Country Club of York

[SPDB]

Wayne -
I don't question your judgment, I have no basis to. I can only go on the unadorned statements which appear on this thread. Earlier you said that there was a friendly rivalry between the clubs which might be material in the selection process. The inference that can be drawn from that statement is, I think, that somehow this affected CCY's choice of Ross over Flynn. The implied message could be, but for Flynn's design at LCC, he might have designed CCY. In the absence of any evidence supporting that, the implication can only demean Ross.

What you seem to be saying is, if we were to find club records that said Flynn's proposal was too expensive, that is not something we should bring to people's attention.  

I've said nothing of the sort. You expressed finding evidence of cost, but said nothing of what that cost meant to CCY. You've conflated absolute cost with cost and its impact to CCY. Drawing conclusions on the former is fine if evidence is found, drawing conclusions on the latter is speculation.

Look back at your posts, you speak only of finding evidence of cost and drawing conclusions on that basis. That's injecting a value judgment that may not have been relevant at all to CCY.

[Craig Disher]

Wayne,
Hopefully CCY won't be one of the countless clubs that lost all their records in a clubhouse fire.

Jim's comments were very interesting. The large number of changes to the back 9 might imply that Ross's initial design wasn't as good or as well-considered as it should have been. If ball containment was a problem on a few holes due to the severe slopes on that part of the property, how did Flynn's plan address it?

Jim - the Ross drawing I've seen doesn't seem to show bunkers left and right of the 4th green. Wayne may have a better copy and can confirm.

[JNagle]

Craig,

The addition of ball-containing bunkers may have more do do with adjoining properties, narrow corridors (because of tree planting) and committee/individual placement and less to do with Ross' plan. The narrowing of fairways often times leaves only the sloped areas in-play.  

Flynn's holes 11, 12, 14 & 17 played over similarly difficult terrain. Only six bunkers were removed from the back-nine and five of those were of no strategic value (#11 very short carry off the tee negotiate the two left bunkers and #12 they were again shoroff the tee a positioned to the right, #16 the bunker was well right and in the hill-side).  The bunker on #16 may have had value in that a golfer could use the hillside to play a ball into a left of center left hole location, therefore he must negotiate the bunker.

All in all the course is very good.  The most difficult terrain is hole #11 and #15.  But even 15 seems moderate.

Looking at the '38' photo one can see just how wide #14 was.  This hole plays from Flynn's #16 tees to the #13 tees.  The corridor now is much less.  The flat ground was definately in-play.

Ron and I discussed the 4th green.  He believes also that both bunkers may have been added (we could be wrong) as they do not fit in shape, size and the undulations of the berms do not match.  The left bunker has value, the right does not and will eventually be removed.

[wsmorrison]

"Jim - the Ross drawing I've seen doesn't seem to show bunkers left and right of the 4th green. Wayne may have a better copy and can confirm."

The Ross routing map (drawn by McGovern I believe) shows two bunkers flanking the fairway with the left bunker about 15 yards further down.  There are no bunkers around the green.  The drawing of the green shows a ridge front right perpendicular to the line of play and a ridge from 11 o'clock to the center of the green.

The McGovern hole drawings, done later than the routing map, show the same set up as the routing.  The two bunkers were indicated to be not less than 4 feet deep and located beginning 162 yards out on the right and 177 yards out on the left.

[Mark_Fine]

Interesting discussion.  Sorry I don't have the time to participate a little more often here.  Just a few comments I thought were worth mentioning.  First, if you look through the history of some of the classic courses you will see how various architects (some great, some not so great) had different thoughts about the same piece of property.  It is not uncommon as they all seemed to end up working on each other's designs.  Most of the time they ended up doing something different when they redesigned, renovated and/or re-routed the course.  For those in doubt, spend a few minutes with Cornish and Whitten’s book, The Architects of Golf and you’ll see how many courses had this happen.  On a side note Pat, did you ever see Raynor's routing for Cypress Point?

Second, Ross as we all know took on a lot of projects.  But Flynn did a few himself and at times was very busy.  I don’t have time for a thorough analysis (Wayne maybe you can chime in) but in 1922 and 1923 alone, Flynn was involved with Denver CC, Monroe CC, Columbia CC, Brinton Lake, Concord, Atlantic City CC, The Cascades, Cherry Hills CC, Kittansett, Philadelphia Electric, The Homestead, Huntingdon Valley, Bala GC, and Glen View Club.  Pine Valley and Merion were still taking up some of his time as well.  Some how he managed to get to all of these.  

Third, there are sooo many factors that impact what ends up being designed or what ultimately gets built.  Budgets (I think Wayne brought this up) can (and did) play a huge role in many many projects.  We often tend to judge courses (old and new) assuming the architect had complete control of the project and the budget was not an issue.  That was/is rarely the case.

Mark   

[BCrosby]

A great case study opportunity. Unfortunately, it's hard to discuss competing routings without having the routings in front of your audience. You need to be able to point.

Nonetheless, there are a couple of macro points that jump out when you compare the Ross and Flynn drawings for YCC. I mention them only to spur further discussion about the two men's styles.

First, Ross used more of the property. The existing 5th, 13th and 14th Ross holes lie completely outside the perimeter of the Flynn routing.

Second, there appears to be a creek (with severe banks at points) that bisects the eastern half of the property. Ross ran holes parallel to the creek (see nos. 11, 14, 15). By contrast Flynn's holes on that side of the property are roughly perpendicular to Ross's. In fact, Flynn has 5 holes that cross the creek (see nos. 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16) while Ross has none. (Well, Ross's 15th does sort of. The creek is at the tee but not in play.)

Completely different (if not opposite approaches) to using the creek and it bordering slopes.

Third, similar differences appear in the way they dealt with (what appear to be) the severe contours in the NW quadrant.  Ross runs his nos. 5, 6 and 7 roughly north/south. Flynn routes his holes in the same area (nos. 5, 6, 7) in the opposite direction, east/west. Again, Ross placed his holes parallel to slopes, finding high spots where he could. Flynn seems to put more holes "against the grain".

(Those of you who know the terrain may tell me I'm all wet. If so I will happily retract the above. To borrow from our secretary of defense, you make do with the information you have, not with the information you might wish to have.)  

But based solely on the routings, my sense is that Ross built more holes along contour lines, while Flynn designed more holes across contour lines. There are areas in the YCC routings where that contrast jumps off the page.

I would love to visit YCC someday and dig deeper into this.

Bob  

 

[JNagle]

Bob,

You bring up a very good point regarding topography.  Both Flynn and Ross were great "users of the land" in routing styles.  The holes proposed by Flynn would have had more difficult terrain to work with.  Yes, Ross has two difficult holes 11 & 14 (a small portion of 15 & 18 have side slopes) relative to slopes.  However knowing the property and viewing Flynn's routing one can see many more holes 4-5 where the terrain is more difficult to work with.  Also, there are a number of green that would have been under heavy shade because of surrounding woods and higher elevations to the south and east.  This brings to mind Philly C.C.'s #5 hole, the downhill par 3.  

If you think of Flynn routings he seems to enjoy using streams as a perpendicular hazard with greens set beyond the crossing hazard (Mannies has 8 of 18 holes playing over the same creek, Lancaster has 6 holes with a crossing stream, Lehigh he uses the Little Lehigh 4 times).  He seemed to use the streams more as a crossing hazard and less as a strategic element i.e. play close to the hazard and a better angle of approach opens up.  Ross used the stream on only one hole (and that is the 15th and it is only a short carry off the tee).  

[BCrosby]

Jim -

There appears to be some severe contours in the NW corner of the property. Where the current 5, 6 and 7 are. Is that correct? Could you describe the elevation changes on those holes?

Bob

[T_MacWood]

"While Ross mastered the operations of a huge network of jobs (40 in different stages in 1920 alone) Flynn was a part of the growing movement in scientific applications to design and must have learned many of the cutting edge efficiency techniques and cost analysis from Frederick Taylor who was also quite a golf enthusiast."

Wayne
Interesting theory. How did Taylor's thoughts on efficiency manifest itself in Flynn's production or processes? Was Flynn unique in quoting jobs based upon a pricing formula that dealt with soil type, conditions and type of golf course?  

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

I'd like to address this question in greater detail.  I have to go out in a bit, but I will gather the information to answer your question.  I am not at all sure how most architects pre WWII quoted prices for work, but it is very interesting to view the Rockefeller family archives to see the cost estimate process for the estate course and the interaction between JDR, Jr and Flynn.  One thing we know for sure is that Flynn had specific prices for specific work and the man-hours involved for each.  Flynn new Taylor and it would seem (although it is not found in written form) that he incorporated many of Taylor's principles in pricing and methods of operation.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

I don't believe the Taylor green experiments were so much directed at economic efficiencies of actually building greens or golf architecture as they were at the efficiencies of growing and maintaining better turf for putting greens. They were revolutionary and admired for their time simply because they were believed to produce much better and more reliable turf for putting greens. Taylor's green construction method was a 45 degree layering method made up of various parts clay and cow manure and another layer of decayed peat moss and cow manure. In a certain sense Taylor's green construction method was the precursor to the USGA spec green.

For all we know Taylor's construction method may have been more expensive than the less sophisticted green construction methods of the time (early to mid teens).

The point of the fascination with Taylor by the Wilsons and Piper and Oakley is he was just a part (and a valuable one) of their on-going efforts to collect information on more efficent ways that all clubs across America and Canada could tap into their continuous research about various grasses to be used in various parts of the country and on various parts of golf courses so that those clubs would be able to forego their own OJT that was very much hit and miss at that time and consequently too expensive because of it.

We can see from the letters and comments of particularly Hugh Wilson that he believed Flynn to be about the most efficient and cost effective analyst of agronomic maintenance. This did not necessarily relate to architectural construction methods per se, this was more about agronomy but if Flynn had become so respected for one it's probably fairly safe to say he may've been respected for the other, and as you mentioned we can see how his later architectural cost breakdowns may've been cutting edge for that time.

It seems to me that economic efficiencies in both architecture and agronomy was very much part of his pitch and appeal but this was true of many other of the well known architects of the time such as Ross and Mackenzie.

[BCrosby]

After looking at the routings again, a couple more thoughts:

1. Ross routes holes on flatter terrain. He tends to route away from (or parallel to) steep contours. Thus he uses the flatter northern and eastern edges of the property and more of the flatter central area.

2. Flynn, on the other hand, almost seems to seek out extreme contours. He revels in steep slopes. He concentrates holes in those areas. It is why his routing is more compact and uses less acreage that Ross. It seems to be where he wants to do his thing.

3. Their use of the relatively flat area in the central area of the property is also revealing. Ross puts nos. 1 and 10 there. Flynn bypasses the area entirely. He seems almost in a hurry to get away from the gentle slopes there and move on to the naughty bits farther away from the clubhouse.

The more I look, the more interesting this gets.

Bob    

[TEPaul]

Bob Crosby said;

"Again, Ross placed his holes parallel to slopes, finding high spots where he could. Flynn seems to put more holes "against the grain".
But based solely on the routings, my sense is that Ross built more holes along contour lines, while Flynn designed more holes across contour lines. There are areas in the YCC routings where that contrast jumps off the page."

Bob:

If one can generalize at all about differences or perhaps personal differences in styles of routing a golf course, my feeling is Ross and Flynn may be two of the best to detect differences. It's sure always been my feeling that Ross tended to max most of his routings out on sites that had the topography with high tee/valley fairways/high green sites! Once he'd maxed a site out that way he basically just connected the rest. There are just so many Ross courses that way it seems sort of undeniable.

Flynn, on the other hand seemed to use topography in more diverse ways in his routings. In that sense he seemed to just flow all over sites and came up with routings and holes that could be most anything and everything. That tendency on Flynn's part may've been one of the reasons he took on some pretty tough sites to route and came up with some interesting courses.

It seems to me that that great little nine hole course in Western Pa by Ross, Rolling Rock, may've been just nine holes because Ross may've said; "I just can't get another nine on that radical property (where the second nine would have been and now is by Silva). Flynn, on the other hand, as guttsy as he seemed to be in routing may've said to Rolling Rock; "I'll figure out how to get nine more holes on that section!"

[TEPaul]

I can also tell you that a course by Flynn, Eaglesmere, that is NLE is one of the most amazing routing feats in a portion of it I've ever seen. I don't know how one would have the imagination and the guts to get a couple of those holes done the way he did there. It's NLE but enough of the vestiges of it are still out there to see under the forest and underbrush. A couple of years ago Wayne and me, the super and Bill Albertini who happens to be the president of Merion were crawling all over the underbrush of that old course trying to see what we could see that was left. Talk about addicted to old architecture---that day basically proved it. We looked like dirty little kids when we got done!  

[BCrosby]

There is no question that Flynn's routing at YCC is more adventurous. The differences with Ross are striking. The terrain features each picked to build his design around are nothing less than polar opposites.

Flynn wanted to work across severe contours. Ross tried to avoid them. Thus the very different routings.

That's a gross generalization, of course. But there is some truth to it.

Bob    

[BCrosby]

I would add, though, that a more adventurous routing does not necessarily mean a "better" golf course. However you want to define "better". That's a different question and probably unanswerable in the case of YCC.

Great story about Eaglesmere. You guys need to flesh it out and put it in the book.

Bob

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Wayne,

Would you say that Flynn's ability to route was his strongest, most prominent architectural talent ?

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

That's an interesting question.  I think Flynn's ability to route a golf course using the land as much as possible in its natural state is one of his greatest strengths.  Sometimes this necessitates using some machine work to connect the holes but he would accomplish this in a manner that looks natural.
The result of these tremendous routings, all over the map so to speak and over all kinds of topography is manifested in many ways.  There is great variety and flow to his hole progressions.  He systematically looked for courses within a course and by this I mean different sets and numbers of holes to play.  Sometimes it was against the mold and it may have cost him jobs.  

Ron Forse (sorry to speak for you) and I had a nice conversation today where he mentioned a number of points why he felt the membership preferred the Ross plan.  Ron feels that none of this dealt with Lancaster-York relationship (distance between was great in those days and there wasn't much interclub play) or cost factors (the construction cost differences would have been minimal and the club was very wealthy).  

According to Ron, Ross used the flat ground much more so than Flynn.  Where Ross stayed on contour so to speak, as Bob Crosby noticed,  Flynn was uphill, downhill, sidehill much more.  The 10th fairway that Flynn proposed dropped 25 feet left to right!  He did this elsewhere, the 7th at Cascades for instance.  Ron Forse thinks that the up and down walks in the Flynn plan were much harder than the Ross routing plan.  This may have been on the membership's mind.  The number of uphill approaches in the Flynn plan may have been something the membership wasn't as interested in either.  Ron points out that George Fazio was heavily influenced by Flynn and had a number of uphill approaches at Chester Valley, Hershey East, and Jupiter Hills that are reminiscent of Flynn's uphill approach tendencies.  

Certainly the membership would have been aware of Ross's tremendous quantity of work and the many championships being played on his courses.  Yet Flynn was the man in Eastern PA so Ross's national presence may not have been so great an influence.

Rather than looking at why Ross was chosen over Flynn, it is a better exercise to consider the differences themselves and see how they may represent design/routing preferences.

Bob, thanks for your insightful comments.

Tom Paul is right, the "new" course at Eagles Mere was a very daring routing.  We should definitely highlight this plan in a section we might dedicate to routing.  There were a number of climbs of 120 or so feet.  There were landing area plateaus that might have made it a bit easier, but that was a tough layout.  I'd hate to carry 2 bags as a caddie trying to make a few bucks.  That was earning your pay!

Tom,

I agree that Taylor's method of green building probably cost more to do and took more time to build.  I was trying to say that I thought his time management and cost analysis principles were probably picked up by Flynn or certainly considered in Flynn's method of operation, one that would have surely appealed to the captains of industry that made up much of the membership and clientele at the time.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul & Wayne,
Would you say that Flynn's ability to route was his strongest, most prominent architectural talent?"

Pat:

As Wayne said, that's an interesting question. To me, not only is that an interesting question, it's a huge one and has been to me ever since Wayne asked me to write the Flynn book with him. Personally, I think Flynn may've been the most talented router ever! Obviously that's something I could never remotely prove---it's just a gut feeling of mine.

You've heard me a number of times on here say I think routing a golf course is something akin to doing a jigsaw puzzle (and having to make the pieces too) and fitting fence rails into posts that are basically set in the ground (to fit the rails into the posts often you have to keep goiing backwards to continue to go forward). It seems to me Flynn may've been able to look at a property and sort of go----zuuuit, boom, flash---and just see the possiblilities in combination faster than most anyone possibly could.

I say that Flynn just seemed to roll across properties with his routing using every imaginable kind of possibility and somehow pull it all off with holes that could individually all stand on their own without criticiism.

I do think that Flynn's strongest talent, and maybe by a country mile, was his talent for routing. But again, a lot of this is subjective and something that could never been proven.

[wsmorrison]

Pat,

How would you look at Flynn's routing ability?  I think that the routing is the first and most important element in course design.  It was far more important in the early days.  With all the earth moving that can be done today, the routing can be predominantly manufactured as opposed to discovered.

[TEPaul]

Wayne said:

"Rather than looking at why Ross was chosen over Flynn, it is a better exercise to consider the differences themselves and see how they may represent design/routing preferences."

I agree with this completely. I see no reason at all to speculate on why CC of York may've chosen Ross to do their course over Flynn. This would be a waste of time we could never remotely know. The best idea of an excercise like this on a single piece of property is simply to analyze how the different routings and the different holes of those routings would play in and individual and a whole course sense.

I think the observation that Flynn's routing and holes may've been a tougher walk is right on the money. The next question should be---would the tougher walk have been worth it in challenge and excitement?

[T_MacWood]

While your intra-exchange is fascinating...is there a reason why you haven't posted the two routings so the rest of the world could follow what you are talking about?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul & Wayne,

I think it was one of Flynn's inherent talents, and the first one required in the design and construction of outstanding golf courses, of which he produced many relative to his entire body of work.

[wsmorrison]

"While your intra-exchange is fascinating...is there a reason why you haven't posted the two routings so the rest of the world could follow what you are talking about?"

Tom,

We've thought about that--we really have.  But we want to manage the  flow of archival materials and not subordinate the book project.  I've had a number of emails that say while they're pleased to see this stuff, we should save it for the book.  A certain big fellow will beat me up   if I keep posting stuff.

One issue is the source of the materials.  We did not find the photos nor did we do the work on photoshop.  I'd have to get permission to post them on here.  It probably is not an issue, but I don't as yet have permission to do so.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
I can understand why you wouldn't want to divulge the entire book on the Internet...but on the other hand this is an interesting topic and you have chosen to bring up on a discusion group (as opposed to IM or e-mailing one another)...unfortunately it is nearly impossible for 99% of us to follow or participate in. Carry on.