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.


Bill Shotzbarger

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #100 on: October 02, 2005, 09:50:57 PM »
Today, after reading the Tillinghast "reef" thread I was led to the web site of The Tillinghast society, www.tillinghast.net . I began to look at his courses and found this:

http://www.tillinghast.net/tils_fav.html

Philmont CC (E)
Philadelphia, PA

The E stands for examinations. I am aware that Tillie was well traveled and played thousands of courses, and being the architect he was usually submitted recommendations. Why would Philmont be on this list? Also, what course at Philmont? I have a feeling that the club would not be on this list if he didn't do anything.

Kyle Harris

Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #101 on: October 03, 2005, 12:13:34 AM »
Bill,

Phil Young is the man to ask. He (literally) wrote the book on the subject.  ;D

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #102 on: October 03, 2005, 08:59:45 AM »
 Steve,

   I tend to disagree with the idea that the last hole is supposed to be tough. I think #18 fits the property. It is a scoring hole. You need to hit the perfect drive in order to have an easy second shot. If one is under pressure this is difficult. Take Huntingdon Valley #18 for example. It is acknowledged as a great finisher, and I agree. But, you can be left or right in the fairway on the drive. Of course, you still have a challenging second. #18 at Philmont puts more pressure on the first shot.

   I wonder if any of us could have handled the constraints faced by Flynn. If the clubhouse was a given and the other course was already there , I can understand his problem.
AKA Mayday

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #103 on: October 03, 2005, 09:44:37 AM »
Mike,

Do you write these posts with an idea of being controversial or do you really believe the things you write?  I don't think 18 at Philmont is a difficult hole at all, first or approach.  Mike, it is 343 yards and straight away.  The trees encroach like many of the holes, but I fail to see where a perfect drive is required.  Anything in the fairway suffices.  Yes, there's a cant to the fairway but it isn't that great, maybe 8 percent or so.  A draw helps but a straight shot with a five iron up the left side is all that is required off the tee and you say a perfect drive is needed?  Nonsense.  The 18th green is not much of a challenge either as it is wide open in the front and the greenside bunkering is not penal.  As you say, it is a scoring hole, but for a very wide spectrum of classes of golfers.

Philmont North 18th tee shot:



The 18th at Huntingdon Valley is one of the best finishing holes in the area and as you know the district is replete with great final holes.

"But, you can be left or right in the fairway on the drive. Of course, you still have a challenging second."

You can be left or right in any fairway or in the rough or trees for that matter.  All holes are like this.  But the interplay of the angles of the tee shot and fairway lines is automatically more interesting than a straight shot and the angles at HVCC are terrific.  The slope of the HVCC fairway is much more severe than at Philmont North so a far more precise shot is required to hold the correct side of the fairway.  The correct side is very much dictated by the pin position.  The HVCC green is far more difficult than that of HVCC.  It is a much more challenging approach to the green in general and even more difficult to position the ball in the correct location on the green.


The tee shot forward of the forward tees, the rear tees are probably 150+ yards behind this vantage.  Flynn's design had seven bunkers on the hillside at the corner of the turn, only three remain today; it was even more intimidating in its original form:



Philmont puts more pressure on the tee shot?  How can you say that?  HVCC is 434 yards uphill and a sharp dogleg.  It plays considerably longer than the scorecard length.  The angles and topography are much more difficult.

The approach to 18 green at HVCC from Ran's review:



No shot on Philmont North's 18th hole is comparable in difficulty (accuracy or length) as that of Huntingdon Valley.  That includes tee shot, approach shot, putts and recovery shots.

As you say, Flynn (or whomever) had to fit the course into the available land.  The clubhouse was fixed so the routing was limited.  It shows mostly in the holes that leave and return to the clubhouse.  That was the demand, not the tee shot on 18.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2005, 09:46:22 AM by Wayne Morrison »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #104 on: October 03, 2005, 09:54:48 AM »
 Wayne,
     
  I was surprised at how far right the balls bounced on that hole. Possibly it is because of the dry conditions we have had.

   I was not trying to say #18 at Philmont is the equal of #18 HVCC. I just don't think it is a weak hole.

  I still think there is much less space than at #18 HVCC for the drive. Even your pictures point that out.
AKA Mayday

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #105 on: October 03, 2005, 10:06:17 AM »
"I still think there is much less space than at #18 HVCC for the drive. Even your pictures point that out."

Even if this were true, which it is not, that would be because of the trees and not architecture.  The combination of angles and slope at HVCC make the landing area much smaller than mere fairway width as seen in the approach photograph.  If it gets past one level of analysis you really falter, Mike.  Did you go to a school of golf analysis given by an editor of a NJ golf magazine?

The ball will bounce right on a tee shot, but hitting an iron on the short hole is not at all demanding whereas you said it requires a perfect shot.  I know you said 18 at PN is not the equal of HVCC but you did say that it had a more demanding tee shot and that is far from true.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2005, 10:06:51 AM by Wayne Morrison »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #106 on: October 03, 2005, 10:24:03 AM »
I believe the trees were there at the beginning, so it is part of the architecture.
 
   Honestly, I was impressed with the differences between #10 and #18 as side by side holes.

   The slope is opposite for each hole ; the green complexes are forced carry for the downhill hole versus open for the uphill one.
   
   If these holes were just straight up and down I think they would be boring, but the use of sideslope changes the feel to intriguing.


  At HVCC I feel that going left is a safe choice although it leaves a longer shot. I felt at Philmont that I needed to hug that left side.


   
AKA Mayday

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #107 on: October 03, 2005, 10:59:35 AM »
Yes, the side slope on those back and forth holes runs in opposite directions.  The 10th may have a right to left slope from an elevated tee but the landing area to the green is only slightly downhill.  It is only 322 from the rear tee and nearly straight so it isn't at all a difficult hole.  As in the 18th, the side slope isn't that great.  Depending on club selection it is only a partial wedge over the fronting bunkers to a large back to front sloped green.  Both the 10th and 18th are simple holes without much to consider for most classes of players.

"At HVCC I feel that going left is a safe choice although it leaves a longer shot. I felt at Philmont that I needed to hug that left side. "

A much longer shot.  What tee do you usually play from and what club do you usually hit to that difficult uphill green?

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #108 on: October 03, 2005, 11:03:28 AM »
 middle;4
AKA Mayday

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #109 on: October 03, 2005, 02:54:17 PM »
I also understand that North may be rerouted. Here's the scenario:

1-5 and 16-18 would be the front 9.

10-15 and 6-9 would be the back 9.

Thus the front 9 would be par 34 and the back par 36 with the 2 par 5s(12&9) on the back 9.

I don't know if this needs a vote of the membership or Board approval or if the Greens/Golf committees can do this on their own.
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #110 on: October 03, 2005, 03:03:53 PM »
 Steve,

   Then they would undoubtedly have the worst finishing hole :o
AKA Mayday

fred ruttenberg

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #111 on: October 03, 2005, 03:07:46 PM »
The rerouting would make a very interesting course-first nine would have 8 holes and the second nine 10 holes. I would be surprised if the membership approves.

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #112 on: October 03, 2005, 03:10:25 PM »
Steve,

It doesn't add up.  1-5 and 16-18 are 8 holes.  10-15 and 6-9 are 10 holes.  Do you mean 1-6, 16-18 on the front and 10-15 and 7-9 on the back?  

Any clue yet why they're doing this and if there's an architect?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #113 on: October 03, 2005, 03:14:46 PM »
#15 being the initial hole on the back makes sense, Steve must have made a small mistake there.

Steve,

On the surface it appears the only reason to do that is to make the current 9th the finishing hole. Are there any other possible reasons for that particular idea? How long is the walk from current #5 green to #15 tee? I'd guess it's over 500 yards.

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #114 on: October 03, 2005, 03:31:01 PM »
Jim,

If they wanted nine to be the finishing hole, they should just flip the nines.  The progression Steve mentions makes no sense at all.  How can you go from 5 (or 6 for that matter) to 16?  Its way too far from either green.  1-5 then 15-18 makes a little more sense but not much.  Its still a long walk.

Assuming 1-5 then 15-18, the other nine holes must be 10-14 and 6-9.  I have to think about the par distribution.

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #115 on: October 03, 2005, 03:37:18 PM »
 I can see one reason for this thought---separate #11 and #17 into two different nines. Right now the two shortest 3's are on the front and the longest ones on the back.
AKA Mayday

T_MacWood

Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #116 on: October 03, 2005, 03:39:11 PM »
Did Flynn design or redesign Philmont-North?

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #117 on: October 03, 2005, 03:39:16 PM »
A nine of 1-5 and 15-18 has 2 par 3s (3rd hole and 8th hole in the progression) and 7 par 4s resulting in 3170 yards par 34.

A nine of 10-14 and 7-9 has 2 par 3s (2nd hole and eighth hole in the progression) and 2 par 5s (3rd hole and 9th hole in the progression) resulting in 3383 yards par 36.  

I think this is a dumb idea and is out of balance.  Koyaanisqatsi at Philmont.  
« Last Edit: October 03, 2005, 07:53:58 PM by Wayne Morrison »

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #118 on: October 03, 2005, 03:41:44 PM »
Tommy Mac,

We don't know for sure.  There is zero archival materials that have come to light.  Andy Karff mentioned a couple of holes on the South redone by Wilson pretty early on that Flynn was probably involved in some capacity.  As for the North Course?  If I had to guess right now, I'd say that Willie Park, Jr. may have done the original layout (9 holes?) and Flynn added and redesigned.  But who knows?

I did find out recently that Willie Dunn laid out the first 9 holes on the current site of Springdale in Princeton.

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #119 on: October 03, 2005, 03:43:15 PM »
"I can see one reason for this thought---separate #11 and #17 into two different nines. Right now the two shortest 3's are on the front and the longest ones on the back."

That could hardly be the reason for the change, just a byproduct I would guess, or should I say hope.

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #120 on: October 03, 2005, 03:43:50 PM »
Sorry

That would be 1-6 and 16-18 for the front 9 and 10-16 and 7-9 for the back 9.

I may be wrong about the above  but 9 would become 18 definitely. Other than regrading the fairway on 18 now there's not much that can be done to improve this hole.

I don't think there's an architect involved.

For those who read the old newspaper article from the 1950s or 60s posted in the men's locker room, 9 was named the best par 5 in the area( along with 11 at Merion East as the par4 and 4 at Whitemarsh as the par3) and was also named by Golf Magazine as one of the top 100 holes when the article appeared in the 1970s. The club is proud of those mentions notwithstanding opinions posted here.
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”

Jason Mandel

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #121 on: October 03, 2005, 03:50:11 PM »
A nine of 1-5 and 15-18 has 2 par 3s (3rd hole and 8th hole in the progression) and 7 par 4s resulting in 3170 yards par 34.

A nine of 10-12 and 7-9 has 2 par 3s (2nd hole and eighth hole in the progression) and 2 par 5s (3rd hole and 9th hole in the progression) resulting in 3383 yards par 36.  

I think this is a dumb idea and is out of balance.  Koyaanisqatsi at Philmont.  

Wayne,

What do you think about the balance of Merion ;)
You learn more about a man on a golf course than anywhere else

contact info: jasonymandel@gmail.com

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #122 on: October 03, 2005, 03:52:24 PM »
Steve,

I don't see how it can be 1-6 and 16-18.  16 tee is far from 6 green.  I would think it would be as I stated earlier; a nine of 1-5 and 15-18 and a nine of 10-14 and 7-9.

I think the current technology makes 9 a better hole today than it was in days gone by.  At least you have a chance to make the corner now.  Before it was drive, iron around the corner, iron to the green.  A lot like the new back tee at Rolling Green.  Maybe Mike Malone's father was one of those raters back in the 1950s that loved the hole  ;D
« Last Edit: October 03, 2005, 07:52:10 PM by Wayne Morrison »

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #123 on: October 03, 2005, 03:54:29 PM »
 We don't need no damned architect; we need a mathematician ;D.
AKA Mayday

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont Country Club
« Reply #124 on: October 03, 2005, 03:57:12 PM »
Wayne:

 Don't  you mean a back of 10-15 and 7-9? I think we're both having math problems. ;D 10-12 and 7-9 doesn't work

Steve
« Last Edit: October 03, 2005, 03:58:29 PM by Steve_ Shaffer »
"Some of us worship in churches, some in synagogues, some on golf courses ... "  Adlai Stevenson
Hyman Roth to Michael Corleone: "We're bigger than US Steel."
Ben Hogan “The most important shot in golf is the next one”