News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Flynn's Bunkering
« Reply #25 on: May 25, 2002, 08:04:21 AM »
CDisher
The greenside bunkers in the photo look pretty flashed to me as opposed to a rolled look. Please explain.

I think Toomey might be getting less credit than he deserves. From what i agther he was a huge influence on his proteges who constructed Flynn's courses - Wilson, Lawerence, Gordon, etc. Afterall the firm was Toomey & Flynn not Flynn & Toomey.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Craig Disher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Flynn's Bunkering
« Reply #26 on: May 25, 2002, 10:10:36 AM »
Tom,
Maybe the picture doesn't show the contrast as well as I'd hoped. The green side edges of the fairway bunkers come to a peak with the fairway on the far side falling away towards the green. The bunkers at the greens all have a roll from the green surface into them, some more than others. Clearly the sand is flashed up to the edge of the greenside bunkers, but it is much less pronounced than the bunkers in the fairway. Maybe I'm making a distinction without a difference but the overall site is so flat that the slight differences seemed very noticeable to me.

I took this picture at the 4th to show how the green sites are maintained to funnel the ball into the bunkers. I haven't seen pictures of the bunkers prior to their restoration but I could imagine that the bunker edge previously was at the point where the downslope begins.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Flynn's Bunkering
« Reply #27 on: May 25, 2002, 11:36:32 AM »
???
Tom MacWood
Toomey and Flynn did the Philadelphia Country Club's Spring Mill Course which was completed in 1926, and opened May 28, 1927.
I think the best picture of the bunker surrounds, which were typical of Merion's previous surrounds, are in the History of Philadelphia Country Club, picture of Sam Snead in the 1939 US Open titled "This was the shot that finally got out of the trap."
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Flynn's Bunkering
« Reply #28 on: May 25, 2002, 01:09:36 PM »
Pat:

I probably have come a long way in learning how to analyze various apparent "facts" better and how not to turn simple and easy assumptions into conclusions.

It seems at this point when analyzing bunkering of many of the old guys that looking at photographs that are even remotely recent just doesn't really cut it!

The only way is to find the optimal evolution and maturation time or date of the original architect and compare them to today. Sometimes various degrees of redesign will show up but the aspect that seems to create the biggest general change in "look" is changing maintenance practices and sometimes alterations for whatever reason in the grasses on the surrounds!

But maintenance practices is probably the most extensive culprit of a altered look. I can't believe that the clean look of the bunkering of Indian Creek would be the way Flynn would have recommended his bunkering should look. Matter of fact I did see an early photo of the bunkering on #10 at Indian Creek the other day and it looked vastly different than the way it does now.

So the point is analyzing the photos of the bunkering at Indian Creek now is not analyzing a Flynn bunker but one that has vastly evolved.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:05 PM by -1 »

wsmorrison

Re: Flynn's Bunkering
« Reply #29 on: May 25, 2002, 02:32:10 PM »
Tom Mac and Willie Dow,

I too am awfully interested in the relationship Toomey had with Flynn.  Unfortunately, at this stage in researching the golf courses and agronomy work of William Flynn, there is not much known about Howard Toomey.   I did manage to locate a USGA Green Section article that Toomey wrote in 1927 concerning the grass strain used at Marble Hall, but that is about it.  We are trying to locate family members of both Toomey and Hugh and Alan Wilson to see if there are any archival or anecdotal materials to fill in the very large gaps in the historical record.  There may be some leads coming from members at Merion regarding the Wilsons at any rate.  

As for Toomey, we know he was trained as a civil engineer (helpful in some of the more ambitious projects such as Indian Creek) and that he worked at Merion Cricket Club and came over to the new golf Merion East course sometime during its construction.  Hugh Wilson encouraged Flynn and Toomey to form a partnership, probably after Wilson knew that his own partnership plans with Flynn were not going to happen due to Wilson's ill health that lead to his untimely death in 1925.  We just don't know at this point if Toomey was involved in any design work or simply put the plans into action.  

It would seem that Toomey worked with Flynn from 1924 (Marble Hall) to about 1931.  This coincided with some of Flynn's very best work.  It remains to be seen what role Toomey played, one of many mysteries that needs to be addressed.

Tom Paul noted in a different thread the interesting relationship Flynn had with Toomey and postulated on the reasons for engineers and architects to form partnerships.  Flynn was cost conscious and wanted to build courses efficiently and in such a way as to enable them to be  maintained in order to keep future costs down.  Certainly a trained engineer would have helped tremendously in such an effort.

According to C+W, Toomey was not involved in the following Flynn designs:

Hartwellville (1911)
CC Harrisburg, Doylestown CC (1916)
Lancaster CC (1920)
Atlantic City, Cascades, Cherry Hills (1923)
Pocantico Hills (1935)
Plymouth, NC (1937)

I know that Toomey was 12 years older than Flynn, probably one reason why the firm was called "Toomey and Flynn" and not "Flynn and Toomey."  Toomey died 12 or 13 years prior to Flynn, sometime after Shinnecock was completed.  It will be a priority to find out more about this successful partnership.

  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Flynn's Bunkering
« Reply #30 on: May 25, 2002, 04:23:04 PM »
TEPaul,

I agree completely, it would be difficult to believe that the bunkers today, are the same bunkers Flynn originally designed and built.  That over the years, in addition to nature, numerous hands have altered their look and playability, for a variety of reasons.

What member is going to oppose a super who indicates that a bunker's configuration must be changed if he is to maintain it properly ?

When you see courses built 10 years ago being altered, what chance is there that courses and features built 70-80 years ago have survived untouched ?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Dave_Miller

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Flynn's Bunkering
« Reply #31 on: May 25, 2002, 04:59:14 PM »
Good Point on the survivability of designs from 70 -80 years ago.  Fortunately many many Clubs and Courses are seeing the wisdom of restoration work to original design of these classic courses.  An awful lot can be learned from the great designers of this era as well as from the Superintendents who maintained them in this era

Fairways and Greens
Dave Miller
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Craig Disher

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Flynn's Bunkering
« Reply #32 on: May 25, 2002, 06:49:03 PM »
I think the only comparison that can be made now is whether the bunkers after restoration give the same strategic choices that Flynn was aiming for. Comparing the picture of Indian Creek's #12 from "Golden Age..." p 108 to the one below shows that any similarity in bunker appearance just is not there. The ragged edges and overall natural appearance of Flynn's bunkers have been replaced with something more contemporary and less intimidating. Even their number has been cut in half. But as I see it, Flynn's strategic options are still there and the hole would play much the same. The bunker depths and positions appear to be nearly identical.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tom MacWood (Guest)

Re: Flynn's Bunkering
« Reply #33 on: May 25, 2002, 07:47:54 PM »
Craig
I think you pretty much described the differences accurately. But is it enough to restore (or retain) the strategic options - isn't the combination of appearance and strategy the reason golf architecture is so intersting? One without the other is a loss in my mind.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Flynn's Bunkering
« Reply #34 on: May 25, 2002, 08:15:03 PM »
Craig;

You're probably right that the strategies are quite similar on your posted photo of #12 Indian Creek vs original but the look, number and configuration of Flynn's original bunkering is vastly different. The evolution to what we see in your posted photo is a lot more than just maintenance evolution.

But even if the number and configuration of the bunkering was the same as in GeoffShac's book we can all see that the rugged edged look has now been completely altered.

It may be a bit simplistic but one of the greatest reasons for the loss of the "look" on many of the old "Golden Age" bunkers is the WEEDEATER!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Flynn's Bunkering
« Reply #35 on: May 25, 2002, 08:25:20 PM »
TEPaul,

WOW, are you learning.

Fly mowing, weedeaters.......

Maintainance considerations.

By the way, there used to be a great picture in the lower bar of the men's locker room at Baltusrol, of the 4th green, with LONG, LONG grass, where short grass is now maintained.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back