News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

"I also find myself in some wonderment at some of the things you mentioned, and in these times 100 years later I have to ask myself how those admirable and instinctively gentlemanly qualities were generated and developed in certain people back then, and how we seem to have sadly lost much of that in subsequent generations."


Mike:

If you mean by 'those admirable and instinctively gentlemanly qualities were generated and developed in certain people back then' something synonymous with that old fashioned so-called "amateur/sportsman" ethos that seemed to be so strong and prevalent back then, I don't know that it's an easy or simple connection to make. It may be connectable somehow but it is pretty complex.

The world was different back then in some of these ways, Mike, and I don't know that we can or should say that the way some of those people were back then necessarily made them better than today, just different. They lived in a very different world than we do and I have a sense if we could miraculously bring them here they would be totally amazed and perhaps thrilled with where we've come in many  areas. A few things that have gone by the wayside over the years from them to us they would probably miss, and that "amateur/sportsman" ethos I've talked so much about would probably be one of them. Was it essential to some of them? It certainly was. Is it essential for any of us today? That is probably very debatable, albeit, again, complex!  ;)

I am reminded of that somewhat sad-sounding adage----"You can never go home again." This might be an example.




« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 01:31:45 AM by TEPaul »

TEPaul

GeorgeB:

Please reread post #45 again carefully, particularly the part where Hugh Wilson mentions that mounds were created in that fill area. Do you think those berms and such that you just showed in those photos are them?

I have a feeling they might be and wouldn't that be remarkable, particularly when I produce another letter from Wilson to Oakley about that marshland problem and who created those mounds back in 1913?

Do you remember that silly old adage that if you want something really random and unique created on a golf course go get the town idiot and get him to do it for you? This could be a real world example of just that! ;)
« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 01:25:56 AM by TEPaul »

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Yes

I've been looking at those berms a lot over the past three years - we vacation for a week there nearly every year -  and they are some of the most natural looking mounds I've seen and they certainly were not originally there on that marsh land.

They've been done by someone and they're stunning

When the tide is up, some of the course areas "puddle"

If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Mike_Cirba

George,

Seaview is a fascinating course.

I stood and looked over the landscape and much like Garden City, there is little in the way of major natural land features across the property, and yet the man-made features like those berms add to the interest and romance and golfability of the course.

Why is that?!?!  :o

Architects today build mounding, and hole separations, but it almost never looks as charming as in those pictures.  

Is it that we simply recognize it for the functional reasons those types of features were built back then, yet feel that when we see something similar today it has a different, more exhibitionist, more rote, or more lazy genesis?

I really don't think we give archies of the past a pass, yet I struggle to understand why guys like you and I are in reverence of those pictures, yet can see a line of modern designed mounds and have almost an opposite visceral reaction.

I'm not sure I understand that dichotomy very well, and struggle to because I definitely want to be fair in what I'm seeing.  

TEPaul

R.A. Oakley                                                                                                                          March 15, 1914
U.S. Dept of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.



Dear Mr. Oakley—

            A friend of mine, Mr. C. H. Geist, is building a golf course near Atlantic City and there are 30 to 50 acres of marsh land which he wishes to re-claim. He has tried to do some of this work under the advice of the local people and it has been a dismal failure (The following quotation within this parenthesis is my inclusion from Wilson's first letter above---"At present they are piling it up in mounds and covering it with lime, expecting to let it stay there all winter and then mix it up with some soil in order to sweeten it. Do you think that it will be in shape to use next spring or will it have to stand longer before the salt is out of it and it is thoroughly purified?"). What he wants to get is an expert in this line of work. Is there any one in the Government employ or outside of it who could come up for two or three days and tell him how to do it? He is perfectly willing to pay anything that is right for this and is very anxious to get a thoroughly good man who has had experience in the salt water marshes. I thought you could tell me someone who could do this.
                    Don’t forget us if you are in this part of the country and come up and look us over at any time.
                                                                                                         Sincerely,
                                                                                                           Hugh Wilson
« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 01:59:47 AM by TEPaul »

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike, it also helps a lot on that there really is a lot of room between parallel holes - a lot of the berming is out of play a bit but add so much ambience to the course, as you said, charm, to such a blah piece of land (aka: swamp)

There are a number of suspect, newer-looking mounds - perhaps not so natural looking as those I posted, that I might call "saving mounds", like along the first two holes and along the right of 18, along property lines to keep errant balls in play. Some of those along the edges of the property seem a bit contrived

But on 18 to the right of the prime landing area, in the rough, there is are a couple of beauties

For reference, I took over 60 pictures - most of the berms

Great fun course in a three-club (Bandon-type) wind
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Tom, but doesn't that sound like most of the material to be used for building up the course - and yes, the remainder or more that was dredged was used for the berms.

Just compare this somewhat "moderate" landfill to what took place at CC of Fairfield where they filled half the course and of course the enormous filling at Lido. I have oblique photos of Lido that clearly show those elevations
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Mike_Cirba

Tom,

I definitely understand what you're saying when you mention they were "different times", yet one hopes the best part of each generation would be continued forward while perhaps the lesser traits might fade over time.

Along with the virtues of that age, there were certainly also other perhaps less admirable characteristics and behaviors on display, particularly among those who were among the leaders of the Industrial Revolution of that time.   For instance, and consistent with the topic of this thead, I came across the following on Clarence Geist;

"To say Geist was an eccentric is to fail to give him his due.   When it came to golf, he was very nearly in a class by himself.   He had roads built along almost every hole at Seaview (still in evidence today - comment mine) so that his chauffeured limousine, loaded down with extra clothes, golf equipment, whiskey, and a guard carrying a machine gun, could always be on call.   The enormously wealthy Geist was conviced he was certain to be the target of a kidnapping scheme."

"While Geist was a good player, generally scoring in the 70s, he was pathetically slow, largely because he would take lessons from anyone - caddies, fellow players, it didn't matter to Geist.   And, or course, while Geist thought nothing of backing up play, no one dared  through or even suggest such a thing, since that would mean instant dismissal from the club."

Geist is also particularly fascinating to me because he was on the governing board of GAP during the time when they fought so hard to find the land for and then layout and build the first public course in Philadelphia.

I find it completely wild that men of his background and social standing (as well as others such as Robert Lesley, Colonel Morrell, Ellis Gimbel, and John Pepper went to such great lengths to ensure that golf in Philadelphia was a game for every man, and not just for the privileged classes.

It was clearly a case of "nobless oblige" in actual practice, and one that was ultimately a great success, leaving a historic legacy that we are still just scratching the surface of in an effort to truly understand the sociological lessons.

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
The super is trying his best to get them to agree to get rid of most of the idiotic pines that are all over the course, in the name of “safety” ..... and of course the RTJ factor

the pine around the 5th



and the great Seaview Hotel:

If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

TEPaul

"Tom, but doesn't that sound like most of the material to be used for building up the course - and yes, the remainder or more that was dredged was used for the berms."


George:

But what if the mounds Wilson mentioned in Nov. 1913 that had been piled there and limed and that he asked Oakley if they should stay there until the spring or longer are the very same mounds and the very same formations that we see in those photos of those holes you posted tonight above?

I see nothing remotely wrong with this scenario, George, except it really could be about the best example extant of the "town idiot" adage and a pretty withering example for those who claim ONLY total architectural sophistication can work for interesting golf course architecture. ;)


Mike_Cirba

George,

That's an awesome picture of the 5th hole, and I would agree that every single coniferous tree on the property could come down and greatly improve the golf course.

Of any course I'm well aquainted of, I would argue that Seaview is one of the most well-preserved courses in this country in terms of remaining closest to what it looked like in the earelist days, and I'd also argue that of any great American course, it is closest to Garden City in terms of architectural features.

TEPaul

George:

If what I said in my last post is true, I think this could be remarkable and in a sense golf architecture from then to now may've actually come full circle.

By that I mean this---this is the example----

When Hidden Creek was still under construction I was down there with my old friend Kye Goalby---a man I just happen to think has remarkable taste and imagination as to what can and can't be---should and shouldn't be or else----the true spirit of "just try it and see." In other words Goalby has remarkable architectural imagination and a willingness to think outside the box, in my opinion.

I think we were on the sixth hole and there were all these mounds piled off the tee and I think behind the green apparently just being material from shaping that had been temporarily gotten out of the way.

He said: "Wow, look at those random shapes, how cool is that, and I hope they stay and just get grassed over. Maybe they don't make any architectural or strategic sense but they look really cool!"

TEPaul

« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 09:31:18 AM by TEPaul »

Mike Sweeney

Mike,

I stay at Seaview last summer but did not have time to play the course and have not played it for 20+ years. Combined with this thread, I would like to see it again. Thanks.

George_Bahto

  • Karma: +0/-0
Mike: the greens are just subtle at best, most very small and pretty easy to putt - I wonder if they had ever been "softened? " I guess there is no way to know.

Did the blueprint show any indication of green undulations?

gb
If a player insists on playing his maximum power on his tee-shot, it is not the architect's intention to allow him an overly wide target to hit to but rather should be allowed this privilege of maximum power except under conditions of exceptional skill.
   Wethered & Simpson

Mike_Cirba

George,

That is one of the great mysteries of Seaview.

The original greens were hailed as masterful, and if one blows up the photo that starts this thread of the 18th green in 1914 you can get a sense of it.  I'm not sure I know how to do this correctly, but let's see..



Tillinghast wrote;

"No two of the putting greens have been built alike. There is one which resembles a huge oyster shell, another which is supposed to typify the waves of the sea, one of the terrace variety, a punch-bowl green which has won great praise, and others with distinctive characteristics..."

" Looking out from the club-house, the course certainly looks "golfy," and one is reminded immediately of the seaside courses of Great Britain. The contoursa are good and the land not as flat as one might expect. It would be quite unfair to attempt a close analysis of Seaview at present, for the course is not bunkered, and many holes, which at present lack distinction, undoubtedly will be developed and become attractive in the eyes of the critical golfer.  But that which first makes itself felt is the excellence of the greens.  Without exception, the quality is fine, and for the most part the contours have been created in masterful fashion.  There is, however, an apparent leaning toward saucering a few of the greens, which is unfortunate.  It certainly has made a bad hole of the fifth, where the green assumes the shape of a punch-bowl.  The introduction of the punch-bowl type of green anywhere on the course is questionable policy, but when the green may be reached with a full shot the punch-bowl cannot be considered bad golf.  However, the fifth hole at Seaview calls for a drive and a rather short pitch with a mashie.  Here we find a funnel-like green, which will throw the ball toward the hole from all sides; but certainly we must expect greater accuracy from the mashie pitch than that which this green demands."

"So might many features at Seaview be commended, and a few of them criticised, but any criticisms now would be untimely, for no course is open to criticism until it is developed."

This article is interesting for several reasons.

First, it sounds remarkably like "Far and Sure"'s review of Merion when it opened.   But rather than going there right now, this report confirms another earlier account of the dramatic green contours from October 1914;




Also, it is odd that Tillinghast mentions the course not being "bunkered" yet, but we know from the 1914 pictures that bunkering already did exist.   Perhaps he simply knew of Wilson's penchant and belief of not doing much in the way of bunkers initially til one sees how the course played, because his account does not match the photographic historical evidence, nor Donald Ross's notes where he talks about existing pits and such.

The Ross notes also only connote green contours on greens he proposed building to replace existing ones, such as his notes on the 5th, where he wanted to replace the existing punchbowl green with a "double punchbowl", set more diagonally to play, and with a ridge between the two.   You can see his contour lines for the proposed green on the right-hand side of his drawing.

In later cases you'll see the original hole descriptions discussing green contours which are still reflected on the ground, such as when we get to the 9th hole (today's 13th).

« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 02:37:04 PM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

It appears on the 5th hole, as we can see above in the 1920 aerial, that none of Donald Ross's proposed changes were ever implemented.



The right side fairway bunker was not extended into the fairway, the mounding up on the right side was seemingly unchanged (although there is a bunker there now), and the green was never turned into a double punchbowl with bunkering on each side complimenting the bunkering in front.

Today, however, the large fronting bunker has been segmented into three, and a new one was built over on the left.

However, the surrounds of the green seem to have changed from earlier descriptions, as it is not only most assuredly not a double punchbowl, but it's not even a single one any longer!

If we look at the design history of Seaview according to C&W, they show a (R) for one AW Tillinghast, with no mention of a year.   

Indeed, as I was looking over some of the aerials, some of the longer bunker formations that were formalized in the former larger "sandy pit" areas do look a bit like him.   However, in looking through Phil Young's book, he does not include Seaview as a course where's he's found evidence of Tillinghast so I don't know what C&W's source might have been.

In addition, the ubiquitous father/son team of William & David Gordon evidently did some unnamed revisions of the Bay course in 1957 when they built the second nine of the Pines course there.   

Finally, in recent years I know the course underwent a bit of a "restoration", although I don't recall the architect involved.   For some reason I'm thinking either Brian Silva or Bob Cupp, but I'm not certain of that.

In any case, it's pretty clear that over time what seems to have been a pretty incredible set of original Hugh Wilson greens have largely been lost, with a few notable exceptions we'll get to...

Mike_Cirba

Let's move on to the 6th, a sister hole to the second in that it plays back out towards the bay and is one of the most difficult holes on the course...








The tee shot is uphill and blind to a right to left sloping fairway. 



A good drive leaves a lengthy approach to a low-profile green back-dropped by the bay.   It's also obvious that winds affect play and difficulty of the course to a great deal, and on calm days, modern technology can render Seaview rather manageable.



A better view of the classic lines of the green.



From just left of the long, slender green, one can see some nice contouring as well as the bi-level intersection of the green.



As seen looking back to the tee, plenty of former greenspace at the back of this green is just begging to be recaptured.



From the 7th hole, a look back to the 6th green illuminates much of the low-profile charm and lovely setting of Seaview..

« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 02:25:33 PM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

My photo of Ross' instructions didn't come off very well, so I'll reprint them here;

Build new Tee to right of present one

Build up high Sand Mounds on the back of Green.

Make the Green a large Plateau.   Face it on sides and front with meadow sod.  Give the rear half a raised effect.

No 1. - Present Sand Pit deepened

No 2. - New Sand Pit

No 3. - Present Pits and Mounds



On his map, Ross wanted 1) The Present Sand Pit on the left side of the fairway deepended.   He also called for 2) A New Sand Pit crossing the length fairway at what looks to be about 100 yards from the tee.  Combined with the 3) "Present Pits and Mounds" all the way up the right side, it would have created a bunkering scheme looking something like the letter "J" from above.

Rather curious, but also knowing Ross's penchant for top-shot bunkers, perhaps not surprising.

It also seems he wanted the green to be raised up, backdropped by large mounds, and surrounded on the other three sides with "Meadow sod", and I'm trying to envision what that might have meant.

Mike_Cirba

It's probably accurate to say that none of Ross's proposed changes to the 6th hole were ever implemented.   

The 1920 aerial shows that no top-shot, cross bunker was ever built, and his description of how he wanted a raised-up, plateaued green surrounded by large backing mounds and meadow-grass seems pretty clearly never done.

However, perhaps his instruction to "give the rear half a raised effect", was implemented, but that seems about it.

Mike_Cirba

Moving onto the 7th hole, the first of the par threes, which features a shot over a pond created on the property for irrigation.








From the tee, the straight-forward challenge is evident.



From the other side of the pond, it's evident that the fronting bunkers on each side are set back a way from the green.



Some interesting contour between the green and the right greenside bunker make the actual target even smaller than it looks.



Looking back to the tee, the abrupt falloffs behind and to the side of the green make it one of the more challenging on the course.



This fuzzy 1920 aerial, with the green in the foreground, still provides a pretty good indication of which of Ross's recommendations were ultimately implemented;

« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 03:56:11 PM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

Ross's ideas for the 7th seem to have gone largely unheeded.

First he wanted to extend another 15 foot of greenspace to create sort of a little neck in the back right, but it's clear that was never done.

Apparently there was also a sandy mound front right of the green that Ross wanted to expand and make higher.   Today, there is a bunker near that spot.

He also wanted to create a new bunker directly behind the green with a face at least 4 feet deep.   A bunker or two was built back there by 1920.

However the largest feature he called for was the creation of large fronting center bunker of significant depth to require the hole to be a full carry to the green.  This was never built and by 1920 it seems that only Wilson's original bunker left, mound right, and Ross's backing bunker protected the perched green.   

Mike_Cirba

Before more conversation breaks out, let's roll on to the 8th, shall we?  ;)

It's a short par four that runs along the bay/reeds/wetlands all the way along the right hand side.   At one point a gully evidently ran across at the 150 yard mark, likely to help with drainage but an original carry consideration.








From just in front of the tee, the flatness of the hole along the bay is evident.



The high reeds on the right used to encroach in quite close to the line of play, but you can see in the right distance where the have been cut back.



From 150 yards out.



The short, tricky pitch most golfers face..



The green is fairly surrounded by bunkers.



Missing the tiny green long can quickly cause big problems.



Looking back to the tee one can see much of the original challenge down the right has been neutered, leaving today a relatively simple drive/pitch hole.



This aerial from 1920 shows what looks to be a field of sand in front of the green over on the left in this tough to decipher oblique photo.


« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 08:07:55 PM by MikeCirba »

Mike_Cirba

It's probably a bit of a shame that Ross's recommendations for the 8th hole were never followed.

He essentially wanted to build a second green behind the first one at a slight angle with a "severe hollow between each green to be used as part of the putting surface"   :o

It seems that it would have been more significant than a Biarritz and probably more like a double plateau on steroids, much like the 16th at North Berwick.   It certainly would have made for a more variable hole than exists today, especially given high-spinning wedges and he cutback of the main defense of the hole along the right.

Mike_Cirba

Moving onto the 9th, a mid length, uphill par four with one of the most interesting approach shots on the course to what seems like an original Wilson green, based on the description.

To avoid confusion with the yardage book pictures, I should mention that the course has been a bit renumbered, and the original 9th today plays as the 13th.







From the tee, the broad fairway sweeps uphill to the green.



Challenging the bunkers along the left side is the preferred angle, provided one doesn't kick down into the low, sandy area



The angle from the right side a a bit more problematic



A view of the green from just below the right greenside bunker



Once past the right hand bunker more interest awaits with a quick falloff, and a green that has "terraces that are at right angles to the line of play".



Another view of the same internal green feature, as well as the abrupt fall off in this pic taken from right of the green.



Straying too far left of the green can bring it's own sorts of trouble..




In this 1920 aerial, the partially cut-off green in the lower left can be seen with the two bunkers fronting, but of greater interest is the wide expanse of sand down the left side.   The tee is in the upper right of this photo.

« Last Edit: January 01, 2009, 09:04:32 PM by MikeCirba »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back