Seaview - Hugh Wilson or Donald Ross?? - A Historical Retrospective Analysis

[Mike_Cirba]

Seaview's 18th green - 1914.



Seaview Aerial - 1920


For years multi-millionaire Clarence Geist's creation near Atlantic City was known as a Donald Ross design, and indeed, the Marriott chain who run the place as a Golf Resort/Hotel these days make much of that fact in their marketing. 

In November of 2006, Ron Whitten of Golf Digest published information he had found that indicated the original layout was done by Hugh Wilson.   Although that article is no longer available on the Internet, Whitten at the time knew about the later Donald Ross drawings and concluded that Wilson must have done the routing but Ross then added all the bunkering after he was brough on board in May of 1915.  He also surmised that perhaps Wilson was not really much of a talent for bunkering, concluding that much of the wonderful bunkering of Merion East was done with William Flynn's assistance.

To date, the Marriott or Seaview has not acknowleged Hugh Wilson as the principle architect of their historic course, although recent findings by Joe Bausch make that heritage unquestionable, and I will re-present that info within this thread.   We also know that the routing of today's Bay Course at Seaview is exactly as it was when Hugh Wilson's course opened in the fall of 1914.

However, what remains is the question of what the original Seaview course looked like, and how much of today's course reflects the work of two unquestionably great architects.

Without further ado, let's move on to the first hole.

[Mike_Cirba]

The first hole is a gentle introduction to Seaview, although an overly aggressive tee shot or early morning slice could spell quick trouble.



After a solid opening drive, a pitch remains to a green slightly blind between bunkers.



Looking back towards the impressive, stately clubhouse, the green contours are rather mild as well, although little knobs surrounding the surface create interest, including a small mound just at the beginning of the putting surface, barely visible.



From the second tee, the peaceful, lowland, tasteful setting of Seaview is evident.



[

[Doug Braunsdorf]

Mike,

  Thanks for this great work.   It appears, from the 1920's aerial, the waste bunker in front of the tee and up the right side of the 1st hole (it's been almost 3 yrs since I've played here) consisted of three bunkers. 
The Ross diagram has this drawn as one bunker. 

Would it make more sense to have the several bunkers or the larger one?  I don't recall the bunkers being that deep or that penal, or even that much in play. 

[Neil_Crafter]

Mike
Nice collation of images on your thread. I have a question - why do you think Ross was brought in so soon after Wilson had designed the course and it opened for play? It would seem from the Ross hole plan of #1 that there was a good deal of modification to the bunkering and the green complexes. Was Wilson's layout unbunkered? And if so, why did he not bunker it do you think?
cheers Neil

[Mike_Cirba]

Doug,

Thamks...in a few cases I think single large bunkers were broken into multiples for ingress egress.

Neil,

Some of the thinking at the time was that most of the bunkering should be done once one sees how the course played.

Wilson got very busy around this time which is likely why Geist had Ross in.

However, I think as we go through more of the course you'll note that many of the primary bunkers were already in place prior to Ross and many of Ross's proposals were never implemented.

Even on the first hole writeup prior to Ross in 1914 it is noted that sand pits would punish a pull or slice.

[TEPaul]

Neil:

As to why Wilson may've thought it wisest to bunker up over time I believe we have some letter writing discussion on that between Hugh Wilson and Piper and Oakley in those so-called agronomy letters. They realized something like that may not be acceptable on most courses (for obvious reasons) but if it was possible it was probably the ideal way to go about it. This seems to be confirmed by what Flynn wrote some years later and we sure do know Merion was Flynn's training and learning ground.

Don't forget the courses that were done that way---ie Myopia, GCGC, Merion East, NGLA, Oakmont, Pine Valley were all done by designers who didn't exactly have a client in those projects that took so many years to finally complete.

[Adam_Messix]

Tom Paul--

The idea of Wilson building a course with the thought of bunkering later sounds familiar.....perhaps the East Course at Merion.  It's a pretty novel concept, see how a course plays, then introduce hazards that need some form of construction later.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom Paul--

The idea of Wilson building a course with the thought of bunkering later sounds familiar.....perhaps the East Course at Merion.  It's a pretty novel concept, see how a course plays, then introduce hazards that need some form of construction later.

That, to me, seems to be the closest thing to "Scientific" architecture there is.

[Adam_Messix]

Kyle--

I wasn't going to go there, but........

[George_Bahto]

Mike - just a bit off the original thought of your thread:

The young super in charge of the Bay Course, Kevin Tansey, is a good friend - he was an assistant at Essex County CC when we first began working on their course. He left there and moved on to Seaview.

He has expanding the collars over the past two years and has got them pretty much done now (I was there  for a week in the fall) and they look and play wonderfully.

He has a lot of plans and a long way to go to get the course where he would like it to be but Seaview/Marriott is a bit restrictive but getting better as they see the results of his efforts.

For anyone who has been there, the Bay Course will surprise you by comparison on your next visit.

This is a fun course esp on windy days.

Sorry to get off the mark, Mike.

[TEPaul]

“That, to me, seems to be the closest thing to "Scientific" architecture there is.”



“Kyle--
I wasn't going to go there, but........”




BUT WHAT??

Come on Boys, you’re getting warmer and apparently you know it. So what’s wrong with going there?

Look, at it this way----eg Is there some inherent emotional aspect for man when he considers something like the randomness of nature when he tries to test himself against it in some way---even in some recreational way---like golf---or is it just all about a straight test of physical rote execution borne of standardized definition with no emotional requirement, no mystery outside one’s……..?   

Bite off as much as you can chew?

Bullshit! How about just asking for a complete leap of faith every now and again if one really wants to experience something like an "Adventure of the Spirit"?

On the other hand as my good friend Pat Mucci says about once in a Blue Moon----I might be wrong!



 

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

That's great to hear...perhaps Kevin would be interested in this thread?

The only place I noted where I believe much more can be done to greenspace is the back of the 6th, which we'll get to shortly.   It's great to hear that they have a guy there with that type of philosophy and spirit, because it's a very deserving, as well as historically important golf course.

All,

Let's consider the changes to the hole that Ross recommended and see what was implemented;

1) Large Sand Faced Bunker short right off Tee - There is indeed a short right sand hazard, that has been extended up the right side much further than what Ross's drawing proposed.

2) Sand pit short left of green removed a bit from the surface - Done

3) Bunker short right of green in existing sand hills - Done

4) Add mound behind putting surface and connect slope through green to existing fronting mound, created a spine - Not Done, which is probably unfortunate

5) Sand Mounds at back and left of green - Not Done and they would probably only aid the golfer's depth perception for what is a relatively simple pitch.

What's odd and remains unexplained is that the green was originally noted in the 1914 article as a punch bowl, although there is no indication of this in existence in either the Donald Ross drawings, or in the existing greensite today.

We also don't know the exact location of Hugh Wilson's "Sand pits that will catch a pull or slice by the unwary", but I'm thinking they were probably the fairway sand areas to each side.

[Mike_Cirba]

Moving on in the same direction out towards Reed's Bay and the Atlantic City skyline (sadly not visible due to low cloudiness on the day I took these pics) in the distance is the 2nd hole, which Ben Hogan reportedly claimed was one of the toughest par fours he ever played;







The drive is across these foreshortened bunkers that continue up the right side, but the landing area is fairly wide as it rises in the distance.



The lengthy approach is to a green perched right at the edge of terra firma, and surrounded by what today would be known as sea water wetlands.



Just short of the crossing road, the "existing sand pit" is today just another "mud pit", which then also surround the left, rear, and right sides of the green.



From the left "mud pit", a heron is startled by an unexpected morning visitor and takes flight behind the green.



From behind the left half of the green a lone sand mound rises.



Looking back to the tee, it's evident how the "gently raised" rear of the green, as well as the sides, drop off quickly into serious trouble and irrecoverability.

[Adam_Messix]

“That, to me, seems to be the closest thing to "Scientific" architecture there is.”



“Kyle--
I wasn't going to go there, but........”




BUT WHAT??

Come on Boys, you’re getting warmer and apparently you know it. So what’s wrong with going there?

Look, at it this way----eg Is there some inherent emotional aspect for man when he considers something like the randomness of nature when he tries to test himself against it in some way---even in some recreational way---like golf---or is it just all about a straight test of physical rote execution borne of standardized definition with no emotional requirement, no mystery outside one’s……..?   

Bite off as much as you can chew?

Bullshit! How about just asking for a complete leap of faith every now and again if one really wants to experience something like an "Adventure of the Spirit"?

On the other hand as my good friend Pat Mucci says about once in a Blue Moon----I might be wrong!



 

Tom--

I did not want to hijack this excellent thread that Mike's started and don't want to start another one at this point.  It is worthy of discussion though. 

[George_Bahto]

Mike - Kevin checks GCA often but for obvious reasons does not post.

The next phase for him will be green expansions, yes!

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

Completely understood, which is a shame, but it's the reality.

I'm hopeful he'll find this thread interesting and worthwhile.

[Mike_Cirba]

Let’s go through Hole #2 and see what of Donald Ross's proposed changes were implemented.

The first general instruction is to “Deepen in Sections the sand pits on the left which run from 130 to 220 yards”, which clearly indicates that bunkers already existed there prior to Ross.   We don’t know if they were deepened although it is likely they were.

#1 instruction 1 was to build a “wide dished out bunker” just off the tee on the left.   While this doesn’t seem to have been built, perhaps the cross bunkers a little further out on the right sufficed as the type of “Top shot bunker” Ross seemingly wanted here?

#2 – Called for a sand pit with a mounded face 4 feet deep - Probably Done as a series of bunkers run up the right side.

#3 – Called for a series of sand mounds to be built 4 to 7 feet high just left of the green at a diagonal – Not Done

#4 – On rear of green build irregular sand hills to form a backdrop – Not Done, although there is one back there.

#5 – Extend Present Sand Pit (short left of road) – Uncertain, although today it is more of a “Mud Pit” or wetland than a sand pit.

#6 – Build Sand mound – Not Done

#7 – Irregular Sand mounding between existing bunkers on left and right side of green – Not Done

#8 – Grass Hollow just left of green – Not Done

[Mike_Cirba]

Number 3 is one of the most inexplicable holes at Seaview and today probably the most mundane.   Although there is trouble in the form of bunkers off the tee, the fairway (not pictured) is plenty wide, and the second shot lacks compelling interest as the green today sits in what looks a bit like a wide-open amphitheatre.

Even if you find a bunker from the tee, once extracted, there is little to trouble the golfer on the approach.   

However, was it always this way, or was something lost to time??








On the approach, the green sits invitingly open, without much in the way of risk for a short par five.



Some bunkering on the right around 100 yards from the green seems a bit disjointed with any hole strategies.



Two bunkers left and right sit fairly well away from the putting surface.



Looking back to the tee by the bay, the general openness of the hole is quite evident.




One is left to wonder what happened to aforementioned large grass pit guarding the front of the green?   Certainly something fundamental has changed, as this picture from the opening in 1914 indicates.

[TEPaul]

I wonder which holes are the 4-5 mentioned by Wilson about which he said were essentially created by pumping in fill from the marsh and then controlling the water level with sluice gates. Whatever they did in that vein down there in 1913 he claimed it was not working well. This was the area he attempted to get the US Government involved in fixing. The US Government (US Dept of Agriculture and the US Dept of Irrigation) declined saying it had nothing to do with agriculture.

[Mike_Cirba]

I wonder which holes are the 4-5 mentioned by Wilson about which he said were essentially created by pumping in fill from the marsh and then controlling the water level with sluice gates. Whatever they did in that vein down there in 1913 he claimed it was not working well. This was the area he attempted to get the US Government involved in fixing. The US Government (US Dept of Agriculture and the US Dept of Irrigation) declined saying it had nothing to do with agriculture.

Tom,

I've been looking for an excuse to post the original routing, as well as a modern day aerial;






I'm quite sure the holes that Wilson would have been talking about are seen down in the lower right hand corner, and include the second gree, third tee, sixth green, 7th hole, and the entire right side of the eighth hole, all of which border the wetland/grasslands/bayside edge of the course.

In fact, heavy rains during the four-day opening event closed off the 6th and 7th holes for one of the rounds, but in Tillinghast's account of the tournament, he was pleased that the sandy soil drained so well and that those holes were back in use for the afternoon round.

If you look at those areas, it is almost as if fill was used to create that section jutting into the reeds.

[Mike_Cirba]

It really is difficult to determine what exactly transpired on the 3rd hole over time.

Even the Donald Ross drawing indicates existing "rough hollows" short and left of the green, so that could have been part of what the original hole description spoke of when it said, "the green is guarded in front by a deep grassy pit".

In either case, there is no existing evidence of any such feature.

It also appears that the original Hugh Wilson version had three large sand pits alternating left, right, left, almost down the length of the hole along the sides.    Donald Ross called for pulling them tighter into the fairway, and adding a second one on the right up closer to the green, which would also provide protection for the 6th tee.

In reading his instructions, I did have to smile to learn that the "look" was important to these guys as well, much like today when he writes;

"Extension of Present Deep sand pit.   Keep it rugged in appearance"   

In any case, it looks as though over time the large, rugged, singular bunkers on each sides of the fairways shrunk considerably, and were formalized into sets of smaller bunkers.

Their distance from the main playing areas really keeps the hole from being as strategic as it could be, so although Ross had some good recommendations, there is no existing evidence that the bunkering schemes were ever brought closer to the lines of play.

[Mike_Cirba]

However, I would be remiss not to mention that it appears the bunker Ross wanted to add on the right side up near the green to protect the 6th tee appears to have been added, although that appears as multiple smaller bunkers today, as well.

I'm not sure that any of them have the prominence or high sanded faces that Ross instructed!

Hey...as an aside...is there better evidence anywhere that Ross built his bunkers in site specific and varied ways as opposed to the stereotypical grass faced bunkering style we've saddled his legacy with in modern times?

[Mike_Cirba]

Since this is generating such intense volume of discussion, perhaps we should move on to the 4th hole.   

 








A recurring theme at Seaview is that the direct line to the flag is rarely the preferred route.

So it is with the 4th where the optimum strategy is to flirt with the bunkers down the left side, which opens up the entrance to a very diagonal green complex, guarded by a bunker in the front right and a mound short.

From the tee, the best play is over the crossing bunkers on the left.



Other bunkers encroach from the right, but the approach angle from that side is very shallow.



A successful drive skirting past the bunkers on the left opens up the length of the green for the approach.



Coming in from the right, one can more easily see the mound fronting the green, as well as the shallow angle.



Viewed from behind the right side and looking at the diagonal orientation of the green pointing back to the left side.



The better approach option as seen from the left side, circa 1914.  Not much has changed about this hole's basic strategy since that time.

[TEPaul]

This is the hole with the ultra narrow green, is it not? Do you think it was originally designed that way?

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom,

There are a few holes with ultra-narrow greens, including this one and the 15th as the smallest.

Some of Ross's recommendations included adding greenspace, but I don't see that any of that was actually done.

His recommendations for the 4th green, which I'll cover shortly, were not implemented, for instance. 

While there has been some loss of greenspace on the course overall, it is not as dramatic as some older courses we've seen, so some of them must have been quite smallish by original design, I believe.