Cobb's Creek Collaborators - Restoration Dreams

[DMoriarty]

Joe
I haven't read all 350 pages of 'the tome,' but I have read the first 120 odd pages that deal with the course's formation. Another example of the overly aggressive use of big names to pump it up is the story that the great Ben Sayers was the first professional at CC. There are ten pages devoted to his life story. I don't believe there is any evidence of that being true although he was present at the opening. He came over to America a couple of times to vacation and visit his son. To my knowledge Sayers was never engaged as a professional in the US.

I wondered about all that Ben Sayers hype as well.  He is hyped at the beginning along with all of his accomplishments, and then covered for page after page within, so I was a bit disappointed to see that single photo and description was all they had to go on. Maybe he taught lessons there while in town with his son, but to hype him that much as the first professional of the club?  It is surprising that given his fame in the golf world, he wouldn't have ever been mentioned again as such if he was the professional at the club.

I wonder if anyone other than us has bothered to try and read that thing.

[DMoriarty]

Bill,

So the guy that told me to "shut the fuck up" and demanded I refrain from discussing anything on the East Coast wasn't trying to bully me? Fascinating. I'll continue to discuss what interests me. You've no need to read what I write if it doesn't interest you.  
______________________________

JMEvensky,

Thanks for your input.  And here I was hoping you and I would become fast friends.  Oh well. Anyway, I hope the rest of Jr. High goes well for you.  

XXOO

[Dan Herrmann]

could somebody IM me when we get back to talking about the CC project?

[Joe Bausch]

could somebody IM me when we get back to talking about the CC project?

You should check out the Phila Golfer thread Dan.

[DMoriarty]

Dan,

How about my post 1373 and Tom's post 1374?  Is talking about the "tome" talking about the project?  Or are you looking for continued uncritical praise?   What exactly do you consider talking about the project?

Is it possible for any one of you guys to have a civilized discussion about Cobb's Creek and its history, the tome, or anything to do remotely with early Philadelphia golf?  I am willing to do my best and try.  How about it Dan? Let bygones be.  Are you game?

Here are some easy questions . . .

. What do you think of the possibility of 933 rounds in a single day at Cobb's?  Do you think it possible?  I have my doubts.   
. Have you read the work?   If so, can you please point me to the justification for the claim that Cobb's was the busiest course in the country in 1940?   I am sure it must be in there or inadvertently omitted, and I am hoping someone will point me to it?  I have seen similar claims about the courses near me, and it always struck me of more an issue of weather than anything else, with the better public courses running at capacity. So Im curious about how Cobb's could have accomplish this with Philadelphia weather.

[TEPaul]

"No need, I've read the articles, and any objective person would not include most of those names as designers. Name dropping the likes of Crump, Thomas, Flynn, Travis et al is ridiculous in my view. It is a distortion that serves no good purpose other than to pump the course's reputation."


Tom MacWood:

Thanks for that reply. I understand your view but others may not share it. I think the list of designers of Cobbs Creek should be provided just as it was contemporaneously reported and anyone reading it today can decide for themselves how to interpret the list.

[TEPaul]

Bill McBride said:

"David, what would happen if you just didn't post on this thread any more?   Same question for Tom."


Bill:

I don't know; I don't know how to answer that and maybe I'm not the one to answer it. I'd rather you tell me what you think about that rather than me telling you what I think about it. Tell me what you think; believe me I can handle it.  

But I will tell you there are a lot of issues and subjects I care a whole lot about and I care a whole lot about determining their historical accuracy and the presentation of it. Those subjects and issues over the years have included Merion, Hugh Wilson, Pine Valley and Crump, Myopia, Shinnecock and later Cobbs Creek and particularly after some really good new research was done on it that inspired a restoration project which is on the table being considered and working through the usual complexities.

But I also feel there are surely two primary guys on this website who have sort of made it their mission to come after some Philadelphia architects and particularly after the way their clubs have handled their course histories involving those architects. I just don't buy a whole lot of what those two have said in so many instances, and I have said so and why I feel that way.

I know this stuff, these histories, can get complicated and interpreting them never is an easy thing to do; it's never very pat and probably never will be.

I just see those two as something quite different from what they constantly claim to be and it has been going on for close to a decade now. Again, they just seem to have made it their mission to go after Philadelpha, the accuracy of the history of its architecture and its architects and those who I feel know it and understand it best. I think it is probably mostly personal now and has been for longer than most realize; them with us and us with them, and as anyone knows that kind of thing sure does cloud objectivity and I suppose eventually civility, unfortunately.

Some on here put MacWood and Moriarty into the same category. I don't at all; I look at them very differently and I basically I always have. I have long felt that despite some oddities MacWood does have some very useful qualities with the history of golf architecture. But I'm afraid I just don't see that with David Moriarty, and I'm afraid I just never have. I have only met the man one time and that has nothing to do with it. 99% of my opinion of him is only about what he has written and said on here and particularly the way he has said it.

  

[PThomas]

David, what would happen if you just didn't post on this thread any more?   Same question for Tom.  

Bill,

The weight of my posts has been substantive and about the history golf course architecture and its presentation, so why is it exactly that I would quit posting?

I don't have it in me to be bullied into not discussing what I would like to discuss.  

Nobody's trying to bully you into anything.   But there is a substantial and grower number of participants on this board who just don't give a fuck anymore.   Hopefully more will step forward to cajole, not bully, you into getting off Rocinante and giving it a rest. 

i am another that doesnt give a fuck about it and cannot understand the length of this....David , your posts make it seem like you have a chip on your shoulder/are angry at the world/etc....is this really all that important to spend so much of your time on it?

[Sam Morrow]

I don't know David but my guess is he is a lawyer.

[Tom MacWood]

Bill McBride said:

"David, what would happen if you just didn't post on this thread any more?   Same question for Tom."


Bill:

I don't know; I don't know how to answer that and maybe I'm not the one to answer it. I'd rather you tell me what you think about that rather than me telling you what I think about it. Tell me what you think; believe me I can handle it.  

But I will tell you there are a lot of issues and subjects I care a whole lot about and I care a whole lot about determining their historical accuracy and the presentation of it. Those subjects and issues over the years have included Merion, Hugh Wilson, Pine Valley and Crump, Myopia, Shinnecock and later Cobbs Creek and particularly after some really good new research was done on it that inspired a restoration project which is on the table being considered and working through the usual complexities.

But I also feel there are surely two primary guys on this website who have sort of made it their mission to come after some Philadelphia architects and particularly after the way their clubs have handled their course histories involving those architects. I just don't buy a whole lot of what those two have said in so many instances, and I have said so and why I feel that way.

I know this stuff, these histories, can get complicated and interpreting them never is an easy thing to do; it's never very pat and probably never will be.

I just see those two as something quite different from what they constantly claim to be and it has been going on for close to a decade now. Again, they just seem to have made it their mission to go after Philadelpha, the accuracy of the history of its architecture and its architects and those who I feel know it and understand it best. I think it is probably mostly personal now and has been for longer than most realize; them with us and us with them, and as anyone knows that kind of thing sure does cloud objectivity and I suppose eventually civility, unfortunately.

Some on here put MacWood and Moriarty into the same category. I don't at all; I look at them very differently and I basically I always have. I have long felt that despite some oddities MacWood does have some very useful qualities with the history of golf architecture. But I'm afraid I just don't see that with David Moriarty, and I'm afraid I just never have. I have only met the man one time and that has nothing to do with it. 99% of my opinion of him is only about what he has written and said on here and particularly the way he has said it.

  

TEP
Who cares what you think. You don't know me, you don't know him, you don't 95% of the people on this site. Your opinions have nothing to do with golf architecture. Stick with golf architecture and avoid the personal attacks.

I'd like someone to address the questions regarding Thomas, Crump, Travis, Sayers, etc.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Perhaps no more or no less than care what you think. You don't know me either so why don't you just follow your own advice that you just gave me-----stick with architecture and avoid the personal attacks?

On your second point, why don't you just read the contemporaneous material on the list of designers of Cobbs Creek and make your own interpretations? A number of us have done that and it appears we don't agree with your interpretation of that list of designers so why don't you just leave it at that?

[Rich Goodale]

I have for some time been fascinated by the Sayers family connection to Philadelphia golf.  As I read it, the timeline goes something like this:

1902:  Ben Sayers Sr. is personal golf instructor to visiting Philadelphia socialite Frances Griscom, in North Berwick, Scotland.
1906:  Ben Sayers Sr. is golf instructor for both Frances Griscom and her brother Rodman, again in North Berwick.
1910:  Merion Golf Club (whose movers and shakers included Rodman Griscom) tasks Hugh Wilson to be Chairman of the Construction Committee and to lay out their new golf course on Ardmore Avenue.
1911:  Rodman and Frances Griscom again visit North Berwick and again are instructed by Ben Sayers Sr. in the arts of golf
1911:  The new Merion (East) golf course is constructed
1912:  Hugh Wilson visits the UK to study the great golf courses
1913:  GAP asks Wilson, Griscom, George Crump, Ab Smith, etc. to find a site for a new public golf course in Philadelphia
1913:  George Sayers (son of Ben Sr.) sails to the USA in May to become the professional at Merion GC
1914:  GAP approves the Cobb’s Creek site for the new golf course
1914:  Ben Sayers Sr. sails to USA in April to visit son George in Philadelphia.  Spends 5 weeks there.
1915:  Ben Sayers Sr. Sails again to the USA to visit Son George and play in the US Open at Baltusrol June 17-18 and deal with “business interests.”  (George beats Dad, age 58, by one shot; Dad beats players such as Frances Ouimet and Macdonald Smith).  No record as to when Ben Sayers returned to Scotland.
1916:  Cobb’s Creek opens.  Ben Sayers Sr. is prominent at opening and described as professional/instructor at the course.
1916-1977
--Wilson et. al. make continuous and significant improvements to the East course
--Merion plays host to US Amateur in 1916, 1924 and 1930 and US Open in 1934.  Cobb’s Creek plays host to US Public Links in 1928.
--Ben Sayers Sr. Dies in 1924
--George Sayers leaves Merion in 1950
--George Sayers dies in 1977 (age 90)

Logical inferences I take from this timeline include:

1.  It is highly likely that Wilson's trip to the UK in 1912 was influenced by Griscom and probably included a visit of significant length to North Berwick and the Sayers family.
2.  The appointment of George Sayers as Pro at Merion was probably based on Griscom and Wilson's recommendations.
3.  Due to George's background it is highly probable that he influenced Wilson both on the subsequent re-designs of Merion East (e.g. the mercy killing of the abominable "Alps" hole) and on the design of Cobb's Creek.
4.  Given the time spent by George's father (Ben Sr.) in Philadelphia in 1914-1916, it is reasonable to assume that his advice on Cobb's Creek (and Merion) would have been sought and given.  That he played such a big part in the opening of Cobb's Creek supports this judgement.

Any thoughts?

Rich

PS--thanks to Pete Trenham for his web page http://trenhamgolfhistory.org/PTHGAboutTrenham.html which includes a very accessible copy of Mike C's and Joe B's fine work on the history of CC GC.

rfg

[Tom MacWood]

I have read the contemporaneous material; may I suggest you do the same. Thomas is given design credit CC based on this brief excerpt from his book Golf Architecture in America:

"I always considered Hugh Wilson, of Merion, Pennsylvania, as one of the best of our architects, professional or amateur. He taught me many things at Merion and the Philadelphia Municipal; and when I was building my first California courses he advised me by letter when I wrote him concerning them."

There is no mention of him in any of the news accounts at the time. Based on this logic should Thomas also be given design credit for Merion?

The story with Travis and Sayers is similar. Sayers was at the official opening and he described in the caption of a picture as Ben Sayers, the instructor, which is equivalent to saying Ben Sayers, the professional golfer or Ben Sayers, the old golfer. But instead they read this as Ben Sayers, the first professional at CC. If that was actually the case no doubt there would have been numerous articles mentioning him taking the job or being associated with the course. There are none. In fact it was widely reported he was simply vacationing in the states and visiting his son (the pro at Merion).

There is a similar story with Travis. There is a single article regarding him promoting public golf where mentions two courses specifically, one of which happens to be CC. They twist this into claiming he was involved with the design. Crump was on one of the committees, but there is no mention of him designing anything.

Flynn was responsible for construction so obviously they need to give full design credit. He was in charge of construction for a lot of courses for numerous architects, and there were many other well-known men who specialized in construction, but these men are not usually given full design credit. Why does Flynn deserve design credit?

The one group of men who were regularly mentioned in contemporaneous reports, as responsible for the design, were Wilson, AH Smith and Jiggs Klauder. Jiggs has to be spinning in his grave. I take it he is dead.

[TEPaul]

"Any thoughts?"


Ricardo:

Yes, as amazing as it may seem I actually do have some thoughts to add to your very fine chronology above.

To support your citing of Griscom as a connection to Ben and George Sayers, there has recently been some cool stuff uncovered by one of the Merion historian/writers---to wit.

As some may know (and some may not   ) Rodman Griscom was a very fine player as he won the Philadelphia Amateur around the turn of the century, and he was an important early member of the then prestigous Lesley Cup Matches. His sister Frances Griscom was even better as she won the 1900 US Amateur at Shinnecock.

Right around the turn of the century Rodman and Frances spent a full month or more at North Berwick under the constant teaching and training of Ben Sayers. Following that intensive training with Sayers Frances went home and won the US Amateur championship.

It should surprise no one that the Griscoms were probably constant transatlantic travelers as their father, Clement Griscom, was the chairman of International Mercantile Marine (IMM, or unaffectionately known as "The Shipping Trust"). IMM had more tonnage at sea (close to a million) than some nations! They even owned the British/American combine of the White Star Line so they essentially owned the Titanic (does one really wonder why Rodman Griscom's friend and fellow committee member, Merion's Wilson Committee chairman, Hugh Wilson, who designed Merion East in 1911 and 1912 was booked on the Titanic before fortunately delaying his trip home?).

The record shows it was Rodman Griscom who arranged for George Sayers to come to America and become the pro at Merion (1910).

It has been suggested for some years by a couple of participants on this site that Wilson and all his committee members who designed Merion East were nothing more than a bunch of complete novices at the time and therefore were incapable of routing and designing a golf course without getting someone else to do it all for them. The suggestions from those two "short pants" participants were that either HH Barker or Macdonald and Whigam did it for them and all the committee was asked to do is construct the course to their design plan.

Novices, my ass, and the foregoing is solid historical evidence why they weren't!
 

[Rich Goodale]

We're you replying to me, Tom (McW)?  Did you tell me anything relelvant to my post that I didn't know?  Not that I can see....

Tom (P)

Thanks.  That was both interesting and relevant.

Rich

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

One of the unique characteristics of the so-called early "Philadelphia School of Architecture" was that it was remarkably collaborative----eg it generally including many men contributing to the design pot of some of the early courses around here back then----Merion East, Pine Valley and Cobbs Creek.

As you have done so often and for so long, you seem to get your tail in a constant tizzy over what precisely is meant by 'full design credit' or even design credit.  But I don't believe anyone around here back then or today does, nor should they if and when they truly understand the history and ethos of the "Philadelphia School of Architecture." Apparently you just don't understand it or wish to admit that reality of the ethos of that Philly School of Architecture. Or perhaps you do understand it but that your protestations are only about finding some minor and irrelevant detail that is wrong so you can carry on your decade long campaign of trying to prove something about Philadelphia architecture or architects wrong in some dreary desire to try to prove yourself to be some expert researcher/historian. And in your forelorn efforts in that vein you seem to have combined with that other participant, Moriarty, who has been up to your same suspect campaign towards Philadelphia and Philadelphians. The point is that Philly School was highly collaborative with numerous people and consequently their names were and are mentioned in the architectural attribution of those golf courses.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom MacWood:

One of the unique characteristics of the so-called early "Philadelphia School of Architecture" was that it was remarkably collaborative----eg it generally including many men contributing to the design pot of some of the early courses around here back then----Merion East, Pine Valley and Cobbs Creek.

As you have done so oftern and for so long, you can get your tail in a tizzy over what precisely is meant by 'full design credit' but I don't believe anyone around here back then or today does, nor should they if and when they truly understand the history and ethos of the "Philadelphia School of Architecture." The point is that Philly School was highly collaborative with numerous people and consequently their names were and are mentioned in the architectural attribution of those golf courses.

Tom:

I think perhaps this is a much more meta-discussion on the nature of architecture in general.

Regardless, I think you'd agree that regardless of who is providing an idea there is ultimately a point-person that must decide whether or not to implement an idea. Isn't it most appropriate to credit this person with the design?

The folly is in assigning a specific design idea to a specific person based on their work elsewhere. Does anybody really actually see aspects of Merion/Pine Valley/random Tillinghast or Flynn design at Cobb's Creek?

Anybody that claims they do is likely quite suspect in their statement.

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

If Cobbs Creek had one "lead designer" or "point person" I have frankly never seen much historical evidence of it. It seems to have been a true "committee" effort and it appears that committee was essentially nominated or appointed by a most interesting person in Philadelphia golf at the time---Robert Lesley, the president of the Golf Association of Philadelphia (GAP). In a real way it seems to have been a local golf association idea and effort and a lot of people stirred the stew.

Historically this is quite unique and should get full historical credit for that unique aspect. The fact that people like Moriarty and MacWood continue to try to minimize it is frankly a bit sad and disappointing in an historical sense. But those two aren't really competent golf architectual historians in my book, at least not when it comes to the history of Philadelphia architecture and architects----they are more like petty historical iconoclasts concerning Philadelphia golf architectural history. I believe they do it on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com because it's the only forum or vehicle they have available to them. Neither of them has ever actually been fully involved in an architectural project on the ground as a few here have been with this Cobbs Creek restoration project, and I think it shows in their analyses of many things to do with Philadelphia golf and architecture history.

I'm sorry, Kyle, as you know I'm sort of an old fart, and I don't use or understand some of these modern terms such as "meta discussion." To me a discussion is a discussion is a discussion, period and sans qualifiers.

[Kyle Harris]

Tom:

Someone was in charge of that committee, right?

So yes:

A was in charge of this
B in charge of that.
C knocked D with a wiffle ball bat

But who dolled out those assignments and held accountability and oversight?

Who determined what resources were applied and set up the construction schedule? What happened when setbacks occured?

That golf course didn't get built all willy nilly.

What you're really saying is that the Philadelphia School delegated and divided responsibility between talented individuals - much like many of today's architectural firms.

[DMoriarty]

Paul Thomas,

I agree with you that none of this stuff justifies getting worked up, and I am not worked up.   I think the reason I stick with it has something to do with the severe reactions to to the trivial stuff I write.  This thread is a good example of that.  I am not saying anything groundbreaking.  In my opinion Mike exaggerated the past reputation of Cobb's to try and sell the project to potentially interested parties. No big deal and no big surprise. Anyone paying any attention knows that, despite good intentions, Mike has a tendency to get carried away with his exaggerations and hyperbole.  Yet look at the severity of the reaction.   Knee jerk is an understatement.

For some reason it fascinates me that normally reasonable, decent people would go so far to deny or disparage what seems to me to be some simple, fact based observations.  I  keep thinking that presenting it reasonably will resolve the impasse, but the reactions and denial and name calling and avoidance and rambles about conspiracy theories just ramp up.   From my perspective it seems that all these guys want to talk about is me, and will say about anything to avoid any reasonable discussion of the underlying subject matter.  Along with my interest in the underlying subject matter, it keeps me coming back.  

It is like I have discovered a village of flat-Earthers.  I know their views are more akin to religion than reason, but I just cannot help myself in trying to convince them that reason is the way to go!  A quixotic task no doubt, but sometimes entertaining.

For example, I find it humorous that, while the parodies and rambles about me continue, not one of them will come forward and acknowledge that, just maybe, the article stating that 933 golfers played the Cobb's Creek course in a single day might be a bit of an exaggeration.

Imagining how 933 rounds in a single day might work is pretty entertaining in and of itself, but I may be more fascinated by how these guys will apparently dig in their heals and hold their ground about something so trivial, obvious, and irrelevant than this!  

Perhaps you can try to explain to me why people would be so stubborn about such trivial things?  

[TEPaul]

"Paul Turner,

I agree with you that none of this stuff justifies getting worked up, and I am not worked up....."



OOOPS, it looks like a factual mistake has been perpetuated that at some point down the road could lead to a horrifying mispresentation of golf architectural history.

Is David Moriarty thinking of Paul Thomas who apparently contributed the subject Moriarty seems to be responding to? Moriarty addressed his response to the immaculate Paul Turner of Colt and Pine Valley expertise who does not appear to have been on this thread.

This is a shocking error that should be repaired IMMEDIATELY.

David Moriarty, you can thank me later for this incredible discovery!!!!

[DMoriarty]

Rich,  Interesting speculation on your part.   A few questions and comments . . .

- You mention George Sayers' "background."  To what extent if any was George involved in design or redesign work, or even greenskeeping?    Other than your speculation about Cobb's and Merion.  

- My understanding from the source material that the reason for the changes to Merion's Alps hole a dozen years after it was built was because it was no longer practical to play cross Ardmore Avenue.  You write that this was "mercy killing" of an "abominable hole."  I trust that this is your opinion from the perspective of 90 years later rather than anything based on the record from the time period?

- While interesting speculation, I am not sure how you can come to the conclusion about anything being "highly likely" or probable based on the scant evidence you have offered.

-  Ben and Catherine Sayers left the US in September 1916.

_______________________________________

I wonder if TEPaul will ever cease with the long rants on what he thinks of Tom and me.   Am I the only one beyond bored with it?  

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Dave

So Ben Sayers was in Philly from at least June 1915 to September 1916?  Hmm.  Wonder what he was doing all that time, other than being glad that he missed his planned voyage over on the Lusitania......?

As for the "Alps" at Merion, my view from ~90 years onwards is that it was a ghastly hole and nothing at all like its template at Prestwick.  Your view from 90 years onwards is different.  Vive la difference!

As for George Sayers, someone who can finish in the top 30 or so in a US Open is not chopped liver vis a vis golf.  The facts that he grew up playing golf on the template of all templates (i.e. North Berwick West), and was the son of one of the best of the very few credible Scottish golf course architects of the early 20th century (Dad Ben) make me speculate that he had "background."  Why exactly do you disagree with this speculation?

Keep well, young man.

rfg

[Tom MacWood]

Tom MacWood:

One of the unique characteristics of the so-called early "Philadelphia School of Architecture" was that it was remarkably collaborative----eg it generally including many men contributing to the design pot of some of the early courses around here back then----Merion East, Pine Valley and Cobbs Creek.

As you have done so often and for so long, you seem to get your tail in a constant tizzy over what precisely is meant by 'full design credit' or even design credit.  But I don't believe anyone around here back then or today does, nor should they if and when they truly understand the history and ethos of the "Philadelphia School of Architecture." Apparently you just don't understand it or wish to admit that reality of the ethos of that Philly School of Architecture. Or perhaps you do understand it but that your protestations are only about finding some minor and irrelevant detail that is wrong so you can carry on your decade long campaign of trying to prove something about Philadelphia architecture or architects wrong in some dreary desire to try to prove yourself to be some expert researcher/historian. And in your forelorn efforts in that vein you seem to have combined with that other participant, Moriarty, who has been up to your same suspect campaign towards Philadelphia and Philadelphians. The point is that Philly School was highly collaborative with numerous people and consequently their names were and are mentioned in the architectural attribution of those golf courses.

I'm aware of the Philadelphia School mythology, but I don't believe its history and ethos should be a license to distort the truth. If you are going go that route with Cobbs Creek's history, the so-called Philadelphia School route, I say go all the way, don't do it half assed. Why not include Tilly on the list, and Father Carr, Howard Perrin, Robert Lesley, Fredrick Taylor, and maybe even the mysterious Howard Toomey, and perhaps JB McGovern and Alex Findlay, who were both based in Philly I believe. Why not, there is as much evidence those men were involved in the design as there is Travis, Thomas and Crump, which is to say no evidence. In the end we could make the CC story the greatest story of collaboration in the long history of the highly collaborative Philly School.

[Tom MacWood]

Ben Sayers made a small fortune selling his brand of golf clubs. I doubt he was in need of work at a public golf course. One of his biggest clients was the huge department store Wanamaker's, out of Philadelphia. You will find his clubs in their ads in the Philly papers at the time.