[Mike Cirba]

Mark,

Your reply wasn't overly simplistic.

It was honest and heartfelt, and beautifully expressed.

Don't let anyone try to make you feel inferior or otherwise bully you on this site.  

That's their insecurities speaking.   Knowing lots of trivia is neither intelligence or wisdom, but I'm sure you already know that. 

[Tom MacWood]

Save the emotional mumbo jumbo for some other time and some other subject.

Mark cited Harding Park, Audubon in New Orleans, Torrey Pines, The Black, Brackenridge in San Antonio and Cedar Crest in Dallas.

Which of these courses was actually worth restoring (and why)?

And how many of these courses were in actuality redesigned and not restored?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Why would anyone respond to your obvious attempt to intimidate them into answering?

Why would they possibly care in the least, or think that doing so had any importance to their lives whatsoever?

Attempts to have actual conversations with you are fruitless and I'm certain that you've made that obviously clear to everyone in the past few weeks..

Take a hike, please.  How many interesting threads do you intend to ruin with your arrogance and bias?

Or, better yet,  learn some decent manners and have an actual discussion for a change.

[Tom MacWood]

Its only intimidating because the answer is either negative or illusive.

[Mike Cirba]

Its only intimidating because the answer is either negative or illusive.

No Tom...the only person under an illusion at this point is you.

That's a shame...it really, really is.

I've tried to keep things light-hearted, even humorous when discussion got a bit heated....when that didn't work, I tried for collegial, academic, or simply civil and professional.

Your behavior is rude and obnoxious and I used to think you were a lot better than that.

[Tom MacWood]

If you think my questions are tough, if you have any hope of restoring CC, and you get similar tough questions or tougher, and you respond by saying why would anyone respond to your obvious attempt to intimidate...how do you think that will go over?

[TEPaul]

"Tom Paul,
A professional Master Plan would simply be a way to get professional estimation of costs, of feasibility, of options, and to put that into something that could be used to market the idea, if it made sense and at that end of the day had perceived value to someone who might be a funding source.   
I'm certain it was done at other municipal restorations such as Breckenridge Park.   At the end of the day, to move forward you need to have a "product", and you need to know how much that product will cost, right?
Despite Kyle's assertions of professional working architects who don't think restoring Cobb's is worthwhile, some evidently do."



Mike:

Of course that’s the purpose of a master plan. And yes, of course that was done with Brackenridge Park. I saw the Brackenridge Park Master Plan when I went to Prairie Dunes in the summer of 2006. The man who was taking the Brackenridge restoration through the government of San Antonio brought it with him to show us. What he ended up doing was a lot more than just Brackenridge Park in San Antonio; apparently he also effectuated an upgrade with all the city’s public courses. I think he ended up raising something like $12 million on the entire project including restoring Brackenridge’s historic clubhouse.

Where you are right now is probably about where he was in 2003 or something. I mentioned that fellow to you in some of our meetings here at the barn. To get to the next step it may be worthwhile bringing him here to Philadelphia and letting him look at the similarities and differences between Cobbs and Brackenridge as well as the similarities and differences in the way the government there and here work in this kind of area.

The point here is you and the others have done an awful lot to date but you just have to understand and appreciate that is only the first step in a project of this complexity because of what Cobbs is and who owns and runs it.

If this ever gets done and in the broad scheme of things when it is finally done and you look back on it all where you are now will seem like a distant memory. In the broad scheme of things it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference really whether some guy in Ohio like Tom MacWood thinks this project might be a redesign and not a restoration or that Cobbs is not restoration worthy. It frankly doesn’t matter that much in the broad scheme of things what anyone on GOLFCLUBALTLAS.com thinks about the project. A comprehensive Cobbs Creek restoration project is not going to be done solely because of GOLFCLUBATLAS and that is precisely what Joe Logan said when he first called me wondering what this was all about on here. But it can be a first step and it probably is.

There may be about 20-30 more steps this project will need to pass through if this thing ever does get done and one of the greatest obstacles to date is this bad economic climate.

But that’s no reason for you to give up on it. The important thing is to truly appreciate where you are now with this----eg at the beginning.

If you want to know what the next steps may be, a good place to start is by talking to that man I mentioned from San Antonio, and others like him in other cities who’ve been through this kind of thing before. I told you I spoke with him about this about a year ago or more. The next step is all about that kind of collaboration, in my opinion.

He took the proposal on Brackenridge right into their city council or government entity and pitched it and the city government at first completely blanched on him. So he pulled a Henry Kissinger on them----he closed up his briefcase right then and there and headed for the door but before he got there they said; “Hold on, pardner, come on back, sit down and let’s talk some more about this.” The rest is history----eg Brackenridge Park got restored and the rest of the city courses got retooled and apparently things worked out fine for all involved. But it was a long and complicated process, as these things invariably always are.

Again, in the broad scheme of things it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what some guy like Macwood or anyone else on this DG thinks about it----there’s no way any of them can kill it and there’s no way any of them can completely make it happen. The city government and the players who may become involved in this with raising money and carrying it through don’t even know who he is or frankly most anyone else on here and if they did they probably couldn’t care less what he thinks.

If they want to do it they will but it will take a whole lot more steps and time to overcome the numerous obstacles to get there.



PS:
By the way, the arguments and differences of opinion are just part of the deal. Anyone who has ever been involved in one of these restoration or master plan projects at any course that makes it through to completion knows that. Frankly, it seems like it's completely inevitable. But again, if it ever does get done you will probably not even remember what is going on on here now. It will seem like a distant memory, if you even remember it or think of it at all.

[TEPaul]

Mike:

You know, there may be a certain historic poignancy with this Cobbs Creek project in that Philadelphia seems to be trailing behind so many other metropolitan areas again in this way with their public course, just as it was when Cobbs was built in the first place.

That historic poignancy probably fits pretty well into W.C. Fields's interesting and personal remark about Philadelphia----eg "If the world comes to an end, go to Philadelphia because it's about thirty years behind the times." 

[Joe Bausch]

That historic poignancy probably fits pretty well into W.C. Fields's interesting and personal remark about Philadelphia----eg "If the world comes to an end, go to Philadelphia because it's about thirty years behind the times." 

That reminds me of the story my mother tells concerning when our family was moving from Michigan to Evansville, IN.  My parents were flying into Evansville to house hunt.  As the plane lands, the flight attendant said:  "Welcome to Evansville, Indiana.  Please set your watches back... ten years."

[TEPaul]

Joe:

That's sort of like that professional basketball star who was pretty much out in left field (overuse of drugs and such) who when told the plane he was getting on flying west would land an hour or so before it took off and he started screaming to let him get the hell off the plane because he wasn't ready to go flyin' in no time machine!

Another time zone example would be my great, great uncle, Waldorf Astor, about whom the label "eccentric millionaire" was created. He lost a simple congressional election in New York and got so pissed off he expatriated to England. At that time Greenwich Mean Time had come in and so no matter where in the world he was he refused to reset his watch and he insisted everyone use his Greenwich Mean Time even if it meant holding a meeting in another time zone in the middle of the night.

PS:
As per your Evansville Indiana story, I guess that means Evansville is twenty years ahead of Philadelphia, huh?

[Joe Bausch]

Joe:

That's sort of like that professional basketball star who was pretty much out in left field (overuse of drugs and such) who when told the plane he was getting on flying west would land an hour or so before it took off and he started screaming to let him get the hell off the plane because he wasn't ready to go flyin' in no time machine!

That is a classic and apparently true story.  It is re-told frequently by Bob Costas as he witnessed it.  The team was the St. Louis Spirits of the ABA and they had finished a game I think against the Louisville Catbirds.  They were to board a 10 AM flight from Louisville (Eastern time zone) back to StL (central time zone) and land at 9:55.  Everybody had boarded the plane, but Marvin Barnes was missing.  Somebody (?Costas) went back out to look for him and there he was, sitting in the same chair.  His response, while pointing at the boarding pass showing the take-off and landing time:  "I ain't getting on no time machine!".

[TEPaul]

You know Joe, here's an alternative scenario for the Cobbs Creek restoration committee. If we can all manage to slow things down in Philadelphia by about another 50-60 years so we could add that on to the thirty years we're already behind times that would mean we wouldn't need to restore Cobbs Creek at all---essentially it would be done for us in reverse time. What the heck, if we go back that far we might even get a chance to speak with that good-for-nothing, shit-for-brains golf architecture novice, Hugh I. Wilson, who's been iconized in the years since! Or better yet, you guys go speak with him----as for me, I'm goin' down around the 6th hole at the West course and have a dozen or two pops with good old Freddie Pickering and the Boys!

You're right, that was the guy----Marvin Barnes. There was another story about him in the paper recently. They say that guy really could've been some superstar if he wasn't so whacked out so often.

[Mark Molyneux]

It's a snow day in Philly though the Golf Show's first day in town is today, let me take a minute to request a technical assist in deciphering the original routing at Cobbs. If I read the chart correctly, holes 1 through 5 are essentially unchanged (and I was amazed to see the open, playable space to the left of 5!). Hole 6 in the original plan appears to be a lot of the present #7 but playing to a different green site, to the right. The old #7 looks to be the present 12th and the original 8 and 9 follow the basic path of the current 13 and a truncated 14? They seem to have taken the end of what is now 14 to carve out a par 3 #10 in the original... is that about right? The old 11th became 15 in the revised routing. The old 12th must be some downhill shot from the hill to the present 6th green. Wow! That could be scary with the creek meandering nearby. The old 13th became much of the current #7 but the tee was probably forward of the present RTJ-tyle landing strip tee so that nobody on the preceding par three was firing over other players' heads to hit the par 3, even though I understand that wasn't out of the question back in the day (see historical references to putting out at the Binniekill). The old #14 went away in the interest of national defense. I'm presuming that this was the hole that impinged on Delaware County turf and which eventually gave way to the driving range. The old 15 through 17 are what we now play as 9, 10, and 11, which leaves that long walk to the current and past 18th.

That sound about right?

Loved TEP's alternative scenario, restoring Cobbs in reverse time!

On balance, I guess I'd rather be in Philadelphia. Though I'm not sure that's actually on W.C. Fields' tombstone. My favorite Fields' golf quote, which is hanging here in the office as I compose this note: (as he put whiskey in his golf bag) "I always keep a supply of stimulants handy in case I see a snake, which I also keep handy."

[Joe Bausch]

Mark, here is the original routing for Cobb's as published in the 1915 Philly Inky.  Note, some of the yardages are off a bit (like #13 was 540, not 450).

[Mike Cirba]

Mark,

The first five holes were the same, correct, with 5 having a double fairway split by the creek much as today.

That's when things got interesting.

You have to imagine but then the original architects decided to solve the issue of the hilly sloped terrain by going from the lowest point to virtually the highest in one shot by making a right hand turn and driving from the 6th tee (the one across the creek) to today's 16th hole.   A working architect we walked the course with recentlly compared the hole to the 18th at Riviera, and former USGA President Joe Dey profiled the hole in an article in the Philly newspapers back then.   The drive rose about 80 feet, and the hole played 380 very long yarsds.

Then, the 7th and 8th holes were today's 12 & 13, then one drove from the back of today's 14th tee and played a par four to today's 7th green as hole #9.

The 10th was a par three from today's 8th tee to today's 14th green.   #11 started from a tee right near that little stone building as played as a par five to today's 15th green.

The 12th was a par three from near today's 14th green to a  drop shot island-green where today's 6th green is.

Then, you crossed the creek again to a tee on the other side and played a par five, up through today's City Ave. driving range, to today's 8th green as #13.

The original 14th hole didn't last long.   It played as a par three from around the miniature golf course, across the City Ave. driving range parking lot, over the creek to a green on the other side.    This hole was abandoned about 1926 when today's 17th hole was built, which is not original.

The 15th hole is today's 9th, but teed off in the grassy patch right along City Avenue along the parking lot of the driving range.

The 16th hole was today's 10th, but to the wild greensite (the "Tie Fighter" as named by Geoff Walsh) instead of today's neutered affair.

The 17th hole was today's 11th, and then one had to walk through the valley of today's 17th hole, and up the hill to the 18th tee, which was originally located about 40 yard further left and back a little, beyond the 14th green of the Karakung course, and which offered a great view of the Philly skyline.

The original architects could not remove any trees, so had to find holes around them, which is likely why the 17th hole wasn't built originally.   It's such a great hole that any restoration could never replace it, frankly, and it was there at the high-water mark of the course during the 1928 US Publinks tournament, and there's another 20 reasons or so why we think not trying to replace the original 14th hole is the prudent move.

Hope this helps!

[Mike Cirba]

Mark,

This old thread details the discovery process, and includes a wealth of old pictures and articles, some of which I think you'll enjoy.

Good for a snow day! 

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,31872.0/

[Kyle Harris]

The original architects could not remove any trees, so had to find holes around them, which is likely why the 17th hole wasn't built originally. 

I think this is the key to understanding the entire decision making process in terms of site selection and routing choices.

Do you think they made the right turn to go up the hill on the original 6th because they didn't have any real way to seperate from the creek until that point?

[Mike Cirba]

I think this is the key to understanding the entire decision making process in terms of site selection and routing choices.

Do you think they made the right turn to go up the hill on the original 6th because they didn't have any real way to seperate from the creek until that point?

Kyle,

With all due respect, I’m not sure I agree.   While understanding that it’s always dangerous to try to assume exactly what these guys were thinking, if I had to guess I’d say they primarily created the original 6th hole to provide 1) drama and 2) routing functionality.  

Although the issue of having to route around existing trees certainly impeded their choices in some obvious portions of the property (for instance, they couldn’t create a more dramatic 4th hole with a tee either up in the rocks behind today’s tee or over on the left creating a more interesting angle), they really had no such restrictions coming off the 5th green.

In fact, as seen on this old aerial using the red line, they could have followed the exact route of today’s 7th hole, which as you know is one of the “replacement holes” (probably the best of the bunch, IMO that followed losing 15 acres to the Nike Missile range in the 50s.



So, they certainly didn’t have to turn 90 degrees and drive to an elevation of over 80 feet, creating what had to be brute of a hole in the days of hickory, and one that would certainly create intimidation even with today’s equipment.

Instead, as mentioned, I think they did this for two reasons.   First, if nothing else, and as utilitarian as they could be, Wilson and Crump were also guys with a refined sense of scale and flair for the dramatic.   Certainly, the locations of the greensites on many of the holes at Cobb’s (not to mention Merion and Pine Valley) are simply exquisitely placed along natural hazards and terrain in a way that creates inherent conflict and drama.   Neither was the slightest bit averse to dramatically uphill tee shots as seen on PV’s 4th or Merion’s 18th.   So, I think they saw the opportunity to create a bold statement and did so, especially when you consider that the hillside in question was treeless at that time.

But I also think they did it for routing utility and function.   At the 5th green/6th tee  they were essentially at the lowest point of the property and once out to that section of the course they had a large sloping hillside to consider which essentially ran the length of the section, and was almost shaped like a wedge.

By creating the 6th hole, and confronting that hillside straight on as they did (much like Flynn attacked the slopes directly at Lehigh with holes like the 4th and 8th) they were able to get from the lowest point to virtually the highest in one fell swoop.   From there, they were then able to diagonally cross-hatch themselves hole by hole down somewhat diagonally down the hillside, before returning to the low point of the creek again at 13 and 14 before circling back up with the original 15th and 16th short par fours.

I think it allowed them to maximize the number of holes they could get in that part of the property while only creating very few steep climbs, no really steep sidehill holes, and only one steep downhill hole (the gorgeous and dramatic drop shot 12th).

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

Good points, all. Your second point about routing functionality is essentially what I am driving at.

In turning right (and not going up the path of the current seventh) they also opened up the possibility for the drop shot 12th. I think it's possible that because they had to get from Point A near the clubhouse to Point B in the "open" portion of the property they were really cornered with the routing and did the best they could to get to the 6th Green. How else do you get there? Where else could you go and make the loop? I think we can safely speculate that this is the reason for the gaps between 3rd green and 4 tee and for the use of the creek in such a risky manner for those holes - they had no other options.

The problem with the current routing is actually the 7th hole, since it does nothing to break up the direction of holes and essentially locks off the use of the creek for the rest of the round. In fact, the only other course that I can think of that has so many consecutive holes proceeding in the relative same direction is Mountain Lake where the 4th through 9th hole all zigzag in a generally south direction. Had they proceeded down the creek, they would not have been able to turn right until hitting Route 1 (much like today) and would have cut off using the creek for 12 and 13.

I am a little amazed that the 12th tee was so close to the 6th fairway. I don't have quite the knowledge of the topography, but I think if one were to play out to the left more the slope is not nearly as sleep and the hillside would be much more manageable with the cost of playing further away from the green (think of the 18th hole at Gulph Mills - there was once the option to play well out to the right and not confront nearly as steep of an upslope off the tee).

Either way, the old 6th is a unique hole that still baffles me to this day. I'm not quite sold that it was better than where the current tee is located, but I'll be darned to think of anything else like it.

[Mark Molyneux]

Joe, Mike, and Kyle-

Thanks for the clarifications. I had the transition on number 12 exactly opposite, down; not up the hill and I had the distance off by quite a margin. The way Mike described the rise from the tee made me think of another monster climb from the tee of a par four... Summit CC out near Loretto, PA. The climbs must have been of the same order.

The diagram of the original routing and the specificity of the accompanying remarks made it all clear. I have to admit that I was shocked to learn that the present #17 was NOT part of the course until 1946. It is an excellent hole though it remains distinct from much of the rest of the design. If I can add that Mike's observations regarding how the bunkering actually softened the course in many respects, were right on target.

An interesting couple of side notes about Cobbs... I have a scorecard, probably from the 1970s that calls Cobbs the West Overbrook Golf Course. I also recall a mid-1970s encounter with the rough on the left side of #1 (which could've actually been #17 at that time b/c they were starting play across the road). I hacked the ball out and across the creek but not before noting an owl in the branches above my head with a three or four foot snake in its claw. This is the same course that harbored the wandering cougar circa 1995 wasn't it? All that and still within a "stout brassie of the 69th Street shopping district"!

When's the last time the Olde Course had a serviceable driving range? The ground is there. What's the problem?

Mark

[Mike Cirba]

Mark,

Glad you enjoyed.

Two minor corrections I'd mention on your response.

The 12th hole was indeed downhill; a drop shot par three to today's 6th green from what today is the wooded hillside.  The green also had a "sluiceway" wrapping around the right side of it, in effect creating one of the first island greens.

The original 6th was the one playing steeply uphill from today's 6th tee across the creek straight over the 7th tee up the hill to the 16th green.

Finally, today's 17th hole was created in 1926, at which point the original 14th hole in the parking lot of today's City Line driving range was abandoned.


And yes...I recall when a cougar was spotted a number of times on the golf course.   Just part of the natural hazards, I guess. 

[Mike Cirba]

With the number of threads on GCA recently related to "growing the game", and the state of golf in what are very uncertain times, it was with a bit of nostalgia that I came across this old article today....even with 6 or 7 hour rounds!  

Sorry for the photo overlap on the article..

[Mike Cirba]

Despite recent efforts here to posthumously tarnish his impeccable reputation as a journalist, William Evan for decades (along with AW Tililnghast), was THE public voice of Philadelphia golf.

From the beginning of last century, both men served the game by providing in-depth, accurate, and knowledgeable reporting about golf, and reported from "the inside", being friends and neighbors with most of the important movers and shakers of the time.

What's more, both men were aggressive advocates and were almost zealotous in their promotion of the game in every which way, including the movement to build the first public course in the city of Philadelphia.

The following article, once again courtesy of the outstanding research work of Joe Bausch, summarizes 20 years of those efforts to bring a superb public course to Philadelphia, and in a single column somehow manages to;

1) Provide additional documentation of George Crump's involvement at Cobb's Creek
2) Prove that these amateur sportsmen did their architectural work simply for the love of the game
3) Chronicle the persistence required from these men against difficult obstacles to reach their goals.
4) Call the architects involved (i.e. Wilson, Crump, Smith, et.al) "constructionists", "experts", and "architects" who "laid out" the course at Cobb's Creek, apparently unaware that using such language would cause tumultuous and damaging after-shocks in both Los Angeles, CA, and Columbus, OH nearly a century later.    
5) Call attention to the challenges these men faced in their quest by having to route the course in a public park around EVERY and ALL existing trees
6) Exhibit insider, detailed knolwedge of over 20 years of Philadelphia Golf history.

It's pretty sad that this early and effective advocate for golf in Philadelphia has been subject to having his reputation posthumously besmirched by those who for some unfathomable reasons just don't seem to like or accept the truths he vigorously and unerringly reported, but at this juncture, I think his writing pretty much just speaks for itself;

[Mike Cirba]

by the way, wouldn't "Strangler Lewis" be a great name for an architect, even though we know he was a wrestler?  

I think more archies should go by descriptive nicknames. "Tilly the Terror" comes to mind, and the use of such in modern times would certainly add some dramatic marketing color and punch to a sometimes too dry endeavor.  

[Joe Bausch]

My guess would be the archies had planned a much longer hole for the 18th.  Perhaps even having the tee near the little used current 17th tee and have a par 5 that crosses a deep valley off the tee, then along a flat area before running down to the green pretty much along the current 18th FW.  This would be a long one for its day, probably about 550 yards.

And you know what the above means, right?  It suggests the sure hand of William Flynn was not the sole architect!   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()