Philadelphia School

[TEPaul]

"I am not looking for general info but rather specific info regarding the WORK that BUXTON DID at Pine Valley.
Again, Tilly wrote that, "Buxton had been one of George Crump’s most enthusiastic COWORKERS at Pine Valley..."

Phil:

I can almost guarantee you that finding the kind of detailed specific information of what a Cam Buxton did (or any other of Crump's numerous friends and sometime architect visitors to PV) that you are asking for and looking for there is just not going to happen. Why? Because things like that just were never recorded anywhere. They probably weren't even acknowledged at the very moment they happened.

Try to imagine the way it happened out there then, or almost anywhere and at any time. PV has always been known as an amazing collaborative effort of all kinds of people. In the beginning, Crump and his group of friends (mostly the same golfing buddies he played ACC with in the winter before PV) even offered to have 18 prospective members design a hole each if they contributed $1,000 for the privilege. Obviously that changed quickly and never happened as Crump swung into control of the architecture of the course on land he'd apparently paid for himself.

The only time we really get treated to the kinds of stories of some single person coming up with some brilliant SPECIFIC design ideas seems to be when some problem or obstacle crops up and it creates a real recognizable and probably somewhat ongong problem for a while (generally in a routing). This is the case with Colt and that famous story of PV's 5th (although he certainly did do more than that), or the famous story of Marion Hollins and the 16th at Cypress, Coore's story of how the 8th at Easthampton came into being or the recently reevaluated story of Richard Francis of Merion and the fitting in of the 15th green and 16th tee into an existing triangle that was too narrow by coming up with the brilliant idea to reconfigure the line of a road on a plan before the road was even built. Another famous obstacle or problem solving story to do with PV is the famous story of Tillinghast recommending to Crump to move the 13th green over to the side of a ridge perhaps 100-120 yards to the left of where Crump had the green for some time but was apparently not happy with because of the lack of conceptual satisfaction with the arrangement of the two holes that followed. Basically, that very routing glitch stuck Crump for quite some time and was probably in the main the reason PV had only 14 holes in play for so long (although obviously America's participation in WW1 for about seventeen months had something to do with it).

Other than those kinds of things the best we can ever know about any specific details at all is to depend on the general recordings of the people who were basically there throughout to observe things over time. For that one can't do much better with Pine Valley then the hole by hole recordings by Crump's really close friends Simon Carr and W.E. Smith that I refer to as "The Remembrances." The other truly valuable information, at least to me, was the basic descriptions Tillinghast provided at particular times of what had developed, what it looked like and even descriptions of how it was to play. That info from Tillie was remarkably important in constructing timelines and of course who did what or certainly who couldn't have done something simply because the timeline proved they weren't even there then.

There are all kinds of stories like those but generally it's just sort of a flow (of ideas) out there on a course like that but when all is said and done and those who participated give some one man like a Crump or a Hugh Wilson credit for the responsibility of most of it or at least for the editing of the entire process I see no reason at all why anyone today would suspect it's not true or some exaggeration or hyperbole or whatever, seemingly to create a legend via some scheme aforethought. That to me is just really bad history, really bad analysis, as well as a true failure to understand how the creation of architecture really does go day after day out there on those course sites.

I have said to someone like Tom MacWood, and perhaps others, that if these are the kinds of things they are interested in knowing they absolutely must get out there in the field on some projects and watch how it happens. They absolutely need that education because it does not happen the way most suspect apparently. If they never do that they will never have much understanding of how it happens, how it's always happened and they will never know not to ask questions like these which never are and probably never can be knowable because they were never recorded and perhaps not even really noticed at the time. Again, anyone just has to have these experiences to understand it all. Of course Mr. MacWood always seems to take umbrage at this suggestion and others seem to as well. I just don't understand why and I certainly hope you won't, Phil. I surely don't say it or mean it to be didactic, supercilious or high-handed.

Obviously people like Mr. MacWood takes umbrage if I make this kind of suggestion, these threads are replete with it and have been for years. But if he doesn't want to hear it from me or if anyone doesn't, they should simply ask the architects on here, Doak, Brauer, Cowley, Richardson, Moran etc, or the others we know of like Coore, Hanse, Wagner, Nagle etc. They will tell him and you and anyone else the very same thing because that's just the way it goes, it always has, whether one is working just on the ground or with a plan or a computer.

Crump had many friends and others out there all the time during his five years of creation and God can only know where all the ideas came from that went filtering through his head until HE (as they all have said) made the final decision to use it and do it or not.

If you ask me the man who will never get the credit for ideas at Pine Valley that he was probably responsible for is Crump's constant foreman, Jim Govan, the man they say was always by his side through the years endlessly shot testing with Crump to create, improve and finalize ideas, concepts, bunkering, greens and holes. A most interesting article in a Tennessee magazine came my way some years ago that included an interview with his son George Govan who claimed the entire idea of the basic island hole #14 was his father's idea, and to do that hole the way things were out there in that area back then compared to how it is now (with the lake) was obvioiusly not insignificant.

Has Govan ever been given credit for that generally around the world? Of course not, at least not until now.

Will people who have never been to Pine Valley, who know very little about how it went out there back then or even any idea how it pretty much always goes on the site of a project that's in the creation stage question the historical accuracy of that story of Govan and PV's #14? I have no doubt at all they will, even if I see no reason under the sun why they should or why they should even have the right to.

Most of these details are just unknowable, Phil, but I'm sure if Tillie wrote that Cameron Buxton was one of Crump's primary cooworkers out there that he very likely was that---apparently Crump had many of them, and certainly one has to include Carr and W.E. Smith who observed it all enough constantly to be asked to make those recordings and remembrances (even though, remarkably, W.E. Smith made many of his contemporneously as they were happening!). Why on earth would Tillie lie about something like that (Cameron Buxton) when the men who know the truth were still around to read it?  But what Cam Buxton was specifically responsible for, which you seem to be asking for Phil, I'm sure we will never know, particularly if someone like Tillinghast did not record it when he mentioned Cameron Buxton. Also, to me, at least, since we probably never will know specifically there is no reason whatsoever to begin to speculate now what it might have been. And certainly in addition to that, that Cam Buxton was and is being in some way minimized for something he deserves credit for! 

The asking for these kinds of architectural details and who specifically was responsible for them is exactly how all these Merion threads got way off track and contentious over five years ago. Tom MacWood began a thread asking these very same things. Wayne Morrison came on with a comprehensive post saying just what I have here---eg most of them are just not knowable because they were not ever recorded or ever acknowledged---as always they are pretty much just part of the flow as it goes out there, as it always did and always will. I can find that thread from five years ago and show you what Mr. MacWood's reaction to that was and also how things began to devolve into controversy and adversity. It is still ongoing and it all started there basically with this very same kind of request! 

The important thing to consider is if all those involved say that a single man such as Hugh Wilson or George Crump was in the main responsible for the filtering through of most everything and therefore in the main responsible for the architecture there is no real reason to suspect that is not true, that it's an exaggeration, hyperbole or a lie, or that credit to someone has somehow been minimized.

PS:

The other thing you asked Phil, was if Cameron Buxton may've actually fielded a shovel and began using it to actually build somethng. Again, I mean no slight to you at all, Phil, but I think you know better than to ask a question like that about someone like a Cameron Buxton, or Crump, Wilson, Macdonald, Tillie, Whigam or anyone like those kinds of cats back then. I think I can pretty much guarantee you that kind of thing certainly did not happen BACK THEN with people like that! That crowd was clearly the original magnificent "arm-wavers" of the glorious Golden Years of American golf course architecture!! 

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Paul,

Thanks for the detailed answer and info.

You did make one statement that I disagree with. You stated that, "The asking for these kinds of architectural details and who specifically was responsible for them is exactly how all these Merion threads got way off track and contentious over five years ago..."

I disagree with that assessment. It wasn't the asking of questions that was the problem, but the nature of the answers and how they were accepted.

For example, I completely understand that there may never be a means of finding out the information about what specifically Tilly meant by writing that about Buxton, but that doesn't mean that the question shouldn't be asked or investigated.

Also, I would love to personally ask questions such as this and others to the Pine Valley historian, but honestly, how many times can he, or others at many a similar club, do things like that?

Therefor it is important to ask a question like that in a forum such as this as who knows the information that may come forward. It would only be a problem if I now turn and harangue you and unrealistically challenge your knowledge of the club's history. That would be impolite, immature and dumb. There has been plenty of that on the part of a number of people and I refuse to take part in it.

Coincidentally, while I was typing this I just received an email from someone asking me if I knew the date that Buxton died. Afetr quickly telling him that it was in May of 1926 I got to thinking how odd it is that a good number, at least three, of the major figures in Philadelphia golf died very young. Crump, Buxton & Wilson. It makes one wonder how the face of the game may have been effected by that odd confluence of occurances...

[TEPaul]

"I disagree with that assessment. It wasn't the asking of questions that was the problem, but the nature of the answers and how they were accepted."

Phil:

I'll be happy to produce it for you where I believe it all began over five years ago and you and everyone else can judge for yourselves. In my opinion, in over five years now basically nothing has changed. Wayne Morrison's really comprehensive answer was extremely informative, even if some on here might find some kind of edge to it which I don't see at all and I also don't see why anyone should have a problem with it. I feel the problem with the asking and the nature of it was and still is there's such an obvious preconception to it. If that's the way the asker wanted to do it he probably should've just come on here and stated it as his opinion rather than asking the opinions of others as if he did not theretofore know or have some preconceived opinion.

[TEPaul]

"Also, I would love to personally ask questions such as this and others to the Pine Valley historian, but honestly, how many times can he, or others at many a similar club, do things like that?"

I'm not sure what you mean by that Phil. As I'm sure you know every golf club is different this way. Probably the first order of business is to get in touch with the club, state your interest and purpose and then find out who they even think their best historian is. If I rattled off a laundry list of really significant American courses do you think you could even tell me who their historian is or who they think there best source of historical information is? 

Here's one quick and pretty simple example for you. If you called Merion and asked them who they feel is their best historian on their entire architectural evolution what do you think they would say?

[Thomas MacWood]

I hope this doesn't morph into another Merion thread.

[TEPaul]

"Coincidentally, while I was typing this I just received an email from someone asking me if I knew the date that Buxton died. Afetr quickly telling him that it was in May of 1926 I got to thinking how odd it is that a good number, at least three, of the major figures in Philadelphia golf died very young. Crump, Buxton & Wilson. It makes one wonder how the face of the game may have been effected by that odd confluence of occurances..."


Phil:

You do whatever you want and think whatever you want about Philadelphia architecture, architects and influences emanating out of that time, that some may refer to as "The Philadelpha School" but I would seriously caution you on trying to elevate a Cam Buxton to anywhere near the level here of a Crump and Wilson, despite what you may think Tillinghast was trying to say in that single mention of Buxton as a Crump and Pine Valley coworker. Some little bee tells me even Cameron Buxton would very much NOT appreciate something like that.  

I hope you understand that the way we here basically look at the so-called "Philadelphia School of Design" is that it basically emanated out of two truly significant architectural laboratories, and clearly they are Merion East and Pine Valley. For a whole lot of reasons they are our two heavyweight architectural stars and probably by a country mile.

We can probably now add to that this interesting and important new discovering of the nature of the emanation of Cobb's Creek (the course that Geo Thomas apparently referred to as Philadelphia Municipal).

And why do we look at it that way, as apparently Geoff Shackelford did in his book? Because those two (or perhaps three to a lesser extent) really were the places where most all these five and more men came together and really did collaborate with one another either as teachers or learners depending on the time frame.

This was not the case with some of the others of the Philly area best such as HVGC, PCC, Lancaster, Rolling Green, Aronimink, Philadelphia Cricket, Manufacturers or some of the other recognizable Philly course names.

To us, or at least to me, the heartbeat or the pulse of the original "Philly School" and the guys who were part of it was Merion East and Pine Valley, and maybe now this interesting public golf effort---Cobbs Creek. What happened in and around those three and how and why cannot be said of the others.

Of course if others not from here want to redefine what the Philly School was into phases and levels or whatever and include practically everyone who ever worked around here back then that's there prerogative, I guess.  

[Joe Bausch]

I know I have an obit for Buxton, but I can't seem to find it at the moment.  But I do have another article describing him being in Philly for an operation, and it includes some other good info on Cam.  This is from the March 21, 1926 addition of the Philadelphia Public Ledger:

[Thomas MacWood]

I tend to agree with Wayne, when he includes the likes of Meehan, Smith, Klauder and Heebner. Aristic movements or schools are not made up entirely of all-stars. They have tier one, tier two and tier three artists under their tents. They weren't all geniuses, but they shared certain fundamental tenants.

Flynn
Wilson
Tillinghast
Meehan
A.Smith
Heebner
Klauder
Crump
Thomas

Nice list, and they were probably the top practitioners from inside the Schuylkill during that period, but I doubt that any single one of them but perhaps Flynn and Tillie would have considered themselves a golf course architect, much less from any school.

They would have seen themselves as avid amateur golfers and sportsmen trying to improve Philadelphia golf, and that would have been the case with early Tillie as well.   

TE
While I would agree Merion & PV were the two landmark events of that period not all the men associated the PS eminated from those courses. Heebner, Thomas, Tillinghast and A.Smith were all involved in design prior to both of those courses.

[TEPaul]

"TE
While I would agree Merion & PV were the two landmark events of that period not all the men associated the PS eminated from those courses. Heebner, Thomas, Tillinghast and A.Smith were all involved in design prior to both of those courses."


Mr. MacWood:

Of course they were. My only point is what was the signficance architecturally before those two true stars? If it seems they had some real architectural significance then they should be seriously considered and discussed regarding that real architectural signficance. But if not what is the point of including them in the real heartbeat and pulse of what the essence of the Philly School was, or at least the way I see what the Philly School really was about and apparently a Geoff Shackelford felt it was really about when he presented it in his very fine book "The Golden Age of Golf Design"?

That is my only real point here. I'm not trying to exclude anyone necessarily but when one tries to find the real significance of something like great golf course architecture the way to find it is not to include it with everything else that came before and around it. To do something like that is to completely lose the real distinctions of what makes something truly significant in the first place and consequently takes it into that rare "great" category and elevates it to or near the pinnacle which has never been a massively crowded place in my mind.

This kind of thing goes right to the heart of a fundamental subject I would like to start a thread with you on. Since you seem to miss my recommendation or dismiss it, in a little while I while explain what I think the subject is and should be.

I think it could be perhaps the best subject ever presented on this website and I think it could be a thread that will stand on here to be viewed by all for a long time. But you need to engage, Mr. MacWood. The time has come!

I also believe from a thread like this, we can also start to spin off with other threads the various elemental features that combine to comprise important architecture and to even track them back all the way to whence they may have first come. This website and its participants definitely have the resources and the resource methodology to do this and of course you are one of those---an important one.

But the deal is to not overload any subject with the search for some common all encompassing general element or principle or even philosophy. This to me is what I would call "The Compare" side and I think it is something you tend to go way too far on and I believe I know why, and I would like to see you discuss that too---I think it is very important. I think it is useful and interesting to do that sometimes but it should never be the only way. The deal, at least, to me, is to take the subject into what  I would call "The Contrast" side and take that to its logical conclusion and all the way down that "contrast-side" road.

I think only in this way can we ever find where real architectural significance lies, where that rare world of greatness is in golf architecture, why and how. I think it is in the distinctions and differences from the norm. I may be wrong on this but I don't think so, but I guess I do recognize many might disagree and always will.

What is the "norm" anyway? Think about that for a while. In my mind, it is the onset of what one may call "standardization" and the entire philosophy of standardizations in golf and certainly in architecture.

Something tells me this philosophy of basic standardization, particularly in the area of golf architecture was the beginning of a long and unforseen slide into general mediocracy. The true irony is it probably is innately man's way, particularly when he tries to put one of his recreations, one of his "games" of a stick and ball type, on natural landscapes.

Is it really any wonder at all that our two Philadelphia stars, Merion East and Pine Valley, have always been considered not just our very best (likely the heartbeat and pulse of the Philly School) and probably by a long shot but also our most difficult and challenging and also probably by a long shot? 

As much as many may and will deny this there just has to be something really important and significant in this that is forever inextricably intertwined, and of course leads to a real understanding of architectural significance and greatness.

[Thomas MacWood]

I tend to agree with Wayne, when he includes the likes of Meehan, Smith, Klauder and Heebner. Aristic movements or schools are not made up entirely of all-stars. They have tier one, tier two and tier three artists under their tents. They weren't all geniuses, but they shared certain fundamental tenants.

Flynn
Wilson
Tillinghast
Meehan
A.Smith
Heebner
Klauder
Crump
Thomas

Nice list, and they were probably the top practitioners from inside the Schuylkill during that period, but I doubt that any single one of them but perhaps Flynn and Tillie would have considered themselves a golf course architect, much less from any school.

They would have seen themselves as avid amateur golfers and sportsmen trying to improve Philadelphia golf, and that would have been the case with early Tillie as well.   

TE
While I would agree Merion & PV were the two landmark events of that period not all the men associated the PS eminated from those courses. Heebner, Thomas, Tillinghast and A.Smith were all involved in design prior to both of those courses.

TE
You said everything eminated from PV & Merion, but the truth is their interest in golf architecture and collaboration pre-dated Merion and PV. Like anything else it was a process. These men didn't just fall out of bed one day and begin producing brilliant designs. They began modestly and eventually evolved into the architects we recongize today. Shawnee was pretty crude in comparison to Tilly's later designs. And not all the architects (listed above) developed into design stars. Also you should not forget at Merion & PV they received a lot of outside assistance.

[TEPaul]

"TE
You said everything eminated from PV & Merion, but the truth is their interest in golf architecture and collaboration pre-dated Merion and PV. Like anything else it was a process. These men didn't just fall out of bed one day and begin producing brilliant designs. They began modestly and eventually evolved into the architects we recongize today. Shawnee was pretty crude in comparison to Tilly's later designs. And not all the architects (listed above) developed into design stars. Also you should not forget at Merion & PV they received a lot of outside assistance."


Mr. MacWood:

What do you want to learn---what and when first got some of those men interested in golf course architecture or what it was that made a few of them great?

Furthermore, there was plenty of architecture before them, during their time and after them that was never much to write home about. Is that what you want to study and learn more about?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom Paul,

I am perplexed at your response.

"Phil, You do whatever you want and think whatever you want about Philadelphia architecture, architects and influences emanating out of that time, that some may refer to as "The Philadelpha School" but I would seriously caution you on trying to elevate a Cam Buxton to anywhere near the level here of a Crump and Wilson, despite what you may think Tillinghast was trying to say in that single mention of Buxton as a Crump and Pine Valley coworker..."

You seem to be of the opinion that I am trying to portray Cameron Buxton as:

1- A hitherto unknown golf course architect
2- A member of the Philadelphia School
3- The equal, as such, of others who were

I assume this because otherwise I can't for the life of me understand what you are talking about with that comment.

Based upon that, you are incorrect on all three points.

On this thread you have mentioned Pine Valley, and rightly so, several times and Tilly's comments about them and their importance. They are all valid points. That is why I brought up Buxton.

Think about it for a moment. Tilly, who all agree had a hand in PV, who knew Crump as well as almost anyone did and considered himself his dear friend, who also was intimately knowledgeable in the entire project, only mentioned one person by name in all of his writings as a "COWORKER" of Crump's at PV.

Why? There must have been something distinctive, at least to Tilly, about the "coworking" that Buxton did. After all, he wrote that some 8 years after Buxton died. Why then is it wrong to explore and ask about what he did?

As far as "elevating Buxton" to a level "anywhere near Crump" I ask what did I say to even imply that?

I did say, "how odd it is that a good number, at least three, of the major figures in Philadelphia golf died very young. Crump, Buxton & Wilson. It makes one wonder how the face of the game may have been effected by that odd confluence of occurances..."

Is mentioning him in the same sentence with Crump & Wilson declaring them his equal? That's NOT what I did.

I said that Philadelphia saw the early deaths of three major figures in Philadelphia golf. Are you stating that Buxton WASN'T a major figure in Philadelphia golf? Now that would be a mistake.

Cameron Buxton lived a life of quiet dignity whose passion for the game allowed him to be a major force in the development of the game everywhere he went.

As a comparison... as a player he was more than an equal to Crump. Crump created and obsessively built Pine Valley. Buxton practically did the same with Brook Hollow, which he worked on with the ultimate compliment to Crump in mind. His said many times that "Texas needs a Pine Valley."

Brook Hollow's story is an amazing one and Cameron Buxton was a major force in it and in a number of other outstanding golf clubs in Dallas. He helped elevate the game in the entire southwest.  

The reason the "Philadelphia School" is so important a concept is NOT because of the golf courses built in the Philadelphia area, but rather how a group of men who were friends and passionate lovers of golf all came out of the same small area and changed the face of the game across the U.S. and elsewhere with their incredible designs.

Yet as wonderful as the work they did in the Philadelphia area was and remains, in most cases, it was OTHERS who brought them to places where some of their greatest creations came into existence. It was Buxton who brought Tilly to Dallas and where he would design three of the most influential and important golf courses in the history of the game in the Southwest.

THAT is an example of the IMPORTANCE and INFLUENCE of the Philadelphia School and how it affected the face of the game in the U.S.

Therefor, when I simply wonder if Buxton's death may have effected the long-term "face of the game," it is both reasonable and proper. Buxton was a member of the USGA's executive committee and may very well have become it's Executive Director at some point.

My point was simply that Crump, Wilson and yes Buxton, were all major factors in golf in the Philadelphia area and how their early deaths probably affected the face of the game by the simple fact that they were no longer around to influence it's growth as they all greatly did while they were alive.

Time to get off the soap box...

[TEPaul]

Phil:

Then talk about Buxton's importance to Tillie and golf and architecture in the southwest. It's important I know. I don't know that much about Buxton at that point but I do know about Buxton and a lot of guys like him in the years that Crump was creating Pine Valley.

Or maybe I should be sorry I mentioned that at all. A number of people seem to get seriously ruffled feathers around here recently for the oddest reasons.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You suggested that I, "Then talk about Buxton's importance to Tillie and golf and architecture in the southwest..."

I have. What is the problem though in asking questions about his golf career and possible importance in Philadelphia? It is that which led to his taking the game further elswhere in the country, and THAT is a PRIME EXAMPLE of the importance of the so-called "Philadelphia School" of golf architecture.

All agree that thomas was a member... can you tell anything of significance that he designed in the Philadelphia area? Whitemarsh Valley was certainly a fine course but it was more than just a step below PV & Merion... Thomas' major work was done elsewhere, the same as Flynn's and Tilly.

That is why I believe the real story of the "Philadelphia School" is the one that explains how these great designers were able to design courses across the breadth of our massive continent at a time when there were few, if any, paved roads and almost no intercontinental telephone system.

Between 1911 & 1920 Tilly had designed courses from the Northeast to Florida on out to Texas and Oklahoma and all the way on out to California. How did that come about?

Part of the explanation lay in his design at Shawnee. It was a fine design but, even more so, a marketting miracle, and that because Tilly talked Worthington into hosting an annual OPEN tournament beginning in 1912. The Shawnee Open, which later was renamed the Eastern open, was considered on a par with every other tournament of it's day other than the U.S. Amateur & Open.

Almost every major professsional of the day came and played in it, including those from overseas, and they brought back the tale of its popularity and the wonderful golf course upon which it was contested. By the mid-teens the Shawnee CC was a must-play for those who enjoyed the game and so others sought out the creator of this "must-build" course to do theirs.

Yet that is only part of Tilly's story, because it was a number of ex-Philadelphians, people like Buxton, who also brought him to other areas of the country to build major courses in their areas.

If one wants to claim that the Philadelphia School changed the face of golf in America, and I am one of those that make that claim, then they must also show HOW it did it.

I'm sorry Tom, but the story of Cameron Buxton and others like him are more than just a footnote to this this... they enabled the history to actually happen.