[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I think it may go back to as early as 1911 or so...

[TEPaul]

Phil:

If it did go back to 1911 it very well may've been Tillie himself who sort of precipitated the issue to some extent. It very well may've been that the USGA told him if he intended to compete in amateur events in the future they would seriously consider removing his amateur status and declare him a professional golfer ineligible for amateur events. I can look into it but I'm not aware of another fairly well known amateur golfer who blatantly began to accept pay for architecture and continued to state that he would like to continue to play amateur golf.

Again, the modus operandi of regional amateur associations and the USGA is not exactly to go around informing people who make a living out of golf that they no longer retain their amateur playing status if it appears they have no intention of playing amateur tournament golf.

[wsmorrison]

The earliest mention in either Golf Illustrated or American Golfer was in June 1914 with Max Behr writing an editiorial on The Amateur Question.

The Golf Illustrated articles on The Amateur Question can be found in the following editions:

1914  Jun
1915  Feb, Dec
1916  Feb, Mar, Dec
1917  Jan, Apr, Jun

The American Golfer articles on The Amateur Question can be found in the following editions:

1915  Dec
1916  Mar, Apr, Jul, Dec
1917  Jan, Feb, Aug, Sep, Dec
1918  Jul
1919  Mar
1923  Jan

Golf discussed the issue in Dec 1916

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

As much as the thought that architects should be declared professionals, even more so was the idea that golf writers should be. This was because a number of major amateur players were being paid to write articles giving golf instruction. It was felt that this was teaching for money and that any who did so should forfeit their amateur standing.

An example of these was the series of articles written by Chick Evans in the American Golfer magazine beginning with one titled "Iron Play" in the January 1911 issue.

It was this aspect of the amateur issue that led to other areas, including golf course design fees, being examined.

In 1914, Robert C. Watson, then President of the USGA, wrote the following that was published in many major newspapers nationwide:

“It is the desire of the governors of the national body only to keep the royal and ancient game absolutely free from the taint of professionalism or even semi-professionalism. There are men who pose as amateurs who make their living from the exposition of how to do this or that in order to produce the best results in playing golf. Unquestionably this comes under the heading of teaching. There are those who lay out plans for the construction of golf courses and derive means of support from the work. Yet they pose as amateurs. Of course an amateur has a perfect right to lay out a golf course and even to teach golf, but he can derive no benefit financially from either and still be a pure amateur...”

As Tilly was 'guilty' of two proposed infractions of the Amateur rule, in the same article titled "If Such Be Sin" he responded thusly:

"I must take it for granted that I am some of the game which he is hunting, and he will not have to go into thickets to find me. For a number of years I have been contributing to numerous golf publications and newspapers and I have been paid for this work. I have laid out golf courses and frequently have been called in consultation when courses have been reconstructed. I have been paid for this work and as a matter of fact I consider golf architecture a profession, and I have no hesitancy in quoting my fees for this work. I have considered that this is no violation of the ethics of the amateur golf player, and certainly there has never been any desire to pose as something other than that which I am."

When the issue was settled later at the end of the decade and both writers and architects were recognized by the USGA as professions that would not automatically make the practitioner a professional, unlike Travis and others Tilly did not ask for reinstatement of his amateur standing.

It may be that he felt it was no longer necessary for him as he was now too old to compete. What is really puzzling is trying to understand why Tilly did not sign the original documents at the founding of the PGA as he was both at the original luncheon at the Taplow restaurant in 1916 where Wanamaker formed the Association and was prominently featured.

It may be that he was still contemplating whether to challenge the very recent ruling by the USGA (just the year before) where they declared writers and architects to be professionals. This would be reversed in 1917.

I don't think we'll ever know on that one.

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe or Geoffrey,

I'm going to be in the Poconos over the next 36 hours trying to find where Flynn fell from the old 7th tee at Pocono Manor, but when I return I'd love to see the pics of the old 3rd, 4th!, and 12th here unveiled for all to see.

Perhaps some of the non-Philadelphians in attendance might begin to understand our degree of excitement.   

[Joe Bausch]

Notice that the only reference to Vardon and Ray was that they visited the course after it was already designed and built and that it was at the point of waiting for the grass to grow in. They had nothing to do with it's creation. Tilly would know since he both designed the course and spent a great deal of time there during its construction.
   

Philip, you might find this article from the Philadelphia Public Ledger, published the same day (Jan 18, 1914) as the above Inquirer article, interesting.  You say above that Vardon and Ray "had nothing to do with it's creation", but I might quibble with that and it least say they had some input on the placement of bunkers and with alterations to the last 5 holes (I don't know if that was a simple re-routing or something even more than that).

[TEPaul]

"What is really puzzling is trying to understand why Tilly did not sign the original documents at the founding of the PGA as he was both at the original luncheon at the Taplow restaurant in 1916 where Wanamaker formed the Association and was prominently featured.

It may be that he was still contemplating whether to challenge the very recent ruling by the USGA (just the year before) where they declared writers and architects to be professionals. This would be reversed in 1917."

Phil:

Tillie probably went to the founding meeting of the PGA simply to cover it as a golf writer. There would've been no reason at all for him to actually join the new PGA simply because his amateur status had been called into question or removed by the USGA. I doubt anyone who was making money from golf architecture or golf writing at that time would've considered joining the PGA and the bylaws of the PGA probably didn't even have a provision for that. The PGA was an association of professional golfers not golf architects or golf writers, and there was no reason for Tillinghast to have ever considered himself to be a professional golfer even if the USGA had removed his amateur playing status for either professional architecture or professional golf writing.

On the other hand, it's fairly easy to understand Tillie's response to the USGA in his article "If this be a sin". He was simply stating that he did not think professional golf architecture or professional golf writing should effect his amateur playing status as he understood the USGA's rules of that time. Obviously, for a time the USGA did not agree with him and they did define or redefine what they considered to be a violation of their amateur playing status Rules to include professional architects and writers. Somewhere between 1917 and 1920 the USGA created an exception to their amateur playing status Rules for professinal golf architects where their profession would no longer effect their amateur playing status.

As a bit of trivia, this issue has obviously come full circle from that old fashioned thinking of the USGA's in the teens of "professionalism" in golf as professional architect Steve Smyers now sits on the USGA's Board of Directors.

So now, and for a good number of years the only thing that really can effect one's amateur playing status is either "playing" golf professionally or "teaching" golf professionally or trading on one's reputation as a well known amateur golfer and deriving some sort of remuneration from it.

[Joe Bausch]

Okay, back to our regularly scheduled programming:  all Cobbs, all the time.

Gahd I want to thank Al Gore for the Internet.   

What follows are three early photos from Cobb's Creek that Geoff Walsh tracked down.  These are courtesy of The Library Company of Philadelphia (each photo is very large but I've shrunk them each to 1000 pixels wide).  I'll leave the most interesting for last.

Here is a photo taken from behind the green of the 3rd hole:



Nothing like dodging people playing in the creek while playing this hole!

Here is a photo taken from across Cobb's Creek near the 5th green:



And now for the hole we've perhaps discussed more than any other on this thread, a view from the tee on the par 3 4th.  Yes, Cobb's Creek was patrolled by marshals on horseback!



The photo Geoff provided me was a 80 MB TIFF!  If you wish to see the full size photo (I'll warn you, it is large!) as a JPEG (~3 MB), go here:

http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/LCofP_Cobbs_photos/LCofP_Cobbs_Creek_No4.jpg

Take a look at the face of the golfer getting ready to tee off.  Perhaps he is going to bite the photogs head off, sort of like Tiger did last weekend!

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Joe,

Thanks for posting these!  I would have replied sooner but of course my internet went down shortly just as these photos came online.

Many thanks go to the research staff at The Library Company of Philadelphia for their help tracking these down (none can be reproduced without their permission).  I went there only looking for an aerial and they were kind enough to pull any materials that referenced Cobb's Creek.  When I arrived there, I was blown away by the three pictures above - and particularly by the one of the Mighty Fourth.

Some comments:

Picture of the 3rd - You lose sight sometimes that the golf course resides within a public park.  The kids playing in the creek remind you that golf is just one activity of many that takes place on the grounds.  Even today you will see people take walks through the park while you are playing.  In addition, look at the slope in the green going up to the back tier and down towards the creek.

Picture of the 5th - I love the quasi beach bunker melding into the creek and cutting the hill at fairway height.

Picture of the 4th - Phenomenal picture which is literally like looking through a glass into the past.  It gives you a sense of the scale of the hole which is lost today with the overgrowth of vegetation, the diverted creek and the island which was filled in fronting the green.
I would encourage everyone to go to Joe's site and zoom in on the picture.  With the high level of resolution, you can see details which your eye can't pick up in the photo below.  As an example, you can see the "4" on the sign behind the green (which most people wouldn't even know is there in the picture above) as clear as a bell.

The one thing not known about the photos are their exact dates.  Any help narrowing this down would be greatly appreciated (using knowledge of clubs, dress, etc.).  Our thoughts were late 20's - early 30's for all three.  The 3rd and the 5th were taken at the same time (and of the same group).  The 4th was a different group and different time of year (and possibly earlier).

For comparison, the 4th today:

[Joe Bausch]

I bumped into a newspaper photo of the 4th from the qualifying round for the 1928 Publinx tourney (early July in the Philadelphia Public Ledger).  The quality is not great but it does appear similar to the high res photo available above.

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe,

Thanks for posting those incredible pics.   The new one of the 4th is quite cool, as well.

The comparison of that rugged dramatic landscape versus today's filled in one is really startling to consider.


btw, I think those kids playing in the creek on the picture of the 3rd are actually hunting for golf balls.

[Bill Hagel]

Hi Guys

Been offline for some time.

Great Pics

I guess this clears up any question once and for all where the tee was for the 4th hole

[Mike_Cirba]

Bill,

Aren't the pics of 4 amazing...and surprising??

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

No idea, Kyle.

Take a look at the green complex on the current #10 at Cobb's Creek.  I have now dubbed that the "Tie Fighter green" and I will make it my mission to have that fully restored.

Mike has finally discovered my favorite green complex on the course.

Joe - can't wait to see your close-up's from the digital aerials.

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey,

What's the frequency, Kenneth?     Who's Kyle? 


To your point, I think it can be fairly said that what the new digital aerials Joe received yesterday really point out, somewhat surprisingly, is this;

The original greens at Cobb's Creek were far larger, varied, contoured, creative, and stylized than had been previously understood.

The 2nd green almost looks a bit like a boomerang green, and many others show degrees of creative sophistication and variety that is wonderful to see. 

I'm not sure what's involved in making ZOOMS of some of these greens viewable online here, but I figure if there's a way to do it, Joe will figger it out. 

[Joe Bausch]

I now have permission to put some higher resolution aerials of Cobb's Creek here.  These photos have been reduced in size from the originals.  I will later put up some zooms of various greens at higher resolution.

These are all courtesy of the Hagley Museum and Library.

Up first is a partial view of Cobb's Creek, where the 1st, 2nd, 18th, and the 'new' 17th greens are visible.  You can also see that part of Karakung is completed and in view.  This photo from 1928.



Next is another photo from 1928 where the 1st, 2nd, and 18th greens are in view:



Now we jump to 1935.  Here is a great view of much of the course, including Geoff's favorite green, the original #10:



These next three vertical aerials are from 1939:

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe,

Thanks for popping those up there, and thanks to the Hagley for their wonderful collection.

Just one note...the "10th green" you referred to on the 1935 picture  is today's 10th green.   It was originally hole #16, and then #15 once today's 17th hole was created in the mid 20s.   

For those still playing along at home, it's the hole on the far left of the picture.

I'm looking forward to seeing zooms of the greens then, because I believe they will be a telling study of the effects of time and maintenance on a golf course, compared to today's models.

[TEPaul]

Uh, Joe, thanks for those aerials but I'm sorry to tell you apparently you've just incurred one helluva copyright violation. You may want to put everything you own in your wife's name over the weekend. If you don't have a wife put everything you own in your dog's name or your cat's name. You'll need to report to the Library of Congress first thing Monday morning. I have a good DC lawyer who will meet you there. You might want to wear an extra long-sleeve shirt as handcuffs hurt less that way.

[Mike_Cirba]

Yes, Tom...'specially since they've been selling lot hotcakes in our little backroom shop printing operation here.   

This whole thread has been an ingeniously conceived front for laundering Copyright infringement monies and deflecting investigative authorities from their constant and dogged tracking of priceless architectural documentation and antiquities.

I'm ready to retire to Bimini any day now with my take of the lucrative pot.      

[Joe Bausch]

Now for some zooms:

From photo 3697, the 18th and 2nd greens:



From photo 3725, today's greens #1, #2, and #18:







From photo 8611, today's greens #9, #10 and #12 together, and #14 and #8 together:







From photo 12535, today's greens #4, #5, #15, and #17:









From photo 12536, today's 2nd green:



Even Stevie Wonder can see that many greens have changed from a little to a lot over time.

[Mike_Cirba]

I'm starting to believe that this thread has lost its juice when Joe can post a pic of a greensite that looks like this;



..and doesn't get a single comment in 24 hours.

This greensite is the closest thing I've seen to Garden City's 12th in some ways, and I had a premonition that it was Walter Travis's contribution to Cobb's Creek.

I'm thinking this might need a new thread. 

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

This is precisely WHY photographic "assets" really do need some pretty good "text" explanations accompanying them. If they don't have that people have a hard time understanding and appreciating architectural significance and nuance. Don't forget, aerial photography basically shows most people just length and width and not the vertical dimension.

Michael, I see your name on the recent email group with David Moriarty and Tom MacWood and Ran and Pat and a bunch of other good people on here or otherwise in architecture and maintenance trying to encourage Moriarty and MacWood to rejoin this website. Why haven't you responded on that email communication? Didn't you notice David Moriarty's question to me today asking me about a Wilson "second go around" fortress green? Is this what he's talking about? I thought he was talking about something at Merion. I guess he's talking about Cobbs Creek.

Do you think he means to imply that maybe Macdonald or his influence on Wilson is being short-changed again here in Philadelphia on Cobbs Creek?

Hey, you wrote that voluminous AER on Cobbs---why don't you just throw Macdonald's name in there too as a collaborator? Did Macdonald ever do anything for public golf in America as Wilson and Crump and the rest did on Cobbs?

WELL, now is his chance! Put him in there too!

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

I have had 15 people staying at my house all week so I regret not responding to the "off-GCA" thread until just five minutes ago.

Also, I did read David's speculation regarding the green in question, which is why I posted what I did.

I will speculate as well.

We know that Walter Travis was involved in the latter part of the Cobb's Creek construction during the last couple months of 1915.   We have two extemporaneous accounts that mention this.

I also know from basically pulling a George Crump and living out there much of the past six months that the portion of the property that took some earthmoving to make "golfable" is the area of todays' 10th and 12h greens (pictured) and 13th tee.   It's some very steep land that definitely needed some fill and I'm almost certain that it delayed the original projected opening of Fall 1915.   

The green to the left on that photo is today's 10th, but I'm wondering if you agree with me that it has a heckuva lot in common with the original 12th at Garden City.

The weird thing is that it is SOOOOOO out of place at Cobb's Creek, in the same way it was SOOOOOO out of place at Garden City, where both courses have about 95%  of their greens simply being extensions of the fairway and natural surrounds, and then all of a sudden....BAM!!!!!, you have this wild, fortresslike (to use David Moriarty's term), obviously constructed, and architecturally interesting, one-off, incongruously wild greensite in their midst.   Kinda like the elephant in the room.

If I had to guess at Cobb's Creek, I'd say Travis was involved, but I do also think that David is correct to ask the question...asking us to look at comparisons of the old 10th at Merion versus the greensite pictured above at Cobb's and see what we might uncover.

It was certainly an experimental time and the evolution of the courses we love had LOTS of input from LOTs of people, and I think Fred Pickering's contributions at Woodlands and other courses needs examination as well.

Now if we can just get paid for doing this, and get our significant others to understand our weird obessions.   

[Mike_Cirba]

I'd just add one other observation before I crumble exhaustedly into bed.

I know it may sound weird, but the course that Cobb's Creek reminds me most of is Garden City, except for two things;

1) Cobb's Creek is built on land with 140 feet of elevation change.

2) Cobb's Creek has about 150 less bunkers. 

However, the "lay of the land" minimalist style, the amazing amount of golf challenge within less than 7,000 yards, the greens that seem simple extensions of the fairway, the boldness of the routing, the "feel" that permeates the landscape, and the intensity of the golf demands are all simpatico.

Also...both courses featured a single greensite that have two symmetrical, parallel borders on each side of the green, a backing embankment, and a crossing front bunker, as well as signfiicant interior greensite construction, both of which are completely out of place to most of what else ever existed on the property.

Having played, quite a few of Walter Travis's designs, and generally LOVING them, I feel that this might very well be his contribution to Cobb's Creek.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

Are you then saying that Travis was influenced by Macdonald and he should've given him more credit? Come on, Boy, you know that even if Macdonald wasn't within fifteen miles of Cobbs Creek somehow the man must get credit for the design or at least get a whole lot more credit for having more influence on the architectural collaborators of Cobbs than he's ever been given credit for. C.B. Macdonald was THE MAN, particularly for many of the "not for pay" amateur architects of that time, at least for a while.

Don't kid yourself, I actually believe that to some extent. I just think the deal was that it didn't take long for most all those amateur architects who may've been somewhat influenced by Macdonald at one time or another generally at the very start of their projects to get away from him AND his style.

In that fact, I think is a WHOLE other story!  

I believe that I, and others, have an absolute TON of evidence on not just that but also why!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()