[Sean_A]

I think its a dog gone shame that we only had one archie reply to Wayne's invite.  I think this subject deserves its own thread.  I for one would greatly appreciate if some of the archies could compare & contrast the two designs.  Obviously, the Ross layout is in blue.



Below are Scott's comments

I will make a few comments on the routing comparisons.  They are not meant to point out which may be 'better' just differences based on a few factors/parameters.  I'll let others state their positions as which is better, though IMO this is impossible since the Flynn course was never built and presuming otherwise would be worthless, since as we know the best way is not analyzing a 2D plan, but rather walking the site as Ross and any great architect did/does.

First, and I thought this was mildly interesting, both routings are split with the front 9's set to the northern portion of the land and the back 9's in the southern halves.  I would have thought that given the great minds of these architects, one of them would have explored an interwoven routing considering what appears to be some very interesting topo.

Ross routing, holes 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 17 and 18 use the land in a similar manner...that is to say following or playing across the contour without too much of a dramatic change in elevation at any one time, relatively speaking.  Flynn does this with fewer holes, so it appears 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 16, 17 and 18, though again, without actually seeing the site and walking both routings this is very difficult to assess adequately.

Flynn has 6 holes that play NE, 4 holes that play SW, 2 holes that play SE, 3 holes that play NW, 1 hole each that plays N, E and S respectively.  Ross has 5 that play NE, 5 that play SW, 2 that play E, 2 that play W, 1 that plays NW, 1 that plays SE and 1 each that plays N, and S respectively.

Ross routing has 9 holes that play uphill to the LZ, 6 holes that play down to the LZ and the other 3 that play essentially level, or across the contour to a similar elevation.  Flynn routing has 8 holes that play uphill to the LZ, 4 holes that play down and the other 6 that play fairly level or across the contour to a similar elevation.  However, of the Flynn holes that play uphill they seem to be more deliberate and would likely produce a more difficult test of golf.

Ross routing has 8 holes that play down to the green from the LZ, 8 holes that up to the green and the other 2 play fairly level.  Flynn routing has 6 holes that play down to the green from the LZ, 5 holes that play up to the green and the others are fairly level, or play across tough terrain to a similar elevation.

Flynn uses the water (stream), holes 12, 13 and 14 and Ross avoids it mostly, though not entirely.

Many of the Flynn green & tee sites seem to be on the edge of contour whereas the Ross green sites appear to be somewhat more generalized, thought this is hard to say accurately without seeing the natural feature at each site chosen in the field.  It could be said that the Flynn green sites might have been more difficult to build given their edge condition, but hard to say without seeing the individual sites for each green.

Flynn has 8 holes that have significant side slopes in the LZ's, Ross has about the same number.

Flynn has 4 noticable dogleg holes and Ross has about 6.

Flynn holes 5-7 go up and down the slope and Ross holes 4-6 go in the opposite direction across the slope.  The Ross holes would probably fit the site better, but this is subjective.

Thats enough for now, gotta get back to real work Wink

Ciao

[Scott Witter]

Sean:

I was a bit surprised that no one else picked up on Waynes invite...but no matter.

Without walking the site and playing the course, it is impossible to make too many constructive comments, certainly none of which that would relate to the quality of the golf experience.  The routings are definitely interesting and IMO the Flynn design, as Jim Nagle said, would be a much tougher test of golf.  Though the routings are fairly balanced in some respects, it just seems that the Ross design feels more natural and unforced.  This is not say that Flynn was plopping down holes without good reason, but even without playing the course, the approach that Ross took to route holes more so along the contour and avoid more of the steeper and more challenging portions of the land to the south, lends me to intutively think his holes would 'fit' better.

I'm sure the Flynn supporters will surely debate this, but it would be pure conjecture for this site.

There is one area I found a little odd by Ross...but I would have thought that he would have put the 7th tee  in the area between Flynn's 6th green and 7th tee.  He could have kept the green in the same place and this way, the hole would again play along the contour as opposed to directly up the hill as it does now.  But hey, this Ross guy was pretty good at his craft and who am I to say...   On the other hand, he like so many architects back then liked to keep the transitions from green to tee close and this may have been his intention.

Jim Nagle may be able to shed more light from ther research at the club and perhaps he'll  post.

[Paul_Turner]

Just one quick obersvation,  Flynn's 14th looks a slog uphill and tough too with that crowned fairway.

[BCrosby]

The differences are striking. Flynn's routing makes for a much more difficult course.

He would have traversed more water and sharp elevation changes. Other than the holes immediately at the clubhouse (1,9,10 and 18) its striking how differently each uses the terrain. Note the number of Flynn holes that are perpindicular to the Ross holes.

Fascinating. Terrain is not destiny.

Bob

[Scott Witter]

Paul:

The 14th of Flynn's routing actually plays UP through a broad drainage swale/trough, the opposite of a crown.  That fact may also help you better understand some of the other Flynn design such as 12, 13 and 17.

[Paul_Turner]

Paul:

The 14th of Flynn's routing actually plays UP through a broad drainage swale/trough, the opposite of a crown.  That fact may also help you better understand some of the other Flynn design such as 12, 13 and 17.

Scott

oops , of course it is...I need numbers with contours!

[Scott Witter]

Paul:

They are there, you just have to look very close

[wsmorrison]

Sean,

Thanks for giving this topic its own thread.  I was also surprised that this got such a small reaction.  I am very pleased that Scott Witter took the time to add such thoughtful ideas to Jim Nagle's comments.  Not to dismiss their efforts, they add a lot, but what about the other architects on this site?  This comparison and contrast between Ross and Flynn has the potential to be one of the most interesting threads in Golf Club Atlas history, yet it just hasn't materialized as we would hope.  It is one of the very few if not only chances to discuss the contemporary routing differences between two master architects with the same starting and finishing points.

Brad Klein, surely you have something valuable to add, even if it is that your man got it wrong 

[wsmorrison]

Ross's 1926 plan

[Scott Witter]

Wayne:

Yikes Batman... I was just about to post when I saw the real 1926 Ross plan...cool.  Okay more on that later, but I wanted to ask you something.  I noticed on the Flynn plan that while it seems he gave considerable attention to show bunkering at the green sites, he only showed fairway bunkering once on the entire routing, hole #11.  Do you know why, was this custimary by Flynn, I don't think so, but I found it a bit odd to only see this and wondered why he bothered, yet he took the time to present more detail around the greens?

[wsmorrison]

Excellent point, Scott.  I spoke with Craig Disher, Tom Paul, Ron Forse and Scott Nye (former head professional at CC York, now at Merion) about this several years ago.  It is fascinating but a subject we don't know as well as we'd like.

Flynn would, especially early on in his career, layout the plan with minimal fairway bunkering and later add more after seeing how the course was maintained and being played.  After a time, his plans, even the preliminary ones were bunkered pretty close to the way they were built.  Given that he would do multiple designs on paper before coming up with a final plan, depending on which iteration you are looking at (not always easy to tell if it is preliminary or final) it is hard to draw definitive conclusions.  However, I don't think this was the process at CC York.

There is another site of a Flynn design, Eagles Mere (NLE), with a great deal of topographic movement, in fact, even more so than York.  Flynn's plan also only had a single fairway bunker on the first hole and only 27 bunkers in total.  Three holes had no bunkering at all. 

We think it likely that Flynn allowed the ground itself to dictate strategy on some hole designs.  We've seen elsewhere when the ground has great possibilities for "gravity golf" (a Tom Paul expression) that he used far fewer bunkers than when the ground was less interesting.  Not only would he design this way from course to course but within a course.  If you think about Shinnecock Hills, he heavily bunkered and used undulating sandy waste areas in the flat areas and far fewer hazards in the more topographic sections of the course.

My guess is that Flynn felt the site offered enough interest that he would use the natural features as much as possible and let the routing dictate play not man made hazards.

[Scott Witter]

Wayne:

I did think about whether or not this was a 'preliminary' plan, or more of a 'final' routing by Flynn when considering the fairway bunkering, but to me that still wouldn't answer the green site detail.

Admittedly, I don't nearly as much about Flynn as you. M. Fine T Paul and others but I was aware they he would sometimes wait for play before adding, or finalizing bunkers.

I like the "gravity golf" term and I get it and this would explain some things, but when compared in this case to the Ross routing plan you posted, doesn't it strike you even more to see a fair amount of fairway bunkering from Ross as opposed to Flynn?  I am speaking again just about this site and not the two architects in general.  I can find many natural locations for bunkers, maybe not the same as Ross chose, but as you say, it may not have been an important aspect at the time for Flynn and he waited until later to address it.

"If you think about Shinnecock Hills, he heavily bunkered and used undulating sandy waste areas in the flat areas and far fewer hazards in the more topographic sections of the course."

This says a alot I wonder if others who know Flynn well can confirm or debate this premise?

[wsmorrison]

Scott,

It doesn't strike me as odd that Ross bunkered the site more so than Flynn, at least in this time period.  I think Flynn was much more daring, not only in the way he chose to route golf courses (and less systematically than Ross), but in pushing the envelope into new theories and practices.  Flynn could be much more unconventional as evidenced by his reversible course at Pocantico Hills, courses with few bunkers, ideal angles of play on the outside of doglegs, use of wind, reverse cant doglegs, and the manner in which he would design and build altering visual perspectives for deception, specific shot testing, etc.

The decision to use few bunkers at Eagles Mere preceded the CC York plan by 2-3 years and we can see that the EM course (well, 9 holes that were built) was built with few bunkers.  The design of Merion West (1914) had very few bunkers at the outset and still has relatively few.  Elsewhere in Philadelphia, Cobb's Creek (1916) was built on very topographic land and that only had 20-something bunkers at the start.  Flynn may have assisted Hugh Wilson in this effort, but even if he didn't, he was aware of it.  The concept was well known to Flynn. 

If you know the topography of Shinnecock Hills, just look at an early aerial of the course (even a modern one indicates this, but to a lesser degree) and you will see exactly what we mean.  If you look at the hole designs for Boca Raton North and South, Floranada, Opa Locka and other flat sites in Florida, you'll see how he used a huge amount of man-made mounds, bunkers and sandy waste areas to create interest and strategy.   Same guy, different sites and thus different design style.

So, it is clear to Tom Paul and I (I have no idea what Mark Fine thinks) that Flynn would vary the amount of man-made features depending upon the characteristics of the site and the specific hole designs.  It is evident if you are able to study all of his drawings and aerial photographs, that he used fewer bunkers on dynamic pieces of property.  I don't mean to come off as haughty, but I don't think confirmation is necessary.  The public record indicates it very clearly.  However, a debate on the premise would be worthwhile.

[Craig Disher]

This overlay may help.



Flynn's lack of Flynn's bunkers on the plan might have been a consequence of the extreme natural features that he chose to use. His design was difficult enough without additional and maybe unnecessary penalties. It's interesting that he avoided completely the easier-to-use land that holds Ross's #14. He chose to hike up and down the ridge line instead.

Wayne, You might recall Flynn's only known comment about his plan for Manor CC. He said that the par 4 3rd (I think it was the 3rd) was so good that it required no bunkers. Given the compact size of the property, I'd suggest that he designed the other holes just so he could use the streams that crossed the 3rd's fairway.

[wsmorrison]

Craig,

I had forgotten about that quote.  We need to put it in the Flynn book.  It may be in there already, but I don't think so. 

Can you tell from any of the aerials (NARA or Hagley) how much of the property was clear cut?  I'm wondering if Ross's plan had less clearing to do than Flynn's.  Any ideas?

[Sean_A]

Craig,

I had forgotten about that quote.  We need to put it in the Flynn book.  It may be in there already, but I don't think so. 

Can you tell from any of the aerials (NARA or Hagley) how much of the property was clear cut?  I'm wondering if Ross's plan had less clearing to do than Flynn's.  Any ideas?

Wayne

I too was wondering if Ross was looking for a way to build a course on a tighter budget.  He seems to have a bit of a rep for being frugal.

Ciao

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

As interesting as it seems to have a golf course site with the same starting points (clubhouse) with a routing plan from two of the primary architects of the time I've always hesitated to comment on this subject and here's why;

I've learned most of what I know about golf course architecture on the ground and not by scrutinizing and analyzing topographical maps before or even after construction without first being totally familiar with most all of a site's vertical aspects first.

I guess a quicker way to say this is I don't really get that much from topo maps of all the ramifications of a site's vertical dimensions without really knowing a site on the ground first (and looking at it from every possible vantage point with close and far vertical dimensional ramifications). I've used topo maps in some routing attempts but I basically just used them for length and width analysis and calculations. The vertical dimension I pretty much have to see on the site and on the ground. Basically I just don't get the vertical dimensions of sites that well from JUST a topo map without first being really familiar with the site.

For this reason I wouldn't really want to even comment on Flynn's York routing without taking it out on the site and analyzing it for a day or so from every vantage point.

I think we must all recognize that as interesting as this York Ross/Flynn comparison might be, Flynn's plan is basically a glorified routing laid on a topo map with no evidence at all about what he may've done with earth moving and the cuts and fills of greens and such. Don't forget, at this time in his career Flynn was very good at shelving greens into hillsides and such in interesting topography. Does his routing map of York show any of that?  

Frankly, I don't think it's that fair to William Flynn to try to compare a topo routing he did for York to an existing golf course by Donald Ross.

And that's basically why I haven't commented much on this particular subject. And not just that, but I doubt I'd put much stock in the analyses of those who are. I do recognize that some architects have a real talent for pretty precisely matching a site's verticality both near and far off a topo map first to what they find later on a site but I think that's both a real talent and also takes a lot of experience on sites, something that most of the non-architect contributors on GOLFLCLUBATLAS.com don't have.

[wsmorrison]

I remember getting tested for some reason or another for spatial relations and I tested off the chart.  I don't seem to have a problem visualizing what the topo lines translate into on the ground.  Some of this may have been refined from studying the Flynn topos so much and walking the courses many times, especially Shinnecock, Cascades and the local Philadelphia Flynns that it is easy to put them together.

Craig Disher and I spent a good part of a day walking around CC York, not only the Ross routing on the ground, but the Flynn routing on paper.  I'm just kidding when I comment to Brad Klein (curiously absent from this discussion) about Ross getting it wrong.  The fact is, there may be a lot to learn with careful study of the golf designs.  They are so remarkably different for such a dynamic site that, like Bob said, even on demanding terrain, there's more than one way to route a golf course. 

The differences in the way they routed are fascinating even on a general level.  While we don't have the green drawings or an understanding of the cuts and fills to know how Flynn meant to specifically intend the course to play, there are some things to learn if we consider courses like Huntingdon Valley, Eagles Mere, Rolling Green, Lehigh, Lancaster and other Flynn courses on severely topographic sites. 

I do agree that for most of us, on site visits and close scrutiny are necessary.  However, I think many of the architects on this board can make worthwhile determinations from studying the routing designs on topo maps alone.  It is what they do.  Ross in particular seemed at ease at designing courses this way since he failed to visit a significant portion of the courses attributed to him, designing on paper.

[TEPaul]

"I do agree that for most of us, on site visits and close scrutiny are necessary.  However, I think many of the architects on this board can make worthwhile determinations from studying the routing designs on topo maps alone.  It is what they do.  Ross in particular seemed at ease at designing courses this way since he failed to visit a significant portion of the courses attributed to him, designing on paper."

Wayne:

Interesting that you said you (and Craig) have been on York to look at Flynn's routing. I have no doubt it would mean more to me if I did that too. But without doing that I'm reminded of how often sites and hole landforms seem different in their near and far vertical dimensions between just analyzing contour lines on a topo and then seeing the actual site. It's not all that hard to get a general impression of the vertical dimensions and character of the specific landform a hole utilizes but the thing most miss is the look of things not on that particular landform like a backdrop and such. The latter isn't as important as the actual hole landform but the latter is certainly not unimportant either.
 
 
 

[Scott Witter]

Wayne:

This lesson in Flynn is interesting and it is fun to learn from those 'in the know' like you, T. Paul, J. Nagle and M. Fine.

Flynn may have been more daring as you say and Ross did tend to be a bit more practical, frugal, what ever you want to call it,  but I couldn't agree entirely that Ross was systematic, deliberate at times perhaps, but as evidenced by his variety and diversity in which he both routed holes and bunkered them carefully (wasteful I suspect in your opinion ) I believe their approach to land and golf was simply different and thank god it was.

There is no question that when working with a dramatic piece of land, there can be a time to reserve oneself and use the natural features more, again I wasn't going to and can't really comment on this since I haven't walked the site for CC of York.  I can read the topo quite well and completely understand the implications of this site, Jim Nagle has also provided some good insight as to the severity and character it holds.  With Flynn, I couldn't comment as to his approach as you say "pushing the envelope" with respect to design, since I don't know him well enough, but that isn't far off--I have spent a far amount of time with M. Fine walking many Ross and a few Flynn courses and it has helped to have the knowledge base to provide further clues and insight...many are obvious to me if you know what your looking at and others are more subtle--to me the craftsmanship of the best.

Your arsenal of courses quoted by Flynn are I am sure benefitial to your explanation, but I simply can't relate to specifics at the moment, again since I have seen them, but it sounds like there is a pattern/philosophy by Flynn to remain guarded, or patient is the better word when it came to bunkering the fairways...though I am not sure how this explains some of his work at Huntingdon, Green Valley and Lehigh.  From what I recall and mind you, I don't have the exposure that you do with these courses, it seems he was fairly generous with strategic bunkering and creating some great angles of play at each course.

I think most of the early architects were adapt at varying their use of man made features depending on the site and what they intended for the design---doubtful that Flynn was unique in this manner.  I believe you may have taken my 'confirmation' statement to literal, that's okay, but it really speaks to my lack of sufficient exposure to Flynn.

Craig:

Flynn's routing for CC of York was certainly challenging and others besides me have opening stated that in fact it may have been too difficult in some respects...that could be exactly why he chose not to show bunkers, but nevertheless, I still find it odd to show bunkers on just one hole and no others--I doubt even the great Flynn thought this was the only hole worthy of such accents.

[TEPaul]

Scott:

With Flynn and his general attitude or modus operandi about bunkering designs (on paper or on the course) we're pretty much relying on precisely what he wrote on this subject (basically in a series of articles in the USGA Green Section Bulletin).

His modus that way could've been basically the same as other architects of his time but I haven't seen another one write about it in the same way Flynn did.

An example is that he wrote he might tend to bunker a course quite differently if the client called for a pretty tough (championship) course vs a client who didn't necessarily want that. He also wrote that he thought it was preferable if a course saw perhaps a year of play before bunkering schemes were finalized. Obviously, not many clients may've wanted to do things that way for fairly obvious reasons but that was probably a technique he both saw and learned on a couple of courses that may be considered a "training ground" for him---ie Merion and Pine Valley.

[Scott Witter]

T. Paul:

You are right about analyzing a routing and that is why I reserved my comments to only those that relate to 2D, or the fact that topo and ones technique to using it, can and must have some influence and therefore was worth some study.  Without question, however, the only true way to evaluate a routing is to walk the site and consider it from many points of view.  But that is easy to say and comes after the fact, for as we all know, some of best architects 'designed' their work from paper and rarely saw the site until construction and quite infrequently even then.  Ross was one of the most famous architects who did so.  There were several other OGD's and some talented architects on this site and many others not on this site, who are quite adapt at routing from a topo plan and doing so very well.  It sounds like Mr. Morrison just might be one of those 'up and coming designers' since his acumen for spatial relations is..."off the chart" , just having fun Wayne That is another day and another thread maybe.

"Frankly, I don't think it's that fair to William Flynn to try to compare a topo routing he did for York to an existing golf course by Donald Ross."

Correct, but in the context of this forum, I don't care about being fair...anyway that's why my coments are focused on routings, not what Ross actually built.

"And that's basically why I haven't commented much on this particular subject. And not just that, but I doubt I'd put much stock in the analyses of those who are. I do recognize that some architects have a real talent for pretty precisely matching a site's verticality both near and far off a topo map first to what they find later on a site but I think that's both a real talent and also takes a lot of experience on sites, something that most of the non-architect contributors on GOLFLCLUBATLAS.com don't have."

Well, well...I wonder if I meet the talent criteria... Guess I'll never know.  I was going to offer you a ground floor opportunity to sit by my side and watch me work on a new design, but it's just a 350 acre site with nothing but boring 2D contour lines, streams, trees, rock outcrops, etc., anyway, I am quite certain I would learn more from you while walking the site with a flask in one hand and Flynn's design philosophies in the other

[Craig Disher]

Scott,
A possible reason for Flynn designating the pair of fairway bunkers on 11 is the ridge that runs along the left of the fairway. Parallel to the 11th and below it is his 12th fairway; the bunkers might have been intended to prevent a drive from running off the 11th fairway into the 12th. I can't see any strategic purpose for them.  The ridge is evident if you look at the birds eye view of the course in Windows Live Local.

Wayne,
The one thing I particularly remember from our visit to York is walking up the valley that Flynn intended to use for his 14th fairway. The drive would have been uphill, over a diagonal dry stream bed, onto a fairway that banked to the right and fed towards the green site. The risky, short route to the green was challenged by the thick woods on the right. To finish it off, he would have cut the green into a facing slope - a picturesque view that would emerge slowly as you walked out of the woods. That he was able to find that particular hole was amazing to me. I think it was the best hole site on the property.

[wsmorrison]

Scott,

I didn't tell you about all my other scores that were off the chart in the other direction.  Maybe they are evident by my posts here   

I've never claimed one design was better than the rest, only that they are quite different and that can lead us to some general conclusions.  For most of us, being on the site is a requirement to figure things out.  I've spent years looking at hole drawings, routings on topo maps and on site study related to our Flynn project.  I couldn't help but learn a process to consider them.  For architects such as yourself, it isn't as much of a requisite but it surely helps.  Oh, and once you've taken the Mark Fine introduction course, Tom Paul and I would be happy to offer you an undergraduate degree and PhD in Flynn 

I agree that Flynn designed a very difficult course with or without the bunkers.  It probably was a significant factor in not getting the commission.   This happened once before at Denver CC when the club decided that the redesign was too difficult to fully implement. 

Flynn designed or was involved at other courses with minimal bunkering.  Merion West retained a minimal amount of bunkering throughout his life and does so today.  Certainly at the start of this design and Eagles Mere, he intended to have the barest minimum of fairway bunkering, though it was likely he would add bunkers over time.  That is evidence of his frugal approach and also his method of realizing the full potential of a project over time.  As Tom Paul said, his classrooms were Merion and Pine Valley.  Both courses were years in the making.  Having so few projects going at a given time and his ability to spend a lot of time on site made this possible.  Other architects had a method of operation that would not allow it.

Craig,

Great point about Flynn's 14th hole design.  It wouldn't surprise me if that hole might never have been bunkered as it would have been unnecessary.  As with the 8th and 12th holes, no greenside bunkers were indicated either.

[Scott Witter]

Wayne:

My knowledge base and exposure to Flynn may be my weakest as far as the ODG's go, this site has helped with that, however, based on my latest editing session of Mark Fine's initial manuscript for his Flynn book, I have to say my learning curve is getting flatter every day.  To no surprise, many of the Flynn characteristics and course references you mentioned parallel much of what I have read recently.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()