[JESII]

Regardless of the specifics (ie. 1-6, 16-18 or whatever), what's the point?

The membership is very fond of the 9th, most clubs if presented with the option of Philmonts present 9th (long hard par 5) or 18th (short easy par 4) as the actual final hole would select the better, more difficult hole (in this case #9). That can be accomplished very easily, play starts from the current 10th. What obstacles are presented by doing that that I can't see? The walk from present 18 to present 1 is longer than the current walk from 9 to 10, but not by much, not longer than the walk from the clubhouse to #1.

Any thoughts as to why the mid-nine adjustment ideas.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

   Take your choice! Either #9 is goofy or you are ; I can live with either choice. Because if you don't think that hole is goofy then you definitely are.

[mike_malone]

 Jim,
     My guess is a combination of --switching #9 and#18 and moving the 3's around. I have no opinion on this ; I'm just fishing.

[JESII]

What would make #9 at Philmont a better hole? Tie it into something that might sell to those who like the hole as is.

[wsmorrison]

Good point, Jason.  I was expecting someone to bring that up.

Merion is a brilliant design very much dictated by the land constraints, somewhat like Philmont with its pre-existing course and clubhouse.  Merion's routing is unique in golf.  To me the routing progression is best looked at in groups of six rather than nine.  If you look at the first six holes there is one long par 3, two long par 4s (5 and 6) 2 long par 5s (2 and 4) and a lone short par 4 (1).  That's a long and difficult start.The middle six holes consist of a mid-length downhill par 3 (9) and four short par 4s (7,8,10 and 11) and a longish uphill dogleg par 4 (12).  The last six holes are a mixed bag starting with the short par 3 13th balanced by the long par 3 17th.  The long par 4s (14 and 18) counterbalanced by the shortish par 4s (15 and 16).  For some reason that is difficult to put into words, the Merion routing progression is perfect.  It played differently for a time prior to the 1916 Amateur with the current 3-7 playing as 7,5,6,3,5.  It doesn't work as well.  I've tried it.

Now if you think of the collection of holes at Philmont, I don't think the flow of the holes is very good today but I fail to see how it is improved with a new routing as I suggested it might be.  I need to think about this more and maybe I'll come up with something compelling.  For now it escapes me.

[Bill Shotzbarger]

First off, 18 north is not a good finishing hole. I've seen many a ball land in the middle of the fairway and roll into the right rough. The slope is very severe. One needs to hit it up the left side if he hopes to keep it in the fairway, and even if he does, he's penalized with a ball well below his feet. The right rough is much flatter.

Secondly, the rerouting doesn't make much sense. The walk from 5 green to 15 tee is very long. You would walk past 6 tee, 12 green, 13 tee, and 14 green. A great aspect of Philmont is the fact that the greens and tees are very close to each other. The only long walks are from the clubhouse to 1 tee and 16 green to 17 tee. I don't think this rerouting will ever take place.

[mike_malone]

 There does appear to be plenty of room to remove trees on the left side of #9 in the driving area. If you could go more left  with your drive it would improve things. Push the dogleg left. Even if it means moving the tee up.

[mike_malone]

 Bill,
    I'm sorry but Wayne has said that slope on #18 is not severe; therefore it is not severe! No matter what you have observed in your many loops there

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

If you don't like Philmont's 9th there's no reason to like Rolling Green's 18th as a par 5 from the new back tee.  If you fail to see the reasoning in that, it will come as no surprise.  It requires logical thinking.

What exactly is goofy about the ninth hole?  Because it looks like a green banana from the sky?  It plays much better with today's technology.  It is much more acceptible for longer hitters.  Mike, you're a senior now...just play the forward tees and you'll like it better

Jim,

I think you're on to the same thing I mentioned earlier.  The 9th is a much better finishing hole than the simple 18th (even though Mike Malone thinks it requires a perfect tee shot).  It is better from a stroke and match play perspective.  Flip the nines and the club can send Jim and I a fraction of the money they'll save on an architect.  

[wsmorrison]

I do not feel that slope is severe when considering the length of the hole and the tee shot.  Just because it does not compute with Mike Malone doesn't mean it does not compute.

Bill,

I concede your far greater experience with the hole.  There's a demand to hit it up the left side; it is obvious you cannot hit it down the middle, especially with a bit of a fade as most high handicap golfers are prone to.  But it is far from difficult.

Just a word of advice, whatever you do, don't hire Mike Malone as your architect

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,
    You need to slow down; the more you write, the less sense you make!
    When RG removed a few trees from the right side of #18 it improved that dogleg significantly. I wish we had not planted those big trees on the left of the fairway (guessing30-40 years ago) since I would prefer more fairway left. This is the same thing that would improve #9 at Philmont---more room to hit your tee shot safely, BUT away from the target.

[wsmorrison]

The more anyone writes the less you understand by definition.  The more you write the more obvious it becomes that there is a lack of understanding.  

The big difference between the two holes is that Rolling Green's fairway is a reverse cant away from the green and the turn and Philmont's is canted with the turn and towards the green.

The commonality I was pointing out, I forgot I need to be elementary in my explanations, is that the corner is unreachable for an overwhelming number of all classes of golfers on both holes (well Rolling Green from the new back tee as a par 5) and results in lackluster interest and a singularity in strategy.  

Modern technology has helped both holes.  In the case of Rolling Green from 485 long hitters can end up beyond the turn and have a  shot at reaching the green and make a four.  In the case of Philmont, you can get up to the turn and be tempted with a long second shot instead of hitting two medium shots to the green.  The temptation can be seductive because its a testy green complex.

[Bill Shotzbarger]

I agree that making some more room to the left of 9 would be a good idea. Many golfers slice it right and up on or around the 11th hole and/or halfway house. However, it would also possibly endanger those playing 2.

Being a member at TFCC I know a thing or two about halfway houses that can get in the way.

[mike_malone]

Bill,

 At least in the aerial photo there appears to be ample space between #9 and #2. This seems especially true in the landing area.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
The Cater's ad in 1922 claimed 18 new holes were being built at Philmont.

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Please refresh my memory.  Was the Carter's ad you refer to the one featuring Park's courses?  In 1922 the course was being built.  Is it your belief that Park built the 18 holes at once and maybe all Flynn did was remodel at some later date?  I really have no idea what is going on.  I'll call Connie Lagerman and David Gordon and see what they remember.  Flynn was in the area working on Bala and North Hills in 1922.  He was also working on Glen View in Chicago and Monroe, a nine-hole course near the Tappan Zee bridge.  In 1923 he was working on Atlantic City CC, Brinton Lake (Concord), Philadelphia Electric and Huntingdon Valley's Noble course.  He was also at the Cascades, Cherry Hills and Denver CC, Friendship and Columbia and Yorktown.  So Flynn was in the area quite a bit before the Philmong North course opened in 1924.  

What is your opinion?  I hope Bob Labbance can find out what's what through his rigorous research methods.  I know he just wants to know the truth and has no agenda.

[wsmorrison]

I spoke with Connie Lagerman, Flynn's daughter, and she has no recollection of her father at Philmont.  She was only a year or two old when the course opened but cannot recall her father doing work at Philmont in subsequent years although this is not conclusive in and of itself.

I spoke briefly with David Gordon this morning, he's going to call me back later this afternoon and hopefully provide some information.

[T_MacWood]

Wayne
Yes, the Carter's ad listed the Park golf courses they were building at the time (among others), including Philmont. Park worked out of the Carter's HQ in NYC, same address. I believe they constructed most of his courses (if not all of them). Gordon worked for Carter's as well, which would explain why he is pictured at the opening ceremonies.

I really don't know how Flynn's name became associated with Philmont...my guess is that he did some redesign work there at some point. I think it is pretty clear the South course was designed by John Reid and the North course was designed by Willie Park-Jr....what happened after 1923, I don't know.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,
       Would Flynn NOT do drawings if he did redesign work but made  no  or few changes in the routing?


  I want to get back out there to look at those greens again. I think this may be a clue.

[wsmorrison]

Tommy Mac,

Without anything else to go on,  I'd have to agree at this point.  It will be important to see what David Gordon remembers.  I'll let you know.

Mike,

Flynn more than any other architect of his or this era used drawings to accurately depict the final plan along with the specific construction instructions would leave no doubt at all as to his design intentions.  Flynn would have done drawings for the smallest project, for instance Columbia CC where he revised the first hole and remodeled the second green.  The green drawings are amazing in their detail.  Actually, he may have done more at Columbia but everything was drawn, its just that not everything survived.  We don't have drawings for CC Harrisburg, Doylestown and Washington GCC.  These are all pre-1920.  Philmont and Rock Creek Park are the only courses we don't have drawings for during the 1920s and onward.  We do have government records that prove Flynn's work at RCP.  To date there is nothing for Flynn at Philmont.  There admittedly is a look of Flynn there.  But this does not rise to the standard of proof we require.  David Gordon's recollection may change that.

[mike_malone]

 Wayne,

  Thanks . I can see why you can't attribute Philmont to Flynn. It isn't  a denial of his invovlement there but your rigorous standards for the book require  proof.


   It doesn't bode well that many avid architectural amateurs question his input on at least parts of the course.

   

[wsmorrison]

"It doesn't bode well that many avid architectural amateurs question his input on at least parts of the course."

I don't agree with this statement at all.  It may bode poorly but there is no direct correlation.  There are some iffy holes that are more than likely an artifact of the constraints in the available land.  

Why would Willie Park, Jr. be more likely than Flynn to do such holes?  I think given Park's excellent work it is more of what was available to work with rather than a deficient talent.  How could the out and back holes be improved?  That is not evident to me.  What was the design intent of the course?  To be a championship complement to the South course?  I have no idea.  It seems to me that the mixture of hard and easy, long and short was not to create a supreme test but to provide as good a course as could be had on that land.

[mike_malone]

 I used the word "amateurs" to indicate that we are not expert in our analysis. I don't think the holes near the clubhouse are evidence of deficient talent. The question for most of us "amateurs" is style. It sometimes doesn't feel like Flynn.

    I also feel that  that  the desire for a championship course would have been a likely reason to bring in Flynn but my impression of Philmont North is "sporty" not championship.

[mike_malone]

 Let me put it another way.

    Philmont is a course that has generated questions about Flynn's involvement for years. Now you can't find plans . It just leads to speculation.


    If you didn't have plans for Rolling Green , I would say "they will turn up; just wait." But, It would not surprise me about Philmont.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Will Philmont be barred from further involvement in the Flynn Cup if North turns out to be a Park/Gordon course?

Was the Club's Flynn evidence all anecdotal?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()