As regards the bunkering work done by Wilson in the first iterations of Merion, Cobb’s Creek, and Seaview, I’m not sure why Tom MacWood is ignoring what those who were there at the time wrote, but perhaps he can explain that. I’m not sure how he explains that Merion became one of the best and most sophisticated examples of bunkering the world has even seen in the 9 years between 1915 and his death in 1924, but I’m sure he’ll find a way.
Tilly wrote in the American Cricketer in Feb 1913:
"...Merion is at present in a very early stage; consequently we must regard it as the foundation from which there will gradually rise the structure of the builder's plans. To attempt an analysis of some of the holes today would be manifestly unfair, fo rthey are not nearly so advanced as others, and yet some day the very holes which now are rather uninteresting and featurelss may be among the best of all."
..."Even after the course is thoroughly trapped it will be difficult to figure the part figures at more than 70, and yet few players will approach this score."
..."As I have said already, comparatively few traps have been placed. The Committee wisely desires this to be the work of time. The Mid-surrey scheme of grass hollows and mounts has been introduced in some places, although not to a considerable degree. Every hazard is more or less experimental, and when the real digging is started, the pits and mounds will be sufficiently terrifying, I am told."
Alex Findlay wrote the following for a local paper in September 1912:
"There are a few nice water hazards, and also a few sand ones, but the placing of the mental hazards, etc., will be left until spring. One can by that time find places wherein shots will lie, and place hazards accordingly."
And this from Far and Sure upon opening, published Februay 1913;
"It is too early to attempt an analytical criticism of the various holes for many of them are but rough drafts of the problems, conceived by the construction committee, headed by Mr. Hugh I. Wilson. Mr. Wilson visited many prominent British courses last summer, searching for ideas, many of which have been used."
Now concerning Cobb's Creek, which was being built starting early 1915 and opened end of May 1916:
This from Verdant Greene of the Philly Inquirer, shortly before Cobb's Creek opened:
"...but with good weather, May 1 will see little more to be done except in the way of putting in traps and bunkers, a job likely to require two or three seasons. As there are an abundance of natural hazards such as trees, water and boulders no one need worry over the lack of artificial embellishment thus far."
..."However, it is probably that some of the trees and stones will be eliminated to compensate for the pits and bunkers added. Bothersome as some of them will prove, it was best that they should remain indefinitely, inasmuch as several months experience may be necessary to demonstrate beyond dispute just what hazards should be added and where."
Another article a month before CC opened said:
"Most of the trapping and pitting will go over til next year, as those in charge do not think it advisable to make the course too stiff a proposition in its early stages. The rolling country which makes up the course and the fact that the creek guards quite a number of greens are sufficient at present to make the course difficult. As hundreds of golfers who are just learning the game, not to mention other hundreds who will learn the game at Cobb's Creek will make up the bulk of the players, a too stiff course would hardly be suitable."
And one more:
"Very little bunkering has been done yet, and the course will not be made harder for a year or so, for those who laid it out realize that it will be played over by a host of persons who have never played golf before, and no effort will be made to make it too difficult for them until they have reached the point where their golf will admit of stiffer bunkering."
The same thing was true at Seaview.
I believe some thought the idea was to wait to decide where hazards were best placed after seeing a course in action. And with Merion and CC, both after opening the amount of play they received was very high (Cobb's almost completely with beginners, but if you believe the first article above, Merion had plenty of newbies as well) and the natural hazards present made them plenty hard for the majority of the players. And maybe this played a role in Merion appearing to be slow to add more bunkers.
But, for those like Tom MacWood who have never been to Cobb’s Creek, I thought perhaps this sampling of admittedly “amateurish” photographs taken on a dreary winter day might perhaps at least give some idea of the rolling property (although pictures really tend to "flatten" the features and these are no exception), the green placements, as well as the shaping of the man-made features and relatively few bunkers, most of which you can see serve as “saving” features.
I thought it might be interesting for folks to also see the original 15th hole (today’s 10th), which originally had the one-off “tie fighter” green with large fronting and rear bunkers, and at one time evidently had large mounds to each side.
My contention is that at the time they were built holes like this one, or the 12th at Garden City, were novelties even at that time, and were meant to create something discussion-worthy. As you see, this was probably even referred to as some type of “Alps” or punchbowl replica.
The hole plays steeply uphill, and is just under 300 yards, par four.
From the tee, out of bounds is down the left and the property slopes steeply off to the right down into the woods on that side…
The hillside climb to the top of the hill..
Once reaching the crest, the old fronting bunker still provides a blind approach clearly meant to intimidate.
A long drive well up the right side might give a peek of the green for the approach.
Even with shrinkage, today’s green is still a larger (although sadly flatter) target than it appears from the fairway.
Looking back from behind the green towards the tee.
Jim Kennedy,
As I mentioned earlier, our intent would be to keep prices the same for city residents, less for juniors, and have a slightly higher surcharge for out-of-city residents.
Anything else would be outside the scope of what anyone wants to do.