[Kyle Harris]

I had the wonderful priviledge of playing in the AB Thron Pro-Am with Cory Lewis yesterday at Lancaster Country Club.

Lancaster Country Club's original 18 holes were designed by William Flynn and I feel that the course represents some of his best work, and perhaps stands as the best example of his work in the Philadelphia area.

Some general comments:

The Routing: This is as bold a routing as I have ever played. The topography around the clubhouse is a gentle rise with severe terrain around the outside of the core routing. As is typical with a William Flynn routing, the unique features of the site are attacked at different angles at different points in the routing. The stretch from 3 to 8 uses the "cliff" and waterways to the fullest extent possible and each shot is placed at a premium through this stretch.

The greens: The contouring and placement of these greens have no weakness. Particular standout greens to me were the 5th, 11th and 18th. The 5th is particularly striking in that it sits up on a little knoll and falls off toward the front and back right. All the slopes blend together in a seamless fashion with the surrounding bunker and fronting creek.

The balance of shots: While a lot of the holes feature a high tee box to a high green, the variance in elevation differences and length keep things from being redundant. As at Rolling Green, the uphill approach is in vogue, but Flynn seems to put more variety in the shot requirement at Lancaster than at Rolling Green. The 3rd and 11th are in particular contrast for this with the 3rd playing A LOT shorter than it looks and the 11th playing A LOT longer than it looks. The 3rd requires a deft short iron approach over a closely gaurded green while the 11th allows the wily golfer to hit a well struck long iron or fairway wood (and certain golfers to hit one within 5 feet) running up to the green.

Lines of Charm: When I first looked at the 15th hole, I thought the fairway followed the slope down and to the left, however, upon seeing play of the hole I noticed that it was a reverse camber hole that played out to the right! This is the most effective use of the old "Line of sight v. Line of charm" axiom of golf architecture.

The closer: A long, gentle uphill finish with some of the best bunkering on the course. The green is a large, undulating monster that seems to have an infinite variety of hole locations and interest.

I believe Tom Doak gave this course a 7 (beating most of the Philadelphia area courses) and "Anatomy of a Golf Course" features a picture of the 4th hole in the centerfold. There is little weakness to point out in both golf course and routing, and I find it amazing that more is not said about this course.

Some other points of interest:

The irrigation system featured Toro 720 heads accompanied by snap-in valves at every head. I've never seen this extensive of an automated irrigation system and the ability for a hand hose to snap in and water as needed. Quite useful during the summer for quick syringing.

The bunkering: Flynn has come under fire for having seemingly simple bunker shapes, and at first glance it is easy to see why. However, as with Huntingdon Valley, Rolling Green and Manufacturers' there is more than meets the eye. Each bunker has a rather large amount of "internal" contour that compounds any shot near or out of the bunker. I was particularly struck by the greenside bunkers on 9 and 18 and their depth is a lot more than is apparent from the fairway. Some are simply cavernous.

The variance in angles of attack. We were paired with one of the better players in the GAP who routinely outdrove me by 30-40 yards. This was to great advantage on some holes like 1, 9 and 18 where the angles were more derived by vertical attack, but there was an equal balance of holes like 2, 4, and 16 which rewarded position off the tee by angling the green to a certain part of the fairway. On the 4th, despite being outdriven, we faced similar pitches but mine was looking down the length of the green while he was shortsided.

[ChipOat]

Most folks in Philadelphia know LCC and compare it to Rolling Green if they've played it.

There are long par 3's on both courses that are virtually carbon copies of each other.  More so, in fact, than any 2 Raynor "theme" holes I've ever seen.

[wsmorrison]

While many of Flynn's bunkers have become sort of plain in their outlines, they were not designed that way nor built that way originally.  Maintenance practices over the years have simplified many outlines.  However, Flynn was generally not nearly as flamboyant in his inland course bunkering as Thomas or Tillinghast.  Yet to look at Flynn's bunkers today and characterize the original look as plain is a bit errant.

Lancaster is without a doubt the most difficult architectural evolution of any Flynn.  There were a lot of changes made over the years, most by Flynn as he was kept on as the consulting architect at Lancaster throughout his life.  The current green end of the 16th hole is not Flynn.  Flynn's green was up on the rise straightaway from the tee.  It was moved in the early 1960s into the dogleg left it is today.  Given the Sahara like nature of the design and its similarities to the 1st at Phila Country and elsewhere, it was likely designed by Gordon and constructed by the superintendent whose name escapes me for the moment.  The 17th is a Flynn green but it was shortened to a par 3 when the 16th green was moved.

Chip,

I fail to see the carbon copy nature of the par 3s at Lancaster.  Although I do think 8 is generally similar to 14 at Rolling Green.   I don't know what hole is similar to the downhill 6th with the stream on the left and the downhill 12th with the stream in front.  Nor do I see what similarity there is to the 17th (which was a short par 4 by Flynn).

Flynn's yardage had more variety earlier on at Lancaster.  After the major 1924 renovation, Flynn's par 3s were 122, 158, 193 and 233 (NLE).  Today they are less varied at 178, 198, 181 and 182.  Granted the elevation changes affect club selection but overall the par 3s aren't quite as good a collection as Rolling Green.

[Kyle Harris]

Wayne,

I agree regarding the 8th hole and the 14th hole at Rolling Green, though the 8th hole at Lancaster plays a bit shorter.

I've yet to play a Flynn par 3 like the 12th at Lancaster.

I felt that the 6th hole at Lancaster was somewhat similar to the 6th at Philadelphia Country Club with the use of the tree compounding the left side. However, the green at Lancaster is much more open and the creek is down the left side instead of the right.

[Tommy Williamsen]

The members and staff know what a gem they have and are a little irritated that they don't get the notariety they deserve.  Flynn usesd the land extremely well.  I love the front nine with its fine collection of par threes and some excellent short par fours.  It is a fun place to play and a great plce to spend a day.

[Wayne Freeman]

 Tommy-  I'm surprised to hear that you think Lancaster doesn't get noticed.  I would think that on the east coast it is very highly regarded. Not too many people here in the west have heard of it, but it does rank  #71 on the 2006 Golfweek classic list which is pretty good.  I played it a couple of years ago and just loved it. Some of the tees are dramatically elevated and the river that runs through it is used so effectively. It really is a great old course.  

[wsmorrison]

Kyle,

The 6th at Lancaster plays slightly shorter than the scorecard length of 178 while the 5th (not 6th, which is a par 5) plays much shorter than its yardage of 167.  The stream is on the left side of Lancaster's 6th with mounding (old chocolate drops?) on the right.  The 5th at Philadelphia Country has a pond in front of the green (it was artificially dammed) and a small stream continues around the right side of the green and a bit behind.  I don't see much similarity at all.

[Tommy Williamsen]

Wayne, I played there as a Golf Digest panelist and they were irritated as Hell about not being in the top 100 anymore.  It is amazing to me how exorcized some people get about their ranking.

[wsmorrison]

Given the outstanding qualities of the course and some of the ones on the list of top 100, I don't blame the members of Lancaster CC for being irritated at being outside the top 100.  

I am not a proponent of rankings and have never been, but they sure as heck don't make sense to me.  Just like my former club, Rolling Green, not being in the top 25 in the state.  It is simply ludicrous.  

Frankly those lists should be seen for what they are; tools to sell magazines and means for participants to gain access.  What valuable purpose is served for the good of the game?  In the past I have seen more negative changes made as a result of rankings in order to climb the charts.  It seems to me that this trend is finally being subordinated by a better process.  Historical research and information dissemination is adding greatly to a process that has some outstanding architects practicing their restoration and remodeling craft.  The USGA golf architecture archives and research center is going to be a powerful tool for the good of golf now and in the future.

[wsmorrison]

Tommy W,

What was your opinion of Lancaster CC as a result of your play there as a rater?  Do you feel the ranking outside the top 100 is justified?

[TEPaul]

Tommy W

Golf magazine rankings make so little sense to me I think you guys should just put about 400-500 courses in the top 100. Do you think anyone would really notice or care and you certainly would make many more clubs happy?  

[ChipOat]

Wayne:

I only meant to reference the long par 3 on each course - probably 8 & 14 respectively.

Was not referring to all 4 of each.

[wsmorrison]

Oh, well you're certainly right about that, Chip.  In fact, I think it safe to say that Flynn and other Philadelphia architects really set about to create long par 3s on many of the championship caliber courses.  Flynn's longest planned was the 10th at Rolling Green which was to be 260 yards and uphill.  The topography there allows for a low running draw to run onto the green.  Bob Jones was able to use a low running draw on the firm turf of the time to hit 300 yard tee shots.  His shot placements were marked during the 1930 Amateur and showed he was very long when he needed to be.

Crump, Wilson and Flynn, among a few others, were seemingly into shot testing and they wanted to test the accuracy of a long driver shot with these very long par 3s holes.

[Wayne Freeman]

Frankly those lists should be seen for what they are; tools to sell magazines and means for participants to gain access.  What valuable purpose is served for the good of the game?  In the past I have seen more negative changes made as a result of rankings in order to climb the charts.


  Wayne M.  -- I don't think you should take all this stuff too seriously.  Lists are just part of our nature-  people just want to know-  what are the top restaurants, hotels, etc.  And they do serve a lot of purposes.  I think they encourage clubs to keep their courses in top notch shape and form and strive to maintain excellence as well as giving other clubs goals should they desire a lofty ranking.  For those who seek out the top rated courses, it gives one something to so to speak "shoot for"-   perfect example. If I hadn't read that Lancaster was a top rated course, coming from SoCal I might never have tried to play there and would have missed a highlight in my golfing life.  I love playing the great ones-  sure the various lists have good and bad points - but at present that's what we have. And I'm grateful.

[Tommy Williamsen]

I certainly think that the lists are driven by magazine sales.  That said the point spread between #50 and #100 is tiny.  I haven't seen the numbers for, say, #300 but I would guess that it is not too far behind #100. Lancaster certainly is in the running.  But let's face it with some 15000 course in the country, 100 is a very tiny fraction of the total.

I do think that the rankings have provided a few positive things.
1. Its presence highlights for the average Joe or Josephine that course architecture is an important part of the golf experience.
2. Without the rankings, I doubt that many people, outside bonafide golf nuts, would know Tillinghast, or Dick Wilson, or William Flynn, or George Thomas.  In the sixties no one knew the designers of the courses the tour players played.  Most didn't even know or care who designed their own course.
When Lou Graham (my old teacher) won at Medinah, No one announced the designer of the course on the air, at least according to what I remember.
3. I think theyalso fostered a desire on many clubs to take a look at their own architectural heritage.  I just played an old Ross course in MN.  Minikahda just did a wonderful job resurrecting an old course and taking down some 800 trees.
4. For good or ill the rankings do show trends in what people like and dislike.
5. It has offered a springboard for many young architechts.  I dare say Tom Doak benefitted from High Point being in Golf's top 100.  Certainly Jim Engh, Steve Smyers, Mike Strantz and others got work because of the publicity they received from New Course awards and top 100 rankings.

It has also spawned a number of rotten trends that have been enumerated on this site a number of times.  

[Wayne Freeman]

Tommy-  I played Minikahda last year and also thought they did a great job.  What's interesting is that they put in very penal bunkers with all that high grass/gorse bordering them much to the loud protests of a lot of the older higher handicap members- because they can't find their balls when they hit it there ( doesn't seem to be much of an issue for lower index players).  Tradition and restoring an old, grand layout won out and that's as it should be.  

[wsmorrison]

"Wayne M.  -- I don't think you should take all this stuff too seriously.  "

I don't take it seriously at all, Wayne.  In fact I discount the whole process entirely.  My problem is that others do take it seriously without understanding the process.  This leads to problems that public trust seems to manifest.  Compounded by a lack of rigourous methodology and a rather wide continuum of abilities in the ranks of the rankers, I think the process a flawed one on many levels.

[Mark_Fine]

I've always felt Lancaster was a great golf course and one of my top ten favorite Flynn designs.  Whether it is a Top 100 course is another matter and quite subjective.  I have it at a Doak 7 and I'll leave it at that.

Wayne, do you have any photos of the bunkers from The Cascades.  It would be good to post some of them (while they are still newly restored).  I have a few shots but I assume you have many more.  

[wsmorrison]

I have photos before and during.  I was supposed to go down for the Cascades Invitational but could not do so because of a committment I could not get out of.  They missed a great speech!

Are you asking for photos showing the bunker work after the re-opening?  Those I do not have.  If you have some, send them or post them and we can comment.

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
My photos are before and they are pretty old.  I should check their website.

[wsmorrison]

I have photos starting in the 1920s up until the summer before the restoration project began this past fall.  I also have quite a few during construction.  There are a few finished works but they are during winter so I'm sure that recent ones should reflect the work better.  I'll try to get them when I go down in August with the family.  What made you think about the Cascades on this thread?

[Mark_Fine]

Wayne,
Your comment that many of Flynn's bunkers "have become sort of plain in their outlines" and that "they were not designed that way nor built that way originally. Maintenance practices over the years have simplified many outlines."  

I always thought the bunkers at The Cascades were simple in shape and design (probably evolution over the years) and I'm anxious to see the restored ones.  I assume someone here must have photos?  

[TEPaul]

Mark:

The Flynn bunkers of Cascades were a bit different from most we've ever seen. They originally had a pretty odd rough ring around many of them even on the tops. Over time they certainly did become super plain looking. They were almost done when I went through there but I think we should wait for the restored bunkers to grass in for a time.

Sometime the contributors on this website don't understand that a little grassing in time makes a real difference in look.  

[Mark_Fine]

Tom,
They were very plain looking weren't they.  What about the shapes?  Weren't the bunkers there relatively simple in shape similar to other Flynn parkland courses?

I realize the grass takes time to grow in but the bunker shapes/outlines are set.  

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,
They were very plain looking weren't they.  What about the shapes?  Weren't the bunkers there relatively simple in shape similar to other Flynn parkland courses?

I realize the grass takes time to grow in but the bunker shapes/outlines are set.  

Shape is but one dimension of a bunker.

Ever SandPro a Flynn bunker? There's A LOT of internal contour. I'd argue there's more movement in a lot of those bunkers on the floor than in some greens!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()