News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike_Cirba

Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« on: August 12, 2004, 03:46:38 PM »
(With tongue firmly planted in cheek)  ;)

By all accounts, William Flynn was a traditionalist when it came to golf.  His courses built through the 20s were models of the consistent application of Golden Age principles.  Brilliant routings, styling of tasteful elegance, intelligent use of native land forms, restraint exercised in the use of man-made hazards, and layouts generally devoid of frivolous mistakes were all hallmarks of Flynn’s resume.  

Something changed in 1930.  

No, silly…I’m not talking about the Great Depression.

I’m talking about Bobby Jones, Calamity Jane, and the BIG SHOW coming to town at Flynn’s local haunt, the Merion Golf Club.  

All of a sudden, Flynn feels the pressure of the whole world staring at him and evidently goes mad.  Known to be a tempestuous man whose course layouts paradoxically were the virtual avatars of sound judgment, Flynn suddenly seemingly got caught up in the limelight and we all know what sudden fame can do to a man.  Perhaps the USGA slipped him a fin to toughen up the course…protect par, thwart Bobby…who knows?

Next thing you know Flynn is protecting the back end of creek carries with bunkers…

He sees a lovely creek bed and decides that balls shouldn’t go in it, so he builds pot bunkers next to it.

He decides that the work that he and the late Hugh Wilson had done so lovingly needed further refinements and toughening for the big boys.  In a nightmarish night of whiskey, wheelbarrows, and wanton women, the regrettable deeds are done.

Some few years later, while recovering from the incident at a local halfway house in Newtown Square (since converted to a horse farm), Flynn soberly sees the error of his ways, throws his 50 pieces of USGA silver into the Schuykill River, returns to the scene of the crime and in a frenzied, all night blur of repentance, he buries those offending bunkers, never to be seen again. (or so he believed)

And now, you know the rest of the story….

« Last Edit: August 12, 2004, 04:37:22 PM by Mike_Cirba »

TEPaul

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2004, 06:15:01 PM »
Mike:

I'm not sure what kind of answer you're looking for on this thread but probably the simple answer is if Flynn did do those bunkers what Flynn thought was poor architecture and what you think is poor architecture just may not be the same thing!  ;)

But, you know, with a course that evolved over about 22 years architecturally as Merion did not really to be finally completed until about 1932-1934 (again the estimation of Bill Kittleman) is obviously just a far different story than most of the purists on here think it was or should have been. Some of the purists on here seem to think that with courses like these that WHAM!---One day everyone wakes up and says; "Oh my God, we can't touch this course anymore--that last night at 12:01 it somehow entered that point where and when it must be preserved as it is now for the rest of time. To be frank there are some members who think the course was best in the early 1930s, some think it was best in the 1950s and some think it was best in the 1970s. And anyone can look at the bunkers certainly and easily see the look of them did not exactly remain the same! Why was that?

That's not the way it went at Merion---the course was not preserved one day in time. The course continued to evolve architecturally---some may even think it devolved architectural due to lack of serious capital maintenance, particularly on the bunkers! Some even think that was a good thing---that it gave the course some veneer of antiquity and in some ways maybe they're riight. Unfortunately golf course care and maintenance doesn't exactly work like that!

Here's a story that shows how sacred Merion was considered and how the hands off policy prevaded!  ;)

One time a significant member was sitting on the patio and he got hit in the eyes with lights coming down Golf House Rd. So he summoned Richie and told him he didn't appreciate getting hit in the eyes by car lights when he was having a drink on the patio! So Richie fixed that by putting some mounds around the 14th green!!    ;)

Was that the attitude of a course that was locked in stone architecturally for its own preservation during an era everyone on here seems to revere so much?

Hardly!

TEPaul

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #2 on: August 12, 2004, 06:41:32 PM »
First Tillinghast, and now Flynn!? Next it'll be Hugh Wilson and George Crump and George Thomas. I guess all those "Philadelphia School of Architecture" guys just sold out their architectural principles at one time or another!   ;)

The hell with truly getting to know what some of those old guys really thought---I'd give anything just to see their reaction if they could read this website! You want to see some old guys really laugh? I think that would be it!

TEPaul

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #3 on: August 12, 2004, 07:31:32 PM »
"What a crock."

Just three little words there, redanman, and they're about the only accurate thing you've said on here in years.

You see, it wasn't so hard was it?

;)

Mike_Cirba

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #4 on: August 12, 2004, 09:17:49 PM »
Tom;

What kind of reaction was I hoping for on this thread?

Oh...mostly chuckling...bellicose laughter or hearty guffaws if I was lucky.   ;D

I can be passionate about architecture, but sometimes we get a little nuts.  So, I thought I'd try to lighten the mood a notch.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2004, 09:38:59 PM by Mike_Cirba »

T_MacWood

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2004, 10:23:07 AM »
Mike
Thank you Paul Harvey.

Aren't there other examples of architects trying one thing and then later going back and eliminating it. I believe JH Taylor un-did a number of changes he made to Mid-Surrey.

Signed,
A Purist

TEPaul

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2004, 11:26:40 AM »
Tom MacWood:

In that case JH Taylor should be viewed as totally selling out his architectural principles too!! How can you suggest that one architect should be held blameless for removing Mid Surrey type mounds, even if he did put them there and even if they were incredibly ugly, while at the same time you take another architect to task for removing "duffer zone" bunkering???? As a purist, how can you be so two-faced and hypocritical????????

Willie_Dow

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2004, 11:45:35 AM »
My readings of Max Behr, and my listening to Bill Kittleman, seem to ring in my thoughts of what William Flynn was trying to accomplish.

Bill K saying about Merion "listen to her", Behr and the natural shifting of the sands, and Flynn saying we'll need courses 8000 yards long.

To my way of thinking that's evolution!

Willie

T_MacWood

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2004, 12:25:32 PM »
"How can you suggest that one architect should be held blameless for removing Mid Surrey type mounds, even if he did put them there and even if they were incredibly ugly, while at the same time you take another architect to task for removing "duffer zone" bunkering????"

TE
The same way I hold FLW blameless for altering Taliesen. The same way I hold Kobori Enshu blameless for his many changes at Katsura. The same way I hold Ross blameless for changes he made to #2; the same with Tilly at Shawnee, Quaker Ridge & SFGC; Macdonald at NGLA; Dye at Crooked Stick & Whistling Straits; Flynn at Merion & Shinnecock; Fownes at Oakmont; Leeds at Myopia; Langford at Skokie; Travis at GCGC & Hollywood; Alison at PV & Kasumigaseki; Park at Maidstone; MacKenzie, Hunter & Egan at PBGL; MacKenzie at Crystal Downs & Kingston Heath; Simpson at Ballybunion & Chantilly; Raynor at Chicago; Thomas at LACC; Maxwell at Gulph Mills; Abercromby at The Addington; Fowler at Westward Ho!; Stutt at Dorncoch; Colt at County Down, Muirfield, Sunningdale & Portrush; Patton & Low at Woking; Hutchinson at Ashdown Forest; Hotchkin at Woodhall Spa; Hutchison at Turnberry & Brancaster; Strong at Inwood...must I go on?

To be honest I'm not crazy with what Taylor did at any point at Mid Surrey. Interesting from a historic point of view, but so where the original cop bunkers he eliminated at Mid Surrey the first go round.

You appear to have locked upon some black & white notion that we "purists" surround numerous golf courses with yellow tape or put them into the deep freeze when they reach a point of architectural perfection. Speeking for all purists I can tell this is a mistaken conception....age and graceful evolution are beautiful things.

Signed,
A Purist

TEPaul

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2004, 02:12:06 PM »
Tom MacW:

If you think I seemed to have locked upon some black and white notion that purists believe that some courses should have yellow tape around them to indicate hands off it's only because of your suggestions of a "Society" to protect classic architecture and the things you've said recently about restorations.

You said:

TE
The same way I hold FLW blameless for altering Taliesen. The same way I hold Kobori Enshu blameless for his many changes at Katsura. The same way I hold Ross blameless for changes he made to #2; the same with Tilly at Shawnee, Quaker Ridge & SFGC; Macdonald at NGLA; Dye at Crooked Stick & Whistling Straits; Flynn at Merion & Shinnecock; Fownes at Oakmont; Leeds at Myopia; Langford at Skokie; Travis at GCGC & Hollywood; Alison at PV & Kasumigaseki; Park at Maidstone; MacKenzie, Hunter & Egan at PBGL; MacKenzie at Crystal Downs & Kingston Heath; Simpson at Ballybunion & Chantilly; Raynor at Chicago; Thomas at LACC; Maxwell at Gulph Mills; Abercromby at The Addington; Fowler at Westward Ho!; Stutt at Dorncoch; Colt at County Down, Muirfield, Sunningdale & Portrush; Patton & Low at Woking; Hutchinson at Ashdown Forest; Hotchkin at Woodhall Spa; Hutchison at Turnberry & Brancaster; Strong at Inwood...must I go on?"

No, you certainly need not go on although I'm certain either of us could go on with that list almost endlessly! And frankly, that makes the best case yet for my philosophy that any architecture can be improved if it appears it needs to be and it's done well. That's one of the primary reasons I believe in both improvement and good restorations depending on individual situations, of course! In my opinion, really great golf architecture simply proves itself and generally that accomplishes the "hands off" policy (it passes the so-called "test of time" or in Behr's words it becomes "permanent architecture"). Architecture that's been screwed up and is worthy of restoration should be well restored!    ;)

A really good example of the latter, in my opinion, would be the "Lion's Mouth" green-end of Fox Chapel's #9, or perhaps the 12th at GCGC but only in such a way that the green (if the inline mounds are on the green) is relevant and functional to today's green speeds at GCGC and can be maintained as such!!
« Last Edit: August 13, 2004, 02:14:56 PM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2004, 08:21:03 PM »
"And frankly, that makes the best case yet for my philosophy that any architecture can be improved if it appears it needs to be and it's done well."

Your philosophy has given us Fazio at Riviera, Inverness, Sea Island and Oak Hill. Rulewich at Yale. Rees at Equinox, Quaker Ridge and East Lake. RTJ at Ponte Vedra and Garden City. Mitchell at Timber Point. Nicklaus at the Australian. Wilson at Scioto.  Hills at U. of Michigan. Ault at Columbia. Robinson at St.George's. Furber at Banff. The kitchen sink at Bel-Air. Thanks. Keep leading the chears!

What is it with golf architects? You won't find any architects or garden artists with the chutzpah (or stupidity) to alter Taliesen or Katsura. You'll find plenty of golf architects willing to improve or restore a masterpiece (masterpieces that were either great near inception or evolved into recognized masterpieces through the efforts of multiple designers). It doesn't matter if these masterpieces enjoyed decades of relative unaltered admiration...these architects see room for improvement. Ironically they often couldn't create one of these courses if given a lifetime.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2004, 12:47:02 AM by Tom MacWood »

ian

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2004, 10:09:43 PM »
Tom,

"...these architects see room for improvement. Ironically they often couldn't create one of these courses if given a lifetime. "

great line Tom!

Just for my own clarity do I understand you to say:

1. that you do not mind the origional architect tinkering with thier own work.
2. " or other great architects" tinkering with the great works of art,
3. but draw the line at "other architects of lesser competence" changing the master works of famous architects.

Please let me know if I'm getting your point, or missing it before I ask my question.

TEPaul

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2004, 11:08:16 PM »
"Just for my own clarity do I understand you to say:

1. that you do not mind the origional architect tinkering with thier own work.
2. " or other great architects" tinkering with the great works of art,
3. but draw the line at "other architects of lesser competence" changing the master works of famous architects."

Ian:

That, in my opinion is what I believe he's saying! So what is this "society" that Tom MacWood is proposing---is it his own laundry list of architects HE thinks some club worthy of preservation or good restoration should hire?? If that's so I think we can begin to see the futility and ridiculousness of this suggestion, although I'm a firm believer in the premise that if a golf club is going to do a really good restoration they should get out there and check out who out there does what in relation to what they're looking for.

It also pisses me off totally that Tom MacWood has the chutzpah to imply that 'my philosophy' is the reason a Tom Fazio or Rees Jones was hired to restore any golf course! What possible right or reason does he have to say something like that? Did I ever suggest a classic course should consider hiring Rees or Fazio to restore it? Did I suggest that at GMGC?

What about Merion itself? Tom MacWood and a number of others have harshly criticized the bunker project at Merion. That's been discussed on here endlessly and I think I've added some clarity to what happened over there. Tom MacWood apparently feels that Merion was a golf course whose architecture should have been or deserved to be left alone---supposedly that means preserved---eg not touched!

What does he feel about the fact then that Hanse & Kittleman were in the process of restoring Merion's bunkers before they were apparently replaced? Does Tom MacWood feel that Merion's bunkers were worthy of being preserved or does he make an exception that it was OK to restore them if it was Hanse & Kittleman doing the job, or perhaps Doak or Coore & Crenshaw?

I'd like to know some of these things--I'd like to hear him answer some of these questions in detail---it'd undoubtedly show us a good deal about what he may actually be suggesting here!

And lastly, I'd really like to see Tom MacWood and some of these others on here actually involved in a real restoration with a real membership instead of just coming on here and criticizing the restorations of others. I think it would do them all a world of good! They might all start to learn a little reality!

T_MacWood

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2004, 12:04:36 AM »
TE
Easy on all the Tom MacWoods.

T_MacWood

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2004, 12:07:13 AM »
From now on I prefer to be called the purist.

Carlyle Rood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2004, 12:19:27 AM »
No.

T_MacWood

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2004, 12:23:03 AM »
Carlyle
A no from you is as good as a lifetime purism award! Thank you.

Carlyle Rood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2004, 12:26:36 AM »
Carlyle
A no from you is as good as a lifetime purism award! Thank you.

Actually, I was just replying to "Did William Flynn sell out?"  I won't comment on your observations until I begin reading them.  ;D
« Last Edit: August 14, 2004, 12:33:52 AM by Carlyle Rood »

TEPaul

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2004, 12:35:21 AM »
"TE
Easy on all the Tom MacWoods."

No problem at all when the "Tom MacWoods" begin to emerge from their little dream worlds and begin to get a dose of reality!   ;)

TEPaul

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2004, 12:39:40 AM »
"From now on I prefer to be called the purist."

Of course you do. It's very easy to act the part of the total architectural purist when you never have to deal with a golf club!    ;)

Tommy_Naccarato

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2004, 01:01:12 AM »
You guys aren't going to believe this.

My local supermarket has the most beautiful New Yorks for sale for $3.99 a lb, and these aren't just your typical New Yorks, were talking 2 inches thick, lean as can be, but yet just enough fat that it doesn't ruin the palate and you don't have to cut it away and push it aside.

Also on sale are the biggest Idaho-sized spuds perfect for baking and then burrying in some butter, sour cream and chives.

Unbelievable I tell you! Unbelievable!

(In other words, I love these meat and potato subjects!)

Don't hold back guys, don't hold back!


TEPaul

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #21 on: August 14, 2004, 09:12:55 AM »
I'm sure Mike Cirba's initial post on this thread was intended to be satirical and humorous--(and I think it is--and I like that---this website could use a whole lot more humor many times). That's fine--I think that's a good thing. But eventually this subject is going to get serious too. It sounds like that's what TommyN is asking for and I think that's a good thing too!

But look at what's evolved here. Humorous or not Mike Cirba and various other so-called "purists" on here have castigated a couple of bunkers on Merion that were apparently installed, even if for a short time, by the architect who rightly should or could be considered "Merion's architect" at that time--William Flynn (as the course's original nominal creator and Flynn's initial mentor, Hugh Wilson had died at least five years previous).

Now certainly Mike Cirba, and other so-called architectural "purists" do maintain that they should have the right to be constructively critical of any golf architecture no matter who it was that made it---even William Flynn of Merion at Merion.

But I have to ask, what real right do Mike Cirba and other so-called "purists" have to recommend that those bunkers be removed or to label them perhaps the worst bunkers in the world? How is that of any real difference from some ego driven green chairman who apparently has no real idea of the principles and theories of a William Flynn and also recommeds the removal of some of Flynn's architecture because he just doesn't like it?

I think you can all see that this entire subject is basically just boiling down to anyone's subjective opinion of what's right and wrong. But we all probably knew that's the way it is and has likely always been.

What would be a more logical and appropriate way of looking at those bunkers on #4 and #5?

First do the research on the evolution of them!

We know;

1. They were not there for the first 18 years of Merion East.
2. Then they were installed around 1930, perhaps for a major tournament. Why was that and who did them?
3. Then they were removed. Why was that and who removed them?
4. Then they were reinstalled decades later? Why? Probably in an attempt to do an exact restoration to a particular time in Merion's evolution? Why pick that time? Probably because Bobby Jones won the Grand Slam there at that time and that  happens to be one of the most famous events in golf's history and it took place on that course and on those holes--and those bunkers presumably were there! Another theory is who amongst Merion's membership could or would argue with a golf course or any of its features that produced an historic event like that!?
5. In a strict sense of applying so-called "architectural principle" to a conceptual analysis of those bunkers we do know that it's not supposed to be acceptable or prudent to create architectural or strategic features that are redundant to one another because they are closely juxtaposed. But then why did MacKenzie design and create trees on CPC's #17 directly behind some mid-fairway bunkers? Is that not also architecturally and strategically redundant? Should we go with accepted architectural principle or should we go with what Mackenzie clearly did?

Those are the questions---and they're all legitimate ones. Do the research first of the evolution of anything you're considering changing---removing or replacing! After that apply architectural and conceptual principle to it. Then make a decision and let time tell you whether the decision seems to be a good one or not! How do you let time determine that? By whether or not that decision passes the so-called "test of time" and becomes admired and respected or not.

If something gets to that point, where it's admired and respected, or even eternally controversial but clearly interesting (as Riv's #10 may have always been), it's time to recognize that the time has come to preserve that decision and those architectural features (no matter who it was who made them), in my opinion. Otherwise it's never any more than whose opinion will prevail---the so-called "purists" or those others that the purists consider architectural corrupters.

This is thoughtful, it's research oriented and also a good way of taking obvious bias by some toward someone like Fazio or Macdonald & Co, or perhaps even obvious bias by others, on the other end of the opinion spectrum, toward William Flynn out of the equation and simply let architecture speak for itself!

How can anyone who cares for a golf course be expected to do better than that?


« Last Edit: August 14, 2004, 09:21:02 AM by TEPaul »

T_MacWood

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #22 on: August 14, 2004, 09:46:38 AM »
Ian
It’s a little more complicated than that.

Columbia: Originally the work of HH Barker around 1911. A few years later (less than ten) Travis remodels the course. A few years after that (less than five), Flynn makes a few improvements. Fifty years after that George Fazio tries to improve the course; seventy-five years after Flynn, Ault believes he can improve the course…they can’t.

GCGC: Originally the work of Emmet/Hubbell. Less than ten years later Travis goes on his methodical campaign to redesign the course. A few years after that Emmet makes a couple of key changes. A couple years after that, Tilly improves a hole. Several decades later RTJ is called in to improve the course…he doesn’t.

Sunningdale: Originally the work of Park-Jr. Five or six years later, Colt steadily remodels and improves the course. It remains pretty much intact.

Pebble Beach: Originally the work of two amateurs. A couple of years later Fowler is called in to make some changes. A few years after that MacKenzie, Hunter and Egan overhaul Pebble Beach creating a spectacular design. Many decades later Nicklaus is called in to create the new 5th. This is a rare instance when a later change to a landmark design resulted in an improvement—but you would have to admit the circumstances were extraordinary. One only hopes that success will not stimulate further changes.

Merion: Wilson & Co. layout the new course. A few years later Wilson & Flynn redesign the course. Over the next few years, Flynn caries out a number of changes. A constant during this period, and after, is Valentine (construction and custodian)…Valentine’s son succeeds him as custodian…all together they look after the course for decades--a very rare (and fortunate) situation.

2002--enter the Swollen Lips of Merion.

I’m not sure what Kittleman’s work should be called: Repair or restoration or perhaps both. But it seems clear to me he had the necessary ingredients IMO for a successful restoration—thorough documentation; skill, talent and experience; traditional technique; a deep respect for the original work and a desire to preserve its authenticity.

When we discuss preservation of these landmark designs, obviously these courses are old. Most of these designs were created in the first three decades of the last century. I gave these examples (others I could have included: Dornoch, LACC, Kasumigaseki, Kingston Heath) because they became great designs through steady improvement, often by several men.

If there is a pattern, it is the improvements occurred in a relatively tight period of time….and then stopped. The other lesson is that changes made decades later (to these landmark designs) often fail. Even changes made by very talented architects—RTJ and Tom Fazio as examples.

And the inverse of that situation can also be true. HH Barker is not a household name (even though I have growing respect for his abilities), but I wouldn’t want a Coore & Crenshaw or Doak touching his Mayfield design.

Most golf courses can be improved, we are only discussing the very best of the best as candidates for conservation.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2004, 09:56:12 AM by Tom MacWood »

TEPaul

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #23 on: August 14, 2004, 11:03:42 AM »
When I see remarks like this which certainly seem to be an admirable thing to suggest;

"Most golf courses can be improved, we are only discussing the very best of the best as candidates for conservation."

Followed by a remark like this;

"And the inverse of that situation can also be true. HH Barker is not a household name (even though I have growing respect for his abilities), but I wouldn’t want a Coore & Crenshaw or Doak touching his Mayfield design."

I wonder what it is we're talking about here. Is this some suggestion or proposed "society" of what golf architecture in this world should be preserved according to Tom MacWood?

If so, it may very well be an interesting discussion on Golfclubtlas.com but what effect would it really have on these clubs and courses? Most any club is run by the members of those clubs or their representatives and of all those people probably 99.9% of them have never even heard of Tom MacWood and the perhaps the remaining .01% that have heard of him may not really care what he thinks anyway. And unless, for some reason, any of these clubs actually invite him (or his proposed "society") to take part in some resarch and/or decision making in what they may do to care for their course how could something like this have any effect at all?

Eventually, doing anything about the care of any golf course boils down to one thing alone---the club's membership or those that represent them. Certainly any architect of any time has understood the obviousness of this!
 

T_MacWood

Re:Did William Flynn "sell out"?
« Reply #24 on: August 14, 2004, 11:27:56 AM »
TE
May I suggest you study the preservation movement in Architecture and LArch. We are limiting ourselves if we continue to only look at the situation from the local club level. There needs to be a change in the dynamic.

An organization like the one I proposed is only as good as the people who form the orginization--optimumly respected writers, historians and architects. When I first presented the idea a week or so ago (and it is just an idea), I was voluntarily contacted by two well-known names who expressed interest. I'm seriously considering pursuing it.

There aren't too many admirers of golf architecture and the history of golf architecture who aren't in favor of preservation.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2004, 11:47:31 AM by Tom MacWood »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back