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.


T_MacWood

The Philadelphia School
« on: April 07, 2003, 07:24:43 PM »
What are the characteristics of the Philadelphia School of golf design?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: The Philadelphia School
« Reply #1 on: April 07, 2003, 07:28:25 PM »
Tom MacW:

I just wrote an arcticle on the Philadelphia School of architecture that's out in this month's Philadelphia Golf Magazine. Maybe I'll try to put it on here.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: The Philadelphia School
« Reply #2 on: April 07, 2003, 07:34:05 PM »
The Original Philadelphia School of Architecture


What was the original Philadelphia School of Golf Architecture? Was it a particular style, a particular look, a particular genre? It wasn’t really any of those things. John Ott, the Mayor of Pine Valley, described it most succinctly. He said; “It was just a collection of primarily 5-6 close friends and golfing companions who became transfixed by golf architecture and the creative and adventurous possibilities of the art in the incipient years of golf architecture in America and who collaborated freely with each other, as friends might, and with others of their day they respected.” To a man these 5-6 early architects were very good players, and extremely interested in competitive golf.

They were George Crump, William Flynn, William Fownes, George Thomas, Albert Tillinghast and Hugh Wilson. Of the six, four never took a dime for anything they ever did in golf architecture. Crump, Thomas, Tillinghast and Wilson were from the social and sporting aristocracy of Philadelphia and William Fownes of the same ilk from Pittsburgh was the son of H.C. Fownes, the founder and creator of Oakmont in 1903. H. C. Fownes initially designed Oakmont and both father and son spent the remainder of their lives improving and perfecting it. Albert Tillinghast, also from a prominent Philadelphia family, turned golf architecture into a productive 30-year career. William Flynn, originally from Milton Mass., after designing a golf course at age 19 in Hartwellville, Vermont, made his way to Philadelphia at 20 to work on the construction crew of the Merion East course in 1911. Flynn was the only one among them who could be considered a true “working man” professional architect.

George Thomas’s 1905 9-hole course in Marion Mass. was the first architectural product of the Philadelphia School architects followed in 1908 by Whitemarsh Valley C.C. built on Thomas’s parent’s estate. Also in 1908 Tillinghast designed his first course, Shawnee G.C. (on the Delaware).

The two enduring centerpieces of the Philadelphia School, however, were undeniably Merion East begun in 1911 and Pine Valley begun in 1912. At these two courses, particularly Pine Valley, true architectural collaboration among these 5-6 men, and others, began in earnest. Merion and Pine Valley were regarded as the best or near the best courses in the world following their opening, and today, almost 90 years later they still are. Certainly that alone requires that one look carefully at the two men who created them and those who were in and around Philadelphia who were closely associated with them architecturally. What was different or unique about the way they went about creating these two golf courses?

The first clear evidence of what was unique and different about Merion and Pine Valley in comparison to other golf courses is the massive amount of effort and particularly the duration of time each put into their projects. It’s remarkable to consider today both George Crump of Pine Valley and Hugh Wilson of Merion when they began their projects were, by any standard, rank amateurs in the art of golf architecture. Neither Crump at 41 nor Wilson at 32 had ever had a thing to do with designing and constructing a golf course.

What might be considered their preparation to undertake their tasks is interesting, and indicative of what was to come. Both took extended trips to Europe in 1910 to study and understand golf architecture. It’s believed that Wilson left first but not before visiting Charles Blair Macdonald at his home near the recently completed National Golf Links of America (NGLA) in Southampton, LI, New York for a two day cram course in all things to do with golf architecture and what to look for in the holes and courses of the British Isles.

Macdonald has become known as the “father” of American golf architecture and his personal project at NGLA is considered to be the first comprehensively superlative golf course on American soil. Coincidentally, NGLA was partially a copy of the great holes of Scotland and the British Isles that Macdonald had first become familiar with during his years at St Andrews University in the 1870s.

Armed with Macdonald’s advice Hugh Wilson spent 6-7 months in 1910 in the British Isles playing, analyzing and drawing the best of the courses and holes of that time. It’s not known if Wilson inspired Crump to travel to Europe to study architecture or if Crump also sought advice in 1910 from C.B. Macdonald. Crump spent approximately three months in Europe for the same purpose as Wilson. The only marked difference, at this point, was Wilson had been chosen by his club, in the process of a move from Bryn Mawr to a new site in Ardmore, to spearhead the design and construction of their new course. Pine Valley, however, was uniquely George Crump’s brainchild.

To put into perspective the quality of architecture of these two courses and the era in which they were created one should understand there were not more than a few courses in America at that time resembling what we think of today as even average architecture. Although golf courses in America were being “laid out” at a rapid rate in the years just preceding Merion and Pine Valley they would appear to us today shockingly rudimentary or in some cases even bizarrely geometric compared to what we know in golf architecture.

Although both Crump and Wilson were architectural novices preceding their individual projects they did their utmost to prepare for their tasks by grounding themselves as comprehensively as possible in the fundamental principles of the most sophisticated architectural thinking of their times which resided in Europe and in America at NGLA.

In 1910 golf in America was no more than 15-20 years old. At the turn of the 20th century the sport was not well known to Americans—golf implements and balls were very crude by today’s standards and were not readily available---the majority of the players were unsophisticated in the sport and in the potential of its playing fields and certainly the American golf courses of that time were evidence of that. But the sport was catching on like wildfire. People were flocking to the new recreation and the private clubs that were springing up everywhere to offer it.

Remarkably, interest in competition at all levels was also extremely strong from the very beginning. City, state and national competitions as well as interclub, intercity and interstate competitions had been organized. The United States Golf Association and the Golf Association of Philadelphia had been formed in the 1890s. Competitors and their equipment were improving rapidly and that had a fundamental impact on the rapid evolution of golf architecture of that time.

Merion Cricket Club’s original golf course in Bryn Mawr was deemed too short and an improved championship golf course was needed. George Crump, a multi-club member, and his golfing companions and fellow Philadelphia competitors believed the courses in the Philadelphia district were not of sufficient quality to test the skills of the region’s best competitors. He felt superior quality in architecture was needed to keep them competitive on an interregional and national level.

The Lesley Cup, a hugely popular team competition begun in 1900 involving the best players from Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts and Montreal and rotating annually had a lot to do with this belief and also much to do with companionship and architectural collaboration involving Pine Valley. Players such as Quimet, Travis, Travers, Fownes, Macdonald, Whigam Tillinghast and Crump competed in the Lesley Cup. An interesting historical side note to the Lesley Cup was the intense debate over its format. Some felt strongly it should be contested only at the alternate shot foursome format for traditional reasons and others felt equally strongly the only way to test player skill was the singles format. The solution was to use both formats and because of that compromise the later Walker and Ryder Cups took on the Lesley Cup’s format.

(Continued)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: The Philadelphia School
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2003, 07:36:31 PM »
O. Gordon Brewer, the current President of Pine Valley, a past USGA board member, a city, state and national competitor and a winner of championships at each level has noted in public often that the remarkably high quality and diversity of the Philadelphia School of Architecture and the inspiration and influence emanating from it on the region’s golf courses has been for decades largely responsible for preparing Philadelphia district players to compete well on any course anywhere.

This was certainly George Crump’s intention and Hugh Wilson’s and William Fownes as well. Through their collaborative efforts at Merion and particularly Pine Valley it became the intention of Flynn, Thomas and Tillinghast too.

A good case can be made that the idea of the uniquely American “championship” style golf course originated from the Philadelphia School of Architecture, from the architectural collaboration at Merion but particularly Pine Valley. To speak of the collaboration of architects at Pine Valley, arguably the greatest ever known, is not to say that many hands and minds designed and created Pine Valley—George Crump was the designer, creator and editor of the course in Clementon NJ---only that many architectural minds were on hand to participate, to solve problems, to share ideas and certainly to become inspired to go on and use ideas and concepts from it in many interesting ways in what they did in the future. It was clearly amateurs Crump and Wilson with their Philadelphia architectural companions that inspired that extensive collaboration.

The single reason Pine Valley may have had the majority influence on so-called “championship” design is Pine Valley was never intended to be for every golfer. Far from that—it was intended to be only for the best—for a high caliber of player. And because of that even during its construction it created both unusual interest and also controversy in the world of architecture and American golf.

As golf in this era was very much in a period of rapid growth in both America and elsewhere, architects generally believed that any golf course to be considered “ideal” must somehow accommodate every level of player—from the worst to the best. Even an architect as substantial as Donald Ross believed this was necessary or golf might not become as popular in America as it could.

For this reason a few European architects, particularly J.H. Taylor, felt a direction inspired and influenced by Pine Valley’s architecture might not be a healthy one for the sport. An interesting written debate developed on this specific subject between Taylor and Tillinghast. Taylor supported his position by claiming architecture such as Pine Valley’s was not democratic, was not inclusive of all golfing levels and therefore was essentially elitist for the sport. Tillinghast dismissed this contention by explaining that a course such as Pine Valley was only intended to take golf and the art of architecture to a newer and higher level and if handicapper players incapable of playing the course didn’t agree with that they could simply learn to get good enough to play it or not bother to come there!

Again, the interest in the world of golf architecture in the midst of the creation of Pine Valley was immense and practically every architect of note made his way there to look at it. And then, as the course neared the end of construction, over five years after it was begun, George Crump died suddenly at 47 in the winter of 1918. The club and the world of architecture were stunned! How, they wondered, could the course be completed without the guiding hand and the purse of George Crump? Four holes, #12-15 although designed had not been built, and some of what had been constructed was considered by Crump to be temporary. For a time things were put on hold and then through true collaboration on the part of Crump’s close Philadelphia architecture friends and others, the course was basically completed four years later in 1922. This was accomplished under the direction of what was known as the “1921 Advisory Committee” the significant members being Crump’s closest friends, Father Simon Carr and W.P. Smith. The committee included Alan Wilson of Merion, William Fownes, and Hugh Alison of the English architecture firm of Colt, Alison & MacKenzie. Harry Colt, the famous English architect, had played a significant role in the beginning of Pine Valley spending a week or two on site with Crump helping him with the design of the routing and some of the architectural elements of the course.

A hole by hole completion plan was offered by Alison but completely within the framework of two independent hole by hole “remembrances” from Carr and Smith regarding what they knew to be Crump’s ideas, plans and wishes. The separate hole-by-hole “remembrances” although apparently intentionally done independent of each other were remarkably similar. The committee considered every detail of the Alison plan listing each item as either “to be done at once, at some later date, undecided, disapproved”. The Wilsons and Merion offered their services for the construction of holes #12-15 and on the agronomy of the entire course that had been problematic. William Flynn spent 3-4 days each week at Pine Valley for an extended time. George Thomas came east to oversee the construction of the Alison designed right 9th green with Flynn. Fownes’s written recommendations were comprehensive and detailed. Many but not all the ideas and alterations Crump intended to make were designed and implemented under Alison’s report to the committee and even Perry Maxwell eventually completed some of the items within the 1921 advisory committee plan such as the redesign of #8 and left #9 greens. After the course was completed under the 1921 Advisory Committee plan other than a few tee length expansions, the addition by Tom Fazio of the right alternate green on #8 in the 1980s to take pressure off the small original left green and the planting of additional trees, the course has remained unchanged.

(continued)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: The Philadelphia School
« Reply #4 on: April 07, 2003, 07:38:02 PM »
Although construction on Merion East began in the spring of 1911 and the course opened for play in September 1912, the architecture was constantly worked on by Wilson and/or Flynn until perhaps 1932 after which the course has basically remained unchanged. The agronomic research and development carried on at Merion by Hugh Wilson, his brother Alan and Toomey and Flynn in conjunction with C.V. Piper and R.A. Oakley of the US Dept of Agriculture was groundbreaking in America and became so extensive as to lead them to form the National Green Section that eventually became the USGA Green Section run by Piper and Oakley. The agronomic correspondence between Piper and Oakley and Hugh and Alan Wilson began in 1911 and continued constantly (over 2000 letters) until the winter of 1925 when Hugh Wilson at age 45 died suddenly. During this 14-year correspondence and collaboration these men associated with Merion and the US Dept. of Agriculture became the world’s experts in the science and research of agronomy for golf course purposes. They perfected the use and application of bent grasses as well as green construction methods and agronomic disease controls.

William Fownes won the 1910 US Amateur, became President of the USGA in 1925-26 and spent the remainder of his life in architecture perfecting Oakmont.

William Flynn, primarily in partnership with engineer Howard Toomey, went on to produce 40-50 original designs including, among others, Shinnecock, Cherry Hills, Denver CC, CC of Cleveland, Indian Creek, Cascades, Lancaster, Kittansett, Philadelphia CC, Rolling Green, Huntingdon Valley, Lehigh, Manufacturers, and an additional nine at Brookline that became part of that course’s US Open championship composite course. The influences on Flynn’s design style and career inventory can be seen somewhat in the greens and bunker style of Merion as well as some notable influences from Pine Valley including the occasional use of island greens in sand, constructed undulating sandy waste areas and the frequent design of Pine Valley style “segmented” or “interrupted” fairways. Its also believed Flynn may have been one of the most creative golf course routers ever known. Much of Flynn’s influence can be seen in the architectural work of his protégés William Gordon, Red Lawrence and particularly Dick Wilson, probably Robert Trent Jones’s major competitor after WW2.

George Thomas departed for the West Coast in 1919 apparently to find a better environment to grow his world-class roses. In California Thomas designed, among others, the Los Angeles CC and the astonishing Riviera, one of the most interesting strategic designs and efficient uses of limited space within the confines of a California canyon.

Albert Tillinghast designed until the mid 1930s producing such notable courses as Baltusrol, Baltimore CC, Winged Foot, Bethpage, San Francisco CC, Ridgewood, Somerset Hills, Philadelphia Cricket and Sunnehanna, among others.

The golf courses of the original 5-6 architects of the Philadelphia School of Architecture are remarkable---they’re famous, enduring and influential in the evolution of architecture. Their courses have been the venues of an enormous number of national championships included numerous US Opens and they continue to be today, as they should be. They should continue to be national tournament venues in the future as so much of the history and tradition of American golf is intertwined into them.

These 5-6 architects who formed the original Philadelphia School of Architecture, four or whom were nonprofessionals, never receiving remuneration for anything they created, were obviously imaginative, adventurous and creative architectural trendsetters an innovators. Perhaps the fact that 2/3 of them weren’t beholden to a client allowed them to be more so. In their time, compared to ours today, they were not as restricted and restrained as we are today by liability at ever turn, environmental controls and massive preconceptions amongst golfers involving everything from over-irrigated cosmetics to over-concern with fairness in golf.

(continued)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

TEPaul

Re: The Philadelphia School
« Reply #5 on: April 07, 2003, 07:40:00 PM »
They understood the fundamental principle of naturalism and how best to apply that to golf architecture as they all had a feel for how golf evolved from its roots in Scotland and Europe—they understood the importance of the preservation of the challenge to and test of one’s character inherent in the spirit of golf, and that golf be an invigorating and healthy walking “sport” in various weather. They probably would’ve been disappointed to see it become the time consuming cart driven “game” of today that lacks much of the “sport” of golf’s original spirit and essence.

The Philadelphia School of Architecture and those 5-6 interesting original architects and their friends and playing companions and architectural collaborators made a significant contribution to the so-called “Golden Age of Golf Architecture” and to the evolution of golf and its architecture in America. We should remember them--understand them better and what they gave us. Happily, it seems, the courses they left us are undergoing a wave of reanalysis these days after years of thoughtless redesign, change and misunderstanding. Excellent recent restoration projects of some of these courses seem to be forming a critical mass for more restorations to come. Even the necessary alternative ground game, essential to their multiple strategies, appears to be making a comeback after decades of being practically drowned into extinction. Tree planting   is being reanalyzed and better understood. There’ll always be an essential place in some golf architecture for trees but only if properly placed in relation to a golf course’s strategic intent and golf’s agronomy.

And finally, to today’s caretakers of the courses of the Philadelphia School of Architecture and other significant schools and courses, think again how John Ott, the Mayor of Pine Valley, described those original architects---as close friends, golfing companions but above all collaborators with their architectural ideas. Pick up the phone and collaborate with each other today, within clubs and among clubs---you’ll be amazed and gratified what you can learn from one another and how you can inspire and be inspired by architectural and maintenance ideas---as they once were. Collaborate as they once did---I think they would’ve appreciated it happening again.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:04 PM by -1 »

T_MacWood

Re: The Philadelphia School
« Reply #6 on: April 07, 2003, 08:10:03 PM »
TE
Man you type fast. What distinguishes the PS from other regional groups?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: The Philadelphia School
« Reply #7 on: April 07, 2003, 08:35:30 PM »
Tom:

There's a lot to that question. In a nutshell, perhaps the singular fact of their unique collaborative tendencies beginning through real friendship and from the playing of the game together; the fact that 2/3 were true "amateur" architects; the idea of "championship" caliber courses inspired perhaps so completely by that greatest of all collaborative golf architecture laboratories--Pine Valley. I think it might be hard, at this point, to overestimate the influence on Philadelphia golf architecture (and others) of Merion East and Pine Valley.

I've got to go to bed, pretty busy tomorrow, and then I'm going to Florida--so sorry I can't participate in this thread. Wayne, and the other Philly experts can fill in the gaps and correct the mistakes. This article was for the public, don't forget, not necessarily the tough and knowledgeable crowd on Golfclubatlas.com
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »