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_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #25 on: May 08, 2006, 10:59:05 AM »
  When I played Philmont the last time I noticed two things that intrigued me.

   1) The greenside bunkering on the par fours and fives appeared to be flanking the greens. I did not see any bunkers that forced a carry to a portion of the green.  It seemed odd to me for a Flynn course.

   2) There were many small mounds at the back of the greens that were reminiscent of chocolate drops instead of the typical pullups that I have heard were Flynn signatures.

    As I am sure Wayne will quickly point out I haven't seen all of Flynn's work but I am just trying to add some things I saw on the ground that raised questions in my mind.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2006, 11:04:37 AM by mayday_malone »
AKA Mayday

Kyle Harris

Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #26 on: May 08, 2006, 05:37:00 PM »
One may look at this from a "sieve" method.

Is there conclusive evidence regarding the design of the South Course and John Reid?

If so, we can rule out Willie Park, Jr. for the South Course.

In the scan I posted above, Park claims credit for a design at Philmont Country Club.

Kinda backdoor logic, but it's a start.

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #27 on: May 08, 2006, 09:12:55 PM »
"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.  "

Utter nonsense!  There is no proof that Bobby Jones didn't design Philmont, should we give him credit too?  Every one of your posts includes something about pleasing the most people.  What's that about?  I'd rather tell people the truth than tell them what they want to hear.  I am very dissapointed in your take on this.

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #28 on: May 08, 2006, 09:14:53 PM »
1) The greenside bunkering on the par fours and fives appeared to be flanking the greens. I did not see any bunkers that forced a carry to a portion of the green.  It seemed odd to me for a Flynn course.

Without knowing what is original to the course and what has been changed over the years, this sort of observation has very little value.  There are a number of instances where Flynn used flanking bunkers that did not pinch in the opening of greens or forced carries.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2006, 09:18:18 PM by Wayne Morrison »

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2006, 09:32:58 PM »
Sean Murphy, the winner of a Nike Tour event at Philmont North in 1995, posted this at Geoff Shackelford's website:

 For a club to be able to brag that its golf course was designed by Donald Ross or A.W. Tillinghast.

Who cares when a gem is a gem is a gem!

Philmont is one of the best, if not "The Best" golf courses ever to contest a Nike (Ben Hogan, Buy dot Com, Nationwide) Tour event.
Philmont reminded me of both architects mentioned above. You simply do not see golf courses like this being built anymore. Tom Pernice Jr. refered to it that week as a U.S. Open course, it was. The greens that week were hard and fast, which incresed their difficulty significantly due to their undulation. The second hole required extreme caution with balls being putted right off the green if they ended up above the hole. The rough was long and very penal, with a few frisbes (shanks) being thrown up around the greens.

Regardless of who actually designed it, it is a thoroughbred golf course all the way. This course definitely could not be a "one of a kind". The explanation given makes sense...

From Philadelphia Golf:

"In 1995 and ’96, Philmont played host to what was then the Nike Tour. The North Course was lengthened for the occasion, and the two nines were reversed, which made the celebrated ninth hole the finisher.

The event never attracted big galleries, but it did produce some outstanding golf. On the opening day of the 1995 event, Tom Pernice Jr. established a new course record with a 63. Sean Murphy went on to win that tournament while Brett Quigley captured the title the next year."

"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”

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #30 on: May 08, 2006, 10:14:52 PM »
Wayne,
Please tell us what is the truth so we all will know  ;)  Obviously Philmont thinks Flynn designed their course or they would not state it as such.  They think that is the truth don't they?    

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #31 on: May 08, 2006, 10:33:19 PM »
Mark

What they "think" appears not to be based on any evidence. Unfortunately, Ellis Gimbel can not be interviewed now. Is Platt's letter a fraud?

"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”

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #32 on: May 08, 2006, 10:47:18 PM »
Steve,
I don't know what is true and what isn't.  Do you?  Maybe the club could careless and we are making this out to be a bigger deal than it is.  I don't know that either.  I'll find out at least one member's perspective tomorrow.

I have never suggested stating or implying something in the book that is not true.  But I believe it is an interesting story in stating how a prominent club like Philmont truly believes they have a Flynn golf course while at the same time, evidence of this seems to be lacking.   How many other courses out there are claiming to be a Flynn design?  It is not like the whole book is going to be taken up by Flynn wantabees.  

Maybe as an idea it would be worth asking the club what position they would like taken?  Wayne and Tom could present what they have found and see what they think?  Maybe this has already been done?  

I wonder how guys like Brad Klein handled Ross courses that had similar "unclear" backgrounds?  Maybe he just left them out if he couldn't find anything conclusive regardless of what the club's claimed was their heritage?  I don't know.  

How would you recommend handling the situation?

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #33 on: May 08, 2006, 10:58:49 PM »
At best, from whatever current  evidence exists, the club could say that they have a Park course which may have been built by Toomey/Flynn's construction company with David Gordon somehow or other involved. I would then say that there's nothing wrong with having a Park course and educate them about Park:

www.golfweb.com/tournaments/usopen/2003/course/parkbio.html

"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”

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #34 on: May 08, 2006, 11:03:28 PM »
Steve,
If the evidence is clear that the course is a Park design then I agree with you 100%.  Is the evidence certain enough to make that claim?  What does the club think?

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #35 on: May 08, 2006, 11:19:26 PM »
Mark

I think the club, or at least those who really care at the club, would probably prefer to have a Flynn course.They founded The Flynn Cup and won the first event and won the trip to Shinnecock!!! There is  Platt's letter and other advertising evidence from Park mentioned in the other Philmont thread so far to confirm an attribution to Park and no documented evidence to confirm an attribution to Flynn. The current scales tip to Park, in my opinion, unless the club wants to dig further by trying to find Ellis Gimbel's personal papers, investigate the Urban Archives at Temple U's Paley Library, investigate at the Atwater Kent Museum, investigate the GAP archives or elsewhere to establish a Flynn attribution.
"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”

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #36 on: May 09, 2006, 07:34:39 AM »
Steve,
If you read Phil Young's post about Tillie and The Cascades, you will see various comments about people's views of advertisements and letters, etc. and what proof they offer.  Given that some members of Philmont might feel strongly about Flynn as their architect, I suspect some of that investigation work you mention will probably go on.  I would think they would want to know.  I suspect the likes of Wayne and Andy are already looking into it and I hope they find the true answer.

Eckstein,
The Golf Tips editors might "recognize" me as such but the recognition might end there  ;D   I wish I knew the answer about Philmont.  I am convinced Wayne has done a pretty thorough research job (as thorough as you can do when you are trying to investigate 50 or 60 golf courses).  But you can see from Steve's post there is even more to do.   That is why in the interest of everybody I suggested the earlier approach.  Let the club keep their dignity (and architect) until proven otherwise.  

Steve_ Shaffer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #37 on: May 09, 2006, 08:01:17 AM »
After re-reading the other Philmont thread, I'd like to amend my earlier statement:

"My understanding is that there are no records in the club's archives or in the local newspapers to document that Flynn designed the North at Philmont- as strange as that may seem for a club that will celebrate its centennial in 2 years. North sure looks like a Flynn. Maybe the "quacks like a duck" test will be used here. Whatever appears in the club's history at GAP re Flynn may be based on oral history."

Holes, 1,2,9,10 & 18 may not be "Flynn like."

Furthermore:



I'd like to see the Carter's ad that Tom MacWood refers to in his post.

Did anyone go to Hagley to investigate Mike Cirba's hypothesis posted at #7 on the prior Philmont thread?

"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”

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #38 on: May 09, 2006, 08:08:34 AM »
How many scholars care about what someone thinks about their findings?  That is about as bassackwards a philosophy as I've ever seen.  Mark, you should seriously consider revising your approach, it is astonishingly poor.

We know several things.  Philmont thought/thinks the South a Park, Jr. course and the North a Flynn course.  Further, we know that Park could not have designed the South course, the timing is too far off.  We know that Park was in the area prior to the opening of the North course, having left for home before its completion.  We know that J Wood Platt, a renown amateur player, wrote the president of the club about his appreciation for playing in the tournament on the new course and the fondness for the changes to the old.  Park's changes to the old probalby started the notion that he designed the South.  Platt clearly states that the new course is by Park and he even describes accurately some of the holes on the new course.  It is clear that he refers to the current North course.  There is a photo of William Gordon on opening day.  This is what is known.

Now, Mark.  Tell me in all of this how we should conclude that Flynn designed Philmont North?  Tell me further that if Philmont thinks this way and presents this information to the public why we should allow them to continue doing so unchallenged?  Because it makes them feel good?  You have a lot of explaining to do.

As you know from Steve's comments, there is a lot of emotional investment by the club to be Flynn.  The club's "historian" is deeply rooted in the Flynn Cup and it would be a personal issue to him if they followed a different attribution process.  Therein lies the bias.  We do things very differently in drawing up an historical record.  I don't care if they are in the Flynn Cup or not nor whether their feelings are hurt or not.  I care about the truth.

The truth is that there is no evidence save oral tradition that Flynn had anything to do with Philmont North.  I would not consider this course a Flynn without evidence.  Mark would have us consider it a Flynn until there is evidence.  Clearly Mark has no concept of the scientific method and his approach is a a very poor one.

One reason we have this dilemma is that the membership clearly has no clue about Park, Jr. and they attach themselves to Flynn who is the best known in this area.  If they knew how important an architect and how great an architect Park, Jr. was they might be more open-minded.  They can think whatever they want, I just won't be part of making them feel good.  Our mission with the book requires much higher standards.

I spoke with members of the Gimbel family and they are searching family records.  So far, nothing.  Like Steve, I go with Bob Labbance's consideration of Reid for the South and at this point give attribution to Park, Jr. for the North.  I will speculate that Flynn got brought into this by either constructing the course (Toomey and Flynn division) and the membership confusing building for designing and/or Flynn made design changes later on and the club referred to the course as a Flynn.  These are educated guesses, nothing more.  If there was no oral tradition of Flynn at Philmont I wouldn't have bothered with the exercise.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2006, 08:22:09 AM by Wayne Morrison »

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #39 on: May 09, 2006, 08:10:59 AM »
Frankly, between this thread and the Cascades thread, I feel there is a real disconnect between how different individuals view the same information and how some speculations are made with partial and in some cases no information.  As long as they are characterized as speculations (as Phil did) then there's not a problem.  But when they are characterized as something more, that leads to problems.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2006, 08:21:25 AM by Wayne Morrison »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #40 on: May 09, 2006, 08:27:05 AM »
Wayne,
When you get your mind set there is no turning back is there!  That approach is a problem when doing research because then all you do is search for things that prove your hypothesis and you miss (or discount) everything else.  A biased book on Flynn will do no one any good.    

I NEVER said you should call Philmont a Flynn course.  If I did, show me where because that was not the intent!  All I said was this makes a good story.  I suggested that you should state your views and findings and at the same time state the position of the club.  If you had 30 courses claiming they are Flynn designs, then it might be a problem to take this approach but you don't!  

Start looking for the positives rather than the negatives when someone suggests something to you.  All of us on this site are passionate about golf architecture or we wouldn't waste our time here.  I would hope we are trying to help each other out and not the other way around.  Maybe that is why I care about other people's findings as well as what they think about my own research.  We'll all trying to improve.  

Mike_Cirba

Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #41 on: May 09, 2006, 08:43:31 AM »
Wayne,

Could you tell us more about the holes that Platt describes in his letter?  Are they the holes on the North nearest the clubhouse, or out further on the property?

Thanks!
Mike

Tom Roewer

Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #42 on: May 09, 2006, 08:52:17 AM »
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.



Tom Roewer

Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #43 on: May 09, 2006, 08:54:58 AM »
another example of misinformation from the list involves Hartville Country Club.  They list Donald Ross as the course architect, however he did the second nine after W. Parks did the original nine in 1896.

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #44 on: May 09, 2006, 08:55:50 AM »
"When you get your mind set there is no turning back is there!  That approach is a problem when doing research because then all you do is search for things that prove your hypothesis and you miss (or discount) everything else.  A biased book on Flynn will do no one any good."

I don't start with a mindset, I gather information and then draw conclusions or educated speculations depending on the amount of supporting evidence.  I clearly indicate which is which and provide support.  What indicates that I try to search for things to a preconceived hypothesis?  I do just the opposite.  You are the one that has reversed the process, not me.

"I NEVER said you should call Philmont a Flynn course.  If I did, show me where because that was not the intent!  "

Maybe you didn't say I should call it a Flynn but you said you would and that the club should.  These are your own words from this thread:

"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."

"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."

You clearly state that Philmont should continue attributing the course to Flynn unless proof is found to counter their claim.  I start with the null hypothesis that Flynn did not design Philmont and by disproving that you prove he did design.  Without any archival material at all linking Flynn to Philmont, why would you start with that premise?  The only archival information available to date (if something new comes up that proves Flynn was the original designer, I'll jump on board right away) is that Park was the designer--a contemporary account by Platt and an advertisement (although in and of itself an advertisement is not proof of anything).

Jim_Coleman

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #45 on: May 09, 2006, 08:57:37 AM »
Mark:
    I have forwarded your post to The White House.

wsmorrison

Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #46 on: May 09, 2006, 08:58:10 AM »
Mike C,

Here is the letter so there is nothing withheld:

"December 11th, 1924
Dear Mr. Gimbel:

Since our little talk out at Merion a few months ago I have been thinking of the Philmont course a great deal, and it certainly gives me great pleasure to write you and again congratulate you on the wonderful new course as well as the changes to the old.

The old course has certainly been improved; especially the eighth and ninth holes.  They themselves compare favorably with any in the Philadelphia district.

The new course is one of Willie Park’s masterpieces, and for scenery and real golf it should be a course for the Philmont members to be proud of for many years to come.

The shape and contour of the greens are indeed wonderful and for some high lights I would pick the second, sixth and fifteenth for the four holes, and all the par three holes are exceptionally good one shotters.  The second hole is talked about in every locker room fanning bee as the prettiest hole in the Philadelphia district, both from a golf and scenic standpoint.

Philmont in staging the Fridolyn cup every year is better fitted than ever for taking care of the enormous entry list; and the Club was never behind the times in doing this on the old course.

For variety of sports—polo, golf, tennis and contemplated swimming pool—Philmont is at the head of the list in this district and it always gives me a great kick to play in the numerous events held at your Club, where hospitality is incomparable.

Hoping to see you again at the Fridolyn Tourney, I am,
Sincerely yours,
J. Wood Platt"

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #47 on: May 09, 2006, 09:08:57 AM »
Wayne,
I said I would respect the club's position (not agree with it).  I would state what I believe and what they believe and leave it at that.  I am not suggesting taking a middle ground.  What is so hard to understand?

If Kittansett for example still wants to call themselves a Hood course, let them.  They evidently still do as of March of this year according to what Golfweek publishes.  You should state that you believe otherwise and explain why.  Same goes for Philmont.  But I'd still respect the position of these other clubs unless I thought they were being outright liars in what they are professing.  I don't think they are.  They for some reason must believe their position.    
« Last Edit: May 09, 2006, 09:10:03 AM by Mark_Fine »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #48 on: May 09, 2006, 09:38:45 AM »
Jim,
I am leaving soon to meet with the Philmont member.  I promise I will try not to be politically correct  ;D

mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Philmont North- Flynn?
« Reply #49 on: May 09, 2006, 09:47:07 AM »
 Mark,

   I have reread this entire thread. The initial posts of Wayne and TEPaul are superb . They say it all. I think it is fair to say they did exhaustive research to find a connection between Flynn and PN. They could not find one! It is off base for you to question Wayne's mindset on this.

    They are using research in their discussions and you are using touchy / feely expressions.

     It certainly seems easy for me to believe that a club in Phila. built  in the 20's could think that Flynn designed it and just not question that idea. But when rigorous research is used the claim can't be supported and in the process another name comes up where there is some support.

   This gives the club a chance to reevaluate their origins. This is a great opportunity for them.
AKA Mayday