[Mike_Cirba]

Joe,

Yes, and that we could purchase.   They actually have a treasure trove of golf course aerials from the 20s thru the 40s, covering most every course in the region.   That's where the larger aerials that Mark showed us were located.

[Joe Bausch]

Joe,

Yes, and that we could purchase.   They actually have a treasure trove of golf course aerials from the 20s thru the 40s, covering most every course in the region.   That's where the larger aerials that Mark showed us were located.

I would love to make the visit there if they can't be purchased online or if we just want to see them in person before buying.  We need to keep the momentum going.  Let me know your thoughts and plans.

[Geoffrey_Walsh]

This may help out a bit:

The official par from the 1928 Public Links (Washington Post 8/2/28):

5 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 = 36
3 5 3 5 4 4 4 3 4 = 35

Confirms the two holes across the street were originally #1 & #2.  Confirms #5 was a par 4, not a par 5.  They certainly would have used the toughest tee for that tournament.  Confirms the lost #13 was a par 5.

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffrey,

I would say that helps out a LOT.  

It pretty much confirms most of the routing, except perhaps where number 4 started and ended.

I'd say we're getting very close to nailing it!  

Joe,

Let's make a road trip either this month or next to Wilmington and get the aerial.

[Bill Hagel]

Geoffry

1928 Publinks - wow.  If No.5 was a Par 4 then the tee position is less of a challange - it could be in the same position as today's back tee (and both now and then an awesome hole).  To tell you the truth when Geoff and I walked up near the 17th green to see if we could imagine a tee up there - to me it was unpleasing to the eyes.  No choice but to layup short of the bridge.  A Par 4 425 yard hole from the current back tee (that gets used today about once a year) is so much more strategic.

Now imagine the 5th tee as above, and the position of the 4th green (as an island green) makes more sense in that it is out of harms way and a short walk from 4th green to 5th tee.  

The only thing thats bugging me is that I am just not seeing the 4th tee in the aerial pic. in the spot we all hope it is. What a great trio of holes that would have been - the short Par 4 3rd hole with the approach to a small green with old man Cobb's arm wrapped around her right waist; an island green 4th and a monster Par 4 with Mr. Cobb splitting the fairway.

Philly's Amen Corner?  

[Mike_Cirba]

Geoffry

1928 Publinks - wow.  If No.5 was a Par 4 then the tee position is less of a challange - it could be in the same position as today's back tee (and both now and then an awesome hole).  To tell you the truth when Geoff and I walked up near the 17th green to see if we could imagine a tee up there - to me it was unpleasing to the eyes.  No choice but to layup short of the bridge.  A Par 4 425 yard hole from the current back tee (that gets used today about once a year) is so much more strategic.

Now imagine the 5th tee as above, and the position of the 4th green (as an island green) makes more sense in that it is out of harms way and a short walk from 4th green to 5th tee.  

The only thing thats bugging me is that I am just not seeing the 4th tee in the aerial pic. in the spot we all hope it is. What a great trio of holes that would have been - the short Par 4 3rd hole with the approach to a small green with old man Cobb's arm wrapped around her right waist; an island green 4th and a monster Par 4 with Mr. Cobb splitting the fairway.

Bill,

I understand what you're saying about not seeing the #4 tee, but I wanted to ask if anyone else can see the tree right in front of today's teeing area?

Also, on another aerial I have from the City Line Avenue angle, one can see a corridor over, there, but it's not definitive until we get that one blown up.

As far as #4, I think there are a number of possibilities;

1) The hole played exactly as it does today (I don't think so, because that island looks like a green to me and that tree I'm seeing in front of today's tee would have been right in the way)
2) The green was on the island the the tee was on the other side of the creek, towards the railtracks and the service road (I think this is still likely)
3) The green was on the island and the tee was up on the hill (behind the present tee)  by the rocks where we looked the other day (I think this is less likely because I couldn't find an appropriate "flat spot" up there that would have served as the tee, unless the whole thing washed away).

But, don't worry...we'll find the answer.   I think I saw Joe Bausch wearing fatigues and with a ski mask over his face patrolling that City/Delaware county line.   Reports also indicated he had something that looked like a chainsaw.  

[Joe Bausch]

Mike, Cobb's Creek opened in 1916 right?  Any idea the approximate month or day?  I'm looking to do some searching of old news sources in our library.

[Bill Hagel]

Of those possibilities for the 4th green I get most juiced by scenario 2.

Here is a photo I took a couple of weeks ago of the 4th green from near the current 5th tee.  I actually have photos of every hole because I was going to post Cobbs on "My Home Course".  I still may do this but at least I will know who gets to edit it first - how about a collaborative effort; I can do the first draft.



p.s. Cobbs opened in May 1916 I believe - it was earlier in this post stream - in the old newspaper accounts.

[Mike_Cirba]

Fellows,

Yes, I believe it was right around Memorial Day, 1916.

If you're checking old news sources, I'd sure be interested to hear anything mentioned about the designer(s) or builders of the course.  

p.s.  In looking at the aerial Geoffrey posted yesterday I don't see a way to get from the 3rd green to the 4th tee on the right side of the creek.   Perhaps it's just tree overhang, but it is a winter photo and I see nada.

Also, in looking at Joe's aerial from yesterday, why would the area that is "left" of the island today be cut as fairway?   Wouldn't that only make sense if one was approaching from that direction?



Also, can anyone locate today's tee in that picture if the present tee/green configuration was used then?

[MSusko]

All,

I talked again this morning with a few guys that go back to the early 30's.  They again tell me that #4 green was in the same position then as it is today.  They also said that there was another tee back and to the right of today's tee.  The area that Mike is referring to cut as fairway left of the island is in fact a steep hillside.  If you look at the left side of #5, also a steep hillside, that area is cut as well.  The island on #4, looks to me, that it is cut as fairway.  If you look at how the rest of the course is cut at that time it seems to make sense.  Most fairways are cut all the way to the tee.  Also, there is no area left of the creek that could serve as a teeing group.  The entire area is a steep hillside except where the service road is cut into the hill.  I believe the reason this area was cut was to allow more sunlight onto the fourth green.  The sun in the morning comes up short and left of today's green keeping the green in the shade until midday.  If the trees, as they are in the picture, were cut down we would have much less of a frost delay problem and much better turf year round on #4 green.

Also, looking at these pictures it doesn't look like the tee for #17 is where we looked the other day.  It looks as if it is where it is located today.  What do you guys think about this?  The old guys tell me that there was a tee where we looked the other day but it was very shaded.  Also, the area below the tee was wooded.  Basically you would hit you tee shot over the trees below you.

Mark

[Mike_Cirba]

Mark,

Thanks...that makes sense and I think that answers that pretty conclusively.    Sorry for the wild goose chase!

As far as 17, I believe we played from the tee in the woods back about 15 years ago during the City Am.   Bill can probably validate, but it sure looked familiar.   And, if memory serves, it was as you mentioned...you hit over trees down below you.  

Not a hole to skull a long iron!  

However, I'm also skeptical whether this tee was original or whether it was added later by someone who saw an opportunity to create a more dramatic shot.  

The old scorecards should answer that one.  

Now, the only thing in the routing I'm not settled on yet is where the tee was for 13.   That hole just seemed to come uncomfortably close to today's 7th green.  What do you think?

[Joe Bausch]

Gentlemen, as I said earlier in a private e-mail, I've found a very juicy 1916 Philly Inky article on Cobb's Creek.  I'm digesting it now.  But just to get you wondering about how it was originally, here are the yardages:



There is much more to come.  Much!

[Joe Bausch]

Here is some pictures, granted poor reproduction from the PDF, of the par 3 4th and par 3 12th.  Or greater interest is the caption below them.  Can anybody guess decipher the obscured word(s) about #12?

[mike_malone]

So, does this mean the long par 5 through the driving range is split into two holes and then somehow you went from the back of the present #11 to the present #18 ?

[Joe Bausch]

Read this description of the 4th hole and decide for yourself if the hole was different than currently configured.  Mike, I think our suspicions are probably right.

Here is the write-up about the 4th hole from the 1916 Inky article (and the writing is pretty neat, IMO):

"The fourth lies through a picturesque glen, dotted with massive rocks, being one of the most distintive.  Somehow the spot recalls Hannibal's trip through the Alps where the boulders were so large the elephants could not pass by.  Accordingly, Hannibal, as the stones in the good night tales for children go, broke the rocks by heating and then pouring on vinegar.  Of course he might have used water, but he had more bottled vinegar along, because it quenched the soldier's thirst better.

When the golfers drove into the boulders on the fourth there will be no question of the heat generated, and as for vinegar, the sour taste in their mouth."

[mike_malone]

 The fact is that this piece of land has so many golfing possibilities that almost any speculation is feasible.

[Mike_Cirba]

It appears from the article that the one fundamental change was that a par three seemed to run from the present 8th green (the 13th in our story) over the creek to near the driving range (and abandoned tee for today's 9th).

Then, after playing today's 9, 10, 11, the golfer walked all the way thru the 17th's valley (which did not exist at the time) and up the hill to today's 18th tee.

That's my first blush at it...anyone have a different take?

Plus, although it's difficult to see, that 4th green looks a bit different.

[Bill Hagel]

Uh, Boulders? On 4? Where do you think the boulders are; or were?

Also - on the yardages I find the biggest surprise is the 9th  at 430 yards.  I wonder if there was a different tee (then todays 14th tee).  I thought we had the 9th green (todays 7th green) at about 380 yards from todays 14th tee?

[mike_malone]

 Mike,

   I figured that after the downhill par 3 (12 then) that the combination of the next two holes is 625 or close to the speculation of the yardage thru the driving range for that par 5. This would mean the present #8 green (14) would still have been a par 3.

  Obviously #11 (15) was a hell of a hole. Probably one of the two or three best in all of Phila.

  #18 at 380 leads to the possibility of another blind tee shot if it went to the present #18 green.

[mike_malone]

 Bill,

   The present 14 at 600 yards would be close to the then 9/10 yardages because you are going somehat left on 9 and back somewhat right on 10. I wonder if they were concerned about the blind teeshots from #6 and moved #9 tee up.

[Bill Hagel]

No wait - I retract.  Am I reading this right?

We thought 14 was a Par 4 (todays 9th) with the tee in the Driving Range Parking Lot - This says it was a 175 yard one shotter.

And 17 - 450 yards???

What did we miss guys?

 

[Joe Bausch]

Your 'take' is probably correct Mike.  I liked this description of the 12th:

"The short twelfth is likely to be the best remembered of all, since you drive over the precipitious hill upon a small island green, shaped almost like a heart.  The island was made by cutting through a sliceway, a short distance, at one side.  The shift was made rather to prevent the green being damaged at freshet time than to provide the island formation, without which few links are now considered complete".

The next line suggests what I've suggested a couple of times is likely true, that the 13th tee was near the creek:

"The thirteenth, as mentioned, again involves the creek, but in that case the stream is so near the tee as to induce no great shock.  However, a blind shot is included".  The blind part I don't quite understand as I envision the hole.  It is possible that part of the land, which is now flat for the driving range, was different until the Army came in.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

It says that 13 tees off near the stream and then says a blind shot is included (was the present driving range undulating or perhaps the swamp in front of the tee?), and then brings you down to near City Avenue again.   That would be the present 8th green.

It says 14 then crosses the "omniprescent creek, which crosses just short of the green", which means that the next hole played towards the driving range.

The next hole is the present 9th, etc.

About 18, it says, that you WALK down through the valley (of today's 17th) and then UP a STEEP hill, only to end down by the 3rd tee and Lansdowne Avenue.   That is today's 380 yard 18th.

[Joe Bausch]

Now I need to make a figure for the 1916 routing!  

[Mike_Cirba]

Bill,

   The present 14 at 600 yards would be close to the then 9/10 yardages because you are going somehat left on 9 and back somewhat right on 10. I wonder if they were concerned about the blind teeshots from #6 and moved #9 tee up.

Michael,

I think you're correct here.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()