Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams

[Mike_Cirba]

By the way Kyle...I think your drawing is off and the "natural" island is way too big but you're correct in that the creek was re-routed there and the present island is man-made and essentially was created sometime after opening.

Can you post the one I sent to you?

[Joe Bausch]

My visit to the Temple University Urban Archives was fun, but not as productive as I had hoped (predicted?!).  Still no word at all when the 17th was put into play (and when the 14th came out of play).  One interesting short article entitled "GOLF COURSES DAMAGED" from the August 18, 1928 Evening Bulletin said this (and after Mike recently considered himself Spicoli, you'll love the supes name here, Mr. Hand!):

Municipal Greens at Cobb's Creek Closed After Flood Rips Them

Considerable damage was caused to the municipal golf courses at Cobb's Creek, the new eleven-hole Karakung course being so badly damaged it will have to be closed for several days for repairs, it was announced today by Alfred E. Hand, superintendent.

Mr. Hand also said the fourth and fifth holes on the Cobb's Creek eighteen-hole course were so covered with debris and washed out in places along the bank of the creek it will be several days before they can be used.

He also said it was doubtful if the fourth hole, located on two sharp bends in the creek, can be put in condition for use tomorrow.  The greens on the third and twelfth holes were washed away and temporary greens are being laid today.

All foot bridges across the creek were washed away and a heavy retaining wall along the fourth hole was torn from its foundation and left on the embankment as the waters receded.

[Kyle Harris]

Gents:

I just realized that not one of the par 3s today is original.

Mike,

It was a rough sketch admittedly so you're probably right. But I think it's apparent that the original natural island is no more and the present one was man-made. When I get home, I'll post your sketch but that's an awfully big island as well...  

...I think we may find that the 17th hole was constructed along with these changes, but that's just a gut hunch, and my gut isn't nearly as big as it was years ago.  

[Mike_Cirba]

One interesting short article entitled "GOLF COURSES DAMAGED" from the August 18, 1928 Evening Bulletin said this
Municipal Greens at Cobb's Creek Closed After Flood Rips Them

Considerable damage was caused to the municipal golf courses at Cobb's Creek, the new eleven-hole Karakung course being so badly damaged it will have to be closed for several days for repairs, it was announced today by Alfred E. Hand, superintendent.

Mr. Hand also said the fourth and fifth holes on the Cobb's Creek eighteen-hole course were so covered with debris and washed out in places along the bank of the creek it will be several days before they can be used.

He also said it was doubtful if the fourth hole, located on two sharp bends in the creek, can be put in condition for use tomorrow.  The greens on the third and twelfth holes were washed away and temporary greens are being laid today.

All foot bridges across the creek were washed away and a heavy retaining wall along the fourth hole was torn from its foundation and left on the embankment as the waters receded.

Joe,

I saw a similar article in 1919, and we also know about a bad one around 1955.

It makes me think that doing some type of stormwater management project with the creek is imperative to the long-term success of any initiatives.

Kyle,

Don't write-off the 4th has not being an original too quickly.   I don't think that's been proven yet, even if the fairway between tee and green has changed to improve water flow.

Once you post the rudimentary pic I did earlier today, I think you'll see the lines are a bit clearer, and it doesn't cut thru the current tee but flows right in front of it as today's does.

Thanks!

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

All:

Here is how I think the creek during Vodges's time was superimposed over a Google Earth aerial. I think the island in front of the green today was constructed to provide a higher and drier bail out area for the golfer that hit a worm burner. I'd imagine the original area between the tee and the green was QUITE wet and that whenever it rained the creek coming from 17 spilled out over hard left turn it made before reaching Cobb's Creek - creating a SWAMP right in front of the green.



Joe,

Did Gil rebuild the green or did they just change what was cut as green?

Kyle,

Thanks for putting this comparison together.  I agree completely with your thoughts on the matter.  However, if the creek did flow where the current tee is, they put a lot of fill in there because that tee is now elevated above fairway level and appears to be part of the hillside.

I think you will find that the picture I selected from Joe's post (picture G) is basically along the same angle that you plotted Vodges' routing of the hole.  If anything it is slightly left of the line but after examining Joe's pictures I noticed you can't go much further left because the hillside across the creek starts to block out the view of the green (although if the green was originally further right, that would give you more room).

I think we might have solved the final piece of the original routing puzzle.  I just want to join Indiana Bausch on another expedition to pinpoint the location.

Mike - The key to this whole restoration is not surprisingly the Creek.  If we can't design a solution for the flooding issues, this whole project may be in jeopardy.

One final observation - they were quite fortunate that they were able to play the 1928 US Publinks.  Joe's article is dated only two weeks after the national championship.  If the championship represented the pinnacle for the course, it lasted for about 10 days!

[Mike_Cirba]

Fellows,

Sorry to differ, but I don't think this drawing is accurate.   Can either Joe or Kyle post the one I sent?

[Joe Bausch]

Below is a figure of the 1937 aerial, then Vogdes' original drawing, and a Google aerial.  Mike modified the middle drawing.

[MSusko]

Joe,

Did Gil rebuild the green or did they just change what was cut as green?


Hanse rebuilt both the 3rd and 4th greens from scratch after they were destroyed by hurricane Jeanne in fall 2004.  Both greens were raised and moved closer to the creek.  Both are also about 1/3 larger than they were previously.  Hope this helps.

Mark

[mike_malone]

 The creek issue may challenge the idea of an exact restoration since it may have been a mistake in the first place to place the greens so close to a creek that is prone to flooding at turning points. However, it may also open up some intriguing possibilities such as placing the tees for 4 and 5 on the left of the creek.

  I think we have already speculated that 13 green is gone because of the placement by the creek.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

I just touched base with Mike on the way I solve for the conundrum of the 4th.  Rather than focusing on what has moved (the creek), look at what has not - the 5th green and the hill just to the right of it which the old 6th tee shot had to clear.  If you take a ruler and extend the shot corridor line on the original routing for the 4th it will extend out to a point well right of the 5th green about 50+ feet up that hillside (around the 160 number).  That is the hill you see in the Ledger picture as well as in Joe's "G" picture.  Look at the view from the current 4th tee and the 5th green is almost directly behind the 4th green and might even be left of it depending on which tee you use.

Current background:
http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Cobbs_Creek/pages/page_18.html
(paging Mr. Bausch to post this picture)

Approximate proposed background:  The creek wraps around behind where this photo was taken from as it heads towards the 3rd green, the tee would have been farther back along roughly the same line (across the creek again), and keep in mind the green has been shifted slightly to the left from its original position.

[Kyle Harris]

Geoff, we could work this out with GPS...

I'm an orienteering nerd, all we need to do is some triangulation with a handheld GPS unit and the topo.

[Mike_Cirba]

As discussed with Geoff last night, you guys may be onto something, at least if the 4th was built as approved in 1915.

We know the creek has changed since then, and we also know that the orientation of the old 4th was to a point about 50 feet up the hill from the current 6th tee.   Today's hole almost points directly at the 5th green, which is off by at least 10 degrees.  

I'm definitely intrigued, but it also appears that the hole had changed to its current configuration by the 1930s, as there is an aerial in the clubhouse (that we don't have) that shows the tee about where today's is...if anything, it's to the rear and right of today's tee.

I don't think we should underestimate what the realities of the creek and its unpredictable vagaries may have meant to those trying to get a workable routing going in the first 20 or so years of the course.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Kyle - It had occurred to me but I'm not sure how to go about it.  Could you walk me through it?  I may be able to get down to the course today or tomorrow.

Mike - Based upon our research, I do think the Creek and its issues may have been the most influential architect of all. Given the article you found, as early as 1919 they may have shifted greens and tees (heck, the 14th green was moved before the course opened!) meaning the original routing on the Vodges drawing might have only been around for less than 4 years (and it could have been less than that).

[Bill Hagel]

The tee being where we now think it was matches nicely to the description in the article by Joe Bunker (?) just before the course opened.  Remember he described a picturesque glen with alot of boulders.

Geoff's observation of the hill in the background is eye opening   - Although we don't really know where the photographer was set up when he took the photo, but think about it from the photographers perspective, why would you NOT take that picture along the shot corridor; wouldn't make sense.

[Kyle Harris]

The tee being where we now think it was matches nicely to the description in the article by Joe Bunker (?) just before the course opened.  Remember he described a picturesque glen with alot of boulders.

Geoff's observation of the hill in the background is eye opening   - Although we don't really know where the photographer was set up when he took the photo, but think about it from the photographers perspective, why would you NOT take that picture along the shot corridor; wouldn't make sense.

Bill,

Any number of reasons actually - just look at at how many pictures we see today aren't taken along shot corridors of the golf holes. This may full well be 1916's version of golf porn.

There exists no information as to who the photographer was, their familiarity with golf, the lighting and other conditions of the day, and the type of camera used.

Why isn't the green the center of the picture if it were taken along the shot corridor?

Where do the leaves and branches that come into the view of the photo from the right side originate? Is that tree in front of the green or behind the green from the photographer's perspective?

Absent that sort of information, the picture must speak for itself, and it does NOT speak as to where the tee was located.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Absent that sort of information, the picture must speak for itself, and it does NOT speak as to where the tee was located.

Kyle,

Per our earlier conversation, I do agree that the picture from the Ledger is not taken from the actual tee (it is much too short a distance to the green) but it does give you a MUCH better angle than the tee currently in use.

I'll tell you two other things that ARE NOT there in the Ledger photo as far as I can tell which are on the original routing.  A bridge off of the left bank of the green (which should be right smack in the middle of that photo according to the routing) and a buffer between the creek and the green.  I guess that could be fairway, but it looks like a green to me.

[Kyle Harris]

Geoff,

I think we should avoid some of the more subjective thoughts like "much better angle than today" until we have a solid foundation as to how the course was built. Sometimes the research tends to become a bit biased toward one or two thoughts on improvement that are based in the personal taste of the researcher and not the actual evidence, and then important data are overlooked.

That "bridge" on the Vodges map is quite interesting. Perhaps it was a wing dam that was in the park prior to the golf course construction that was subsequently removed?

[TEPaul]

I feel Kyle is right that a restoration to original of that hole should ideally put the tee back wherever it was originally designed to be.

However, in a strictly conceptual and strategic workup, in my opinion, the ideal tee angle into that green would be one that sets that left side (creek) up on a basic 45 degree angle--ie diagonal. That kind of angle would create the maximum and ideal distance differential for the spectrum of shots from front to back.

Going way left with the tee would cut down on that left side distance differential but it would also probably cut down on the ability to bail right too.

[Kyle Harris]

I feel Kyle is right that a restoration to original of that hole should ideally put the tee back wherever it was originally designed to be.

However, in a strictly conceptual and strategic workup, in my opinion, the ideal tee angle into that green would be one that sets that left side (creek) up on a basic 45 degree angle--ie diagonal. That kind of angle would create the maximum and ideal distance differential for the spectrum of shots from front to back.

Going way left with the tee would cut down on that left side distance differential but it would also probably cut down on the ability to bail right too.

Tom,

The hole has been changed a bit from that photo, with the major change being the construction of an island directly in front of the green. I'd hazard a guess that the area not maintained as green was a swamp initially, and golfers not reaching the green had to hit shots from some rather murky lies. The construction of the island gave the less fortunate golfer a place to find a dry lie from which to make bogey. Additionally, the original configuration of the hole had the green perched on a slight peninsula that really didn't offer a straight edged line for a 45 degree angle. The same remains today from the present angle.

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

Before getting into golf architectural strategic concerns and such probably the best thing to do with a hole like that is to first determine the differences in water flow and potentially destructive water flow between 1915 and today! It sure wouldn't surprise me if there're plenty of things going on in and around that golf course today compared to back then that may've dramatically affected that kind of thing over the years.  

[Kyle Harris]

Kyle:

Before getting into golf architectural strategic concerns and such probably the best thing to do with a hole like that is to first determine the differences in water flow and potentially destructive water flow between 1915 and today!

Agreed. Right now we're aware of at least two iterations of the creek and there are some significant difference in the creek routing from the original Jesse Vodges map and the aerials from the 20s and 30s.

I've speculated that the sharp turn the creek that presently flows in front of 17 made right before reaching Cobb's Creek caused significant problems and a new creek bed was constructed to ease the water flow coming down the hill. This helped lead to the creation of the island in front of the tee. On the last page you can view the original configuration of the creek and the present aerial with Mike Cirba's and my own thoughts on how the creek originally flowed.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Geoff,

I think we should avoid some of the more subjective thoughts like "much better angle than today" until we have a solid foundation as to how the course was built.

Kyle,

I agree.

My sentence was poorly worded.  I meant to convey the notion that the photo gives you a much better sense of the angle/background of the the original tee on the Vodges routing... not that it was much better in terms of quality than the tee used today.

Geoff

[Kyle Harris]

Geoff,

I think we should avoid some of the more subjective thoughts like "much better angle than today" until we have a solid foundation as to how the course was built.

Kyle,

I agree.

My sentence was poorly worded.  I meant to convey the notion that the photo gives you a much better sense of the angle of the the original tee/corridor on the Vodges routing not that it was much better than the tee used today.

Geoff

Ahh. Understood. Sorry, just have a bit of an aversion for "improving" the golf course before fully understanding it.

[TEPaul]

If and when a restoration of Cobbs gets underway all you guys interested in promoting it will be in for a most valuable and educational lesson----eg you guys will be out there with your historic research and such which hopefully will be comprehensive and accurate and you'll get with the architects and the people into the technical side of these things and then it gets down to the airing of the whole "can do/no can do" or "can do/no can do/can do and here's what it will cost" equations!

This is the world of site-time that's the best education of all if one is really interested in ALL the ramifications of the real world of golf course architecture rather than just the conceptual side.

Personally, I like the "conceptual" side a lot better. I  really can't be bothered with all that "real world" stuff.  

[Mike_Cirba]

If and when a restoration of Cobbs gets underway all you guys interested in promoting it will be in for a most valuable and educational lesson----eg you guys will be out there with your historic research and such which hopefully will be comprehensive and accurate and you'll get with the architects and the people into the technical side of these things and then it gets down to the airing of the whole "can do/no can do" or "can do/no can do/can do and here's what it will cost" equations!

Tom,

What do you mean "youz guyz"?

Get your hip boots on and come on join the party, dressed to kill.