Crump & Wilson do Cobb's Creek "for the love of the game" - Now EVEN MORE Crump!

[Mike Cirba]

In the lengthy, probably daunting Cobb's Creek thread, there was some discussion whether Crump's involvement in the design was actually proven.

Just found this corroborating 1917 article today...from everything I've seen it seems the Crump was more involved in the front end in terms of finding the site, and then drawing the plans, which was largely the period from 1913-spring 1915.  

Most accounts of the actually building of the course once construction started focuses on Wilson, Smith, Klauder, with others like Meehan and even Walter Travis towards the end.   Given what Crump had going in south Jersey at the time, that's probably understandable.  

I have to add that given the foresight and civic-devotion of the leaders of the Golf Association of Philadelphia (GAP) back in the early days, I heard more than a few people at the GCA outing the other evening bemoan the seeming lack of interest from GAP at preserving/restoring what might arguably be its greatest treasure and legacy, especially as the eyes of the golf world will be on Philadelphia over the next four years.  

Given the paucity of courses designed by Hugh Wilson and George Crump in their too-brief lives, one has to wonder why there isn't more interest in honoring their gift to the game of golf and architectural work within their own hometown...

One almost feels compelled to fairly ask, "What would Robert Lesley do?"

[Joe Bausch]

I think Peter Putter is William Evans of Public Ledger fame.

I found yesterday, with an assist from new researcher John S, another article indicating Crump being part of the group that laid out Cobb's Creek.  This article was from 1921.

[Mike Cirba]

Joe,

Glad to hear that our new young researcher is earning his keep!   

[Tom MacWood]

Given the paucity of courses designed by Hugh Wilson and George Crump in their too-brief lives, one has to wonder why there isn't more interest in honoring their gift to the game of golf and architectural work within their own hometown...

Part of the problem is perception. I don't think many believe the course was ever all that great, and therefore not good enough to warrant a major restoration effort. Its great to have an interesting history or impressive provenance, but the bottom line is quality of design. From my studying the era the course was never considered great or among nationally elite, and probably was not one of the elite designs in Philadelphia either, which begs the question, with so many big time talents involved, what was the problem? Was the site mediocre, or the design, or a little of both?

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

  When you played Cobbs what was your impression of its greatness? Every person with an interest in architecture that I know who has played the course believes the ORIGINAL routing is among the very best public courses ever built. As for why it did not garner kudos in its early years I can only speculate. But I believe it was because it was public.
    I say this because the land is great and the original design is superb. Maybe people did not like the long walk from 17 to 18.

[Tom MacWood]

Every person with an interest in architecture that I know who has played the course believes the ORIGINAL routing is among the very best public courses ever built.

Mike
I'll take your word for it, I've not played the course so I can't say. But in order to garner support for a full blown restoration I believe you would need to prove it was more than a well routed course or a very good course relative to other public courses in 1916, you would have to prove that it was a historically significant design, in other words a superior design relative to all courses of that era (both private and public), and based on what I've seen that will be difficult to prove.

[mike_malone]

 Other than Merion  or PVGC I wonder which course in Philly at that time was its equal. As for the rest of the country I wouldn't know.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Here is a link to an old thread that tried to answer that question. Some of the better courses based on hosting major local events would be Merion, PVGC, Huntingdon V, Whitemarsh Valley, Philadelphia, Philmont, Aronomink and Gulph Mills. Several of those courses were nationally reknowned.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,35009.0/

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

  You may be seeing the GAP effect in this.  These courses were the playgrounds of the rich. I'm not familiar with the old  Philly Country or HVCC, but Cobbs has nothing to fear by comparison to those other courses. I imagine Philmont at that time was the lesser course there today. And is that the Aronimink in Newtown Square?

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

  I have gone back to read that old topic you referenced and now say that I have no doubt that it is not the architectural merit of Cobb's that accounted for its lack of prestige in the materials you study. Again , I believe it has to do with its public course status. It may be that the architectural critics of today see things in a more focused way.

[Mike Cirba]

Part of the problem is perception. I don't think many believe the course was ever all that great, and therefore not good enough to warrant a major restoration effort. Its great to have an interesting history or impressive provenance, but the bottom line is quality of design. From my studying the era the course was never considered great or among nationally elite, and probably was not one of the elite designs in Philadelphia either, which begs the question, with so many big time talents involved, what was the problem? Was the site mediocre, or the design, or a little of both?

Tom,

Good to hear from you.

In our research we came across many, many articles of players praising the course with the highest regards, including top tournament players of the time like Norman Maxwell, J. Wood Platt, Max Marston, Dorothy Campbell Hurd, and Mrs. Clarence Vanderbeck, and even local pros such as James Govan of Pine Valley.  

To be honest, the only remotely negative article I've ever seen is from Tillinghast, who mentioned that it was less than desireable for a public course to have a number of blind shots, given that many were just learning the game and probably wouldn't have proper etiquette yet in terms of hitting into others.

Have you seen other critical contemporaneous materials of any sort that suggests that the course was not widely hailed for it's 1)challenge, 2) beauty, and/or 3) expert incorporation of the natural features and hazards?  

I think the problem is that they golf course that is there today is only about 70% of what was originally built given the changes necessitated by the creation of the Nike Air Defense system in the early 1950s.   The course lost about 15% of it's total acreage at that time, and although the original greensites still exist, today's routing is significantly narrowed and compromised.  Unfortunately, that's the course most people think of when they hear the term "Cobb's Creek", and dont' quite realize exactly how good it was and could still be.    (EDIT - the good news is that it's ALL potentially recoverable and restorable!...hint hint )

That differs significantly from a comparision with, say, Bethpage, which still existed in its original configuration, but had merely eroded and deteriorated internally through neglect.

I've probably played more municipal courses than anyone on the planet, a dubious distinction admittedly , but I've also played places where successful historically-significant restorations/renovations have been done such as Brackenridge and Memorial Park, and I would say that architecturally and from a site-potential standpoint, Cobb's is/was head and shoulders over 95% of them.

[Mike Sweeney]

I was at a party in Brooklyn on Saturday and a bunch of Philly people were there. I mentioned this concept and now thread to a friend who knows the course very well and here are his thoughts:

___________________________________

I really do not see the City ever doing it. They would have to give up the cash cow driving range on City Ave. It is a money make I have seen the numbers.
 
The original routing was really hard. It was a lot longer than today's and with the elimination of basically 3 holes (one completely and the other 4 others adjust to how they are played now) it would take a lot of cash - $4 million or so to do it and the City would not buy it unless the mayor and city council were golfers and that will not happen.
 
Would it be special, yes. Hugh Wilson's only 2 designs -the East and Cobbs. That would make it special. The difficulty of the original layout. yes. If they ever did it the max length would be about 6600 yrds. Not enough to even bring a men's USGA event to let alone a Tour event. Now if you put the original design back and stretch some of the holes. He is what I mean by that. #2 you could move the tee back up to 50 yards (towards the 13 tee of Karakung), #4 you could move the tee up the hill and add up to 30 to 40 yards (we did this in the fall and have a map in the woods. 190 yrds and you see all of the crick very difficult par 3. #5 move the tee back about 25 yards in the woods but you have to fix the spring problem on the left. it is a hard hole from the back tee it would be impossible from back in the woods. If you put the original routing back the next 4 holes would remain the same 0 6 tee to 16 green, play the current 12 at #7, the current 13 as #8 and then from current 14 tee to current 7 green. The back 9 would be starting on the current 8 tee to current 14 green. You could add 20 yrds making it 200 yd par 3. the then 11th was up today's 14 fairway to current 15 green This would reduce some of the yardage. The next hole was from the back tee on today's #14 down to the 6th green - maybe 10 yards gained. Not sure how much you would gain on the next hole that teed off to the left and in the woods near the trolly tracks - through the driving range and up to the 8th green (that is why it slopes that way). The next hole was a 170 yrd par 3 going south on City Ave with the green near the crick, you could add some yardage on the hole. the next hole is today's #9 but you could add 35 or more yrds. the next hole is today's #10 again you could add 30 yrds by going down the hill to city ave. That would be a really hard hole. The next hole was #17 today's 11 nothing could be done on that. The 18th - the same as today could add 30 to 40 yards by going back into the woods.
 
Would it be special yes but worth 4 million, not so sure. If it ever happened they would have a Bethpage Black waiting line to get on it. But again not sure they could put enough length to make it a tour stop or USGA stop.

______________________________________

[Joe Bausch]

TMac, what criteria are you using to evaluate public golf courses around the early 20's?

[Tom MacWood]

Joe
I don't make a distinction between public and private when it comes to preservation or restoration. I'm basing it on the national perception as reflected in contemporaneous magazines, newspapers and books. You often read on these threads a comparison with Bethpage-Black. Is that an apt comparison? I don't think so on many levels. Bethpage drew a lot of national attention when it was being built and after it opened, and continued to have a national reputation well into the 60s and early 70s, not just as great public course, but as one of the premier golf courses in the country, private or public, and one of the toughest too.

No doubt Cobbs Creek was a premier public course in 1916, but I don't think that is saying much because there were very few public courses at the time, and the quality was not always up to snuff. I'll give it is due as a historic course, especially in Philadelphia, but Van Cortland Park (NYC) and Franklin Park (Boston) are also historic public courses, and I would not advocate restoring either one.

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Sweeney,

Please tell your friend "Thank You!" very much for his thoughts.   He's obviously put in a good deal of time thinking about it.

Later this week I'll try to respond in depth to some of his ideas as well as some of the obstacles he mentions., etc.

Let it be said for now, though, that 1) This will need to be funded with private monies...I agree that there is no way the city has the cash nor should they spend it there given other pressing needs, and 2) The Fairmount Park Commission is agreeable to ideas that inflate the value of their properties, and even more flexible than they were in 1916.

Tom MacWood,

I've played all of the NYC public courses (not Boston however) and comparing Van Cortlandt Park with Cobb's Creek architecturally is sort of like comparing....oh....I don't know, but it's very apples and oranges.

Bethpage is in a class by itself, and has been since inception.

[Tom MacWood]

The point I'm trying to make with the Van Cortland Park and Franklin Park comparison, is that both were considered premier public golf courses at one time, in fact Franklin Hills was considered the most difficult course in the country for a time, public or private. As architecture developed, and our concepts of golf architecture developed, it became clear these historic courses were not outstanding examples of golf architecture. They were not golf courses that were worthy of preservation or restoration.

Those courses were products of the turn of the century, Cobbs Creek came a decade and a half later when architectural ideas were becoming more sophisticated. That being said CC was never mentioned nationally as a prominent design in its day or after. It was considered a good public course when there were very few good public courses, but in the greater scheme of things it was a middle of the road course relative to the great courses of its era. Is it a good idea to expend so much potential time and money on a middle of the road golf course?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Are there any municipal courses besides Bethpage that you consider worthy of restoration/preservation?

Who should make those determinations?

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

You asked, "Is it a good idea to expend so much potential time and money on a middle of the road golf course?"

YES!

It matters not how important it is nationally or historically; those are reasons for restoring certain courses. Here we have the question of a specific course and the answer is quite specific as well; what would restoring Cobb's Creek do for the local community and golfer? If it has real meaning for them then who cares whether or not it was considered a great course at one time or important at a certain date or not. What matters is what it will mean for those who will be paying for the work NOW.

In Atlanta, there are a number of public courses that are in dire need of money to be spent on them. They have varying degrees of historical significance and meaning to the city and communities in which they sit. There is a group of business people who want to see them restored and are willing to help make it happen. Would doing so bring tournaments or increased tourism dollars or any other reason of this type? NO! But it would allow local golfers the pleasure of playing the game more as it was meant to be played. That alone should be reason enough.

Cobb's Creek is important to the local game of golf in Philadelphia and so restoring it shopuld be given strong consideration by & for those golfers.

[Sean_A]

I too am skeptical of Cobb's importance in architectural terms, biut if a bunch of people want to donate money, hard work and a load of convincing to make it happen - what is the real issue?  There are obviously a core of people who want to see this happen, I say live and let live.  Everything doesn't have to be about the bottom line (if the city can be convinced of this) and/or architectural merit.  Sometimes the love of the game and a course is reason enough.  I feel this way about Grosse Ile and UofM.  Niether are really significant on the world stage of golf, but they are to me. 

Ciiao

[Jim_Kennedy]

Mike,

Shortly after CC was built there was an uproar over fees and access. It seems that what was supposed to be affordable for the greatest number of players was seen as being too costly, and many of the players who frequented the private clubs were now making their way to CC, the fees being no obstacle.

Right now the green fees at CC seem very reasonable for a great number of players, but as soon as 4 mill gets dumped into the property that's likely to change, even if it is from a privately raised 'gift' (ala USGA/Bethpage).

What's more important in the muni arena of Philadelphia, a decent facility that serves the most people, or a restored one that will most likely end up being too costly for many of the same people who frequent it now?

I have never seen a golf course lower its fees when monies are poured in. 

[Tom MacWood]

Given the paucity of courses designed by Hugh Wilson and George Crump in their too-brief lives, one has to wonder why there isn't more interest in honoring their gift to the game of golf and architectural work within their own hometown...

Sean
I'm for live and let live too, I was simply answering the question posed above. If there is group who want to spend the time, effort and money, more power to them.

Mike
To answer your question I'm not big believer in the modern restoration movement to start with, in most cases I believe preservation (with perhaps some minor restoration) is the way the go. Most big time restoration projects are actually restorations in name only, in reality they are big time redesign projects, Bethpage being a good example.

As far as which muni courses warant restoration / preservation I don't believe one should make a distinction between public or private when identifying outstanding examples of golf architecture. Either a course is an historically significant design or its not. A couple of the muni courses that come to mind that may have fallen under that definition were Bethapge-Black and Harding Park, and ironically both courses have been redesigned in preperation of major professional events. They are exhibit A1 and A2 of what will likely happen to CC if a major 'restoration' project is undertaken - the course will likely be modernized and redesigned, although not likely in preparation of a pro event.

[mike_malone]

 Tom,

   I believe this is one time where your from afar academic approach falls short. If you had played Cobbs in its present state and then learned of the original routing you would probably feel the same way we do. And when you learned that it really only means repositioing tees you would be even more intrigued.

[JESII]

I'm sure it's in here somewhere...but could somebody describe to me what Cobbs Creek - the operation, not the golf course - will look like after the restoration is complete? Thank you. 

Mike C, you and I spoke about this a couple times as you were beginnig the effort but I would imagine time has impacted those intentions one way or another...sitting here today, what's the vision?

[Mike Cirba]

I don't have too much time today, but I did want to make a few quick points before we get too far afield.

1) Any monies funding restoration would need to come from private contributions, not municipal.   The city doesn't have the money nor should they spend it here if they did.

2) This would NOT be an attempt to create another Bethpage or worse yet, the TPC of Cobb's Creek.     This is NOT being done to host major tournaments of any kind, although it's not inconceivable that a SR., Woman's, or Junior event of some type might be accommodated, but that would be incidental.

3) The idea would be to do this through concerned community capital private investment.   The idea is that local Philadelphia residents would not pay a penny more in greens fees and in fact we would greatly encourage programs for inner-city juniors such as $1 Mondays on the Karakung course.

4) The idea would be to make the course more attractive and challenging as a place to play for the suburban or out-of-town visitor who would pay a modest surcharge to ensure upkeep.

5) The idea would be to leverage the incredible golf and multi-cultural history in a number of ways that tied the golf course more closely to the community and became a source of civic pride.

6) Our goals are EXACTLY what we believe the goals of the founders were.   To provide a high-level, challenging, beautiful golf course, affordably available to all the citizens of the city and surrounds, where they can enjoy the benefits of the game, and where future champions of the city at all levels can attempt to improve their skills.   We believe that we can honor and preserve their legacy.

We have one advantage they didn't however.   We can also honor the incredible history that was made on those grounds over the past 100 years, both architectural, cultural, racial, and athletic.


On another note, we could probably esoterically debate for pages on whether someone believes CC was/is architecturally significant, but I believe that to be a waste of time and the bottom line is this;

If in fact Cobb's Creek is not worthy of restoration because of some implied inferior architecture, that should be a self-correcting process and those of us who have invested time and interest would have been laughed out of our hometown.   

Instead, we have had a ton of interested observers contact us from all levels of the game, which provides encouragement that we are on the right track.

For now, I'll leave you with this 1920's article;

[Mike Cirba]

Mike,

Please see my comments and answers to your friends questions in blue below.   Please thank him again for his interest and let him know I'd be happy to answer anything else as like many people who've played at Cobb's, he's obviously spent some time thinking about the possibilities.

I was at a party in Brooklyn on Saturday and a bunch of Philly people were there. I mentioned this concept and now thread to a friend who knows the course very well and here are his thoughts:

___________________________________

I really do not see the City ever doing it. They would have to give up the cash cow driving range on City Ave. It is a money make I have seen the numbers.

To do a 100% restoration, that range would have to be moved to another location, such as on the driving range across the street from the clubhouse which was where Charlie Sifford honed his craft.   One of our thoughts was the creation of the "Charlie Sifford Learning Center" at that clubhouse site, with vastly updated amenities and range facilities from what is there now.   If any interested deep-pocketed athletes hoping to do community service projects as part of rehabilitating their damaged pubilc image would want to help make this a reality...  

Other options we looked at include making a "narrower/taller" range on that site, or moving the range downstream, in an admittedly cramped attempt to recapture the old 13th fairway.

More promising, and probably more realistic in the short-run is what we call "Plan C", which Joe Bausch came up with, where we can essentially do a 90% restoration without really affecting the driving range on City Avenue  at all, except to rebuild the containment fencing along that side which really needs to happen anyway, in which case we might "steal" 10-20 yards on the left side of the 130 yard wide range, which would have no net negative affect.
 
The original routing was really hard. It was a lot longer than today's and with the elimination of basically 3 holes (one completely and the other 4 others adjust to how they are played now) it would take a lot of cash - $4 million or so to do it and the City would not buy it unless the mayor and city council were golfers and that will not happen.
 
The original routing was indeed very challenging, and that is also indeed part of the allure.   Still, even in a pure restoration the most I can see stretching the course is to about 6600 yards, par 70, and that's going back and doing many of the things you mention below in terms of new back tees.    The "hard" factor seemed to work pretty well for Bethpage."  

Would it be special, yes. Hugh Wilson's only 2 designs -the East and Cobbs. That would make it special. The difficulty of the original layout. yes. If they ever did it the max length would be about 6600 yrds. Not enough to even bring a men's USGA event to let alone a Tour event. Now if you put the original design back and stretch some of the holes. He is what I mean by that. #2 you could move the tee back up to 50 yards (towards the 13 tee of Karakung), #4 you could move the tee up the hill and add up to 30 to 40 yards (we did this in the fall and have a map in the woods. 190 yrds and you see all of the crick very difficult par 3. #5 move the tee back about 25 yards in the woods but you have to fix the spring problem on the left. it is a hard hole from the back tee it would be impossible from back in the woods. If you put the original routing back the next 4 holes would remain the same 0 6 tee to 16 green, play the current 12 at #7, the current 13 as #8 and then from current 14 tee to current 7 green. The back 9 would be starting on the current 8 tee to current 14 green. You could add 20 yrds making it 200 yd par 3. the then 11th was up today's 14 fairway to current 15 green This would reduce some of the yardage. The next hole was from the back tee on today's #14 down to the 6th green - maybe 10 yards gained. Not sure how much you would gain on the next hole that teed off to the left and in the woods near the trolly tracks - through the driving range and up to the 8th green (that is why it slopes that way).

I'm with you to this point, and that's where I'm getting my yardage to 6600.   We begin to diverge in the next section

The next hole was a 170 yrd par 3 going south on City Ave with the green near the crick, you could add some yardage on the hole. the next hole is today's #9 but you could add 35 or more yrds. the next hole is today's #10 again you could add 30 yrds by going down the hill to city ave. That would be a really hard hole. The next hole was #17 today's 11 nothing could be done on that. The 18th - the same as today could add 30 to 40 yards by going back into the woods.
 
We'd be attempting to restore the close as close to possible to what we see as it's heyday, the 1928 US Publinks Tournament.   In that regard, the original 14th hole par three that would run across the driving range parking lot had already been abandoned, replaced by today's stellar par three 17th built around 1926.   We see nothing but problems trying to go for the original, both environmentally across the creek as well as the fact that the original green was not in Philly but in Delaware County.  

Similarly, we'd abandon the idea of a back tee adjacent to the parking lot on the following hole, although it's possible that one could be put there for special tournaments if needed..the rest of your routing would be the same except we'd use today's 17th from a reclaimed tee just below today's 16th green, playing at about 215.

Would it be special yes but worth 4 million, not so sure. If it ever happened they would have a Bethpage Black waiting line to get on it. But again not sure they could put enough length to make it a tour stop or USGA stop.

We'd settle for "special", and don't think the cost would be quite that high although as a next step we really need to get some of this estimated.   As far as a tour event, that would not be our goal, although if someone saw the course as attractive from a junior, senior, or women's event there's nothing we're doing that would preclude that.    

Also, there's a pretty good 6600 yard, par 70 course up the street that can host the other stuff.    
______________________________________