Quaker Ridge GC (Tillinghast) in Scarsdale, NY

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
You included that advertisement in your Tilly book and these are the dates you came up for Tilly's involvement. I would have quoted those dates earlier but didn't because they are obviously wrong:

SFGC - 1918
Fort Worth - 1920
Dallas
Cedar Crest - 1919
Mount Kisco - 1920
QR - 1918
Norwood - 1919
Spring Lake - 1918
Upper Mountclair - 1920
Sound Beach (not in the book)
Glen Ridge -1923
Shawnee - What did Tilly do in 1920?

[V. Kmetz]

PM,

Re: Quaker's Par 5s

Given the confines of your scale I would say both #1 and #14 are "Good"

If I was scoring them out of 10, I would give #1 a score of 6.0 - 6.5 and #14 a score of 7.5-8.0.

More specifically:

#1: When I last played (Aug 4th) it seems that the left tree-line (shared with 18th) was a little thinner, as was (seemingly) the right side.  I don't know if that's accurate or faulty visual memory, but I liked the tee shot better and gave you a little more freedom to start your round.  The second shot - for most - has a nice look, but a mediocre strategy.  I enjoy that elevated, slippery green and it gets you into the Tillinghast Challenge mindset immediately.  If the hole was elsewhere in the round I would probably lower it's score some, but as an opener, it's slightly above average.

#14: I really enjoy the vista and strategy of #14 tee shot, though compromised a bit by the burn on the right.  You know it's a good 260-280 to fully cut the bunker hill corner and that is really worth something if you do it, for you can shorten the second shot by 35-50 yards and bring it more realistically in the realm of achievable, yet that big "going-for-it-in-two" hit has it's own risk from a slicey part of the fairway. It's like one risk successfully taken yields another.  This, of course, predicated on the fact you do it all, for if you find one of those bunkers, it's going to be hard to make better than six. If you play shorter and safer than the left line then you are faced with a pretty big carry (175-190) to get over the mini-Hell complex, still 120 from the green.  The fact that the hole plays in an SE direction adds interest to this to as this makes it downwind 2/3rds of the days.

Somebody mentioned Fenway #3 - I think that Hell complex has only visual interest remaining, as players of all but the shortest stripe, are not even considering it on their seconds.  

Cheers

vk

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Rick,

"Does anyone know when Tillinghast's par-3 2nd hole was lost and replaced with the par 4?  If it was done while Tilly was alive he would have been really pissed off...IMO"

Tillie did the work. I posted this before:


"When the time came in 1924 for a major revision of the course, Hochster was there to carry out Tillinghast's plans. He lived in a house just to the right of the first green. That change came after the club purchased 28 acres from Martha LaFurgy for $35,000.00. The changes that Tillinghast recommended and Hochster implemented in 1924 brought the course into basically its present configuration. Four new holes(3,4,1213) were built at that time,and two others altered-the first green was moved from behind the fairway bunker, and the second,originally the third, was given its dogleg. At the same time, four holes were abandoned. The old second hole was a short par3 near the tennis facility that played to a punchbowl green. The fourth at that time played from behind the 14th tee over the 13th green,to the present fourth green,directly over the "pit"  to the left of that green today, but which in those days extended completely across the "front" of the green. The old 12th hole was was a par3 to the right of the present 11th green,playing over a creek. And the 13th then was a short par4 that made a sharp turn to the right near its green,which was situated out in front of today's 14th tee.

[Tom MacWood]

Steve/Rick
I don't believe Tilly had anything to do with it, and according to Hanse the club has no evidence to suggest he was involved in the mid-20s. Was the old par-3 second a Tilly, Low & Lees hole or a Dunn hole?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

As far as the dates from my book, they are not mine. This is what is written about the dates used:

"The courses that are listed above are a composite of the two listings of Tillinghast courses that are given the most credence. One is from the book, The Architects of Golf, by Geoffrey Cornish and Ron Whitten. The other is from the Tillinghast Association web-site, by Rick Wolffe and Bob Trebus. The dates listed are the opening dates of these courses with separate references where they differ. For a number of courses, the date is not known. Dates in parentheses (1920) are the dates of course openings according to the Tillinghast Association. Dates in brackets [1920] are the dates of course openings according to Cornish and Whitten."

In addition, I also wrote the following:

"This, then, is a first effort to reconstruct that time and the work accomplished by the master golf architect of them all. I am hoping that as the reader peruses this, he or she might want to share something that they know in an effort to record this history more accurately for those that will follow. So I kindly ask that you take a moment to send along to me, in care of the publisher, whatever information you may have that we can use to clarify this table in future editions. My grateful thanks for your help."

That being said, your statement that those dates are "obviously wrong" is incorrect. I have been working on a comprehensive timeline for nearly three years now and am able to definitively place Tilly at many sites, locations and projects now at specific dates including a number of them that have been unknown until now. This information will be opublished in Volume II...

I know, your're holding your breathe with anticipation...

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom,

What do you mean by, "...according to Hanse?"  Has he published something about his work at QR? His website is devoid of any details of his work there.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat - I think they had it as #12 on the composite course for the Met-Open, didn't know the actual configuration. They also played it as a
par-4.

That would be # 5 Center nine.

I think # 3 East nine bears a much greater resemblence to # 1 at QR, in topography, configuration and playability.

[Patrick_Mucci]

VKmetz,

I think # 1 at QR is a good starter.
With OB right, you can ruin your round in a hurry at QR.

But, when you compare some of AWT's other starting par 5's # 1 at QR seems like a worthy hole.

# 1 at Baltusrol Upper and Lower seem rather tame by comparison.
Both are relatively short and easily reached in two by most decent ball strikers.

The old # 1 at Shackamaxon is another story, that's a very hard starting par 5 with OB right, a creek crossing the fairway on the second shot, and and uphill topography in the second shot LZ.

It would be interesting to compare AWT's starting par 5's.

I think # 1 at QR is a good one.

As to the 3rd at Fenway, the elevated green and dramatically contoured and sloped puttting surface make the hole a difficult one.
However, I wouldn't discount the fairway bunkering as it still has a major impact on drives and second shots.

[Jeff_Lewis]

I am a QR member and will refrain from discussing the holes for fear of being tagged a "homer".

On the historical investigation. I've corresponded with Daniel Wexler and he now believes the current 12th, 13th and 3rd holes WERE designed by Tillinghast and that what he wrote in his book was not correct.

A couple of the articles referring to Quaker Ridge "Country Club" I think do not refer to QRGC. I believe the only course in the neighborhood that ever had an affiliation to the NYAC was Winged Foot (hence the name). And given the overwhelmingly German Jewish membership in the early part of the 20th century, many of the names in one of those articles do NOT look like Quaker Ridge names.

[V. Kmetz]

PM

I believe, "net-net" we're in almost in full accordance on #1 QR.  I just believe #14 is a more satisfying strategic Par 5 in and of itself and where it comes in the round, but I would lower its score a might if it were the first three-shotter of the day.  I just don't think 98% of players are quite ready to jump right into precise strategic play that #14 demands in greater quantity.  Though given reflection on the whole thread and your specific comments, I'm willing to raise my score on #1 QR closer to 7.0 - it is a good hole..  

I think it has become canonical axiom that the first hole of a course, that the first shot of the round be a little forgiving on the soul.  I believe at one time or another the Grand Poobahs of architecture (Ross, Mackenzie, MacDonald and others) have all weighed in affirmatively on the need for a general sense of liberty and forgiveness on the first strike of the day.  Even before the sound precepts of ODG, it just seems to be something that Golf "demands" in the experience of a round.  You can screw around with imagination and wild landforms and yield compelling strategy throughout, but first let the poor guy/gal make a swing; so they have some confidence and provocation to meet all your other great architecture fairly. All of it comes back to St. Andrews, doesn't it?  I've never been, but I have practically informed myself to the point I can smell the salt air.... and what is that tee shot like, even if you are playing the left handed course?

I'm not prepared to make a full defense of this briefly stated position - but I'm not unduly impressed by Baltusrol Lower (only 2 playings, 4 rounds caddying, US Open/PGA attendance).  In that vein, #1 Baltusrol doesn't impress me much either. I know it's just a hodge-podge of personal circuitry, but doesn't it seem like that first hole tee shot is all over the place in golf....the "big downhill, bowling alley 5 with an OB wall on one side or the other?"  Riviera has it, Metropolis has it, but even beyond those disparate citations, it feels like I play that shot all the time in the very beginning of the round...maybe I'm wrong and I'm lumping in some other holes I know of.

Cheers

VK

[Patrick_Mucci]

VKMetz,

Interestingly enough, the first hole at BFF's is a very difficult opener.

I like a semi-benign opening hole, even though I would rather get a difficult hole out of the way on the first hole since I do take advantage of the practice range.

Perhaps that's the key with AWT.
Where there was NO practice range, perhaps he made the first hole more "user friendly" and where there was a practice area, perhaps he made the first hole more demanding.

It certainly seems that way at QR and Baltusrol, upper and lower.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

What do you mean by, "...according to Hanse?"  Has he published something about his work at QR? His website is devoid of any details of his work there.

According to conversations I have had with him while he was engaged by the club (I don't know if he is still consulting with them or not). To my knowledge he has not published anything.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

As far as the dates from my book, they are not mine. This is what is written about the dates used:

"The courses that are listed above are a composite of the two listings of Tillinghast courses that are given the most credence. One is from the book, The Architects of Golf, by Geoffrey Cornish and Ron Whitten. The other is from the Tillinghast Association web-site, by Rick Wolffe and Bob Trebus. The dates listed are the opening dates of these courses with separate references where they differ. For a number of courses, the date is not known. Dates in parentheses (1920) are the dates of course openings according to the Tillinghast Association. Dates in brackets [1920] are the dates of course openings according to Cornish and Whitten."

In addition, I also wrote the following:

"This, then, is a first effort to reconstruct that time and the work accomplished by the master golf architect of them all. I am hoping that as the reader peruses this, he or she might want to share something that they know in an effort to record this history more accurately for those that will follow. So I kindly ask that you take a moment to send along to me, in care of the publisher, whatever information you may have that we can use to clarify this table in future editions. My grateful thanks for your help."

That being said, your statement that those dates are "obviously wrong" is incorrect. I have been working on a comprehensive timeline for nearly three years now and am able to definitively place Tilly at many sites, locations and projects now at specific dates including a number of them that have been unknown until now. This information will be opublished in Volume II...

I know, your're holding your breathe with anticipation...

Phil
If you are writing a biographical study of one America's great golf architects wouldn't putting together an accurate listing of his works and an accurate timeline of when he created those works be an important first step? You wrote the book, don't you have to take responsibility for what you put in it?

What did Tilly do at Shawnee in 1920? What year did Tilly redesign Spring Lake? Glen Ridge?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

"If you are writing a biographical study of one America's great golf architects wouldn't putting together an accurate listing of his works and an accurate timeline of when he created those works be an important first step?"

No. My book is a biography of the man and not his architectural work; that was secondary and why it is relegated mostly to the appendix. Tilly's work was so large that in order to do a proper biographical study of everything it would require several volumes. I believe that in order to appreciate what the man accomplished you need to know and understand the man first.

The second volume, which manuscript is nearing completion, is the study of his work in gerat detail. This includes his philosophies of every aspect of the golf club, from site choice to clubhouse, tee to green, and everything in-between and then some. It may include the exhaustive timeline of his work that I've been at work on for a number of years now and a much more accurate dating of his works including.

"You wrote the book, don't you have to take responsibility for what you put in it?"

I absolutely do and have. For example, there is a glaring printers mistake in a date of a particular golf club. Despite nearly a dozen different eyes that read the finished proof which occurred after I had turned it in and editing was done, somehow this error that changed the date of this course by 11 years was in the printed version. Everyone missed it. No publisher is going to throw out the thousands of copies of the book that were printed. It is there for all to see, and some did.

Three days after the book was released, a person who had bought the book contacted me through the publisher and was quite angry over how I could blow the date that his Tilly club opened. It would have been very easy to lay the blame elsewhere, especially as I had the correct date in the my manuscript, but it is my book & my responsibility and I accepted it and sent him a new copy with the mistaken date crossed out & a new hand-written one put in. I also included an apology and thank you on the same page.

He not only enjoys showing that to others, he purchased a number of other copies in which I gladly did the same thing that he gave as gifts to several other members of the club. He was also responsible for having the club use me for some private research that they needed.

It's a cute story with a happy ending, but the real point of it is that I do take full responsibility for what is written in it, mistakes and all. It is because I knew that there had to be mistakes in the dates used, after all I have found a number of them through the years and helped in correcting them, that I wrote that they both might be found and that I appreciated if they would be pointed out.

I intend to do the same thing in Volume II as my research has clearly shown that so much has been lost over time that one person simply can't do it all. A good case in point is the announcement coming shortly in the next edition of Tillinghast Illustrated of a club that has just discovered that Tilly designed their course in 1927.

The discovery was accidentally made by one of the members. It is a nine-hole course that no one would have spent any time researching, yet the proof is overwhelming and incontrovertible. If and when one reads about it I defy any researcher to say that they would have discovered it... They simply would not have.

"What did Tilly do at Shawnee in 1920? What year did Tilly redesign Spring Lake? Glen Ridge?"

For the answer to those questions you can simply and patiently wait on the publishing of the timeline... I'm certain that you will see arrogance or whatever in this answer; but that isn't the case. I have worked too hard and long on this to begin taking away from the finished work by diluting it by giving away its details. This is nothing to do with you personally as I've consistently maintained that stance for quite some time now. The exceptions made to that stance have been quite specific and for my own good reasons...

[Tom MacWood]

I am a QR member and will refrain from discussing the holes for fear of being tagged a "homer".

On the historical investigation. I've corresponded with Daniel Wexler and he now believes the current 12th, 13th and 3rd holes WERE designed by Tillinghast and that what he wrote in his book was not correct.

A couple of the articles referring to Quaker Ridge "Country Club" I think do not refer to QRGC. I believe the only course in the neighborhood that ever had an affiliation to the NYAC was Winged Foot (hence the name). And given the overwhelmingly German Jewish membership in the early part of the 20th century, many of the names in one of those articles do NOT look like Quaker Ridge names.

Jeff
The original organization in 1915 was called QR Country Club. It was organized by a Scot and I don't believe it was a Jewish Club. That club went under and a new club was organized in 1916 with different principals, and renamed QR Golf Club.

What did Daniel find that change his mind?

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
It sounded almost like you were blaming Cornish & Whitten and Wolffe & Trebus for the errors in your Tillinghast book.

While I understand you did not spend much time discussing Tilly's architecture in that book, the man was one of our greatest golf architects, and his architecture would be a primary reason most would be interested. So I'm not sure why you didn't feel it important to accurately detail his work, including the dates.

Since you are unable to give the dates for Tilly's involvement at Glen Ridge or Spring Lake or evidently any other course (by the way I don't think revealing that information would adversely affect sales) at least explain how Tilly could redesign QR in 1920 several years before the additional land was purchased?

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Tom

Who said anything about 1920? As I posted from the Met Golfer archives above:

"When the time came in 1924 for a major revision of the course, Hochster was there to carry out Tillinghast's plans. He lived in a house just to the right of the first green. That change came after the club purchased 28 acres from Martha LaFurgy for $35,000.00. The changes that Tillinghast recommended and Hochster implemented in 1924 brought the course into basically its present configuration."

[Tom MacWood]

Interesting stuff on Quaker Ridge...

Does anyone know when Tillinghast's par-3 2nd hole was lost and replaced with the par 4?  If it was done while Tilly was alive he would have been really pissed off...IMO

I recall reading Tilly's letters on the design and construction of Baltimore CC's five farms course in which he made his case that the tennis members preferred location for the new tennis courrts would severly impact the design integrity of the golf course.

In any event, Tillinghast lays claim to the Quaker as one of his 18 hole designs.  He did not classify his work at Quaker as reconstruction or expansion of an existing course.  He claims this as in 18 hole design in his 1925/1926 statement of qualifications/brochure, which is posted on the Tillinghast web site at,

http://www.tillinghast.net/cms/node/306

In this piece Tilly lists Quaker 7th in a grouping of 40 "Eighteen Hole Courses."  Not sure why he ordered the courses as he did, it is not in alpha order and does not appear to be in date order, although Shawnee is listed first.  Quaker Ridge is listed ahead of San Francisco.

An earlier advertisement by Tilly appears to tout the reconstruction work being done in 1920 at Quaker, Shawnee, San Francisco and some others.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Those are good articles, thanks for posting them. Unfortunately there isn't a single thing in any of them that contradict what the history of the Club, its records or its website states.

For example, the 7/29/1916 article states that the links are being CONSTRUCTED under the supervision of George Low, Peter Lees and A.W. Tillinghast. CONSTRUCTED, not DESIGNED. Tilly designed the course and the three oversaw its construction, that is all. Tilly designed a number of courses and both employed and worked with others who supervised their construction during these years. That had no bearing on his being the course designer.

As for the course changes in the mid-20's, the 6/27/1926 article states, "the man who has been largely responsible for the improvements is William R. Hochster, the President, who has worked with the might and main to put the club into the championship class anmd who has evidently succeeded..."

How do you take the idea that Hochster DESIGNED the course changes from that? The club clearly states that Tilly was brought back in 1925 to plan the changes and, as the article that Steve posted from the Met Golfer states, "Hochster was there to carry out Tillinghast's plans..."

As Rick pointed out, in 1920 Tilly advertised that he was in the process of "Reconstructing" Quaker Ridge, so Hochster's working with Tilly in this capacity was something that he would have done before...

Here is a copy of that advertisement:

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

"It sounded almost like you were blaming Cornish & Whitten and Wolffe & Trebus for the errors in your Tillinghast book." As usual, you are wrong...

"While I understand you did not spend much time discussing Tilly's architecture in that book, the man was one of our greatest golf architects, and his architecture would be a primary reason most would be interested. So I'm not sure why you didn't feel it important to accurately detail his work, including the dates."

So Tom, you criticize me yet DON'T criticize C&W & Trewolf? I guess it was LESS important that they get the dates correct? I'm not criticizing anyone. The dates given were the best available at the time, that is all. It matters not whether you like the answer or not...

"Since you are unable to give the dates for Tilly's involvement at Glen Ridge or Spring Lake or evidently any other course (by the way I don't think revealing that information would adversely affect sales)"
 
I am not UNABLE; I am UNWILLING. By the way, when David was being pressured on here to post his Merion essay or portions of it he responded that he wasn't ready to do so, a statement that you supported (I did as well); yet you won't afford me that same consideration? The reason for not doing so has NOTHING to do with sales... and so that you don't feel picked on or singled out in this, I haven't shared any of it yet with anyone at all. When I do I will share it with certain ones for comments, some I who I greatly respect and expect kind words from and some who I expect to rip it to shreds. I've done it that way with all 5 of my books.

"at least explain how Tilly could redesign QR in 1920 several years before the additional land was purchased?" Come on Tom, even you can't be that obtuse, since when did QR have to purchase land in order to have Tilly do any work? It is quite obvious that you were unaware of this; or are you whose beliefs and theories are so often backed up by newspaper and magazine articles as proof, including on this very thread, about to say that Tilly was lying about working at Quaker Ridge in 1920?

[Tom MacWood]

Phil
You threw C&W and Wolffe & Trebus under the bus, not me.

No, Tilly was not lying. You have misconstrued or misunderstood or misrepresented the advertisement, which is probably why you are hesitant to address my questions. This is a discussion group where we share information, and in the past you have been very generous with your Tilly info, but for some odd reason in this case your hesitant.

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I didn't throw anyone under the bus, but you certainly seem to want to shove me down there, and that is fine... By the way, were they C&W & Trewolf wrong on some dates? Does that make what they wrote any less worthy of reading and/or research? That I simply used their dates and then stated that I hoped if there were clarifications to some of them so please let me know so that the corrections could be made somehow makes my work LESS worthy? Again, Tom, you are certainly entitled to your opinion...

How have I "misconstrued or misunderstood or misrepresented the advertisement..."? That statement is absurd. I have done nothing but restate what Tilly said; that he worked at Quaker Ridge during 1920. Unless of course the heading to the sites mentioned, including Quaker Ridge, where Tilly wrote "SOME WORK OF 1920" is somehow vague?

"This is a discussion group where we share information, and in the past you have been very generous with your Tilly info, but for some odd reason in this case your hesitant..."

That isn't quite accurate. What is more correct is that this is a discussion group where we share information when we are ready to do so. I gave you the example of David's Merion essay. He refused to put any of it on-site until he was ready to and he was RIGHT to do so. Yet here, because I don't feel ready to supply certain DOCUMENTATION, for I HAVE supplied the INFORMATION, its cause must be "ODD."

I am still generous in sharing the Tilly info that I have gathered with any and all. You can see that by the answer I provided you with on the SFGC thread that you just started. At times, though, I have been asked to keep certain information private for reasons known to those who shared them with me. I respect that at all times. As a result, there have been times I have been emailed with questions about certain specific facts or points which I was not at liberty to answer because of promises given. In each case I explained that to the person asking and asked them to bear with me until I could.

That is different from my not providing information and documentation directly relating to a rather large mutli-year book project. My decision to do so is based upon a number of very good reasons, not least of which is if I do it once I must do it always. I have kept to this stance for more than three years now since the first question of that type was asked of me. I actually have a file collection of those questions and I am sure that I will surprise many a person when the time is ready to do so by sending it to them.

This is the last time I will answer to this question or comment from you as I feel I have been forthcoming, honest and quite clear in answering it... as ODD as either the answer or reasoning may appear.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

I certainly did not  post this thread with the intention of starting another "attribution" thread. I did so to initiate discussion of this "low profile" course which has gained high praise over the years by the greats of golf. I did ask in my initial post as to why the GD ranking  dropped so much. I understand that problems with the greens may be the culprit. Also, the current work by Hanse was not in response to GD.

In any event, here is an article I found from Links circa 1997:

www.linksmagazine.com/golf_courses/united_states/new_york/quaker_ridge.aspx

[TEPaul]

“What do you mean by, "...according to Hanse?"


“According to conversations I have had with him while he was engaged by the club (I don't know if he is still consulting with them or not).”



Well, he was about three weeks ago unless he and Jim Wagner (or is it Jim Nagle?) left WF to go over to QR to get on some machinery for some other architect.   

[Michael J. Moss]

It's regrettable that the Quaker Ridge archives do not contain a document that clearly points to Tillinghast's involvement in the late 1920s renovation. The newspaper articles mention Hochster's role (above anyone else). Tillinghast, though famous at the time, coming off his success at Winged Foot and Fenway, was conspicuously absent from the news accounts. Essentially, Hochster was hogging the spotlight.

It makes the process of attribution less comfortable.

It just doesn't make sense that a club that holds their golf course in such reverence would have such poor records.