[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Based on your analysis of Ross's proposed changes for Seaview, what percentage would you say were implemented?  

What do you make of his continued references to "existing" features including bunkers, mounding, etc?   What do you make of the fact that much of the features that exist today, including bold bunkering, were described in the hole by hole analysis of October 1914, well before Ross arrived?    What do you make of the fact that there was already a future mid-Surrey bunkering plan in place by January 1915, as referenced by Joe Bunker?

As you know, Ross didn't arrive until May 1915.  

Could you tell us which holes at Seaview you think benefitted the most from implementation of Ross's proposed changes?

[Tom MacWood]

Its difficult to know what percentage was implemented because some of his features have not survived. In determining who deserves credit the better question is what percentage of the design features are Ross's and what percentage are original, and I'd say its about 75% is Ross, and that is being conservative.

[Mike Cirba]

Its difficult to know what percentage was implemented because some of his features have not survived. In determining who deserves credit the better question is what percentage of the design features are Ross's and what percentage are original, and I'd say its about 75% is Ross, and that is being conservative.

Could you give us a few hole examples where his proposed changes made the biggest impact in your view?

[Tom MacWood]

I think one hole by hole analysis of Seaview is the more than enough.

[JESII]

I think one hole by hole analysis of Seaview is the more than enough.

Really?

I think the opportunity to compare and contrast would be pretty interesting.

[TEPaul]

Good question on #452. The answer on #453 is a predictable euphemism for "I don't know."

[Mike Cirba]

I think Ross's best contribution was to the 1st hole along the right side.

I do wish they had implemented a number of his other recommendations, particularly the center bunker complex on the original 9th and the North Berwickian proposed 8th with two separate greens in an island of sand with a deep swale between that would have been an awesome contribution to the otherwise mundane drive and pitch hole with some simple deep oval bunkers fronitng today's green.



His proposed changes to the original controversial punchbowl mashie approach to the short par four 5th would have been a vast improvement as well, IMHO.   Unfortunately, today' greensite has neither the flamboyance of the original or the finesse of Ross's ideas, so although the drive is an interesting one to a plateau fairway, the approach is rather dull.

[Tom MacWood]

For anyone interested in hole by hole analysis here you go. Shouldn't the title be changed to Robinson or Donald Ross or Robinson/Wilson or Donald Ross??

"Wilson or Donald Ross?? - A Historical Retrospective Analysis"  http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,38042.0/

Its difficult for me to understand how anyone would try to discount Ross's contribution. He inherited a mostly bunkerless golf course on a flat featureless site and converted it into a golf course that became known for its beautiful bunkering. Here is another of the many Seaview threads designed to boost the reputation of Hugh Wilson.

"Seaview: Wilson laid out the course, Ross did the trapping"  http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42596.0/

Here is old aerial of the golf course that illustrates the bunkering.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Donald Ross arrived at Seaview in May 1915

As the October, 1914 hole by hole analysis shows, Seaview was hardly bunkerless when opened, and before Donald Ross arrived.

In this December 1914 article, Joe Bunker describes the course.



A lot of what you see on that aerial are the sandy waste rough areas that separated the holes that seem to have been there on purpose as seen in this August 1913 article.
 






One of the most distinctive holes at Seaview is the little pitch shot par three along the road.   On the thread I did last winter, I compared the original 1914 "pre-Ross" hole description with Ross's drawings and then tried to determine what was there prior and which if any of Ross's proposed changes were implemented.   Here's an example;


The next two holes at Seaview are two wonderful, back to back par threes, one measuring over double the distance of the other.

When one walked off the 14th green at Seaview with the original hole sequencing, he would have just played 3 par threes in the last 4 holes, a very unusual configuration, but a worthwhile one as all of the holes are quite good.

Beginning with the diminutive 13th, the proverbial short pitch to the well-protected green, made troublesome by ever-present sea breezes just waiting for a ball slightly mis-hit, or hit on too high a trajectory.







From the tee, the challenge of pitching to the table-top green is clear.



The view from just short and right of the green.



From right of the green, one can see how quickly the green falls off on all sides.



Long is definitely wrong..



The backing bunker runs the breadth of the green..



Walking to the 14th tee, the backing mounds are evident.



This 1920 aerial with the tee to the left shows a green and bunkering much like today's, with just some bunker "shrinkage" evident in today's aerial.





Ross's recommendations for the 13th were to essentially almost encircle the green with sand by moving the right front bunker closer to the direct line of play (it appears the back bunker and right side bunker were on long continuous bunker at that time), and create a running depression in the back of the green.  He also wanted to add 15 feet to the back of the green which was not done.

None of those proposals seem obviously to have been followed, although it may be that the right front bunker was brought more into the line of play in front and perhaps the back of the green raised a bit, but it's nothing that's easily determined today..



Tom,

This might be fun to go through again?

Should we cover all 18 holes??  

[Mike Cirba]

Here is another of the many Seaview threads designed to boost the reputation of Hugh Wilson.

"Seaview: Wilson laid out the course, Ross did the trapping"  http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,42596.0/

Tom,

I don't understand?  

Are you saying that Joe Bausch is guilty of starting threads here designed to somehow artificially or disengenuously "boost the reputation of Hugh Wilson"?   

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Here's one where Ross's recommendations were followed pretty closely.   The theme of the carry bunkers for the second shot on the par five seems to have been part of the hole since inception, however.


Next, we come to the 16th, and we find the earliest version I know of outside of St. Andrews where a par five features a Hells Half Acre type crossing bunker feature that the second shot must either carry or layup short of on a par five.







The broad expanse of fairway from the tee on 16, with the only trouble coming for a drive overcooked to the left...



..where a drive catching the fairway bunker leaves no chance of carrying the cross bunkers on the second.



A drive down the middle however, with today's technology, not only allows one to carry the cross bunkers but the distant flag is also reachable.



The cross bunkers, looking from right to left.   The large mounds around the green are evident in the distance.



The approach shot most people face for their third.



Most of the trouble around the green are the mounds, although there is a bunker to the right.



The green looking back towards the left hand cross bunker.




The 1920 aerial shows much the same hole as todays..




Of any hole at Seaview, the 16th seems to have been influenced by Ross's recommendations.

The original hole was supposedly 500 yards, and at that distance, the green may have been a bit too close to the line of play for the opening tee shot on the first hole.

Ross recommended moving the green "back" 20 yards and slightly about 17 yards to the right from the original line, which on his drawing shows the green starting exactly 100 yards from the middle crossing bunker, which is exactly where it starts today.

He also recommended that large mounds be built behind the green, again likely for safety reasons, which was done.   However, if a plateau for the back half of the green was ever built per Ross's drawing and advice, no evidence exists today, sadly.


Do you want to go through others?

[TEPaul]

"Its difficult for me to understand how anyone would try to discount Ross's contribution. He inherited a mostly bunkerless golf course on a flat featureless site and converted it into a golf course that became known for its beautiful bunkering. Here is another of the many Seaview threads designed to boost the reputation of Hugh Wilson."





I agree, but I don't believe I know anyone who's familiar with the architectural history of Seaview who has discounted Ross's  constribution or has tried to. In years past some came to assume Seaview was entirely a Ross course and obviously it isn't. Between 1913 when it was begun and put into play in 1914 and 1915 when Ross first arrived it was designed by apparently a number of experts collaboratively including Hugh Wilson who for some good reason seems to have been given credit contemporaneously numerous times as the architect of Seaview.

If one cares deeply about who exactly did what between that 1913-15 period and when Ross arrived in May 1915 and offered bunkering schemes and afterwards, I think Mike Cirba and Joe Bausch have done and continue to do a fine job in explaining the details. I'm not sure I can see what you've contributed to any of this Tom MacWood other than to divert the subject and purposefully refused to answer Cirba's questions about what you think happened in detail hole by hole. Apparently you just don't know hole by hole and I assume that's why you failed to answer his question, and merely offered a response like the one quoted above that doesn't offer anything at all.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

This might be fun to go through again?

Should we cover all 18 holes??  

Go for it. I think everyone would love to see another hole by hole comparison of Seaview. What would be most helpful is comparing the original Robinson course vs the Ross course graphically by using the modern aerial you have. In other words superimpose Ross's drawings over the modern aerial and shade the original Robinson bunkers and original Robinson greens so we can easily compare.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Thanks for your insightful, detailed posts.   

[Joe Bausch]

Just today I uncovered a Jan 1915 article by Tilly where he talks
some about the opening of Seaview.  In it he says that Wilson laid
out some of the holes.

[Tom MacWood]

My guess is that he laid out the four new holes on the higher ground.

[TEPaul]

Indeed. But does Tilly's 1915 article in any way indicate or suggest that four holes is all Hugh Wilson designed at Seaview? That is the first question. Who could disagree that first question is an appropriate question?

Or alternatively, did any of the numerous contemporaneous newspaper articles that attributed the design of Seaview to Hugh Wilson mention that he only designed four holes of Seaview? Did any article back then suggest that anyone else designed the rest?

Why did so many contemporaneous newspaper articles (most all apparently found relatively recently) report that Hugh Wilson was the designer of Seaview?

Does anyone think that all those articles back then which were fairly contemporaneous to the creation of the course that attributed the design of Seaview to Wilson were trying to somehow inaccurately or unfairly idolize of iconize Hugh Wilson for something he did not do?

[TEPaul]

"My guess is that he laid out the four new holes on the higher ground."

Is it too much to ask you to explain what you have informationally to support your "GUESS?"  

Personally, I think GOLFCLUBATLAS.com should become far more aware of your constant and regular post and response QUALIFIERS to the important subject information on here----eg:


1. To my knowledge
2. My understanding is
3. My guess

I feel those kinds of qualifiers are welcome and honest if they only emanate from  personal opinion and not much more to back it up. I would do and say the same myself if that was all I had. What do you have?

[Mike Cirba]

It may be that Wilson only designed those four holes yet we know he was there and writing P+O two months prior to the hurricane which begs the question what he was doing there if not helping design the course.

A month before he wrote P+O William Evans wrote that Wilson had laid out the course.  This was a full three months before the hurricane so one has to wonder what he was doing there at that point.

Or, it may be that he was one of the "experts" with prior ecperience reported to have laid out the course two months prior to then, in Aug 1913, or just two monthws after project inception.

Or, it could be that Tillinghast was busy designing a course in Florida that winter and when he came home to referee the matches at Seaview's opening, saw his old friend Wilson and asked what he was doing taking notes and Wilson replied,"oh...I'm just measuring things...I laid out some of the holes and want to see how they're playing."

My guess is number three but hope to learn more on a future trip to AC this winter.

[Tom MacWood]

I could be wrong, but I believe Wilson was still focused on the completion of the West course at Merion when he wrote his first Seaview letter to P&O.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I could be wrong too, but I ind evidence of Wilson's earlier involvement based on Evans claim a month before in Oct 1913 that Wilson had been Geist's right hand man and had laid out the course.

Of course, that doesn't negate Robinson's role as the guy in charge, and I also believe other "experts" were part of that original routing; possibly Nicholls, Bispham, and others.  

I'm really hopeful our next visit will yield more definitive information...some of these early accounts are maddeningly vague and incomplete.

[Mike Cirba]

Just so everyone knows the timeframes again, the hurricane hit early in January, 1914.

By Valentine's Day, the plan was to build four new holes after giving up on reclaiming the originals;




Two weeks later, this article talks about a bunch of "experts" coming down shortly.   Would these possibly be the same "experts" who originally laid out the course, or someone different?




Recall that Evans claim about Wilson having "laid out" the course was nearly five months prior, in October 1913, and his first letter to P&O was November 1913.

I think there is more to discover here based on Tillinghast's phrasing of Wilson's role.

[Phil_the_Author]

Mike,

You wondered, "Or, it could be that Tillinghast was busy designing a course in Florida that winter and when he came home to referee the matches at Seaview's opening..."

Tilly left for Florida in mid-September of 1915. From there he went to San Antonio, arriving on September 30th where he spent the entire month and on into the beginning of November designing Brackenridge Park, Fort Sam Houston and redesigning the San Antonio CC. He even had time to write an article for the San Antonio Light about the Philadelphia Athletics baseball team. From there he travelled to Oklahoma and onto Iowa before returning home in late November/early December.

[Joe Bausch]

Here is the relevant part of the Tilly article from Jan 1915 concerning Wilson.

[Mike Cirba]

Very cool snippet, Joe.    

I guess the other possibility I didn't think about is that Wilson could have designed the original holes, but not the four "replacement" holes after the hurricane.

Or, that Tillinghast could have been aware of Wilson's involvement with one phase of construction but not the other..

Or, that Tillinghast knew Wilson had done the replacement holes himself, but knew a group of experts (including Wilson) had done the original and didn't want to slight anyone in a brief mention.

Or, that he cunningly knew he'd drive us a bunch of us wingnuts slightly more insane a century later and got a kick out of that.    


Phil,

Thanks for the info...

Was Tillinghast in Philadelphia from about 5-1913 through 6/1914 or in the fall of 1914?  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()