By the way Kyle...I think your drawing is off and the "natural" island is way too big but you're correct in that the creek was re-routed there and the present island is man-made and essentially was created sometime after opening.

Can you post the one I sent to you?

Gents:

I just realized that not one of the par 3s today is original.

Mike,

It was a rough sketch admittedly so you're probably right. But I think it's apparent that the original natural island is no more and the present one was man-made. When I get home, I'll post your sketch but that's an awfully big island as well...  

...I think we may find that the 17th hole was constructed along with these changes, but that's just a gut hunch, and my gut isn't nearly as big as it was years ago.  

All:

Here is how I think the creek during Vodges's time was superimposed over a Google Earth aerial. I think the island in front of the green today was constructed to provide a higher and drier bail out area for the golfer that hit a worm burner. I'd imagine the original area between the tee and the green was QUITE wet and that whenever it rained the creek coming from 17 spilled out over hard left turn it made before reaching Cobb's Creek - creating a SWAMP right in front of the green.



Joe,

Did Gil rebuild the green or did they just change what was cut as green?

Kyle,

Thanks for putting this comparison together.  I agree completely with your thoughts on the matter.  However, if the creek did flow where the current tee is, they put a lot of fill in there because that tee is now elevated above fairway level and appears to be part of the hillside.

I think you will find that the picture I selected from Joe's post (picture G) is basically along the same angle that you plotted Vodges' routing of the hole.  If anything it is slightly left of the line but after examining Joe's pictures I noticed you can't go much further left because the hillside across the creek starts to block out the view of the green (although if the green was originally further right, that would give you more room).

I think we might have solved the final piece of the original routing puzzle.  I just want to join Indiana Bausch on another expedition to pinpoint the location.

Mike - The key to this whole restoration is not surprisingly the Creek.  If we can't design a solution for the flooding issues, this whole project may be in jeopardy.

One final observation - they were quite fortunate that they were able to play the 1928 US Publinks.  Joe's article is dated only two weeks after the national championship.  If the championship represented the pinnacle for the course, it lasted for about 10 days!

Below is a figure of the 1937 aerial, then Vogdes' original drawing, and a Google aerial.  Mike modified the middle drawing.

 The creek issue may challenge the idea of an exact restoration since it may have been a mistake in the first place to place the greens so close to a creek that is prone to flooding at turning points. However, it may also open up some intriguing possibilities such as placing the tees for 4 and 5 on the left of the creek.

  I think we have already speculated that 13 green is gone because of the placement by the creek.

Geoff, we could work this out with GPS...

I'm an orienteering nerd, all we need to do is some triangulation with a handheld GPS unit and the topo.

Kyle - It had occurred to me but I'm not sure how to go about it.  Could you walk me through it?  I may be able to get down to the course today or tomorrow.

Mike - Based upon our research, I do think the Creek and its issues may have been the most influential architect of all. Given the article you found, as early as 1919 they may have shifted greens and tees (heck, the 14th green was moved before the course opened!) meaning the original routing on the Vodges drawing might have only been around for less than 4 years (and it could have been less than that).

The tee being where we now think it was matches nicely to the description in the article by Joe Bunker (?) just before the course opened.  Remember he described a picturesque glen with alot of boulders.

Geoff's observation of the hill in the background is eye opening   - Although we don't really know where the photographer was set up when he took the photo, but think about it from the photographers perspective, why would you NOT take that picture along the shot corridor; wouldn't make sense.

Bill,

Any number of reasons actually - just look at at how many pictures we see today aren't taken along shot corridors of the golf holes. This may full well be 1916's version of golf porn.

There exists no information as to who the photographer was, their familiarity with golf, the lighting and other conditions of the day, and the type of camera used.

Why isn't the green the center of the picture if it were taken along the shot corridor?

Where do the leaves and branches that come into the view of the photo from the right side originate? Is that tree in front of the green or behind the green from the photographer's perspective?

Absent that sort of information, the picture must speak for itself, and it does NOT speak as to where the tee was located.

Geoff,

I think we should avoid some of the more subjective thoughts like "much better angle than today" until we have a solid foundation as to how the course was built. Sometimes the research tends to become a bit biased toward one or two thoughts on improvement that are based in the personal taste of the researcher and not the actual evidence, and then important data are overlooked.

That "bridge" on the Vodges map is quite interesting. Perhaps it was a wing dam that was in the park prior to the golf course construction that was subsequently removed?

I feel Kyle is right that a restoration to original of that hole should ideally put the tee back wherever it was originally designed to be.

However, in a strictly conceptual and strategic workup, in my opinion, the ideal tee angle into that green would be one that sets that left side (creek) up on a basic 45 degree angle--ie diagonal. That kind of angle would create the maximum and ideal distance differential for the spectrum of shots from front to back.

Going way left with the tee would cut down on that left side distance differential but it would also probably cut down on the ability to bail right too.

Tom,

The hole has been changed a bit from that photo, with the major change being the construction of an island directly in front of the green. I'd hazard a guess that the area not maintained as green was a swamp initially, and golfers not reaching the green had to hit shots from some rather murky lies. The construction of the island gave the less fortunate golfer a place to find a dry lie from which to make bogey. Additionally, the original configuration of the hole had the green perched on a slight peninsula that really didn't offer a straight edged line for a 45 degree angle. The same remains today from the present angle.

Kyle:

Before getting into golf architectural strategic concerns and such probably the best thing to do with a hole like that is to first determine the differences in water flow and potentially destructive water flow between 1915 and today!

Agreed. Right now we're aware of at least two iterations of the creek and there are some significant difference in the creek routing from the original Jesse Vodges map and the aerials from the 20s and 30s.

I've speculated that the sharp turn the creek that presently flows in front of 17 made right before reaching Cobb's Creek caused significant problems and a new creek bed was constructed to ease the water flow coming down the hill. This helped lead to the creation of the island in front of the tee. On the last page you can view the original configuration of the creek and the present aerial with Mike Cirba's and my own thoughts on how the creek originally flowed.

Quote from: Kyle Harris on January 20, 2008, 08:47:08 AM

Geoff,

I think we should avoid some of the more subjective thoughts like "much better angle than today" until we have a solid foundation as to how the course was built.

Kyle,

I agree.

My sentence was poorly worded.  I meant to convey the notion that the photo gives you a much better sense of the angle of the the original tee/corridor on the Vodges routing not that it was much better than the tee used today.

Geoff

Ahh. Understood. Sorry, just have a bit of an aversion for "improving" the golf course before fully understanding it.

If and when a restoration of Cobbs gets underway all you guys interested in promoting it will be in for a most valuable and educational lesson----eg you guys will be out there with your historic research and such which hopefully will be comprehensive and accurate and you'll get with the architects and the people into the technical side of these things and then it gets down to the airing of the whole "can do/no can do" or "can do/no can do/can do and here's what it will cost" equations!

Tom,

What do you mean "youz guyz"?

Get your hip boots on and come on join the party, dressed to kill.