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.


Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - YouTube On Course Tour PARTS 2,3,4 NOW SHOWING
« Reply #1125 on: February 24, 2009, 01:57:16 PM »
Mike

Wow!  Those claims are quite something!  Personally, I ain't buying the most historically.... business with Pebble and Pinehurst about.  Remember, many large cities have their own tale to tell concerning the history of public courses so I wouldn't get carried away because of a Crump-Wilson pedigree. 

So far as the restoration is concerned, do you have any data to back up the claim that a restoration would increase market share?

I am not trying to drag you down, but perhaps you are displaying some Philly and Crump-Wilson bias in your claims.   

Ciao

Sean,

I'm talking about public courses, not resort ones.   

As far as asking for the reasons why I make that claim, I think it's a bit unfair of you to ask after stating that you haven't read this thread where decades of historical information have been unearthed by the contributors here and we're now 1000 posts later and 18 months later.   ::) ;)

Short answer is if you're asking the question, you haven't been paying attention, and that's ok too, but please don't just be contrarian for the sake of intellectual debate because this has already been enormously time-consuming for a number of us trying to do something good and positive and tangible for the course and for golf course architecture.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm not sure how your questions are helpful. 

Do you think that restoring a historically prominent course of architectural significance and sociological relevance would be a mistake?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point? 


« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 05:13:47 PM by MikeCirba »

Kyle Harris

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - YouTube On Course Tour PARTS 2,3,4 NOW SHOWING
« Reply #1126 on: February 24, 2009, 02:03:25 PM »
.
« Last Edit: February 24, 2009, 06:14:31 PM by Kyle Harris »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - YouTube On Course Tour PARTS 2,3,4 NOW SHOWING
« Reply #1127 on: February 24, 2009, 05:15:07 PM »
I'm sorry, Mike - could you please state that again?

I have...this "line" of questioning is better off-"line".

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - YouTube On Course Tour PARTS 2,3,4 NOW SHOWING
« Reply #1128 on: February 24, 2009, 05:31:38 PM »
Mike

Wow!  Those claims are quite something!  Personally, I ain't buying the most historically.... business with Pebble and Pinehurst about.  Remember, many large cities have their own tale to tell concerning the history of public courses so I wouldn't get carried away because of a Crump-Wilson pedigree. 

So far as the restoration is concerned, do you have any data to back up the claim that a restoration would increase market share?

I am not trying to drag you down, but perhaps you are displaying some Philly and Crump-Wilson bias in your claims.   

Ciao

Sean,

I'm talking about public courses, not resort ones.   

As far as asking for the reasons why I make that claim, I think it's a bit unfair of you to ask after stating that you haven't read this thread where decades of historical information have been unearthed by the contributors here and we're now 1000 posts later and 18 months later.   ::) ;)

Short answer is if you're asking the question, you haven't been paying attention, and that's ok too, but please don't just be contrarian for the sake of debate because at least Kyle has a personal professional agenda he's trying to obliquely further with his questions.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm not sure how your questions are helpful. 

Do you think that restoring a historically prominent course of architectural significance and sociological relevance would be a mistake?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point? 



Mike

Resort is public.  Furthermore, I don't understand the significance of the course being public anyway.  

I only asked one question.  Please point me to the page where it is answered and I will gladly read it.  

I don't know that Cobb's Creek is particularly high in the table of prominent, historically and sociologically significant courses.  There are an awful lot of courses out there with a hell of a lot of history.  Because you say Cobb's Creek is near the top of the list (which for some reason seems to be divided between public and private) doesn't make it so.  We can all differ with our opinions on that.  

Finally, the only significance I can see of CC being public is that it needs to turn a profit or at least turn over enough money to please its owners.   I am not convinced that the paying public do or will recognize the significance you place on CC to warrant a restoration.  Its more a political and business decision rather than an architectural, sociological or historical decision.  

None of this is to say I am against a restoration of CC.  In truth, I don't really have an opinion.  I was merely questioning some of your suppositions by requesting some backup data.  If that rocks your boat too much I withdraw the question.  

Ciao    

New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

astavrides

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - YouTube On Course Tour PARTS 2,3,4 NOW SHOWING
« Reply #1129 on: February 24, 2009, 06:25:29 PM »
Mike

Wow!  Those claims are quite something!  Personally, I ain't buying the most historically.... business with Pebble and Pinehurst about.  Remember, many large cities have their own tale to tell concerning the history of public courses so I wouldn't get carried away because of a Crump-Wilson pedigree. 

So far as the restoration is concerned, do you have any data to back up the claim that a restoration would increase market share?

I am not trying to drag you down, but perhaps you are displaying some Philly and Crump-Wilson bias in your claims.   

Ciao

Sean,

I'm talking about public courses, not resort ones.   

As far as asking for the reasons why I make that claim, I think it's a bit unfair of you to ask after stating that you haven't read this thread where decades of historical information have been unearthed by the contributors here and we're now 1000 posts later and 18 months later.   ::) ;)

Short answer is if you're asking the question, you haven't been paying attention, and that's ok too, but please don't just be contrarian for the sake of debate because at least Kyle has a personal professional agenda he's trying to obliquely further with his questions.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm not sure how your questions are helpful. 

Do you think that restoring a historically prominent course of architectural significance and sociological relevance would be a mistake?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point? 



Mike

Resort is public.  Furthermore, I don't understand the significance of the course being public anyway.  

I only asked one question.  Please point me to the page where it is answered and I will gladly read it.  

I don't know that Cobb's Creek is particularly high in the table of prominent, historically and sociologically significant courses.  There are an awful lot of courses out there with a hell of a lot of history.  Because you say Cobb's Creek is near the top of the list (which for some reason seems to be divided between public and private) doesn't make it so.  We can all differ with our opinions on that.  

Finally, the only significance I can see of CC being public is that it needs to turn a profit or at least turn over enough money to please its owners.   I am not convinced that the paying public do or will recognize the significance you place on CC to warrant a restoration.  Its more a political and business decision rather than an architectural, sociological or historical decision.  

None of this is to say I am against a restoration of CC.  In truth, I don't really have an opinion.  I was merely questioning some of your suppositions by requesting some backup data.  If that rocks your boat too much I withdraw the question.  

Ciao    



Sean,

I think if something is of historical, sociological, or even recreational significance, the profit (or even break even on its own) motive does not have to be the only motive.  Else why are there public parks, museums or historical buildings, etc.  And I think it is pretty darn significant that it is a public (not private) course (furthermore, municipally owned) that anyone with $20 can come in and play (or at least wander freely around the clubhouse).

Kyle Harris

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - YouTube On Course Tour PARTS 2,3,4 NOW SHOWING
« Reply #1130 on: February 24, 2009, 06:33:27 PM »
Sean,

There is a significance to the place. It is most likely fair to say the course is the first City Golf Course of any architectural pedigree built in the country.

For Philadelphia, it represents a commitment to quality golf by the GAP that exists to this day. The research has shown that the course was initiated with significant arm-twisting from the major golf players of the time and it also shows the course was an immense success in bringing the game to a good number who would not otherwise have access. It was also the initiation for other City courses like Juniata and Walnut Lane.

Comparisons to Bethpage or any other facility are a bit over-the-line in my opinion as the course and government share little in common with Bethpage State Park. Standing on the 18th tee of the Olde Course, one can see the skyline of Philadelphia not far in the distance. It is an oasis of golf in the middle of urban sprawl. Standing on the 17th green is one of the most cognitively dissociative experiences in golf as you are in parkland isolation.

Cobb's Creek is Cobb's Creek, and ultimately, that will have meaning.

Architecturally? There is a lot to be seen. A lot of the par 4s feature very difficult bailouts or layups if a tee shot is not placed correctly. The greens are subtle and devilish in the right speeds. The bunkers are few and far between and the place is really an epitome of the term gravity golf.

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - YouTube On Course Tour PARTS 2,3,4 NOW SHOWING
« Reply #1131 on: February 24, 2009, 06:56:08 PM »
Mike

Wow!  Those claims are quite something!  Personally, I ain't buying the most historically.... business with Pebble and Pinehurst about.  Remember, many large cities have their own tale to tell concerning the history of public courses so I wouldn't get carried away because of a Crump-Wilson pedigree. 

So far as the restoration is concerned, do you have any data to back up the claim that a restoration would increase market share?

I am not trying to drag you down, but perhaps you are displaying some Philly and Crump-Wilson bias in your claims.   

Ciao

Sean,

I'm talking about public courses, not resort ones.   

As far as asking for the reasons why I make that claim, I think it's a bit unfair of you to ask after stating that you haven't read this thread where decades of historical information have been unearthed by the contributors here and we're now 1000 posts later and 18 months later.   ::) ;)

Short answer is if you're asking the question, you haven't been paying attention, and that's ok too, but please don't just be contrarian for the sake of debate because at least Kyle has a personal professional agenda he's trying to obliquely further with his questions.

I'm not trying to be rude, but I'm not sure how your questions are helpful. 

Do you think that restoring a historically prominent course of architectural significance and sociological relevance would be a mistake?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point? 



Mike

Resort is public.  Furthermore, I don't understand the significance of the course being public anyway.  

I only asked one question.  Please point me to the page where it is answered and I will gladly read it.  

I don't know that Cobb's Creek is particularly high in the table of prominent, historically and sociologically significant courses.  There are an awful lot of courses out there with a hell of a lot of history.  Because you say Cobb's Creek is near the top of the list (which for some reason seems to be divided between public and private) doesn't make it so.  We can all differ with our opinions on that.  

Finally, the only significance I can see of CC being public is that it needs to turn a profit or at least turn over enough money to please its owners.   I am not convinced that the paying public do or will recognize the significance you place on CC to warrant a restoration.  Its more a political and business decision rather than an architectural, sociological or historical decision.  

None of this is to say I am against a restoration of CC.  In truth, I don't really have an opinion.  I was merely questioning some of your suppositions by requesting some backup data.  If that rocks your boat too much I withdraw the question.  

Ciao    



Sean,

I think if something is of historical, sociological, or even recreational significance, the profit (or even break even on its own) motive does not have to be the only motive.  Else why are there public parks, museums or historical buildings, etc.  And I think it is pretty darn significant that it is a public (not private) course (furthermore, municipally owned) that anyone with $20 can come in and play (or at least wander freely around the clubhouse).

Asta

Yep, I believe you are right.  However, can't a place be all those things without spending money to restore it?  There is only so much public money available and golf architecture doesn't take a high priority on that budget list budget even for a guy like me who greatly enjoys the subject.  All we are left with then is payback for the investment - what is the measurable payback?  Don't shoot me, I am only the messenger of realistic expectations.  Remember, often times rough diamonds are shined by private funding.  CC may be a case in point.

Kyle

I don't doubt there is a significance to CC.  I question whether it is significant enough to invest public money in a restoration bid when the function it serves will remain the same.  Also, perhaps money is better spent for a conditioning boost.  I don't know, which is why I asked the original question.  I am not trying to get into a big argument or play devils advocate.  I was simply looking for the data (which I assume Mike has) which confirms the likely financial advantages CC would enjoy after a restoration.  Shit, if I am not convinced, how are you gonna convince a city pencil pusher whose salary rise has likely been put on hold indefinitely?  I don't think it is unreasonable to expect good value from public spending.  Just show me how a restoration is good value. 


Ciao
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - YouTube On Course Tour PARTS 2,3,4 NOW SHOWING
« Reply #1132 on: February 24, 2009, 08:54:25 PM »
Sean,

We're not asking the city for more money, now or ever...that's impossible as blood from a stone.

I don't have time tonight but I'll get into it in detail tomorrow.

I'm sorry if I came off wrong and snippy in my response to you.   Too much stuff going on but I'll try to give you the short version tomorrow.

Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - YouTube On Course Tour PARTS 2,3,4 NOW SHOWING
« Reply #1133 on: February 25, 2009, 09:42:56 AM »
In case anyone is wondering, I now have Kyle locked securely in my basement.

He's doing fine, and only complains when I don't lower the rope and bucket fast enough at mealtimes.   

I'll tell him that you asked about him, which should help cheer him up.


;)
« Last Edit: February 25, 2009, 09:47:11 AM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - YouTube On Course Tour PARTS 2,3,4 NOW SHOWING
« Reply #1134 on: February 25, 2009, 02:34:35 PM »
Sean and Kyle,

I think our discussion has gotten a bit off track because there are a number of assumptions being made that are not what’s been discussed or envisioned by any of us.

In that regard, let me try to clarify a few things;

•   We would not be seeking monies from the city of Philadelphia, the state of Pennsylvania, or the US Government as they have higher priorities, especially these days.   The only caveat there might be in the form of any targeted WPA-like labor that might be a part of some future stimulus package, but that is a remote possibility.

•   We do not envision some “Bethpage” or “Harding Park” style project that aims to create a modern championship courses for professionals.   Instead, we aim to make Cobb’s Creek exactly what its founders envisioned and what it was…a superb public golf course of exceptional character designed to bring new golfers into the game and challenge all levels of golfers while remaining playable by all.

•   We would not suggest that the course should close for some period of time and then re-open as this loss of revenue stream would likely be untenable to both the city and the management company.   Instead, we believe that the vast majority of the work could be done while keeping the course open for play as much of it is simply resurrecting avenues of play that have been abandoned and left to overgrow.

•   We would attempt to raise funds to cover one time restoration costs through a variety of possible private donors who we would ask to contribute to a 5013C organization we hope to organize for the purpose.

•   We would begin with professional architectural advice and assistance to determine feasibility, review options, estimate costs, and determine scope.   If that looks promising, we would present our findings and proposals to the management company and city officials.

•   We would not be asking the management company to contribute any additional capital expenditures beyond what they are already contracted with the city for.   While we don’t know the exact terms of that deal, our assumption is that projects like irrigation, flood control, rebuilding tees, bunkers, etc., and/or re-sodding, etc., are covered under normal capitalized maintenance and probably need to happen whether or not the original routing is restored and therefore would not be necessarily targeted for funding unless specifically asked, or as part of a mutually agreed-upon joint strategy.

We would look to leverage a number of converging golf and non-golf converging factors that I’ll explain later, but perhaps this might get us started on the same page.

Thanks for your interest.
 

Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - YouTube On Course Tour PARTS 2,3,4 NOW SHOWING
« Reply #1135 on: February 25, 2009, 02:51:02 PM »
Sean,

Yesterday, you asked about my contention that Cobb's Creek is perhaps the most historic public course in the country, mentioning resorts like Pinehurst and Pebble Beach by way of contention.    I should state that I'm not referring to resorts but instead simply to courses created in the golden age for municipal golf.

In that regard, please forgive me copying from a large volume we put together on the history of the course, where I briefly attempt to summarize in the foreward.

To wit, as follows;


In the fall of 2007, a group interested in the design origins and architectural history of Cobb’s Creek Golf Course began gathering and researching archival information from local museums and city offices.   Although Cobb’s Creek was the first of the city public courses (1916) and has almost a century of history behind it, the particulars of the golf course evolution and the men who designed it seemed vague, confusing, and even contradictory.

The first bits of information uncovered was the receipt of a series of aerial photographs of the Cobb’s Creek Golf Course from the Dallin Collection of the Hagley Museum (Wilmington, DE) taken between 1928 and 1939 that showed the course in close to its original form.  While it was difficult to tell exactly how the course was routed originally just from the aerial photographs, one bit of very interesting, surprising, and encouraging information was the fact that every one of today’s green sites seemed to have been in existence back then.  Better yet, all of the green sites apparent in the aerial pictures were still in existence today.   In other words, the course may have played a bit differently in terms of orientation of the holes, but by and large most of the original course still seemed to be there.

Closer study of the aerial photos indicated that a significant portion of what used to be the golf course is now the public driving range on City Line Avenue. It was learned that during the Cold War in the early 1950’s, the US Army annexed this portion of the property to build an anti-aircraft battery to defend against a possible nuclear attack   This loss of almost 18% of the original golf course not only eliminated the par five 13th hole at the time (which ran across the land utilized by the driving range), but because of its position on the course as well as its length, the newly constricted property ultimately required a significant rerouting that also eliminated original holes 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, and shortened the 14th by almost 100 yards  (today’s 9th), and replaced them with today’s holes 6, 7, 8, 14, 15, and 16.   Unfortunately, some of the most nationally-renowned and most dramatically challenging holes were lost in the process and even though the re-routing was cleverly done given the acreage constraints, it could be reasonably and fairly argued that every single original hole was well superior to its new replacement.

This recent research happily led to the realization that if targeted resources and efforts were directed towards a full “restoration” of what was once renowned as the best public golf course in the country up until the Depression years, designed by Philadelphia and golf architectural legends, there is absolutely nothing known at present that would make that infeasible.

Along with the realization that the famed course could be brought back to its original brilliance, and ultimately reflect the exceptionally rare artistry and genius of the creators of Merion and Pine Valley, the research group also uncovered the following;

•   The original routing blueprint and topographical map, approved by Park Superintendent Jesse Vogdes in April 1915 (reproduced herein).

•   The fact that the Golf Association of Philadelphia (GAP), and specifically Robert Lesley of Merion, were the primary drivers and antagonists for the creation of public golf in Philadelphia.

•   The fact that local media, including famed golf architect and local hero A.W. Tillinghast led a print campaign to essentially attempt to embarrass the city into building a public course.

•   The fact that Hugh Wilson, George Crump, Ab Smith from Huntingdon Valley (the first Philadelphia Amateur champion), and Joseph Slattery of Whitemarsh Valley were appointed by GAP in 1913 to find a suitable site for a golf course within the 4500 acres of Fairmount Park.

•   The fact that Hugh Wilson, George Crump, Ab Smith, George Klauder (Aronimink), and J. Franklin Meehan (North Hills) were appointed as “experts” by GAP in 1914 to lay out a course on the site they had previously recommended in Cobb’s Creek.  This design work and subsequent construction lasted into 1916.

•   The fact that Hugh Wilson spent six months on the layout of Cobb’s Creek, and Ab Smith gave much of his personal time to help lead the construction effort.

•   The fact that Ab Smith, along with being a two-time Philadelphia Amateur champion and part-time course designer was credited with creating the now-familiar term “birdie”, to define a hole played in one less than par while playing with his brother William and George Crump in Atlantic City in 1903.

•   The fact that famed architect and fellow “Philadelphia School” collaborator George Thomas, who went on to create Riviera and Los Angeles Country Clubs on the west coast, spent considerable time “learning” from Hugh Wilson onsite during the design and creation of Cobb’s Creek.  Given that Thomas already had designed three courses on his own by this time, and contributed to another, it is likely that his opinions were factored into the final collaborative mix.

•   The fact that famed Amateur Champion and prolific early golf course architect Walter Travis helped to work on the course during its later construction refinement stages.

•   The fact that once Cobb’s Creek opened in 1916, the course was universally hailed, immediately popular, tremendously vibrant, intensely challenging, and an affordable, accessible training ground for future champions of all races.

•   The fact that legendary Ben Sayers of North Berwick was the first professional at Cobb’s Creek at age 60.  Sayers had played in 33 British Open Championships and was a world-renowned celebrity who taught the game to European royalty.   The club and ball-making company he founded in 1876 was the oldest golf equipment company in the world until its demise in 2003.

•   The fact that legendary sports figures like Ty Cobb and Connie Mack were regulars at Cobb’s Creek, and it was once considered a “must play” spot for visitors to the city

•   The fact that Cobb’s Creek was compared by top local pros and amateurs with famed Pine Valley for degree of challenge.

•   The fact that the course was a leader in permitting and promoting integrated sports activities in the country.

•   The fact that Cobb’s Creek hosted an amazing 80,000 annual rounds of golf in 1921, which grew to an incredible 120,000 rounds of golf by 1929.   Even as late as 1940, Cobb’s Creek had more rounds than any other public course in the country.

•   The fact that 1922 USGA Public Links champion Joe Coble learned the game at Cobb’s Creek, where he spent almost every waking hour that he wasn’t working as a waiter in a center city restaurant.

•   The fact that Ab Smith laid out (with Park Engineer Alan Corson) and constructed the second course at Cobb’s Creek, called Karakung GC, in 1927.

•   The fact that Cobb’s Creek hosted the 1928 United States Amateur Public Links Championship (won by Carl Kaufmann) only twelve years after opening. Sadly, the results of that tournament were forever marred by the United States Golf Association’s (USGA) disqualification of the only two African-American qualifiers on dubious grounds that later proved false in court. 

•   The fact that the first African-American touring professional Charlie Sifford learned the game at Cobb’s Creek where he developed into a top-level player under the tutelage of other African-American golf legends like Howard Wheeler.

•   The fact that Cobb’s Creek hosted the National “Negro Open” in 1947 and that Heavyweight Champion of the world Joe Louis was the first round leader.

•   The fact that Cobb’s Creek hosted the PGA tour’s Daily News Open in 1955 and 1956, which were played in by legends like Arnold Palmer, Billy Casper, and Dr. Cary Middlecoff

•   In modern times, business mogul Donald Trump learned the game playing at Cobb’s Creek while attending Wharton School of Business in the late 1960s.

 



mike_malone

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1136 on: February 25, 2009, 04:25:34 PM »
Mike ,

  If we called this a "restorouting" people might understand more.
AKA Mayday

Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1137 on: February 25, 2009, 10:11:49 PM »
Mike ,

  If we called this a "restorouting" people might understand more.

Mike,

I had hoped to graphically illustrate precisely what we are recommending today, but time ran short.

Hopefully tomorrow, because it's pretty simple, really. 

Sean_A

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1138 on: February 26, 2009, 04:04:30 AM »
Cheers Mike.  It seems you lot are serious about this project.  Has the "friends of Cobbs Creek" charity been set up yet?  Is there any chance the charity drive can be more "user friendly" for golfers in general rather than what appears to be completely Philly directed?  Has any charitable organization expressed interest in large donations for the project?  Has there been any discussion about the restoration shut down time and if this will cost green fee cash?  Has there been any discussion about the possible financial benefits a restoration may bring?  Finally, the entire iteration and implications of the original routing VS the current routing VS the hoped for "restrorouting" is a bit confusing.  In rough percentage terms, how much of the original routing can you restore?  How does this compare to the present routing?

Ciao 
New plays planned for 2024: Nothing

Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1139 on: February 26, 2009, 10:16:20 AM »
Cheers Mike.  It seems you lot are serious about this project.  Has the "friends of Cobbs Creek" charity been set up yet?  Is there any chance the charity drive can be more "user friendly" for golfers in general rather than what appears to be completely Philly directed?  Has any charitable organization expressed interest in large donations for the project?  Has there been any discussion about the restoration shut down time and if this will cost green fee cash?  Has there been any discussion about the possible financial benefits a restoration may bring?  Finally, the entire iteration and implications of the original routing VS the current routing VS the hoped for "restrorouting" is a bit confusing.  In rough percentage terms, how much of the original routing can you restore?  How does this compare to the present routing?


Hi Sean,

Yes, we are serious about the project, although it certainly didn't start out that way.   Some of us were simply trying to understand the history of the course, see if indeed the (previously) undocumented legend that Hugh Wilson designed the course was true, and determine the original routing and see what was lost over time.

What we learned, as documented above, is that basically all of the original greensites are still in existence and the course was simply re-routed around 1955 when about a large chunk of property was coopted by the US Military to build a missle base.  Today, that property is a driving range only peripherally associated with the golf course, but the land is all still there.

In a nutshell, the coopting of this land left a much more constricted property which resulted in 6 original holes being lost and/or fundamentally altered.

The good news is that once we began looking at what had happened it became instantly evident that the course could indeed be restored to it's original historic and superior routing provided a creative alternative was found for the driving range, which I'll get into later today.

To answer your other specific questions, the charity is still not setup because we were waiting on some management issues to crystallize which have done so in recent weeks.   We are proceeding on that front now.

We believe that the restoration can be done without course downtime.   Worst case, there may be times when a hole or two might need to be taken out of play, but there are options with a second 18 hole course on the property, and we also believe most of this could happen over the slow, winter season.

We have spoken with a number of charitable organizations and other interested parties and will continue to do so.   Right now, it's very high-level, which is why we want to get some more detailed estimates in the near term.   You can't sell what you can't envision, so we need to work up what a Master Plan would look like in the near term.

As far as advantages, we believe there are many, and the associated publicity with the Tiger Woods tournaments in town followed by the US Open at Merion and the connections between the designers is almost a no-brainer in terms of public relations and strategic placement of message.    We also believe that creative programs aimed at juniors and the local community are critical to the overall success.

As mentioned, ALL of the course could be restored to the historic routing and greens used in the 1928 US Publinks tournament.   Only one hole changed between 1916 and 1928, and there are issues associated with that one that we don't want to complicate matters with.  Simply put, we think that the correct decision was made in 1925, which resulted in today's wonderful 17th hole.

Hope this helps...more specifics to come.

Thanks for your interest...Mike

Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1140 on: February 26, 2009, 10:59:48 AM »
Sean/All,

To get into more specifics, it's probably easier to just again quote from the materials we put together last year, so please excuse the "sales" language in the following.   

However, we think it does layout some very creative options that could yield other enhanced revenue sources. 

Restoration Dreams

It’s difficult to imagine any golfer walking off the Cobb’s Creek Golf Course who
doesn’t think to themselves, “what a great course that could be”.   Indeed, it’s likely that most people playing across the historic links wouldn’t have any idea of how renowned it once was or how they are treading in the footsteps of golfing giants even today. 

For years local golfers and other interested parties have dreamed of someone, somewhere doing something because it seems so obvious that somehow this gem should be polished.

Until these recent findings, it was unclear exactly what could or should be done to honor the great golfing legends from Philadelphia like Hugh Wilson who were responsible for this course and for Cobb’s Creek to reclaim its noble birthright.   Now, however, it seems crystalline that what is needed is a committed private/public partnership driving a concerted effort to restore the golf course to its former original routing and greatness, as well as to upgrade its basic infrastructure and conditioning.

There are a number of converging reasons why we believe the time is now ripe for determined action;

•   The unearthing of the original routing maps from 1915 and later, as well as vintage aerials charting the historical evolution of the golf course.

•   The unearthing of historical accounts and original documentation that not only proves Hugh Wilson’s design involvement, but also directly implicates other legends such as George Crump, Ab Smith, George Thomas, and Walter Travis.

•   The unearthing of historical accounts that tell the stories of home-grown Philadelphia champions like Joe Coble and Charlie Sifford who developed their games at Cobb’s Creek.

•   The return of the U.S. Open to Merion in 2013, the 100th year anniversary of the Golf Association of  Philadelphia (GAP) resolution that led to the creation of Cobb’s Creek.  Merion will also host the Walker Cup in 2009.

•   A new mayoral administration in Philadelphia that has promised to be amenable to creative public/private partnership for the benefit of all citizens in the region.

•   A new golf management company (Billy Casper Golf) with a history of strategic capital investments signing a long-term lease with the Fairmount Park Commission to run the city courses.

•   The founding of an independent committee of dedicated local golfers (“Friends of Cobb’s Creek Golf Course’) who are committed to helping move this important sporting initiative forward.

•   The strong historic ties between the golf course, minority golf, local neighborhoods, and current USGA initiatives supporting growth in the game such as First Tee, and the Tiger Woods Foundation.

•   The Tiger Woods-sponsored AT&T Independence weekend Tournament being hosted in Philadelphia (Aronimink) in 2010 and 2011.

•   The success and publicity surrounding similar restorative efforts at historic golf courses like Bethpage Black on Long Island, Memorial Park in Houston, Brackenridge Park in Dallas, and Papago in Phoenix.

•   The possibility of engaging nationally prominent golf course restoration specialists who may be interested due to the historical significance and visibility of the project.

•   The fact that it would likely be possible to complete the restoration work without having to close the golf course.

•   The fact that due to the unique way in which Cobb’s Creek is laid out, it would be possible post-restoration to play either the current, post World War II layout, or the original restored course designed by Hugh Wilson and friends on any given day, as desired.

•   The fact that once again, Cobb’s Creek would be a shining treasure for the city of Philadelphia, and a “must play” by visiting golfers when in town.

The following two aerial photos provide a sample of what would be required and what might be done to achieve a full restoration.  The lynchpin to any restorative effort will require a creative solution to the use of the existing driving range along City Line Avenue.

Ideally, the Driving Range/Sports Center would be moved to the present driving range across Lansdowne Avenue from the clubhouse, where it could be expanded as necessary.  Under that scenario, it would become a teaching facility for Cobb’s Creek professionals and assistants, and would draw a far greater community presence than the present course out along a four-lane suburban highway.   

Indeed, if there is a draw for the local community, as there should be, it would be well within the confines of the Cobb’s Creek property itself, and not at an area accessible only by automobile, and with no discerning connection to the golf course property.   

The present location of the driving range suggests that one can come to Cobb’s Creek to practice, but go somewhere else to play.   Future planning should consider this situation.

The first picture shows today’s course and the second picture details the proposed complete restoration visually.  The rest of any restorative effort would mostly require tree and brush removal to recover the former corridors of play to future golfers, effectively restoring this once proud gem to its historic challenge, interest, and great national prominence.  For the sake of completeness, this drawing shows the original 14th par 3 in the NW corner, but it is unlikely that hole could be restored, especially given its early replacement circa 1927 by the wonderful 17th.





Of course, it may not be either financially feasible or otherwise desirable to completely remove the driving range/sports center facility on City Line Avenue, so it may be necessary to come up with a creative solution that recognizes that reality yet achieves the goal of restoring the great holes and routing.   The following illustrates one possible approach to achieve that seemingly incongruous result.

This option proposes moving the driving range further down the property by clearing the brush at the end of the existing range, extending the fencing further down, turning the range into a 2 or 3 tier, heated, lighted facility (which would have 36 or 54 stalls instead of the present 27), a state-of-the-art indoor training facility, miniature golf, and batting cages.  Other possibilities include fencing including locally-painted murals illustrating the story of integrated golf history and the legends who played there, or perhaps a small museum section on those men who were profiled in "Uneven Fairways", and other local greats like Joe Coble, and the Philadelphia School of Architects. 

This should provide adequate room to place the original 13th hole back into the routing, which creates the space needed for the rest of the restoration.




Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1141 on: February 26, 2009, 11:11:28 AM »
There is also clear historical precedence for extending the range southward approximately 50 meters as the following set of aerial photographs illustrate.  The first is from 1937 and shows the original, unblemished course..  The 1958 aerial immediately following shows the operational Missile Battery that necessitated the re-routing and the next aerial illustrates that as recently as 1971 most of the area behind the present driving range as well as the fairway of the old 13th hole were still completely cleared and the driving range at that time was over 300 yards in length.  Also note in the aerial that the fairway corridors of the old 6th and 12th holes that were still largely open at that late date.   Most of the overgrowth on the course has taken place within the past 20-30 years, as can be seen in the last color aerial from 2008.


1937 - Original Routing




1958 - Compromised Routing with Missile Battery




1971 - Compromised Routing with Driving Range (Original Avenues of play still available)




2006 - Compromised Routing with Driving Range (Original Avenues and end of Driving Range Overgrown)




The following 1971 aerial shows the layout of the current routing (black lines, and white numbers), as well as the layout of the original routing (red lines), and shows clearly that even twenty years after the re-routing most of the original 13th fairway was still negotiable (as well as the old 6th and 12th).   Even today all of those overgrown areas are easily recoverable as despite the presence of the present driving range, nothing has fundamentally changed the property in an irrevocable way since it was originally built in 1916.  This recent understanding is largely why it is now hoped that a full restoration of Cobb’s Creek to its historically significant, renowned original routing will take place in coming years.






Hope that helps explain things.   Please let me know any questions.   Thanks!!


Andrew Mitchell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1142 on: February 26, 2009, 12:01:55 PM »
Mike

I had a few hours to spare last night and caught up with this thread ;)

Many congratulations to you, Joe and the others for all you have done so far.  I hope you go on to achieve your goal of a restoration of Cobb's Creek.
2014 to date: not actually played anywhere yet!
Still to come: Hollins Hall; Ripon City; Shipley; Perranporth; St Enodoc

Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1143 on: February 26, 2009, 12:08:06 PM »
Andrew,

Thanks for the kinds words.

You must have had a "few hours".  ;)

I've been torn between starting new threads as updates take place or keeping it all here.

I'm afraid it's gotten so large that it's daunting for those with only a passing interest, but I'm glad you got through it.

Thanks again!  ;D

Andrew Mitchell

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1144 on: February 26, 2009, 12:13:21 PM »
Mike

I wouldn't like to say I read every word ;)

I think you are better keeping it all in one thread.  Although it is daunting when you see there are thirty odd pages at least it is all in one place for someone searching for it in the future.

Keep the dream ;D
2014 to date: not actually played anywhere yet!
Still to come: Hollins Hall; Ripon City; Shipley; Perranporth; St Enodoc

TEPaul

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1145 on: February 26, 2009, 01:54:29 PM »
Although I've been involved with this Cobbs Creek Committee I've never been at all familiar with Cobbs Creek. I've never played it and the first time I saw it was about a year ago with Joe Bausch. I went out there yesterday with Kyle Harris and walked around the whole place.

After a while it began to occur to me that it may be possible to have two courses in one there----the old one and its holes and sequencing and the new one with its holes and sequencing.

I guess the only real reason that is remotely possible is luckily all the original greens are still there and in play, it's just that some of them are used in other iterations from the original course and sequencing. If that wasn't the case I doubt there'd be a chance.

If this was doable the two courses in one are also different enough in their routing (sequencing) to definitely make it feel like they are about one half quite different courses. The old routing is more varied in a way since it dove right up the hill on #6 and into the middle of the course and from there went back and forth in the middle a bit and then dove back down the hill to the side of the property and around the border back to the middle at 17.

The tee on the present 16 would have to be abolished and moved left and the old 12th would have to rely on its old far right tee (unless it could borrow the left moved 16th tees on its days off as a longer original 12th) and of course there's the primary obstacle of reestablishing the old 13th corridor.

I would also suggest if the city and park would allow it taking some areas that have always been treed and removing most all the trees as a few of those areas look to be some truly beautiful rugged/rocky/craggy topography which in view would juxtapose beautifully with some of the enormous billowy rolling topography that is on those mid-site holes.

Just make two separate cards and Cobbs could have virtually two golf courses in one. Obviously it could only be played one way at a time though.

I've always been fascinated by the basic "courses within a course" concept as the great George Thomas sometimes experimented with.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 02:00:24 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1146 on: February 26, 2009, 01:58:28 PM »
Tom,

Yes, you could...please see my bullet point above which stated;

•   The fact that due to the unique way in which Cobb’s Creek is laid out, it would be possible post-restoration to play either the current, post World War II layout, or the original restored course designed by Hugh Wilson and friends on any given day, as desired.

Also please note that almost all of the "overgrowth" on the original hole corridors has taken place since the 1970s.   The 1971 aerial above shows all the original avenues still without trees, including a driving range that went another 50 or so meters deeper into what today is overgrowth and woods.

There is plenty of opportunity here. 

Thre is also plenty of precedence for historic restoration and preservation.


« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 02:00:14 PM by MikeCirba »

TEPaul

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1147 on: February 26, 2009, 02:08:12 PM »
Mike:

What is the really unique aspect is the manner in which the redesigners of the course redesigned it. If they'd ever tried to obsolete a single green and move it for instance, this entire sort of Rohrshack like jigsaw puzzle probably would've fallen apart.

I also think the original designers should've taken the trees on a few ridge/hillside areas totally out of there. That could probably create some totally stunning vistas and vantages that never were up and down most of the entire middle of that course.

By the way, we were talking to Gil a bit while we were walking around out there even though for some reason we ended up on the subject of something he's been considering with Nascar (not golf) and my old days trying to imitate some Fonz-like character in Daytona Beach by hanging around Fireball Roberts as much as I was allowed to and going to school with the France boys.  ;)

By the way, back in probably the early 1960s America's Ferrari importer hired Fireball to drive LeMans (which he damn near won). When he told Fireball LeMans was in France Fireball apparently said: "Oh yeah, where is that and does Big Bill (France) own that too?"
« Last Edit: February 26, 2009, 02:20:39 PM by TEPaul »

Mike_Cirba

Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1148 on: February 26, 2009, 02:12:14 PM »
Mike:

What is the really unique aspect is the manner in which the redesigners of the course redesigned it. If they'd ever tried to obsolete a single green and move it for instance, this entire sort of Rohrshack like jigsaw puzzle probably would've fallen apart.

I also think the original designers should've taken the trees on a few ridge/hillside areas totally out of there. That could probably create some totally stunning vistas and vantages that never were up and down most of the entire middle of that course.

Tom,

Amazingly, the original designers did not have carte blance on tree removal.   They had to route the course 'around' exisisting wooded areas due to the rules within Fairmount Park at the time.

Jon Wiggett

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams
« Reply #1149 on: February 27, 2009, 02:33:43 AM »
Mike C,

if it is a goal to get back to the old routing then why not just drop the driving range and go for nets and a short game area?