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

[Mike Cirba]

My guess would be the archies had planned a much longer hole for the 18th.  Perhaps even having the tee near the little used current 17th tee and have a par 5 that crosses a deep valley off the tee, then along a flat area before running down to the green pretty much along the current 18th FW.  This would be a long one for its day, probably about 550 yards.

And you know what the above means, right?  It suggests the sure hand of William Flynn was not the sole architect!   

Joe,

I Google-earthed from the top tee on 17 to today's 18th green and it's about 720 yards!       Not sure if that was the hole they had in mind, but I bet it was some variation on that theme, with another big uphill teeshot in the equation.

I say that because Tillinghast reported that the original plans for Cobb's Creek were criticized for the number of blind shots.

[Joe Bausch]

My guess would be the archies had planned a much longer hole for the 18th.  Perhaps even having the tee near the little used current 17th tee and have a par 5 that crosses a deep valley off the tee, then along a flat area before running down to the green pretty much along the current 18th FW.  This would be a long one for its day, probably about 550 yards.

And you know what the above means, right?  It suggests the sure hand of William Flynn was not the sole architect!   

Joe,

I Google-earthed from the top tee on 17 to today's 18th green and it's about 720 yards!       Not sure if that was the hole they had in mind, but I bet it was some variation on that theme, with another big uphill teeshot in the equation.

I say that because Tillinghast reported that the original plans for Cobb's Creek were criticized for the number of blind shots.

It is not quite that far Mike!  And I would think they might not have put the 18th green where they did.  Move the green a bit and start from near the unused 17th tee, come over the current 17th green, and the hole maybe pushes 600.

[Mike Cirba]

Joe,

Are you talking about the 17th tee near today's 16th green that we've hit shots through the trees from, or the lower tee?

[Joe Bausch]

Joe,

Are you talking about the 17th tee near today's 16th green that we've hit shots through the trees from, or the lower tee?

The former.

[Mark McKeever]

That would be an awesome tee shot from the 17th tee over the valley!

Mark

[Joe Bausch]

This below is at least 560 yards.

[Mike Cirba]

Joe...I'm thinking you might be correct.   These guys were nothing if not bold and they surely would have seen the dramatic potential of that landform, although I suspect today that hillside would be littered with the skeletal remains of those who died trying.  

For anyone familiar with topo maps, the illustration below with Five foot elevation changes should give you some idea of the boldness of the carry from the hilltop tee over the valley.

I suspect like the 18th at Yale, some would fervently both love and hate it.

[Mark McKeever]

After the previous 17 holes, what's another daunting uphill tee shot right?  This would be a phenomenal finishing tee shot for the home hole.  I would be one of the ones who died trying! 

Mark

[Joe Bausch]

Mike, maybe a little larger picture of that 1915 topo including the area we are talking about is warranted.  I think this has the numbers readable and maybe some people playing along at home will comment about the feasibility of this hole.

[TEPaul]

Mike and Joe:

The kind of question you seem to be asking is actually sort of a classroom study of the routing process. What you mostly need to measure and consider is the kind of tee shot you'd be getting if the tee on #18 was right around behind #17 green which it would have to be since you run out of flattish space pretty quickly in that direction. I didn't see a scale on that map so I just used the 150 yard par 3 hole as the scale and I get it as about a 230-250 yard carry before a drive can reach what I would consider some usable topography for a tee shot on the other side right around the 180-185-190 elevation line where you can see things begin to flatten out and begin to go downhill again. That kind of thing might work for some really good players today but it wouldn't work back then and then what the hell are you gonna to about the rest of the golfers who aren't experts or pretty damn long?

I went through this kind of analysis with that Ardrossan project for about two years and over about 500 hours on that land with a topo map. It just drives you nuts sometimes that certain portions of the land just ain't giving you what you need at the time and place you need it even if on a single shot. That's why I call the routing process "The Big Jigsaw Puzzle."  

But of course this is only an excercise in what I would call "topo routing." You could always call The Faz to solve this routing problem on that tee shot. He could show up with a small platoon of D-8s and D-6s and in about 36 hours that elongated valley would be no more!  

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

There is a tee there today, right on the ledgetop, and used to be used for the 17th hole that got built in 1926 but it's overgrown a bit these days.

We're thinking that the "constructionistas" may have wanted to use that as the launching pad of their 18th hole.   (as an aside, Joe and I have certainly tried that tee out to today's 17th green (trying to miss the branches) and back about 25 years ago that tee was used during the Philly Publinx I played in.)

If the opposing hillside were denuded of trees, it would be a pretty steeply uphill climb if one's ball didn't make the carry to the top, but really no more so than what they produced on their original #6.

That hole rose 85 feet from a tee near the creek in the valley to a fairway landing area that required a good 230 yard poke to reach flatlands.

This theoretical hole only rises a mere 65-70 feet, and you have the advantage of teeing off from the opposing hillside.  

[Mike Cirba]

This photo may help illustrate.

The original tee for the hole is back and to the left, about 10-15 yards further behind and about 20-25 feet higher.

Our speculation is that from that vantage point, "back and to the left" to quote one Jim Garrison, one drove beyond today's 17th green towards the hillside in the distance.

Although photography tends to flatten things out, you can get a pretty good sense of the scale given the winter scene, and one can imagine a fairway up through the trees.

Beyond the top of the hill, one would find a flat spot about 100 yards long before another long descent to the green.

It would certainly have been a wild, roller-coaster of a hole.

[Mark McKeever]

Would it not be a similar tee shot to the original 8th hole??

Mark

[Mike Cirba]

Mark,

I believe you're thinking of the tee shot on the original 6th hole, which rose from the creek to an elevation change of 85 feet to the landing area.

This one would be similar, if slightly less in elevation change, but the tee shot on the theoretical 18th would have been from a hillside at the same elevation, and across the intervening creek valley.

[Mark McKeever]

Mike,

Im thinking of the original 8th (present day 13th) where you tee off over the valley to the flat land on the top leaving a short iron into the green.  This new 18th tee shot would be similar although it would be a much bigger poke to get it to the flat at the top of the hill.

Mark

[Mike Cirba]

Mark,

Ahhh...now I gotcha..  

That's a good example...I'll have to look at the elevation changes and distances there.

***EDIT*** - From the lowest point on the old 8th (today's 13th) to the top of the hill is about 35-40 feet, or about half the change of the hypothetical 18th.

[Mark McKeever]

Mike,

Glad were on the same page now.  Looking at those elevations you listed and thinking that the 18th would be twice as "severe"....Now that would be an daunting tee shot!!  And I thought the 13th was scary!

Mark

[Mike Cirba]

Mark,

The one real similarity that would make it slightly less daunting is that in both cases the tee and landing zone are at the same elevation...albeit a signicant carry distance away.

[TEPaul]

"Our speculation is that from that vantage point, "back and to the left" to quote one Jim Garrison, one drove beyond today's 17th green towards the hillside in the distance."


That's my point. It would not be a good hole or a good tee shot from there. That photo even if from a tee to the right shows why.

[JSlonis]

Mike,

Do you have any figures $ wise on what this project would cost to really do correctly?

[TEPaul]

"Mike,
Do you have any figures $ wise on what this project would cost to really do correctly?"


Jamie:

He called me the other day on an update on a factor of the project and that subject sort of came up but I don't remember the answer to your question. But let's just say if you gave him a million it would be much appreciated.

[JSlonis]

"Mike,
Do you have any figures $ wise on what this project would cost to really do correctly?"


Jamie:

He called me the other day on an update on a factor of the project and that subject sort of came up but I don't remember the answer to your question. But let's just say if you gave him a million it would be much appreciated.

Tom,

It's probably best to keep those figures quiet.

I wish I was in the position to donate that kind of cash. For this project, I certainly would.  Unfortunately, the Powerball Lotto didn't cooperate last week.  

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
It's probably best to keep those figures quiet."


I agree. It's generally prudent to not be specific publicly on something like that, particularly on a website like this that has so many fighters and fussers and arguers and debaters and all-around goofballs with no real good reason for any of it. So in that vein all I would say about the budget is it's somewhere north of 19 million. I'm just not too sure what the 19 million minimum is. It could be Mexican Pesos or Polish Zlotis as far as I know.

[Mike Cirba]

"Our speculation is that from that vantage point, "back and to the left" to quote one Jim Garrison, one drove beyond today's 17th green towards the hillside in the distance."


That's my point. It would not be a good hole or a good tee shot from there. That photo even if from a tee to the right shows why.

Tom,

How long a carry is the new back tee on 18 at Merion out of the quarry?   

Seriously, a few of us looked at this yesterday from the "lower" tee that photo is taken from (about a 240 carry to level ground) and it has some very real similarities.

[TEPaul]

Probably about the same but the difference with #18 at Merion and this situation is Merion has enough tees on flat ground ahead of the back tee. This situation doesn't have that because of the different topography at the tee end at Cobbs.