Philmont North- Flynn?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

This has been discussed here before by Wayne Morrison and TEPaul as their Flynn book is about to be published. Here is an excerpt from Joe Logan's column in today's Philadelphia Inquirer(also note the link to Logan's previous column on Flynn) highlighting their position on the Flynn attribution and Philmont's position in their forthcoming club history celebrating their centennial:

Golf | Elite club's pedigree is in question
Is Huntingdon Valley's Philmont in like Flynn? Two experts say no.
By Joe Logan
Inquirer Columnist

Except for thoroughbred horse racing, European royalty, and the Ivy League, nowhere does pedigree matter more than in the world of golf courses.

For a club to be able to brag that its golf course was designed by Donald Ross or A.W. Tillinghast or, in a more modern vein, Pete Dye or Tom Fazio, confers snob appeal.

It is against this backdrop that Philmont Country Club in Huntingdon Valley is celebrating its centennial, with reasons to be proud of its history and its golf courses. Not only were the club's founding fathers a Who's Who of Jewish aristocracy in 1906 - Ellis Gimbel, Samuel Lit, Joseph Snellenberg, Jules Mastbaum - Philmont's North Course has always been thought to be a "Flynn."

"Flynn" is William S. Flynn, the Massachusetts transplant who came to Philadelphia in 1912 to be the greenskeeper at Merion Golf Club and never left.

In time, Flynn began to design golf courses, and though he never rivaled Ross in national reputation, he left his mark. In addition to two U.S. Open courses (Shinnecock Hills and Cherry Hills), Flynn designed a dozen of this area's finest courses. Among them are Philadelphia Country Club, Huntingdon Valley Country Club, Manufacturers' Golf and Country Club, Rolling Green Country Club, Green Valley Country Club, and Lancaster Country Club.

Today, one of Flynn's biggest champions is Andy Karff, golf chairman and unofficial club historian at Philmont, and a member of the executive committee of the Golf Association of Philadelphia. Ten years ago, weary of the praise for Ross as Flynn went unappreciated, Karff organized the Flynn Cup, an annual competition among area clubs with Flynn courses. This fall, in fact, the Flynn Cup returns to Philmont.

One problem: Philmont, it turns out, might not be a Flynn.

So say Wayne Morrison and Tom Paul, who have spent four years researching a biography of Flynn. Because they are sufficiently unconvinced of Flynn's connection to Philmont, they do not intend to include it among their list of 50 or so Flynns.

"There is absolutely no archival material that links Flynn to Philmont," Morrison said last week. "Somehow, it got into the oral tradition of the club."

For more see:

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/14517919.htm

[wsmorrison]

Thanks for posting the article, Steve.  Joe thought it would make an interesting article about architectural attributions.  I think it is an excellent example of research and interpretation.

Given that there is nothing at all in the club, newspapers of the day and other sources, that Flynn's daughter was unaware of a connection between Flynn and Philmont, we could not list Philmont North among Flynn designs.  It may be that Flynn's construction company, Toomey and Flynn Contracting Engineers, built the course to Park's plans (they did that at Westchester (Travis) and Burning Tree (Alison) as well) or perhaps Flynn did some remodelling over the years.  But given the little information available, it would be foolish to claim Philmont North as a Flynn design.  That is speculation with zero archival support.

Philmont got it wrong with the attribution of its South Course so it is conceivable that they did so with the North Course as well.  I think Platt knew what he was talking about when he praised the North as a Park course right after the opening.

Philmont may not belong in the Flynn Cup, but their heritage includes a course that was designed by one of the most influencial architects of all time (much more so than Flynn) and a darn good one at that.  If it is not a Flynn, it is a Park and they should be proud of that, even more so since there are a lot of Flynn courses in the area.  Park is rare in these parts.  

I think this is an example of holding on to oral tradition too closely.  As Tom Paul points out, there was often confusion in the classic era between building a course and designing a course.  The association of Philmont to Flynn and thus the Flynn Cup was always tenuous and should be reconsidered.  It will be interesting to see how the material is handled in their history book.  Bob Labbance is an excellent and thorough researcher.  He knows the material better than anyone (he discovered the Platt letter) and has proven himself and objective reporter of facts.  Let's hope the history book as published is true to his findings.

[TEPaul]

Long time Toomey and Flynn foreman William Gordon may be something of a key in this question of who DESIGNED Philmont.

Wayne and I do not know exactly when or how William Gordon hooked up with Toomey and Flynn and even William Gordon's son, David Gordon with whom William Gordon formed the father/son architecture partnership in the 1950s and on does not know how or exactly when his Dad hooked up with Toomey and Flynn.

However, it seems fairly certain that William Gordon had something to do with the construction of Philmont (there's an early photograph of him there). Did Gordon and/or Toomey and Flynn construct Philmont North to Willie Park Jr's design?

As Bob Labbance surmises that seems to be a logical assumption, particularly since Park appears to have become ill in the fall of 1923 and returned to Scotland just around this time (Park would not return to America and did not recover and died in Scotland in May 1925).

Wayne and I don't know much of the details of Park's career in America but it's always been said that he was on something of a breakneck design pace over here when he returned to America between 1914-1916 after being absent from the American design scene for close to 20 years. Some have even said he essentially worked himself to death.

Wayne and I also feel that Willie Park Jr just may be THE architect left in the evolution of architecture who much more really should be known about. To say that the style changes from the beginning of Donald Ross's career to the end of his career are interesting semi-pale in comparison to the style changes from the beginning of Park's career to the end (Park started much earlier than Ross).

Unfortunataly there seems to be no documentatin at all from Park on Philmont other than that letter from famous Philly golfer Woodie Platt to Philmont principle Ellis Gimble. No Park routing or design plan or anything else other than that Platt letter. Platt mentions the "New" Willie Park jr Philmont course. Obviously since Platt wrote that letter in 1924 he had to be referring to the North course (the one Philmont always thought was Flynn). However, somehow Philmont attributed their South course to Park. As Bob Labbance pointed out that's a virtual impossibility as the South course was built in 1909 and Park Jr had not been in America for at least a decade and would not return for at least a half decade. Philmont had apparently never even heard of John Reid until Bob Labbance discovered he was the one who designed their South course in 1909.

So all that only goes to show how clubs can make all kinds of mistakes about the design histories of their golf courses, and often do make these kinds of mistakes.

But back to the North course and Park, Gordon and Flynn. It's pretty hard to say how the "design" of Philmont and the "construction" of the design played out. We do know Park was gone and somebody----eg some designer, foreman or crew had to carry out the construction of his course for Philmont. Was it Gordon or Toomey and Flynn and Gordon that did the construction of Park's North course design? It probably was. Did they take liberties with Park's routing or design? We will never know since there is no plan of the course left that we know of for Philmont from either Park, Gordon or Toomey and Flynn.

By the way, that so-called "box" of all Flynn's design plans really is a pretty amazing "trove" in the history of architecture simply due to the extent of it "completeness". That "box" really did include drawings of just about everything Flynn did in his app 30 year career even including the drawings of some other architects of the courses Flynn worked on during redesign etc. This includes The Creek (MacD/Raynor), Whitemarsh (Thomas), Philly Cricket and Sunnehanna (Tillinghast) and some others.

But yet there was nothing at all on Philmont in that box---not from Flynn and not even from Park Jr.

So it's OK by us if Andy Karff wants to call Philmont a William Flynn course----all we're saying and all Bob Labbance is saying is at this point that is simply not provable, and so we can't attribute Philmont to Flynn if we can prove he designed the course. Wayne and I agreed in the beginning in the name of competent research we would never attribute something to Flynn and Toomey and Flynn that we could not prove.

On the other hand, we do feel that Philmont probably is a Willie Park Jr design (because of Platt's letter to Gimble) and that Philmont should pick up on that heritage and learn to appreciate how special Park is.

Any architect who was capable of designing some of those holes at Maidstone (Park) I sure as shootin' take my hat off to (the 9th at Maidstone just may be my favorite par 4 in the world and who doesn't marvel at the natural site beauty of that lovely little par 3 14th that's nestled into the dunes of Maidstone with the ocean behind it?).

There is one real irony to this whole story of Philmont, Flynn, Park and Andy Karff.

Maybe five years ago Andy called me up and asked me if I could get him on Maidstone. He said he'd heard so much about it but had never been there. And so I did. Andy went up there and the day he got there a major hurricane was just starting to make its landfall on Long Island.

The club told Andy they did not recommend he go out and play but if he wanted to it was his call. Apparently Andy and a caddie went out there and played the course in near hurricane winds (and maybe rain).

Later Andy told me he just loved Maidstone and that day out on Maidstone under those weather conditions just may've been one of the neatest experiences he'd ever had in golf.

But little did Andy know that the man who designed Maidstone---Willie Park Jr----was probably the man who designed his own golf course---Philmont North---although he would not become aware of that possibility until now.

If Philmont North is a Willie Park Jr "design" the club has a lot to be proud of. Let's hope they come to realize that and appreciate it.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom & Wayne,

The holes on the North Course around the clubhouse seem to be quite different in style then those out further on the better part of the property.  I'm thinking about 1, 2, 9, 10, etc.

In fact, an aerial view seems to indicate that the course may have been built in stages, with perhaps the club aquiring the land where most of the superb holes are located perhaps at a later date.  

Any thoughts on this?

[Eckstein]

I must say TE Paul and Wayne Morrison are very impressive, they always come up with most interesting research. We are very lucky to have these two world class researchers on GCA, in my opinion they are GCA's greatest asset. Thank you very much for sharing your vast knowledge and expertise.

I'm sorry that very few will read this due to the Michelle Wie thread.

[Willie_Dow]

Tom - Wayne - et all:  There seems to be a great similarity to the style and design of courses by Flynn and Park.  I'm thinking of New Bedford Country Club (Park), and comparing those nine holes by Park to many of the Flynn holes around here in Philly.  Elevated tee boxes especially come to mind.

[wsmorrison]

Mike,

The course was 18 holes in 1924 when it opened.  It may have been built in stages prior to that.  I speculate without any proof that the holes that might have some Flynn (redesigns), although it bears repeating--looks can and often are deceiving and cannot be relied on, might be those in the northwest corner of the property.  However this is a complete guess.  The only reason I hazard any guess at all is something likely accounts for the Flynn attribution--it could be totally wrong but I think construction or redesign are the only two possibilities at this point.  I'd rather hang my hat on a Park, Jr. design with a possibility of some Flynn.  To call the North a Flynn is without current foundation and therefore either incorrect or premature.

Eckstein,

Thanks for your kind words.  There are a lot of very talented researchers on this site, it is nice to be considered among them.  Tom and I from the very beginning established a very high threshold of proof to represent anything as fact.  We have educated guesses and speculations but we are careful to point these out on a case by case basis along with relevant materials.

[wsmorrison]

Bill,

I enjoyed our tour of CC of New Bedford and the distinction between the Ross and Park holes were easy to see.  

I haven't seen enough of Park to recognize similarities between Park and Flynn.  I know you have as have others.  I have to say if Philmont North is Park, Jr. (and at this point I believe it so) that you couldn't make any attribution on looks alone.  Did people who mistakenly thought the South Course was Park, Jr. base it on anything other than oral tradition?  If you look at Reid's nine and Park, Jr.'s 18 at Atlantic City CC, they looked very different.  I guess the changes to the South over the years compromises an accurate analysis.  After all, there's supposed to be 2 or so holes on the South that are Hugh Wilson (probably with Flynn's help).

[Kyle Harris]

Of particular interest is this scanned image from "The Parks of Musselburgh" by Douglas Adams sent to me by Tom MacWood for my PSU White Course/Willie Park presentation.

As the caption notes, this list was 1922.

Philmont is listed in the center column. Interestingly, some of this list has specific design attributions (4th course at Olympia Fields and 13 holes at Country Club at Atlantic City) yet none for Philmont.

[Mark_Fine]

I think this all very interesting though probably disturbing to  some members of the club at the same time.  I am playing golf with a board member from Philmont this Tuesday so it will be interesting to hear his twist on the matter.  

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

Be gentle with him and try to make him understand how GREAT Park, Jr. was.  One of the most influencial architects of all time.  You might also ask them to back out of the Flynn Cup and suggest an alternate  

[wsmorrison]

Kyle,

Is there any evidence that Park, Jr. addressed the school or gave a lecture on golf course architecture or construction?  When did Valentine start the program at PSU?

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

To date, I've found nothing (at Penn State, that is) regarding Park's involvement at PSU but I have been told that archival information is available (cancelled checks and work orders). As Park was building Maidstone concurrently with the PSU White Course, I doubt he was much for time to lecture.

As far as I have read, the Turfgrass Research was started by Valentine in the late teens. As you well know, the turf plots (which appeared on a 1919 map of the campus) are named for him and they sit caddycorner to Beaver Stadium near the new Blue Band building.

[TEPaul]

Mark Fine:

If you do play with a Philmont board member on Tuesday please tell him I for one plan to write a letter to the Philmont Board explaining our position in detail. I sure don't want them to think we mean them any harm of any kind. The types of distinctions between design and possibly construction we are making here probably don't even occur to the memberships of most clubs. However, when you are talking about the architect of record of any golf course you are almost always talking about the one who DESIGNED the course not the one who built it. I'd write the letter now but I'm on my way to the State Match Play championship for the next three days.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
I am anxious to see what he thinks about all of this.  If you remember, the rumor was floating around at the last Flynn Cup but it didn't come up during the question session at dinner that night.  I doubt many members would even know what to think (or even care) if it does prove to be true.  Actually that is the good part because if most members did care, this would cause more of a stir.  

Tom,
I will tell him about your letter.  That is probably a good idea.  I do think you and Wayne are taking the right position (from a research standpoint) since you have found no evidence that Flynn was definitely involved with the design.   However, I think you would agree, that just because nothing was found, doesn't confirm Flynn didn't design it either.   Unless I am mistaken, there is no proof either way of who did?  Is that correct?  Isn't it just speculation on all counts?

I believe Philmont should stick with what they believe until there is conclusive evidence one way or the other of who did do the design.  If/when conclusive evidence is found, then I would take a stronger position.  Innocent until proven guilty or "associated with until proven otherwise".  That would be my approach to the matter.  Out of courtesy, I would include the course in the book (with a notation about the speculation that surrounds it on both sides).   That way if it turns out Flynn did design it and/or was involved, you don't look like you goofed.  If it turns out that Flynn was not involved, you will have indicated that this was a possibility and said so.  Everyone kinda wins.  

Remember, there are many clubs in the country where the history of the architecture is (or would be) in question if someone took the time to research it.   I predict we will see many more debates like this over time as more research is done on these older golf courses.  I can think of a half a dozen or more courses right now that I would question and/or know that the history of the design may very well be different than what it is purported to be.  I'm working on a property now in Northern New Jersey and I'm finding its history is different than what some presently believe.  

As you know, excellent researchers like Phil Young have uncovered very interesting and very controversial things.  Look at the old advertisements and letters he found about Tillinghast claiming credit for The Cascades.  Tillie must have tried to take credit for a reason but who knows why.  More research is required to understand it.  George Bahto and I discussed Leatherstocking a summer or two ago.  We both believe Raynor was involved with that golf course more than he is given credit for.  Also, the origins of San Francisco GC have been debated for some time and maybe we will never know for sure who did what out there.  Heaven forbid I mention the mess over Bethpage Black.  

But at the end of the day it all makes for interesting discussion and it is probably (and fortunately) mostly the people on this site that care the most.  

Hope it all works out for everyone and no one gets hurt in the process.  

Eckstein,
Which architect is more "prestigious" is a matter of opinion and actually few people would probably even have one.  

[wsmorrison]

Mark,

"Out of courtesy, I would include the course in the book (with a notation about the speculation that surrounds it on both sides). "
 
Please explain how courtesy enters into an historical accounting?  We are presenting the lack of evidence related to Flynn and that we do not believe at this point he can be credited with PN as an original design.  The Platt letter points to Park and that is the only evidence we have for any attribution at this point. We feel comfortable saying that given what is now known, Reid seems to be the architect of the South (remember they got this way wrong) and Park, Jr. the architect of the North.  It would be foolish to allow Philmont to continue to credit Flynn without an iota of proof.  The club (not Bob Labbance) can do what they want, but our standards are different, thankfully.

We do mention Philmont in the book, but we present the lack of archival material linking Flynn to the course, the Platt letter which attributes the course to Park (so there is some evidence) and that Connie Lagerman never heard her father mention Philmont nor was it mentioned in connection with Flynn by anyone else (Gordon, Lawrence or Wilson).

What makes you think Leatherstocking has a connection to Raynor?  I hope it is more than a "look."  What evidence makes you and George Bahto think Raynor merits credit and what credit would you attribute?

As for Tillinghast and Cascades, that is a mystery.  The only connection we have seen is that he came to look at the property and suggested it wasn't suited for a golf course.  Supposedly Raynor did as well.  Peter Lees, an associate of Tillinghast, was working on another course, the Goat Course, but that was shut down after many difficulties.  Tillinghast didn't seem to recognize Flynn's credit for Spring Mill course at Phila Country.  When changes were to be made for the 1939 Open, Tillinghast recommended Flynn as an able architect without recognizing that he was the original architect of the course.  Tillinghast designed the practice hole parallel to the current 14th at Phila Country.

I don't know about Park, Jr. being more prestigious than Flynn, that is rather subjective.  He certainly was more influencial.  Given so few Parks in the region, the North as a Park is in much smaller company.

[Ian Andrew]

Mark,

Philip Young's book on Tillinghast gave indications that it was not beyond Tillie to lay claim to work that was not completely his - and this is where this reasearch gets most interesting. I think Wayne and Tom are doing the right thing - no proof no inclusion. Kudos to them.

I know a couple of Thompson courses that are included on the Society list that are not correctly attributed. I don't think that is right, but neither the club or Society seems wiling to correct this.

I certainly would be just as happy to play out of either a Willie Park or William Flynn course, both are outstanding architects. The club has lost nothing, it still remains the course they joined, no matter who designed it.

[wsmorrison]

We did decide to include our short take on Philmont North since it is so often cited as Flynn.  Maybe we should drop it altogether.  Do you think so, Ian?  Hope to see you sometime soon.
Best,
Wayne

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Wayne

I understand the club has a photo of Gordon at the opening of the North course. Was he employed by Toomey/Flynn Construction at that time? I guess that's the club's "circumstantial evidence" that somehow or other Flynn was involved. This would not pass a fact checker's test from the New York Times to attribute the course to Flynn.

It's absolutely amazing to me that a club of this stature,founded by the mercantile and professional elite of the German-Jewish community in Philadelphia,  in the history of Jewish clubs in America has no archival evidence to document the hiring of an architect for a golf course or any contracts for its construction.

[Gordon Oneil]

I'm honored that you would reach out to me for an opinion on ANY course architecture question.  Though I have played more than my fair share of our favorite architect's designs, any level of expertise that I may have is solely limited to one course.
I am enjoying the education I find here each and every time I log on though.

[wsmorrison]

Steve,

We know that Gordon and Flynn parted ways in 1943 but we're not sure when he started with Flynn.  David Gordon is still very much alive and has a great recollection of a lot of things to do with his father.  Unfortunately, he doesn't know when his father started with Flynn.  I may be wrong, but I think Bob Labbance told me that Gordon used to work in construction for Park as well as others--I guess when he was under contract to a seed merchant.  I think the presence of William Gordon on opening day cannot be conclusive of anything.  

[Mark_Fine]

Steve,
It is not uncommon for older clubs to have little or no archival evidence.  Many older clubs lost what they had to fires and or just tossed it all away.  Remember it is only recently that clubs have begun to even care who originally designed their golf course.  And even now, I would still be willing to bet that if you polled most club's members, very very few would know who designed their course.  

[Gordon Oneil]

See, I told you I had a lot to learn...

[Ian Andrew]

Wayne,

I've attended a number of openings by architects that I am in competition with. Usually a super or that architect has invited me to come along.

Is it in an official photo or something more social?

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
How long has Philmont believed that they have a Flynn design?  Probably pretty long.  If nothing else, including it in the book makes an interesting story and good books need interesting stories.  For that reason alone it is worth including.  As I said, you can state what you found and what you didn't find regarding Flynn's and Park's involvement so readers realize your position.  

Unless there is proof that Flynn didn't do it (which there apparently is not), I would take this position and this would please the most people and make for good reading.  

Look at Kittansett.  The course is still cited as designed by Fred Hood even in the most recent 2006 Golfweek rankings yet Flynn's involvement has been discussed on this site for years.  What you write about Kittansett should make for an interesting story as to what transpired there regardless of who actually did the design.  Good stories make for good reading.  

Just my opinion.