Just a question for the Philly boys. I never hear too much mentioned of this early Thomas course. Is it intact? If not, how does it play today? I've just been reading his book alot as of late and was wondering. GS doesn't mention much of it in his book.

It is overshadowed by all the Flynn (and rightly so) as well as the Ross and many other courses in the area.  Worth seeing if you're spending an extended time here, but not if golf time is at all limited.  Interestingly, Flynn and Ross did some work there.

Thanks Wayne. Do you happen to know how much Flynn and Ross changed of the course? Also, are there clues there as to what Thomas' style would become in California?

The recent work at WV was done by Ed Shearon.

Umm....

The work at Whitemarsh Valley is a mixed bag.

On one hand, the fussiness of the bunkers that were done is not entirely out of the Thomas character, but the 12th hole the road is unrecognizable and is now one of the ugliest par threes on the globe.  

I have always wondered about this course as well.  It's my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Thomas designed one course before this one, in Marion, MA.
The bunkering I see here, from my car, is more akin to what I more closely associate with Thomas--old pictures I have seen of Riviera, Bel Air, Ojai.  
I have always wondered, if this course was designed in 1909 or whenever I have read--did it look the same then?  My question is, did his style evolve over time?  I believe the courses in California were not designed until years later, in the 1920's.  

All of this is academic, because it comes down to whatever the membership feels is best for the club--which is fine.  

Doug,

Older aerials of WV show a pretty fussy bunker style.   I do like what Shearon did to 17 & 18, and 10 & 11 ain't bad, although I'm sure that Geoff Shack would vehemently disagree.

Quote from: Doug Braunsdorf on August 30, 2007, 11:05:39 PM

I have always wondered about this course as well.  It's my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Thomas designed one course before this one, in Marion, MA.
The bunkering I see here, from my car, is more akin to what I more closely associate with Thomas--old pictures I have seen of Riviera, Bel Air, Ojai.  
I have always wondered, if this course was designed in 1909 or whenever I have read--did it look the same then?  My question is, did his style evolve over time?  I believe the courses in California were not designed until years later, in the 1920's.  

All of this is academic, because it comes down to whatever the membership feels is best for the club--which is fine.  

Doug,

Older aerials of WV show a pretty fussy bunker style.   I do like what Shearon did to 17 & 18, and 10 & 11 ain't bad, although I'm sure that Geoff Shack would vehemently disagree.

Mike;

  I'm just wondering about the appearance of the bunkers; the Thomas style, if you will, is markedly different in appearance from, say, the Flynn style; I haven't explored the use of bunkering to see if there are parallels as well, in the placement as hazards or opinions on.  

Wasn't Flynn of the opinion, and I may be mistaken, that bunkers were hazards to be avoided?  

Was Thomas of the same mindset?  

Quote from: MikeCirba on August 30, 2007, 11:07:52 PM

Quote from: Doug Braunsdorf on August 30, 2007, 11:05:39 PM

I have always wondered about this course as well.  It's my understanding (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that Thomas designed one course before this one, in Marion, MA.
The bunkering I see here, from my car, is more akin to what I more closely associate with Thomas--old pictures I have seen of Riviera, Bel Air, Ojai.  
I have always wondered, if this course was designed in 1909 or whenever I have read--did it look the same then?  My question is, did his style evolve over time?  I believe the courses in California were not designed until years later, in the 1920's.  

All of this is academic, because it comes down to whatever the membership feels is best for the club--which is fine.  

Doug,

Older aerials of WV show a pretty fussy bunker style.   I do like what Shearon did to 17 & 18, and 10 & 11 ain't bad, although I'm sure that Geoff Shack would vehemently disagree.

Mike;

  I'm just wondering about the appearance of the bunkers; the Thomas style, if you will, is markedly different in appearance from, say, the Flynn style; I haven't explored the use of bunkering to see if there are parallels as well, in the placement as hazards or opinions on.  

Wasn't Flynn of the opinion, and I may be mistaken, that bunkers were hazards to be avoided?  

Was Thomas of the same mindset?  

Doug, in talking with Tommy N, and I may be wrong in remembering this, the Thomas bunkering that we have come to know of his coincided with his partnership with Billy Bell. From what I understand, it was he (Bell) that was largely responsilble for the look that came to be associated with Thomas. This was also true with Bell and his association with Willie Watson. When Watson started doing projects with Bell, his courses bunkers took on a more dramatic look.

There's an aerial of WV in "The Captain" that shows the early bunkering.

I don't have it in front of me, but perhaps someone can explain...I recall them being sort of fussy, but that may be just my memory going fuzzy.

Mike, it's on page 24. The bunkering, to my eye, does not have dramatic capes and fingers that Thomas would later be known for on his courses (Bell). The bottom photo on that page is of the 12th. The bunker on the left looks very deep. GS notes that it is unchanged to this day.

Thanks, David...I"ll check it out this weekend.

When GS wrote that it's unchanged to this day, that was before Ed Shearon's work.  

Samuel Heebner was a prominent member and Greens Committee Chairman of Philadelphia Cricket Club.  He along with Philly Country Club professional Willie Tucker are credited with the design of the second nine (first nine by Sanders Handford) at the original St. Martin's site, which hosted an early US Open.  

Heebner was one of Thomas's primary early mentors, along with Hugh Wilson----that is if we are to believe Thomas himself. Heebner was a big man in golf around here back then.

Whitemarsh Valley was apparently the estate of Thomas's father.

Thomas's father apparently made a lot of money as a partner in the mega financing and brokerage Philadelphia firm of Drexel & Co (J.P Morgan was an early partner).

If you want to appreciate a real curve in architectural style  through a career you need to see Thomas's early Marion, then Whitemarsh and then something like Riviera.

It's a bit off the point but it occurs to me that some of the best of those early architects made some real mistakes in design when it came to preventing some very serious water damage to their courses for a variety of reasons.

There are a few holes at Whitemarsh that are still paying for that and I doubt there is anything that can ever be done about them that way.

In a word they just shouldn't have been built where they were but back in that day I guess the early architects just didn't understand or appreciate that well enough.

By the end, I happen to think George Thomas may've been the most innovative architect there ever was. His imagination must have been amazing.

On the other hand, you know what Macdonald said about innovation in architecture, don't you?  

The primary feature of Whitemarsh Valley as Thomas did it were its par 3s. One rarely sees a variety of par 3s like Whitemarsh had. And if you think about some of Thomas's other par 3s like Riviera one might even assume he was the King of par 3s in golf architecture.

In my opinion, he was a lot more than that. Despite what Macdonald said about attempts at innovation in golf architecture, George Thomas was one helluva innovator. One just does not think to put a sand bunker in the middle of a putting green by being a mundane thinker.  

 

 

By the end, I happen to think George Thomas may've been the most innovative architect there ever was. His imagination must have been amazing.

 

  And if you think about some of Thomas's other par 3s like Riviera one might even assume he was the King of par 3s in golf architecture.

In my opinion, he was a lot more than that. Despite what Macdonald said about attempts at innovation in golf architecture, George Thomas was one helluva innovator. One just does not think to put a sand bunker in the middle of a putting green by being a mundane thinker.  

Tom, I have been reading, I mean really reading his book as of late and have played (and will be playing more) of his courses lately and I tend to agree with your assesments of his place in the realm of architecture. I think, and mind you my opinion doesn't carry much weight, he may have very well been one of the 2 or 3 best archs of all time. Arguably the best this country has ever produced. The nads it took to do a hole like #6 at Riviera and pull it off, I tell you, it's genius.
My experience doesn't come close to yourself or others on this site, but I'd be interested if someone could come up with a better collection of par 3's than at Riviera. The man was good. What's happened to his courses overall is a travesty.

Tom,

While you are no doubt correct about Thomas being an innovative thinker, there was a bunker in the 14th green at Huntingdon Valley CC at the Noble, PA site long before Thomas came up with the Riviera design, though it was far from natural looking.



I have never been to Riviera so I cannot say with any authority.  However, consider the par 3s at Shinnecock Hills, Pine Valley, Merion, Rolling Green (yes, really), Kittansett, Philadelphia Country, Gulph Mills, Charles River, Lancaster, Lehigh, Manufacturers as superb collections of par 3s.  In my mind, Flynn considered par 3s to be particularly important and ought to be considered one of the preeminent designers of par 3s.  Too few people know his work but I think the evidence is overwhelming.