[mike_malone]

 Joe,

   Is that a walking bridge on the back left of #4 green ?

[MSusko]

Joe,

Great pic.  After talking to the guys here none of them remember the fourth green being in a different place than it is today.  They told me that both holes are played the same way today as they were then.  This can be seen in your pictures.  Also, the road that you see was used as a service road according to them.  There is however an old bridge across the creek to the left of the fourth green.  It seems to be crossing a small drainage creek from up the hill.  I'll ask more to see what exactly this bridge was used for.

Mark

[wsmorrison]

Here's a blow up of the photo Joe linked above.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

Phenomenal find, Joe!  Look at how much bigger the greens were back then:

The 1st comes down almost to where the second front bunker is in play.

The second had another bunker front right and extended in front.

Look at the shape of the 17th with that tounge in front between the bunkers.  Wow!

Look at the fairway wrapping around both sides of the massive front bunker on #16.

[wsmorrison]

The 4th green in this photo could well be, as surmised by some on the recent Susko tour, in a different spot than it exists today.  It would seem to be positioned short of the present location and nearly surrounded by water.  The tee for the 5th hole might be the light oval spot just beyond the first tree from the back center of the island green.  I guess it is possible that the green is the lighter shade of gray to the left of the suggested oval tee, similar to its present position.  What do you guys think?

[mike_malone]

 Is it possible that the  walking bridge was how one approached #4 from the left of the creek and that the lighter shaded oval in back and to the right  of #4 green was #5 tee?

[mike_malone]

 As for the current creek on #1 there appears to be some depression on that old photo that may have been interesting for the play of the hole. The diagonal nature of it is so strategic.
   I assume that was a road running short of #1.

[MSusko]

Mike,

Yes, that was a road that ran through the course connecting Lansdowne and Victory avenues.  There is still stonework between the first and second fairways were the road ran.

Mark

[mike_malone]

 I think I had some firm lies there before

[Joe Bausch]

Is it possible that the  walking bridge was how one approached #4 from the left of the creek and that the lighter shaded oval in back and to the right  of #4 green was #5 tee?

Yes.  But the piece of data doesn't fit is that Mark recalls the 5th was once a par 5, playing close to 500 yards.  Which almost forces that tee to be back on the hill, somewhat close to the current 17 green.

I sure hope a scorecard from the era of these photos can be found.  Give us some yardages to work with and we could limit the possibilities.

[mike_malone]

 The few trees visible in various locations in back of the supposed #4 green seem not to leave many options. Unless it was much closer to #17 green and played as a dogleg.

   No sense in waiting for firm evidence when rank speculation is so much fun!

[wsmorrison]

Area today:

[Joe Bausch]

The few trees visible in various locations in back of the supposed #4 green seem not to leave many options. Unless it was much closer to #17 green and played as a dogleg.

   No sense in waiting for firm evidence when rank speculation is so much fun!

With the split fairway on #5, it is not unreasonable for it to be a dogleg right and play into the left part of the fairway.

[mike_malone]

Absolutely, and if I'm not mistaken the ground slopes quite nicely from left to right on the far left side leaving one with a challenging hanging lie for the shot back over the creek. Or, how about bombing it over the trees on the right and having it roll down onto the right fairway?

[Mike_Cirba]

Wow...it's tough to imagine that's not a green on that little island on #4.   I even just brought Jenna over and said, "honey, can you spot the green in this picture?", and she went right to that spot.

It does beg the question of why there is a bridge front, left, and over that area, but there is still much to be learned.  Also, when I blow it up, it does seem to be mowed differently, in a way that's consistent with the other greens in the pic.   The area of the present 4th green doesn't appear different than it's surroundings.   Weird.

I'm hopeful a scorecard might help, but I'm a bit dubious, as well, because I just went back to look at a scorecard from about 10 years ago and found the following yardages from the Back and Middle Tees;

1 - 510 475
2 - 370 355
3 - 347 300
4 - 159 149
5 - 493 393
6 - 142 132
7 - 519 449
8 - 217 197
9 - 275 268
    2912 2621

10 - 311 294
11 - 449 439
12 - 447 437
13 - 393 383
14 - 638 600
15 - 486 421
16 - 284 278
17 - 210 180
18 - 410 380
     3748 3509

6660 6130

The course is virtually identical today and the back tee yardage is 6202.

I think I have an older scorecard as well that I'll try to dig up.

[Kyle Harris]

Come on guys, think outside the box.

Public course, shortish par 3 prone to flooding.

You seriously don't think he could have built two greens there?

...just a thought.

[Mike_Cirba]

Fellows,

I just blew up the picture that was posted and I don't think the 4th hole could have played as it does today.

Unless part of the challenge was hitting through a gigantic tree just in front of today's tee.    

Seriously...I right clicked on the aerial that Joe posted and then saved to my computer.   Once there, I opened it and zoomed in much closer.

Then, I compared it to the aerial of today's green/tee that Wayne posted from Google Maps and voila!

When that aerial was taken in the late 30s, there was a giant freaking tree right in front of today's #4 tee!  

I'm betting dimes to donuts that the original 4th tee was almost due south about 150 yards from today's tee, on the other side of the creek, and played to today's fairway island short of the green.   At least, before WWII.

[Mike_Cirba]

Come on guys, think outside the box.

Public course, shortish par 3 prone to flooding.

You seriously don't think he could have built two greens there?

...just a thought.

Kyle,

In the words of Sherlock Holmes, when all other possible options have been exhausted, what you're left with is the answer, improbable as it may seem.  

[Joe Bausch]

Mike, your 10 year old card indicating #5 being 493 yards from the back tees just baffles me.  We should have spent more time in that area on Saturday to unravel this mystery.  I might just have to make another trip out there soon for a reconnaissance mission.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike, your 10 year old card indicating #5 being 493 yards from the back tees just baffles me.  We should have spent more time in that area on Saturday to unravel this mystery.  I might just have to make another trip out there soon for a reconnaissance mission.

Joe,

Check what I just added to my earlier statement about #4 above.

I'm now going to go dig out the older scorecard, which is about 25 years old or so.

[Joe Bausch]

Mike, your 10 year old card indicating #5 being 493 yards from the back tees just baffles me.  We should have spent more time in that area on Saturday to unravel this mystery.  I might just have to make another trip out there soon for a reconnaissance mission.

Joe,

Check what I just added to my earlier statement about #4 above.

I'm now going to go dig out the older scorecard, which is about 25 years old or so.

Ah, you are proposing what I thought about last night for the original #4 tee!  If true, one must walk off the back of the green and towards the 17th green to find the 5th tee.  This would not be that far of a walk, but it would be if from the current #4 green location.  So when they moved the #4 green to its current location, they also moved the tees for #5, making it a ~400 yard par 4.  I think we are getting this figured out now...

[Mike_Cirba]

Hmmm...I'm not sure I'm ready to extrapolate about #5, but I am becoming more convinced that #4 played from the left side of the creek to the island green.

If you blow up the picture and work your way back to today's tee, and then compare against the current Google map of the same area, I think you'll see what I mean.  

I just found the older scorecard, which is probably from about 1980.

1 - 491 475
2 - 355 355
3 - 332 300
4 - 149 149
5 - 418 393
6 - 132 132
7 - 484 449
8 - 197 197
9 - 268 268
    2826 2718

10 - 317 294
11 - 439 439
12 - 437 437
13 - 383 383
14 - 623 600
15 - 468 421
16 - 278 278
17 - 195 180
18 - 400 380
      3540 3412

6366 6130 par 71 or 70, because #7 was a par five from the back and a par four from the front.

[Joe Bausch]

Ah, now I've read more closely your idea for the tee for #4.  You have it across the creek like I think is possible, but you have it more east than I thought.  Your tee shot would pretty much go in the northwest direction, eh?  If so, perhaps that would leave the possibility of #5 tee also being on the same side of the creek and southeast of the current #4 green, which I think would be pushing the 475 yard distance, maybe a bit more.

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe,

I honestly don't know where it would exactly fit, but if I were to speculate, I think the tee would be just to the left of the service road (which then crosses in front of the tee), playing at around 160 yards.  

I say that based on the big tree in front of today's tee (which seems to make the current hole routing improbissible ), and the fact that aerial 05598 from 1930 seems to clearly indicate a nice size northwest flowing corridor to what looks like the site of the island, and the service road is clearly visible there as well.  

Damn, we need to get a blowup of that aerial.

I also am beginning to think that #5 played much like it does today, although I'm open to learning otherwise.  

[Joe Bausch]

Joe,

I honestly don't know where it would exactly fit, but if I were to speculate, I think the tee would be just to the left of the service road (which then crosses in front of the tee), playing at around 160 yards.  

I say that based on the big tree in front of today's tee (which seems to make the current hole routing improbissible ), and the fact that aerial 05598 from 1930 seems to clearly indicate a nice size northwest flowing corridor to what looks like the site of the island, and the service road is clearly visible there as well.  

Damn, we need to get a blowup of that aerial.

I also am beginning to think that #5 played much like it does today, although I'm open to learning otherwise.  

Does that museum have the actual photo that we could look at in person?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()