Joe,

   That third photo shows a nice view of #13 as a par five.

   For the casual observer it is the hole running from top to bottom on the photo on the far right portion. The trees in the middle are around #9 and then it falls off quickly to the fairway for #13.

 It looks like a fun hole because on the tee shot you try to keep it right avoiding the trees on the left and have it roll down into the fairway, then face decisions about whether you can get it up the ridge on your second shot for a view of the green on your approach.

 The way people hit the ball today they probably would want to consider recovering that old length as much as possible to keep drives away from #9 green. But, I love how the hill kept balls from that area.

PY:  that's good info.  I've not found anything like that thus far in my research of early Philly Inky articles, but I'm confident there are many other sources of info out there.  We'll likely be seeing some of them real soon.

Isn't it strange that all the bunkers are short/long of the green?  Simple cut bunkers; all on the low side (except 16, flat).  Pretty rudimentary features; I doubt that's Flynn.

Joe,

Thanks for pinch-hitting today and getting those aerials up.

Philip,

If we come across any of the proposed Tilly layouts, you'll certainly be the first to know.

Bill Hagel,

The green for the old #9 is visible right behind the tree(s) that are behind today's #8 tee.   There were no bunkers at the time at that green.

We don't know yet who designed #17 but the time period could have indicated Flynn...or even possibly Wilson.   We'll be doing more research later this month and should be able to learn more.  In any case, the bunkering on this hole is Flynn-like, I'd agree, but there are few cases on the course where that comparison could be made...possibly #2, but...that leads me to;

Eric/Kyle,

Similar to Seaview, and perhaps even Merion East (I'm unclear here, but suspect it's so), Cobb's Creek was laid out with very little bunkering when it opened.

Some of the thinking back then, which seems pretty sound on the face of it, was that one needed to see how the course played before adding a lot of artificial hazards, particularly when the land offered plenty of natural challenges and hazards.

In the case of Seaview, for whatever reason 2 years after Wilson designed it, Clarence Geist (who was also on the GAP Commission working to bring public golf to Philly) brought in Donald Ross to do the bunkering scheme, who was helped by the inhouse professional Wilfred Reid.   It's probable that Wilson was simply too busy with Cobbs Creek at the time, given that he spent SIX months on the layout, which was a huge shock to me.

I'm beginning to learn that Hugh Wilson was a very meticulous, detailed, fastidious, and likely perfectionist man, and it now seems much different to me when I think about the stories of him having Joe Valentine lay bedsheets in positions around the Merion course so that he could see what any proposed bunker might look like to the golfer's eye.

Along with that very disciplined methodology for course building, there were additional reasons for exercising caution in overburdening Cobbs Creek with artificial hazards and bunkering.  As Tillinghast explained in July of 1916, in an article where he said of the island-green 12th "Possibly there is not a prettier hole in the country from the purely scenic standpoint";

"Everything is new, but in another year or two the course will be as fine a test of golf as any one will wish.   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."

A number of other accounts of the time indicate that this was the thinking but also suggest that this was such good and challenging golfing ground, with such a number of "natural" hazards (the creek came into play on six holes), that the course was indeed not in need of more.   Tillinghast spoke of this in another article when he stated, "There are so many natural hazards that this problem has not been much of a bother to the golf architects."

In fact, most of the bunkers that are in place today, with the exception of those on 2, 10, and 17 would likely qualify as "saving" bunkers, where they prevent balls from running into even more difficult positions, either of which might serve to 1) delay play, and/or 2) put the golfer in such a disadvantageous position that he 1) delays play.  

And, even from the very beginning the course did prove challenging...immensely so.   In the first tournament held there the winner finished around 161 for two rounds...and won by 9 shots!

In the 1928 USGA Publinx tourney, ten over par for two rounds won medal.

Even during the 50s when the PGA tour came to town for the Daily News Open and played on today's course at around 6200 yards, (somewhat ironically for purposes of this discussion, BILLY CASPER played), the winning scores for four rounds were +2 and -3.  

In an article I can't find at the moment, Cobbs Creek professional Horace Gamble around 1920 or so started a local brouhaha when he had the temerity to suggest that Cobbs Creek was a more difficult test of golf than Pine Valley.

After a firestorm of local backlash from the private clubs in Philadelphia, Gamble tried to explain himself in a more politically correct fashion by saying that Cobbs Creek had much more challenge in the way of "natural" hazards, where Pine Valley needed to incorporate extensive bunkering, and that in tournament competitions, he had fared far better scorewise playing Pine Valley than he was ever able to at Cobbs Creek.

Tommy N,

Do you still need me to send the jpg files, or can you grab them here?

Mike, the article you read referring to Horace Gamble was written by Perry Lewis with this citation:

Paper: Philadelphia Inquirer, published as The Philadelphia Inquirer; Date: 03-25-1919; Volume: 180; Issue: 84; Page: 12; Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

The original article to which this one was referring was a Sunday or two earlier (March 16, 1919) but the database that I have access to for early Inquirer articles occasionally is missing a day here or there... and this Sunday happens to be one of them.  But don't worry, I have that year coming on microfilm so we can see exactly what he said.  :-)

I'm not sure if it was disdain, but I gathered from the article that the players were attempting to form a club for the purpose of membership in the GAP to play in the events. That Mr. Bunker was so perplexed and went on to cite what the GAP did for the club seemed a bit disingenuous, why not just come out and give the reasons and perhaps even offer an alternative method.

Definitely off the topic, just struck me as somewhat ironic.

I sincerely believe he felt threatened by some of the talent that may have been developing, especially if the difficulty of the course was held in such high esteem!

Hey Tommy Nac...

Where's that promised thing that's going to make mine and Joe's head spin on an axis?  

Mike, the problem is his head is spinning so fast in the other direction from the fine showing this past football season of that school in northwestern Hoosier-land that he has to be careful.  

Guys,

Did I mention that this thread is a COFODIFRZ (college football discussion free zone)?    

Besides, I can't think of a single team out there besides Hawaii that has any right to talk trash at the moment.  Talk about collective meltdowns at the threshold of greatness!  

There I go breaking my own rule.

Hugh Wilson would be displeased!!!  



 

Kyle,

That's a really good question and I've thought about it a lot today.   Especially considering the fact that today almost all of us are such bunker afficianado's (with the possible exception of Sean Arble, and on a philosophical level, Tom Paul) and most of us can't conceive of a great course with little or no bunkering.  

For many of us, it's how we define strategy.  (i.e. drive it close to the bunker, get a dog biscuit)  

And, from a marketing perspective, it would certainly add some splash, flash, and pizazz to any "restoration" PR, as it would certainly look wonderful to view rough-hewn Flynnsian bunkers cut across those hillsides in the press photos.

And, given some of the potential folks involved, they would certainly all do a fine job in emulating both the style and strategic substance exhibited by both Wilson and Flynn.

However, I have to wonder if that's the purpose here...

For instance, Hugh WIlson lived another eight years after Cobbs Creek opened.   During that time he never saw fit to come back over and fuss with it.

And, this is not Bethpage Black, nor is it Harding Park, or East Lake.   This course is not being restored to host some touring professionals 4 days every 10 years, but if we can pull it off, it's being restored because this was Hugh Wilson, and George Crump, and the Philadelphia School of Design, and because the course has wonderful historic value, and historic civil rights value, and golf value.   If we're able to restore Cobbs Creek, it should be because it's the right thing for us to do as golfers who care about the game living in this region.

And, ultimately, because the people who will be playing Cobbs Creek now and in the future are largely the same ones who have been playing it for the past 91 years...the little guy, the average guy, and the guy who stands on the elevation of the 18th tee and views the city skyline and suddenly feels interconnected with the larger whole that is the character of this metropolis, and for that person, and for 99.9% of the rest of us, the challenge of the course that Hugh Wilson and friends laid out is more than enough.

Looking at some of those aerials shows me the bunkers have shrunk a bit (especially those around the ninth green) to the point where today, any strategic or "shock" value of their appearance has dwindled.

I think any bunker restoration needs to focus on how they fit in the general sense of "scale" with the place. I don't think it's a coincidence that the preponderance of bunkering lies on the flatter areas of the golf course.

I think a good start would be expanding and deepening the bunkers that are to the front and rear of the old 16th hole, for example. Based on the perspective of the one aerial, it would appear the some "anti 13th at Merion" action was involved there.

Doesn't it look like the 9th green (and possibly the 10th tee) would be very much in play for players coming up the 13th?

Kyle,

I had a long talk about that very topic last night with one of the members of our team.  I'm of the opinion that the most defensible option would be to only restore Wilson's bunkers.  That being said, I have very little problem deepening, slightly expanding or moving them closer to the green surfaces to add a little character.

The tougher question to tackle is whether Hugh ever got the opportunity to bunker the course the way he would have liked.  As others have noted, they initially didn't place many hazards on the course for a test period and the existing bunkers on the aerials look rudimentary.  If research uncovers that the bunkering was never implemented by Wilson et. al, then I think we at least have to consider letting a seasoned architect some latitude to bunker the course in the "spirit" of Wilson.  We are lucky to have a number of articles written by a talented architect describing what Wilson's team was trying to accomplish and their is a sterling example of his work only a few miles away.

Steve,

I pointed out to Mike on the phone yesterday that we need to possibly consider Hugh Wilson's health and outside influences on his life during this time - even the completion of Pine Valley. I read in one article that he resigned as the Green Chair at Merion to tend to his business.

I wonder if Cobb's Creek could be Wilson's unfinished symphony.