the day. Even before the sound precepts of ODG, it just seems to be something that Golf "demands" in the experience of a round. You can screw around with imagination and wild landforms and yield compelling strategy throughout, but first let the poor guy/gal make a swing; so they have some confidence and provocation to meet all your other great architecture fairly. All of it comes back to St. Andrews, doesn't it? I've never been, but I have practically informed myself to the point I can smell the salt air.... and what is that tee shot like, even if you are playing the left handed course?
I'm not prepared to make a full defense of this briefly stated position - but I'm not unduly impressed by Baltusrol Lower (only 2 playings, 4 rounds caddying, US Open/PGA attendance). In that vein, #1 Baltusrol doesn't impress me much either. I know it's just a hodge-podge of personal circuitry, but doesn't it seem like that first hole tee shot is all over the place in golf....the "big downhill, bowling alley 5 with an OB wall on one side or the other?" Riviera has it, Metropolis has it, but even beyond those disparate citations, it feels like I play that shot all the time in the very beginning of the round...maybe I'm wrong and I'm lumping in some other holes I know of.
Cheers
VK
-
VKMetz,
Interestingly enough, the first hole at BFF's is a very difficult opener.
I like a semi-benign opening hole, even though I would rather get a difficult hole out of the way on the first hole since I do take advantage of the practice range.
Perhaps that's the key with AWT.
Where there was NO practice range, perhaps he made the first hole more "user friendly" and where there was a practice area, perhaps he made the first hole more demanding.
It certainly seems that way at QR and Baltusrol, upper and lower.
-
Tom,
What do you mean by, "...according to Hanse?" Has he published something about his work at QR? His website is devoid of any details of his work there.
According to conversations I have had with him while he was engaged by the club (I don't know if he is still consulting with them or not). To my knowledge he has not published anything.
-
Tom,
As far as the dates from my book, they are not mine. This is what is written about the dates used:
"The courses that are listed above are a composite of the two listings of Tillinghast courses that are given the most credence. One is from the book, The Architects of Golf, by Geoffrey Cornish and Ron Whitten. The other is from the Tillinghast Association web-site, by Rick Wolffe and Bob Trebus. The dates listed are the opening dates of these courses with separate references where they differ. For a number of courses, the date is not known. Dates in parentheses (1920) are the dates of course openings according to the Tillinghast Association. Dates in brackets [1920] are the dates of course openings according to Cornish and Whitten."
In addition, I also wrote the following:
"This, then, is a first effort to reconstruct that time and the work accomplished by the master golf architect of them all. I am hoping that as the reader peruses this, he or she might want to share something that they know in an effort to record this history more accurately for those that will follow. So I kindly ask that you take a moment to send along to me, in care of the publisher, whatever information you may have that we can use to clarify this table in future editions. My grateful thanks for your help."
That being said, your statement that those dates are "obviously wrong" is incorrect. I have been working on a comprehensive timeline for nearly three years now and am able to definitively place Tilly at many sites, locations and projects now at specific dates including a number of them that have been unknown until now. This information will be opublished in Volume II...
I know, your're holding your breathe with anticipation...
Phil
If you are writing a biographical study of one America's great golf architects wouldn't putting together an accurate listing of his works and an accurate timeline of when he created those works be an important first step? You wrote the book, don't you have to take responsibility for what you put in it?
What did Tilly do at Shawnee in 1920? What year did Tilly redesign Spring Lake? Glen Ridge?
-
Tom,
"If you are writing a biographical study of one America's great golf architects wouldn't putting together an accurate listing of his works and an accurate timeline of when he created those works be an important first step?"
No. My book is a biography of the man and not his architectural work; that was secondary and why it is relegated mostly to the appendix. Tilly's work was so large that in order to do a proper biographical study of everything it would require several volumes. I believe that in order to appreciate what the man accomplished you need to know and understand the man first.
The second volume, which manuscript is nearing completion, is the study of his work in gerat detail. This includes his philosophies of every aspect of the golf club, from site choice to clubhouse, tee to green, and everything in-between and then some. It may include the exhaustive timeline of his work that I've been at work on for a number of years now and a much more accurate dating of his works including.
"You wrote the book, don't you have to take responsibility for what you put in it?"
I absolutely do and have. For example, there is a glaring printers mistake in a date of a particular golf club. Despite nearly a dozen different eyes that read the finished proof which occurred after I had turned it in and editing was done, somehow this error that changed the date of this course by 11 years was in the printed version. Everyone missed it. No publisher is going to throw out the thousands of copies of the book that were printed. It is there for all to see, and some did.
Three days after the book was released, a person who had bought the book contacted me through the publisher and was quite angry over how I could blow the date that his Tilly club opened. It would have been very easy to lay the blame elsewhere, especially as I had the correct date in the my manuscript, but it is my book & my responsibility and I accepted it and sent him a new copy with the mistaken date crossed out & a new hand-written one put in. I also included an apology and thank you on the same page.
He not only enjoys showing that to others, he purchased a number of other copies in which I gladly did the same thing that he gave as gifts to several other members of the club. He was also responsible for having the club use me for some private research that they needed.
It's a cute story with a happy ending, but the real point of it is that I do take full responsibility for what is written in it, mistakes and all. It is because I knew that there had to be mistakes in the dates used, after all I have found a number of them through the years and helped in correcting them, that I wrote that they both might be found and that I appreciated if they would be pointed out.
I intend to do the same thing in Volume II as my research has clearly shown that so much has been lost over time that one person simply can't do it all. A good case in point is the announcement coming shortly in the next edition of Tillinghast Illustrated of a club that has just discovered that Tilly designed their course in 1927.
The discovery was accidentally made by one of the members. It is a nine-hole course that no one would have spent any time researching, yet the proof is overwhelming and incontrovertible. If and when one reads about it I defy any researcher to say that they would have discovered it... They simply would not have.
"What did Tilly do at Shawnee in 1920? What year did Tilly redesign Spring Lake? Glen Ridge?"
For the answer to those questions you can simply and patiently wait on the publishing of the timeline... I'm certain that you will see arrogance or whatever in this answer; but that isn't the case. I have worked too hard and long on this to begin taking away from the finished work by diluting it by giving away its details. This is nothing to do with you personally as I've consistently maintained that stance for quite some time now. The exceptions made to that stance have been quite specific and for my own good reasons...
-
I am a QR member and will refrain from discussing the holes for fear of being tagged a "homer".
On the historical investigation. I've corresponded with Daniel Wexler and he now believes the current 12th, 13th and 3rd holes WERE designed by Tillinghast and that what he wrote in his book was not correct.
A couple of the articles referring to Quaker Ridge "Country Club" I think do not refer to QRGC. I believe the only course in the neighborhood that ever had an affiliation to the NYAC was Winged Foot (hence the name). And given the overwhelmingly German Jewish membership in the early part of the 20th century, many of the names in one of those articles do NOT look like Quaker Ridge names.
Jeff
The original organization in 1915 was called QR Country Club. It was organized by a Scot and I don't believe it was a Jewish Club. That club went under and a new club was organized in 1916 with different principals, and renamed QR Golf Club.
What did Daniel find that change his mind?
-
Phil
It sounded almost like you were blaming Cornish & Whitten and Wolffe & Trebus for the errors in your Tillinghast book.
While I understand you did not spend much time discussing Tilly's architecture in that book, the man was one of our greatest golf architects, and his architecture would be a primary reason most would be interested. So I'm not sure why you didn't feel it important to accurately detail his work, including the dates.
Since you are unable to give the dates for Tilly's involvement at Glen Ridge or Spring Lake or evidently any other course (by the way I don't think revealing that information would adversely affect sales) at least explain how Tilly could redesign QR in 1920 several years before the additional land was purchased?
-
Tom
Who said anything about 1920? As I posted from the Met Golfer archives above:
"When the time came in 1924 for a major revision of the course, Hochster was there to carry out Tillinghast's plans. He lived in a house just to the right of the first green. That change came after the club purchased 28 acres from Martha LaFurgy for $35,000.00. The changes that Tillinghast recommended and Hochster implemented in 1924 brought the course into basically its present configuration."
-
Interesting stuff on Quaker Ridge...
Does anyone know when Tillinghast's par-3 2nd hole was lost and replaced with the par 4? If it was done while Tilly was alive he would have been really pissed off...IMO
I recall reading Tilly's letters on the design and construction of Baltimore CC's five farms course in which he made his case that the tennis members preferred location for the new tennis courrts would severly impact the design integrity of the golf course.
In any event, Tillinghast lays claim to the Quaker as one of his 18 hole designs. He did not classify his work at Quaker as reconstruction or expansion of an existing course. He claims this as in 18 hole design in his 1925/1926 statement of qualifications/brochure, which is posted on the Tillinghast web site at,
http://www.tillinghast.net/cms/node/306
In this piece Tilly lists Quaker 7th in a grouping of 40 "Eighteen Hole Courses." Not sure why he ordered the courses as he did, it is not in alpha order and does not appear to be in date order, although Shawnee is listed first. Quaker Ridge is listed ahead of San Francisco.
An earlier advertisement by Tilly appears to tout the reconstruction work being done in 1920 at Quaker, Shawnee, San Francisco and some others.
-
Tom,
Those are good articles, thanks for posting them. Unfortunately there isn't a single thing in any of them that contradict what the history of the Club, its records or its website states.
For example, the 7/29/1916 article states that the links are being CONSTRUCTED under the supervision of George Low, Peter Lees and A.W. Tillinghast. CONSTRUCTED, not DESIGNED. Tilly designed the course and the three oversaw its construction, that is all. Tilly designed a number of courses and both employed and worked with others who supervised their construction during these years. That had no bearing on his being the course designer.
As for the course changes in the mid-20's, the 6/27/1926 article states, "the man who has been largely responsible for the improvements is William R. Hochster, the President, who has worked with the might and main to put the club into the championship class anmd who has evidently succeeded..."
How do you take the idea that Hochster DESIGNED the course changes from that? The club clearly states that Tilly was brought back in 1925 to plan the changes and, as the article that Steve posted from the Met Golfer states, "Hochster was there to carry out Tillinghast's plans..."
As Rick pointed out, in 1920 Tilly advertised that he was in the process of "Reconstructing" Quaker Ridge, so Hochster's working with Tilly in this capacity was something that he would have done before...
Here is a copy of that advertisement:
(http://i364.photobucket.com/albums/oo90/PhiltheAuthor/1920ad.jpg)
-
Tom,
"It sounded almost like you were blaming Cornish & Whitten and Wolffe & Trebus for the errors in your Tillinghast book." As usual, you are wrong...
"While I understand you did not spend much time discussing Tilly's architecture in that book, the man was one of our greatest golf architects, and his architecture would be a primary reason most would be interested. So I'm not sure why you didn't feel it important to accurately detail his work, including the dates."
So Tom, you criticize me yet DON'T criticize C&W & Trewolf? I guess it was LESS important that they get the dates correct? I'm not criticizing anyone. The dates given were the best available at the time, that is all. It matters not whether you like the answer or not...
"Since you are unable to give the dates for Tilly's involvement at Glen Ridge or Spring Lake or evidently any other course (by the way I don't think revealing that information would adversely affect sales)"
I am not UNABLE; I am UNWILLING. By the way, when David was being pressured on here to post his Merion essay or portions of it he responded that he wasn't ready to do so, a statement that you supported (I did as well); yet you won't afford me that same consideration? The reason for not doing so has NOTHING to do with sales... and so that you don't feel picked on or singled out in this, I haven't shared any of it yet with anyone at all. When I do I will share it with certain ones for comments, some I who I greatly respect and expect kind words from and some who I expect to rip it to shreds. I've done it that way with all 5 of my books.
"at least explain how Tilly could redesign QR in 1920 several years before the additional land was purchased?" Come on Tom, even you can't be that obtuse, since when did QR have to purchase land in order to have Tilly do any work? It is quite obvious that you were unaware of this; or are you whose beliefs and theories are so often backed up by newspaper and magazine articles as proof, including on this very thread, about to say that Tilly was lying about working at Quaker Ridge in 1920?
-
Phil
You threw C&W and Wolffe & Trebus under the bus, not me.
No, Tilly was not lying. You have misconstrued or misunderstood or misrepresented the advertisement, which is probably why you are hesitant to address my questions. This is a discussion group where we share information, and in the past you have been very generous with your Tilly info, but for some odd reason in this case your hesitant.
-
Tom,
I didn't throw anyone under the bus, but you certainly seem to want to shove me down there, and that is fine... By the way, were they C&W & Trewolf wrong on some dates? Does that make what they wrote any less worthy of reading and/or research? That I simply used their dates and then stated that I hoped if there were clarifications to some of them so please let me know so that the corrections could be made somehow makes my work LESS worthy? Again, Tom, you are certainly entitled to your opinion...
How have I "misconstrued or misunderstood or misrepresented the advertisement..."? That statement is absurd. I have done nothing but restate what Tilly said; that he worked at Quaker Ridge during 1920. Unless of course the heading to the sites mentioned, including Quaker Ridge, where Tilly wrote "SOME WORK OF 1920" is somehow vague?
"This is a discussion group where we share information, and in the past you have been very generous with your Tilly info, but for some odd reason in this case your hesitant..."
That isn't quite accurate. What is more correct is that this is a discussion group where we share information when we are ready to do so. I gave you the example of David's Merion essay. He refused to put any of it on-site until he was ready to and he was RIGHT to do so. Yet here, because I don't feel ready to supply certain DOCUMENTATION, for I HAVE supplied the INFORMATION, its cause must be "ODD."
I am still generous in sharing the Tilly info that I have gathered with any and all. You can see that by the answer I provided you with on the SFGC thread that you just started. At times, though, I have been asked to keep certain information private for reasons known to those who shared them with me. I respect that at all times. As a result, there have been times I have been emailed with questions about certain specific facts or points which I was not at liberty to answer because of promises given. In each case I explained that to the person asking and asked them to bear with me until I could.
That is different from my not providing information and documentation directly relating to a rather large mutli-year book project. My decision to do so is based upon a number of very good reasons, not least of which is if I do it once I must do it always. I have kept to this stance for more than three years now since the first question of that type was asked of me. I actually have a file collection of those questions and I am sure that I will surprise many a person when the time is ready to do so by sending it to them.
This is the last time I will answer to this question or comment from you as I feel I have been forthcoming, honest and quite clear in answering it... as ODD as either the answer or reasoning may appear.
-
I certainly did not post this thread with the intention of starting another "attribution" thread. I did so to initiate discussion of this "low profile" course which has gained high praise over the years by the greats of golf. I did ask in my initial post as to why the GD ranking dropped so much. I understand that problems with the greens may be the culprit. Also, the current work by Hanse was not in response to GD.
In any event, here is an article I found from Links circa 1997:
www.linksmagazine.com/golf_courses/united_states/new_york/quaker_ridge.aspx
-
“What do you mean by, "...according to Hanse?"
“According to conversations I have had with him while he was engaged by the club (I don't know if he is still consulting with them or not).”
Well, he was about three weeks ago unless he and Jim Wagner (or is it Jim Nagle?) left WF to go over to QR to get on some machinery for some other architect. ;)
-
It's regrettable that the Quaker Ridge archives do not contain a document that clearly points to Tillinghast's involvement in the late 1920s renovation. The newspaper articles mention Hochster's role (above anyone else). Tillinghast, though famous at the time, coming off his success at Winged Foot and Fenway, was conspicuously absent from the news accounts. Essentially, Hochster was hogging the spotlight.
It makes the process of attribution less comfortable.
It just doesn't make sense that a club that holds their golf course in such reverence would have such poor records.
-
I agree with your assessment...Tilly was at (or near) the top of his game with Baltusrol, Winged Foot, Philadelphia Cricket, San Francisco, Brook Hollow, Somerset Hills and others on his resume. He was also prolific writer. I'm not sure I'd characterize what Hochster was doing as hogging.
-
I had the pleasure of playing there last month. I found those same bones of great course. I like the changes being made as well. I found that same softness which detracts from the course to some. It is unfortunate but is the path taken by 90% ofthe designs in america. That makes days like a round at the Cal Club in August so special. The firm and fast conditions allow the course show its greatness.
-
(http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad55/till5farm/QR1.jpg)
-
Irrespective of the author, or authors, is it possible that Quaker Ridge was altered to mirror Winged Foot and Fenway ?
Winged Foot was crafted in 1923.
Fenway, just down the street in 1924
According to C&W, Quaker Ridge orginated in 1915, but had 9 holes redesigned and 9 holes added in 1926.
Does anyone who has played QR, WFW, WFE and F think that the architecture at QR departs from the architecture of the other three courses, or, that there's a continuity of design, so much so that the holes could be exchanged and interspersed and noone would know the difference ?
In other words, what's more accurate, the product in the ground or the newspaper and printed accounts ?
-
Irrespective of the author, or authors, is it possible that Quaker Ridge was altered to mirror Winged Foot and Fenway ?
Winged Foot was crafted in 1923.
Fenway, just down the street in 1924
According to C&W, Quaker Ridge orginated in 1915, but had 9 holes redesigned and 9 holes added in 1926.
Does anyone who has played QR, WFW, WFE and F think that the architecture at QR departs from the architecture of the other three courses, or, that there's a continuity of design, so much so that the holes could be exchanged and interspersed and noone would know the difference ?
In other words, what's more accurate, the product in the ground or the newspaper and printed accounts ?
Pat
I do think there was pressure from rival Jewish clubs and its immediate neighbors. Century just built a new championship course designed by CH Alison and Fenway had a new course designed by Tilly. And then you have Winged Foot right around the corner. QR was just over 6000 yards and not considered a championship test when the course was remodeled in the mid-20s.
-
Pat--
You ask a great question concerning Tillinghast and the courses that he is credited for in the Scarsdale/Mamaroneck area. It's funny, but they each have their own distinctive styles to them, but yet they all seem to have the same sort of feel to them. The similarity is in the scale in the courses were built. If you were to play any two of the four Tillinghast courses in the same day you wouldn't notice it, but if you were to play say Apawamis in the morning and go to Quaker Ridge in the afternoon, the difference in scale will blow you away. Apawamis is built on a reasonably small scale, even if the greens are pretty reasonable in size, Quaker Ridge is much large in size and scale, particularly in the bunkering. The other three courses are built on the same scale.
QR, WFW, WFE, and FGC all have their own unique styles among themselves, even though the green complexes at Winged Foot are pretty similar, it appears to me that Tilly did push the envelope on a bit more on the East with the 9th, 13-15, and 17th holes being an example. Fenway is a bit hazy to me, but I remember it being quite hilly. Quaker Ridge's greens are not as severe (with the possible exception of 16) as the other courses, but it's also a bit more honest a test from tee to green.
-
Is there an obvious reason why Tilly posted his original designs in the order they are listed...?
(http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad55/till5farm/TillBroch1.jpg)
(http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad55/till5farm/TillBroch2.jpg)
-
Rick
Do you find it odd that courses like SFGC, Quaker Ridge and Newport are listed as original designs?
-
So Tom, is it your contention that the present SFGC course is not an original AWT, but rather a redo of someone else's course? (Sorry, I should put this on the SFGC thread)
-
Yes.
-
"Pat
I do think there was pressure from rival Jewish clubs and its immediate neighbors."
Listen Tom MacWood and the rest of you, Pat Mucci, at this point, just may be my favorite person of Italian decent but I think I can tell you all seeing as what Patrick has been doing lately with joining golf clubs and whatever that Patrick may be seriously considering converting to Judaism, particularly if the Jewish clubs he's been joining recently agree to do architecturally what Patrick tells them they should do!
And if he does I would have to say he's an even smarter guy than I have previously figured he was! After all what does religion have to do with anything if one can get some really cool old courses to do the right thing architecturally? ;)
Hey look, Patricio, if I was honest I'd probably have to admit I'm an atheist, but if I called myslelf an Episcopalian which I guess I'm supposed to be, what do you think the changes are I could join some of these Jewish clubs you've been joining as a Catholic? If you convert from Catholic to Judaism, I'll convert from atheism or Episcopalianism to Judaism. Do we have a deal?
-
"So Tom, is it your contention that the present SFGC course is not an original AWT, but rather a redo of someone else's course? (Sorry, I should put this on the SFGC thread)."
DavidS:
That is one I am looking forward to really seeing and hearing hashed out but the guy I'm looking to, at this point, is Sean Tully! I'm most interested to see and hear what he has to say after he does what he last said he would do----eg run his findings past the club first.
-
We know newspaper articles can be inaccurate, ;) , but this 1938 snippet from an Oakland Tribune article suggests SFGC was a rebuild by Tilly. My guess is within 15 minutes of this posting one Phil Young will set the record straight!
-
hmm...this list is interesting to study...Tilly classified his design work into "Reconstructed and Extended Courses," "Examinations and Reports," "Eighteen Hole Designs", and 27 or 36 hole designs.
Was the amount of the original course that remained intact on the ground part of Mr. Tillinghast's classification rational?
Scarsdale is one worth studying, as we have the routing sketch that shows the new holes being integrated into the original holes. Other courses like Quaker, have very little, if any, of the original nine hole course left.
In one of Tilly's first consultations with Quaker, before he was hired to take the course up to a quality 18 hole course, he examined the original course and wrote about the strengths and weaknesses of each of the original nine holes. He wanted to be retained for design work and and may have been careful in his letter that he did not insult the golf course. Some of the things are quite telling, he said "the fairways are much too wide, sixty yards would be quite enough at the widest point for any holes which exist at present. The absent of a short hole struck me immediately..." In summarizing, he also wrote "...the nine holes as they exist are not impressive"
(http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad55/till5farm/TillBroch2.jpg)
-
Rick
Do you find it odd that courses like SFGC, Quaker Ridge and Newport are listed as original designs?
-
RickW:
The heading on that list of Tillie's career inventory is actually pretty interesting the way it's worded.
A somewhat misleading example of what was said vs done is Philadelphia CC. He sure did "design" 36 holes there but only the one eighteen was built which apparently was not the same thing as either of his two eighteen hole designs for the club.
-
Yes.
What do you have as evidence that AWT redid someone else's design at today's site?
-
Guys
Clearing up the part about William Tucker, he merely wrote an article in praise of the golf course and those involved in designing it. Both mentions that i have are solid as the other article was written by Vincent Whitney just after the course opened. I have not mentioned who designed the course and will do so after sharing the info with the club. Not a game changer, just not Tilly.
There are some early photos of the course, and they have been hard to track down as one may imagine. The club did suffer from at least two fires that I know of, one that took out the bag room to the chagrin of the golfers. I'm trying to track down some club papers, but I have work, a growing family, and a soon to be new home that has my attention at the moment. I'm looking forward to what I may find.
Tully
-
Thank you, Tom. I look forward to Sean revealing the info.
Another question. Is today's Presidio course actually one of the previous SFGC courses?
-
David
I don't know the answer.
-
Irrespective of the author, or authors, is it possible that Quaker Ridge was altered to mirror Winged Foot and Fenway ?
Winged Foot was crafted in 1923.
Fenway, just down the street in 1924
According to C&W, Quaker Ridge orginated in 1915, but had 9 holes redesigned and 9 holes added in 1926.
Does anyone who has played QR, WFW, WFE and F think that the architecture at QR departs from the architecture of the other three courses, or, that there's a continuity of design, so much so that the holes could be exchanged and interspersed and noone would know the difference ?
In other words, what's more accurate, the product in the ground or the newspaper and printed accounts ?
Pat - As far as those 4 golf courses go, NO, in general I do not see a continuity of design. I think there are a few examples of specific holes where you can see this (ex. WFW #15 and QR #15). In my opinion the WF courses play much different than QR. WF requires genius ball striking with the long irons to hold the pushed-up green complexes, and of course a bigger challenge comes from the size of the contours in the greens there. QR is more about the placement of the drive, finding the right angle off the tee, and your second shot becomes much easier. QR's green complexes appear much more "natural", but are certainly no easy test. Fenway, I am not quite as familiar with (only been there once) but as I remember, the holes there seem to resemble QR a little more than WF.
I think the routing of QR may be the most important factor here, and the reason why hole by hole it definitely resembles a good number of Tilly courses, but as an overall piece of architecture, it remains so different... (and special!)
-
My post #27 above clearly states that Tillinghast's 18 hole course opened in 1918:
The Metropolitan Golf Links was beset by financial problems,however. Baird and Hipwell underestimated the costs and consequently,on December 19,1915,a small successor group of former Quaker Ridge country Club members formed, and chaired by Otto Elsass. At a meeting held in the Hotel Majestic on January 5,1916,the Quaker Ridge Golf Club was founded with 28 original members. Most notable of these was William Rice Hochster,who was added to the organizational committee at this time. The new group purchased the Quaker Ridge Country Club's lease on Febrauary 18, 1916, and legally incorporated on February 21, by this time boasting 92 members. Encouraged by positive recommendations from the leading architect A.W. Tillinghast and Baltusrol professional George Low, they quickly purchased the land they were leasing from Bradford Rhodes for the sum of $175,000.00. Tillinghast then proceeded build 11 new golf holes,while at the same time radically revising seven of the old holes. The new 18 hole course opened for play on June1, 1918, and is now generally regarded as a Tillinghast "original." For several years the course played to a par of 70 at 6173 yards.
When the time came in 1924 for a major revision of the course, Hochster was there to carry out Tillinghast's plans. He lived in a house just to the right of the first green. That change came after the club purchased 28 acres from Martha LaFurgy for $35,000.00. The changes that Tillinghast recommended and Hochster implemented in 1924 brought the course into basically its present configuration. Four new holes(3,4,1213) were built at that time,and two others altered-the first green was moved from behind the fairway bunker, and the second,originally the third, was given its dogleg. At the same time, four holes were abandoned. The old second hole was a short par3 near the tennis facility that played to a punchbowl green. The fourth at that thime played from behind the 14th tee over the 13th green,to the present fourth green,directly over the "pit" to the left of that green today, but which in those days extended completely across the "front" of the green. The old 12th hole was was a par3 to the right of the present 11th green,playing over a creek. And the 13th then was a short par4 that made a sharp turn to the right near its green,which was situated out in front of today's 14th tee.
The above is from an article in Met Golfer that was sent to me by the MGA historian a few years ago. I'm trying to contact him again to find out who wrote the article.
-
Steve - If 13 was a short par 4, who designed the par 3 Reef hole?
-
Here is the construction cost report thru Jan 1, 1918...hmm...wonder what was in "Services of Experts" line?
(http://i921.photobucket.com/albums/ad55/till5farm/QRbudget.jpg)
-
Hey look, Patricio, if I was honest I'd probably have to admit I'm an atheist, but if I called myslelf an Episcopalian which I guess I'm supposed to be, what do you think the changes are I could join some of these Jewish clubs you've been joining as a Catholic? If you convert from Catholic to Judaism, I'll convert from atheism or Episcopalianism to Judaism. Do we have a deal?
At your ages,you're REALLY not going to like the bris.
-
The references I posted about QR's history was sent to me by Dr. Bill Quirin, the MGA Historian and author of " Golf Clubs of the Metropolitan Gof Association" published in the late 1980s from which the material was taken.
The book is no longer in publication. Does anyone have it?
Here is his interview:
http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/bill-quirin
-
Nice write-up on the restoration at Quaker Ridge accompanied by a video of Gil Hanse talking about his restoration thought process:
http://www.linksmagazine.com/golf_courses/links100-course-of-the-month-quaker-ridge (http://www.linksmagazine.com/golf_courses/links100-course-of-the-month-quaker-ridge)
-
The references I posted about QR's history was sent to me by Dr. Bill Quirin, the MGA Historian and author of " Golf Clubs of the Metropolitan Gof Association" published in the late 1980s from which the material was taken.
The book is no longer in publication. Does anyone have it?
Steve,
I have the book and it's terrific.
Quaker Ridge is vastly improved thanks to the work Gil Hanse performed.
Other than the Sebonack, NGLA, Shinnecock and Southampton connection, you'd be hard pressed to find four clubs so close to each other that are the equal of WFW, WFE, Quaker Ridge and Fenway.
Jaeger,
How can you not see the similarity in the architecture of those four courses ?
Please tell me that at least you see the similarity between WFW and WFE ;D
Here is his interview:
http://golfclubatlas.com/feature-interview/bill-quirin
-
Patrick - Are you calling me out on a 2009 quote?!
How many similarities do you think there are? The 3 properties are so incredibly different, WF is flat and was blasted/pushed up all over the place, the appropriately named Quaker RIDGE has nice movement throughout the property, and then there is Fenway which is built into the side of a hill.
Why should we try to force some similarities between the 3 rather than celebrate their differences, that is what makes them probably the best 4-some of course outside of the Hamptons and Bandon.
... I'm not sure I would use the words "VASTLY IMPROVED"... It is certainly improved, but by no means would it say go from an 8 to a 9 on Tom's scale, which I think "VASTLY" hints at. Gil has done a very good job, but on a golf course already so good, doesn't the law of diminishing returns come into play unless you go all Pinehurst #2 on it?!... I just think its starting to get a lot more attention than it used to with the way the membership is changing and the work that Gil has done.
-
Patrick - Are you calling me out on a 2009 quote?!
How many similarities do you think there are? The 3 properties are so incredibly different, WF is flat and was blasted/pushed up all over the place, the appropriately named Quaker RIDGE has nice movement throughout the property, and then there is Fenway which is built into the side of a hill.
And you think that prevents there from being any similarities in their general styles ? ,
The bunkers, tees and putting surfaces and surrounds ?
Why should we try to force some similarities between the 3 rather than celebrate their differences, that is what makes them probably the best 4-some of course outside of the Hamptons and Bandon.
Jaeger,
The land form is almost irrelevant, it's the similarities in the architectural style that bind them
... I'm not sure I would use the words "VASTLY IMPROVED"... It is certainly improved, but by no means would it say go from an 8 to a 9 on Tom's scale, which I think "VASTLY" hints at. Gil has done a very good job, but on a golf course already so good, doesn't the law of diminishing returns come into play unless you go all Pinehurst #2 on it?!... I just think its starting to get a lot more attention than it used to with the way the membership is changing and the work that Gil has done.
-
Patrick - I think we generally disagree on this. To say that the landforms are almost irrelevant in anyones architecture is something I cannot agree with. Isn't one of the main beliefs on what made Tillinghast such a great architect that his style was constantly evolving and changing to fit each site, yet somehow you can always seem that get the general feeling that you are on one of his courses?.. In that way, we are both correct, we are just zeroing in on the opposite side of the point.
You want some similarities?! ...
Green sites are heavily bunkered: Off the top of my head I can only think of 1 hole on WFW, WFE and QR that doesn't have sand on both sides. (WFW 18, WFE 17 and QR 6... the original QR 18 didn't have a bunker right, but Gil has not been given the go ahead to remove it)
Heavily contoured elevated greens
Green contours that continue out into a relate to the approaches (Tilly's #1 design concept in my mind)
QR #15 and WFW #15 share the same template
QR #14 and Fenway #3 share the same template
The use of specimen trees both visually and strategically
... Yes there are similarities, but I still contend that it is the landscapes and differences that forces him to apply his theories in different ways that makes these 4 so good in my mind.