[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

In the immortal words of Gary Glitter, "and where do we go from here"?

I'm sure you didn't make me dig out my disorganized files just to put together another rating list?! 

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

Although I love this stuff, I did spend a good deal of time going through my files to put my response together, so I'm still hoping your question had a larger purpose.

Can you tell us what you were looking for here?

Thanks,
Mike

[Dave_Miller]

I would guess Merion, Aronomink, Philly Cricket, Pine Valley, Atlantic City and Cobb's Creek

Geoff:
The Current Aronimink course was not built until 1926.  The course that existed in 1922 is now a shopping center.  Doubt it would have made the top ten in 1922.
Best
Dave

[Sean Remington (SBR)]

The original site of Green Valley C.C. opened in 1919 somewhere in Roxbourgh. I have an arial of it. This course was abandoned and the club moved to Marble Hall Golf Links (Flynn) in the middle 40's. Purchased from his estate.

[Kyle Harris]

The original site of Green Valley C.C. opened in 1919 somewhere in Roxbourgh. I have an arial of it. This course was abandoned and the club moved to Marble Hall Golf Links (Flynn) in the middle 40's. Purchased from his estate.

This was the Willie Park course that was on or around Ridge Pike, Henry Ave, and Summit Ave.

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

Is that right? I thought Philmont was the only course Park did in Philadelphia.

[Thomas MacWood]

Willie Park II redid Atlantic City in 1920. Looking over the list it appears Ross was the most active architect during this period. Perhaps he should be included as full member of the so-called Philadelphia school.

Merion East - Wilson/Committee 1912, Wilson/Flynn 1916

Merion West - Wilson 1913

Gulph Mills - Ross 1916

Huntingdon Valley - Original?, Ab Smith 1909-1916 and probably before and possibly beyond). Low/Tillinghast?  The Baederwood course attributed to Colt/Allison was largely already there prior to their arrival.

Pine Valley - Crump/Colt 1913-1918

Whitemarsh Valley - George Thomas & Samuel Heebner 1908, Ross 1919

Torresdale-Frankford - George Sayers 1915 (9), Donald Ross 1922

Llanerch CC (Findlay)  - B.F. Lewis/George Lindsay 1901, Alex Findlay 1916 and again in 1928

Cobb's Creek - Wilson, Smith, Klauder, Crump, Meehan 1916

Lulu - J. Franklin Meehan/Warren Webb 1912 (9),  Donald Ross 1919

Sunnybrook - Ross but built by Samuel Heebner and George Thomas

Old York Road - Jimmy Laing 1910,  Tillinghast revisions 1914

CC of Atlantic City - John Reid/HJ Tweedie 1897, Willie Park 1920

Cedarbrook - Tillinghast 1921

Philmont (South) - John Reid 1907-08, Hugh Wilson/Henry Strouse 1914

Bala - Willie Dunn 1901, Willie Tucker 1903

Philadelphia Cricket - Sanders Handford 1895 (9), Willie Tucker/Samuel Heebner 1898, Donald Ross 1915

Philadelphia Cricket (New) - Tillinghast 1922

Overbrook - Ross 1919

Seaview - Hugh Wilson 1913 (18 - same as today's routing), Donald Ross/Wilfred Reid/William Connellan 1916 (additional bunkering)

Lancaster - Not verified but I believe J. Harold Wickersham/George Franklin 1913, followed by Flynn 1919 through the rest of his life.

Ashbourne - J. Franklin Meehan  1922

North Hills - J. Franklin Meehan 1913, Hugh Wilson/Ab Smith/William Flynn 1916

Aroninmink - Tillinghast/Klauder/Calvert 1913-15 with a hole or two advised by Vardon/Ray during a visit.

Springhaven - Ida Dixon 1903, HH Barker

Green Valley - Willie Park Jr 1919

[TEPaul]

The so-called "Philadelphia School" were all Philadelphians and most of the interest in the Philly School (or "Pennsylvania School" if you include Fownes) is their friendships and collaboration on a number of projects. Another interest in the Philly or Pennsylvania School is the majority of them were basically "amateur/sportsmen" architects---eg they never took pay.

[Thomas MacWood]

Ross-8
Wilson-6
Tillinghast-4
Meehan-4
Park-2
A.Smith-2
Heebner-2
J.Reid-2
Tucker-2
Klauder-2
Crump/Colt-1
Thomas-1
Sayers-1
Findlay-1
Lewis/Lindsay-1
Handford-1
Wickersham/Franklin-1
Flynn-1
Dixon-1
Barker-1

[Joe Bausch]

I think Tredyffrin Country Club (1917), another Findlay design, should be thrown into the hopper in this thread.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

I'm not sure that just adding each up numerically is meaningful.

For instance, while Ross designed a couple of really good courses during the period, other of his work like that at the original Philly Cricket, and even at Seaview were not as significant as formerly believed.   Also, courses he had been given full credit for in the past like LuLu and Torresdale Frankford turned out recently to have been turning existing nine-holers into full eighteen hole courses.

More troubling however, is trying to compare a "1" like Crump's creation of Pine Valley with Sanders Handford's or Ida Dixon's first crude nine holes for their respective clubs in the very early  days.

What exactly are we trying to discover here?

[Kyle Harris]

Tom,

I'm not sure that just adding each up numerically is meaningful.

For instance, while Ross designed a couple of really good courses during the period, other of his work like that at the original Philly Cricket, and even at Seaview were not as significant as formerly believed.   Also, courses he had been given full credit for in the past like LuLu and Torresdale Frankford turned out recently to have been turning existing nine-holers into full eighteen hole courses.

More troubling however, is trying to compare a "1" like Crump's creation of Pine Valley with Sanders Handford's or Ida Dixon's first crude nine holes for their respective clubs in the very early  days.

What exactly are we trying to discover here?

I think this discussion and the thoughts regarding the state of Philadelphia golf in 1922 have been interesting in and of itself.

[Thomas MacWood]

Mike
I understand what you are saying and I agree with you to a certain extent but I do think the exercise had been informative, at least for me. I had no idea about Meehan for example. Wilson had been more active than I had thought too. I agree four Meehan courses don't even equal one half Crump/Colt.

I'm not sure Ross is a good example to use. There are redesigns and there are REDESIGNS. There are redesigns were the architect makes a few alterations. On the other hand there are redesigns where the course is altered so completely that the course is more or less that architect's work at the end of the process, I would think Lulu falls into the catagory, maybe even Torresdale. I also think he probably deserves more credit for Whitemarsh than he has been given over the years.

One of the other surprises was how little work Tilly did in Philly. By this point in his career my guess is he had done twenty to twenty-five courses in NY. He really was a NY architect.

Flynn's output is not so surprising just because of the time frame we chose.

Sam Heebner was more active than I thought. In general it seems the early years were dominated by a lot of home-grown architects. In the latter years we surveyed bigger names seem to have been brought in.

[wsmorrison]

We have a pretty good idea what Ross did at Whitemarsh Valley CC.  What we didn't realize is how much Flynn worked on the golf course.  We have some Ross drawings (one with a Flynn plan overlaid on it) and a Flynn routing map.  While Tom MacWood isn't aware of the credit being given to Ross and Flynn at WVCC, it is being given none-the-less. 

Not mentioned in this discussion is Flynn's pre-1922 work in Pennsylvania at Merion East and West, Doylestown CC, Pine Valley, Harrisburg, Pocono Manor, Bala and North Hills.

[TEPaul]

"Do you think Alison might have been angling for some work there?"

Mike:

Around 1920-22 Hugh Alison proposed that he and William Flynn form a partnership. Hugh Wilson expressed his opinion (in the "Agronomy" letters) that he did not think that was a particularly good idea---at least not for Flynn.

Around that same time (1921) Alison had done a comprehensive report for Pine Valley which became what's been referred to as the work of the "1921 advisory Committee". Flynn was essentially assigned to Pine Valley (for apparently a few days a week) just before or during this time to complete various work at Pine Valley to either repair agronomy or finish off the golf course. It also seems likely that Flynn drew a salary from Pine Valley at this time.

It's hard to say what the relationship between Alision and Flynn was but it appears it may've been a good one. Oddly, in the late 1920s Shinnecock hired Flynn to do a three nine plan for the course and they got Alison to review Flynn's plans which he did in fairly comprehensive and quite glowing terms.

Also, it seems those English architects like Mackenzie and Alison were always looking to partner up with architects in the specific regions of potential projects. I guess the reasons are pretty obvious---eg they could take advantage of the local crews and such of those local architects such as a William Flynn.

[TEPaul]

"Sam Heebner was more active than I thought. In general it seems the early years were dominated by a lot of home-grown architects. In the latter years we surveyed bigger names seem to have been brought in."

Tom MacWood:

I have no real idea what you're trying to get at here, as others have said.

However, if that remark has anything at all to do with it, you very well may be onto a truly fascinating subject and issue and one I've believed for many years needs a whole lot more investigation and treatment on this website as well as the larger world of architectural evolutionary analysis.

Of course, what I'm really getting at here is the early era and its world of the so-called "amateur/sportman" architect or designer (the term "architect" in the early days very much seems to have had some negative connotations for some people, particularly around here---ie MCC and Merion).

In the evolution of American architecture there may not be an example of this early world of the so-called "amateur/sportsman" designer, and everything it really meant and meant to those who plied it and subscribed to it around the country quite like Philadelphia and the so-called "Philly School".

I will guarantee you, Tom MacWood, despite the things you've said for years about Philadelphia including this constantly cutting and preposterous label "The Philadelphia Syndrome" you have put on us, and perhaps those back then, and this town, we really do know this subject a whole lot better than you do. It is part of our architectural heritage and the essence of those early days.

This time would you care to COLLABORATE in good faith with us (instead of just questioning and criticizing us) on this interesting subject and time or are you once again going to just try to challenge us and our research and our analyses of the architectural evolution of the town and place we come from and know so well??

This time I'm offering you a whole lot better way to go about a subject it seems you've become interested in. This needs to be a whole lot different than the way first you and then Moriarty went about the entire five years long Macdonald/Wilson/Merion subject!!

So what's it going to be this time? Do you want to try to learn something from us through collaboration of ideas or are you just going to try to challenge us again like you have been in the past 5-6 years?

I've made my offer. Now it's your call and it should be telling! This is a totally fascinating subject if it is what you're after with a thread like this which is a bit hard to figure out, as usual!!

[TEPaul]

It's hard to document and prove but it seems like Donald Ross may've felt sort of the outsider throughout his career around here. I guess that might be somewhat understandable, at least from his perspective---eg he was not the type of architect who ever easily collaborated with others (at least not like the "Philly School" architects did), and probably for fairly obvious reasons---ie his national reputation as well as his remarkable company structure, particularly with regional foremen, his planman W.I. Johnson, his work crew modus operandi and his topo-reliant style of design.

Ross was not a natural "collaborator" in his career modus operandi. The "Philadelphia School" architects most definitely were about the ultimate in the nation for their easy colloborative ethos and that might be the key to their "school" and its aura.

For years Joe Logan has tried to find the course and the project that Ross felt he lost around here that really pissed him off and just may've been why he went about Aronimink the way he did----perhaps something like how he went about Pinehurst #2 after losing the ANGC project.

We can't prove it but we think that job and project may've been Huntingdon Valley which of course went to Philadelphia's William Flynn.

[wsmorrison]

In 1924, Walter Travis wrote to the President of Philadelphia Country Club about the design job for their new course, which ultimately would go to Flynn.  It was the first time that Travis solicited business.  His excuse was that he had a keen desire to build a course in Philadelphia, since had not done so.

[TEPaul]

Wayne:

Take a look at post #90. If that can somehow happen well on here are you sure you want to leave? You'd be awful important to it!!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom MacWood,

I would agree that Torresdale-Frankford is almost wholly Ross based on his revisions, but would contend that much of the original nine holes at LuLu by Meehan are still part of the routing.

As far as Hugh Alison, I read his comments about the "beauty" to refer to the site more than the course.   He does seem to be talking more about how good it could be than how good it is.

It is arguably a better site than the East course, which I think is what Alison was saying, without some of the narrow restrictions, and the road crossing of the east.   However, it also doesn't have the quarry, which was put to rather good use on the east.


Wayne,

I didn't mean to miss Flynn's pre-1922 contributions.    However, the original question asked what were the BEST courses in Philly, and the thread turned into naming most all of them, irrespective of quality or how they might have been viewed at that time.  I'd also discount Pocono Manor and Harrisburg because of geography, and Doylestown was nine holes.   I definitely should have included Flynn on my North Hills attribution, as well as PV by that time.

[Thomas MacWood]

"Sam Heebner was more active than I thought. In general it seems the early years were dominated by a lot of home-grown architects. In the latter years we surveyed bigger names seem to have been brought in."

Tom MacWood:

I have no real idea what you're trying to get at here, as others have said.

However, if that remark has anything at all to do with it, you very well may be onto a truly fascinating subject and issue and one I've believed for many years needs a whole lot more investigation and treatment on this website as well as the larger world of architectural evolutionary analysis.

Of course, what I'm really getting at here is the early era and its world of the so-called "amateur/sportman" architect or designer (the term "architect" in the early days very much seems to have had some negative connotations for some people, particularly around here---ie MCC and Merion).

In the evolution of American architecture there may not be an example of this early world of the so-called "amateur/sportsman" designer, and everything it really meant and meant to those who plied it and subscribed to it around the country quite like Philadelphia and the so-called "Philly School".

I will guarantee you, Tom MacWood, despite the things you've said for years about Philadelphia including this constantly cutting and preposterous label "The Philadelphia Syndrome" you have put on us, and perhaps those back then, and this town, we really do know this subject a whole lot better than you do. It is part of our architectural heritage and the essence of those early days.

This time would you care to COLLABORATE in good faith with us (instead of just questioning and criticizing us) on this interesting subject and time or are you once again going to just try to challenge us and our research and our analyses of the architectural evolution of the town and place we come from and know so well??

This time I'm offering you a whole lot better way to go about a subject it seems you've become interested in. This needs to be a whole lot different than the way first you and then Moriarty went about the entire five years long Macdonald/Wilson/Merion subject!!

So what's it going to be this time? Do you want to try to learn something from us through collaboration of ideas or are you just going to try to challenge us again like you have been in the past 5-6 years?

I've made my offer. Now it's your call and it should be telling! This is a totally fascinating subject if it is what you're after with a thread like this which is a bit hard to figure out, as usual!!

I've uttered the term Philadelphia Syndrome probably about three or four times on this site, in passing. The last time was probably four years ago. I estimate TE has mentioned the term at least one hundred times, if not more. No idea has ever had a better publicist and promoter. No idea has had a greater champion. TE Paul is Mr. Philadelphia Syndrome.

[TEPaul]

"I've uttered the term Philadelphia Syndrome probably about three or four times on this site, in passing. The last time was probably four years ago. I estimate TE has mentioned the term at least one hundred times, if not more. No idea has ever had a better publicist and promoter. He is Mr. Philadelphia Syndrome."


Jeeesus Christ, ALmighty---if that doesn't just take the cake and explain everything you're about, Tom MacWood!!

It's NOT the amount of times you've said it or I've said it----it's not my label or my attitude about Philadephia-----It's YOUR label MacWood, It's YOUR attitude----and it's ongoing whether you use the term four times of a hundred times.

Is it possible for you to take some responsiblity about ANYTHING??

It sure doesn't seem like it, as now you're actually trying to blame your preposterous "Philadelphia Syndrome" label and attitude on me.

Why don't you try to deal with the postives in my post #90? At least it offers some possiblility for some future positive and beneficial production on this website between us. Are you capable of that? It's definitely not looking like it.

[Thomas MacWood]

"Sam Heebner was more active than I thought. In general it seems the early years were dominated by a lot of home-grown architects. In the latter years we surveyed bigger names seem to have been brought in."

Tom MacWood:

I have no real idea what you're trying to get at here, as others have said.

However, if that remark has anything at all to do with it, you very well may be onto a truly fascinating subject and issue and one I've believed for many years needs a whole lot more investigation and treatment on this website as well as the larger world of architectural evolutionary analysis.

Of course, what I'm really getting at here is the early era and its world of the so-called "amateur/sportman" architect or designer (the term "architect" in the early days very much seems to have had some negative connotations for some people, particularly around here---ie MCC and Merion).

In the evolution of American architecture there may not be an example of this early world of the so-called "amateur/sportsman" designer, and everything it really meant and meant to those who plied it and subscribed to it around the country quite like Philadelphia and the so-called "Philly School".

I will guarantee you, Tom MacWood, despite the things you've said for years about Philadelphia including this constantly cutting and preposterous label "The Philadelphia Syndrome" you have put on us, and perhaps those back then, and this town, we really do know this subject a whole lot better than you do. It is part of our architectural heritage and the essence of those early days.

This time would you care to COLLABORATE in good faith with us (instead of just questioning and criticizing us) on this interesting subject and time or are you once again going to just try to challenge us and our research and our analyses of the architectural evolution of the town and place we come from and know so well??

This time I'm offering you a whole lot better way to go about a subject it seems you've become interested in. This needs to be a whole lot different than the way first you and then Moriarty went about the entire five years long Macdonald/Wilson/Merion subject!!

So what's it going to be this time? Do you want to try to learn something from us through collaboration of ideas or are you just going to try to challenge us again like you have been in the past 5-6 years?

I've made my offer. Now it's your call and it should be telling! This is a totally fascinating subject if it is what you're after with a thread like this which is a bit hard to figure out, as usual!!

Perhaps some time in the future. I think this site has focused too much upon Philadelphia of late, a disporportionate amount of discusion on that subject. We need some fresh material.

[TEPaul]

"Perhaps some time in the future. I think this site has focused too much upon Philadelphia of late, a disporportionate amount of discusion on that subject. We need some fresh material."



You seem to have sort of missed the point, as usual. Philadelphia and their "school" is perhaps the best example of that "amateur/sportsman" designer time and ilk and where they really were coming from, what they were doing and how etc, but Philly is certainly not the only place it happened. Most every city has some example of it and perhaps the greatest example of it extant at that time was Charles Blair Macdonald.

This was such an important component of what he was and it seems to me you probably fail to understand or appreciate it. In some post you actually said you thought Merion was somewhat disrespectful of him (and Whigam) for referring to them as "those two good and kindly gentlemen and "amateur/sportsmen"---and not as an architect (or the greatest architect)!!

That is the whole point! The way they referred to them is a concept and description that was the MOST IMPORTANT thing of all to those kinds of men (the so-called "amateur/sportsman" designer). It is for you to begin to both understand better and appreciate better why that was back then in that particular time.

Oh, I know, Tom MacWood, you'll probably respond to this with something like you always have---something along the lines of----"Are YOU trying to tell ME SOMETHING about the history of golf architecture and how to research it?"

Yeah, you're damn right I am because you've given me or this website no indication at all that you do understand it or appreciate it. I'm making an offer to you to let me (and us) collaborate with you and help you do that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()