Mike Cirba who discontinued his registration on this website some time ago asked me to post the following for him:
"All,
I'm really wanting out of things on GCA but...since I'm being personally insulted again in a public forum I feel I have to defend my position.
Again, I really don't want this to be about me, but I do think it's important that what we're trying to do, as well as Cobb's Creek's' historic signficance are accurately and fully represented.
First I think my friend Mike Sweeney may misunderstand what is being proposed at Cobb's Creek. As Kris points, out, the Bethpage model of a course that is brutally difficult for the average player is almost antithetical to what is being proposed for Cobb's. There, in creating a US Open-worthy course they took an already very tough golf course and made it brutally difficult for regular daily play through narrowed fairways, lengthened holes, high rough, some significant carries from the tee, which combined with the stern bunkering and rugged terrain makes for exactly what it was intended to do. People want to play it under US Open type conditions, and more power to them. The course serves that role very well.
At Cobb's Creek, the model is more accurately Rustic Canyon or Wild Horse than Bethpage Black. Perhaps a better analogy, given some of the steep hills and the winding creek that Mike mentioned is Augusta National. The idea is to accentuate and turn up the maintenance meld on the terrific original routing that utilizes the natural rolling landforms in interesting and varied ways. If some of us could have our way, there would be no rough but only short grass. The course being proposed is MUCH wider than today's due to gaining back 15% of the original acreage, as well as putting in an irrigation system that can support healthy turf on a wide fairway, as opposed to today's 1950s single-row irrigation heads, many of them busted. We would like the ball to run forever, frankly, with a firm and fast presentation. Cobbs never needed a lot of bunkers, and those that are in place are mostly "saving" bunkers that stop a moving ball from a worse fate.
Today's Cobb's has one major drawback which is a paucity of realistic forward tees for seniors and women. The front markers are sometimes only 5-10 yards ahead of the men's. This will be addressed, hopefully, through thoughful planning and placement. Also, the longest carry required to reach terra firma on any point of the course is about the width of the creek, also much like ANGC in that regard. The idea is to use the wonderfully low profile tilted greensites to be approached from whatever angle is advantageous for that day's hole location and to really let the landscape and greensites defend par. We'd like to keep lost balls and frustration of chopping out of rough or blasting out of bunkers to a minimum.
I think it's important for people to know that the goal is to have a course that is playable for everyone, but also that can challenge the best players from the back tees with tough hole locations and other subtleties for important competitions. We certainly don't see those goals as mutually incompatible and as mentioned, our models are where that has proven to work, as well as what we know Cobb's was originally.
I certainly don't want to get sucked into the attempts to turn this thread in a negative way, but would make two points that I think are important about the golf course and about the historic reputation of Cobb's Creek.
First, I really don't understand what David is trying to imply when he criticizes the fact that holes were placed along the creek. Although major rain events did effect the course periodically over the decades, the regular washouts are much more of a modern phenomenon due to urbanization upstream, which prior was farmland. Merion East has the same problem...is he suggesting that the 11th at Merion should never have been created? More relevantly, Rustic Canyon was built in a canyon floor and has had significant damage due to major flooding events...should Gil and Geoff have built their golf course somewhere else? Should they have built their greens far from the mostly dry creekbeds? Would he criticize Mackenzie for where he built his holes at Sharp Park, six of which were washed into the sea less than a decade after opening?
I think David's attempt to cast doubt about the architectural prowess of the men involved at Cobb's Creek as well as his continuing stream of personal insults directed at me is really misguided and personally motivated by his long-held anger and bile over our criticisms of his Merion essay. Others can weigh his remarks and judgements on their own merit, and make their own determinations as to his true motives here.
And finally, I had to chuckle seeing another of Tom MacWood's self-created list again (apparently referring to himself as the royal "WE"). Hopefully it has more merit and less personal bias than the fictional list from the 1930s he self-created and published here some time ago as a find of supposed factual historical merit and interest, "The World's Finest Tests" (still available to read on the "In My Opinion" section)
While there are some really good courses mentioned in Tom's scattershot list (and some horrifically bad and very mediocre ones), it has little to do with my original contention that until the Great Depression, Cobb's was generally known as the best and most challenging public course in the country. In the 1930s a lot of public monies and make work programs greatly expanded and generally improved the public course offerings in this country, culminating with the creation of Bethpage in the mid-1930s. Sharp Park is a good example. It was conceived in 1929, but it wasn't until taxes were raised and over $500,000 of city "public works" monies were pored into its construction over six years that it was finalized, although the course opened in April 1932. As mentioned, much of it washed into the ocean in 1941, unfortunately.
So, his list which is heavily reliant on courses built in the 1930s (and which also plays fast and loose with a number of other completion dates) is really not the comparison I was making at all Further his list has a number of courses which while supposedly available to play for a fee were parts of exclusive, second-home, getaway communities, again not relevant to my original point or in the spirit of a true public course. That being said, some of what is being argued here is opinion based on our modern understandings, but I'll be happy to stand behind the scads of evidence presented in the book as to the relevance of Cobb's Creek's original design and reputation. Please feel free to read those articles in the book online, it's free.
Thank you to those with a genuine interest in this project. Again, I hope the discussion here can focus on the actual golf course and proposed project than on festering personal issues which should have been put to rest by the individuals involved a long time ago. Frankly, this website has so much potential as evidenced by this thread and it's a shame to see how some see fit to use it.
Mike"