[Mike_Cirba]

Like many classic courses built on sand such as Timber Point, Shinnecock, and Pine Valley, over time sadly they tend to grow over with vegetation.

Such is the case with large stretches of Seaview as seen in this 1920 aerial of the 4th hole (running right to left).




If we are to fully understand the design evolution of Seaview, it's important to keep in mind that these vast sandy areas were intended to function as bunkering and as a hazard, and according to Ross's notes, seemed already somewhat formalized as large "pits".

To determine what if any of Ross's proposed changes to the 4th hole were implemented, let's consider them one at a time.

First, Ross recommended removal of the mound in front of the green to permit an easy run up, and recommended changing it's orientation to favor the right side of the fairway.   This never happened.

1) In addition, he asked that 15 feet of greenspace be added to the back and that the back of the green beyond be "stiffened" - Not Done

2) He called for "rough sand hollows" to be dug in the pit on the left.   It's unclear whether this was done.

3) He also called for extending present mounds around the right hand fairway lengthy sand hazard as well as extending the existing pit.   - Done

Over time, the large sand pits on each side of the fairway were simply formalized to a few bunkers as pictured above.   The basic strategy of the original hole remains today.

[Mike_Cirba]

Ok...perhaps I was a bit overly optimistic when I put the word "discussion" in the title.   

In any case, I do hope someone besides moi is getting some value out of this thread, because frankly it's a pain in the ass to try to collate and sort out and then display all these disparate sources of information.   I also thought that perhaps quite a number of folks here had played the course so actual discussion might break out.   

I even had one anonymouse (spelling fully intended) e-mailer call me "obsessive", and worse yet, teased me about my hairline!      

But that's ok...I fully intend to take this thread to the bitter end, if for no other reason than to document the architectural history of an important early golf course.

However, if you guys don't start doing a better job, I'm going to pull this thread and put it on one of the growing number of rogue, former GCA-er websites..   

Heaven forbid that we take a break from discussing sweeping generalities, pervasive stereotypes, dead-guy ass-kissing and live-retro-guy brown-nosing and we actually get into some detailed discourse about specific architectural features on a course by two of the acknowledged masters of the early game in America!   

Ok...I'm goading you guys, but seriously...if it's more important here to talk about the banking system and politics and bowl games, then perhaps I'm barking up the wrong tree.

It just feels a bit stupid to be carrying on a monologue.   

I'm not asking for much here...just give me a reason to spend another dedicated 10-18 hours to finish this g*dda*n thread! 

 

Holy shit...i think I've just broken the record here for smileys! 

[Neil_Crafter]

Mike
Its hard to discuss for those, like me, who have never seen the course. It looks interesting for sure and you are doing a great job. I wonder though whether once you have completed it you put it up as an IMO piece? Just a thought. Hope you are not getting lonely, and your investment in paying Tom Paul to post will pay off.....on second thoughts no-one would actually pay Tom to post when he's done 30,000 for zip!
Neil

[astavrides]

I'm enjoying the thread.  I just played the course (for the second time) about a month ago.

Probably the 4th hole has lost some of its strategy.  For anyone with decent length, the bunkers are not in play.  I also think it's short enough that going left is not necessary (or possible really, for a wild hitter like me).

[Michael Mimran]

Definitely a course that doesn't hold up well against modern technology.  With that said, it's still a fun and interesting track.  It could certainly do it's self a favor and cut back a ton of trees.  Theres a stretch of holes on the back that were kind of boring, just back and forth.  It was worth playing, but with twisted down the road, I don't know if i'll be back anytime soon.

Thanks for the pics.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I'm still having something of a hard time figuring out how you can tell in detail if something Ross proposed or did to change what he found there before getting involved (what Wilson had done) was done or not or done by Wilson previously. The reason I say that is I just can't see what there is of detail that really indicates what-all Wilson did. There can't be an aerial previous to Ross (as that was too early for aerial photographs) and I just can't see how newspaper descriptions of the holes on opening are comprehensive enough to make a detailed comparision.

Generally when we doing something like this excercise we are comparing a previous aerial (before Ross) to a later aerial (after Ross) but we can only do that with before and after and again, this course with Wilson is too early for a "before" (Ross) aerial.

That may be why few are participating in this excercise----eg they don't have much to go on for a comprehensive and detailed comparison between Wilson and Ross.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike/Alex/Neil,

Thanks for the feedback.   It's nice to know that you guys are reading and I do agree that the course certainly suffers a bit in terms of length in today's game, and the intended strategies suffer, as well.

It was never built to be a "Championship" course, even very early on, but for this exercise I guess I'm trying to imagine the way it played back when.

Tom Paul,

I'm not sure why you're having such problems, young man!   

If one assumes that any features that were already there were Wilson's, and a year after opening they should be, then all of Ross's proposed suggestions to alter the existing course are in his notes and on his drawings.   So, if you consider the drawings a combination of "as-is" with his proposed "to-be" suggestions atop it, it's fairly easy to assess what was there prior simply by backing out his proposed changes.   When he talks about "enlarge existing sand pit", then we know a sand pit existed prior.   

The second part of this exercise is trying to determine which of Ross's suggestions were actually implemented, as quite a number of them seemingly were not.

Please keep up with the rest of the class. 

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

What is the timeline of events from the conception of Seaview to Opening Day?

At which points does Wilson enter that timeline?

[TEPaul]

"The second part of this exercise is trying to determine which of Ross's suggestions were actually implemented, as quite a number of them seemingly were not."

MikeC:

I guess that's the part I'm having some trouble with. Ross' proposals seem fairly comprhensive and I'm wondering how one can really tell if some of them were not done. For instance, it looks like he recommended something like adding 15 feet to the back of #4 and "stiffening" something. How can you tell that wasn't done?

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

What is the timeline of events from the conception of Seaview to Opening Day?

At which points does Wilson enter that timeline?

Kyle,

This should help establish the timelines.   

[Joe Bausch]

Mike,

What is the timeline of events from the conception of Seaview to Opening Day?

At which points does Wilson enter that timeline?

I don't know exactly when Seaview was conceived, but I have a Sept 1913 article indicating they were rushing to complete the construction to be ready for an opening in 1914.  The formal opening did not occur until Jan 1915.  Here are a couple of neat full pages from the January 17, 1915 edition of the Public Ledger documenting the big event:

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe,

Nice find... 

Kyle,

This snippet is culled from an earlier Bausch discovery of a 10/12/1913 article by William Evans in the PHilly Public Ledger;

[Mike_Cirba]

MikeC:

I guess that's the part I'm having some trouble with. Ross' proposals seem fairly comprhensive and I'm wondering how one can really tell if some of them were not done. For instance, it looks like he recommended something like adding 15 feet to the back of #4 and "stiffening" something. How can you tell that wasn't done?

Tom,

I can tell it wasn't done because the orientation of the present green is not at all like Ross drew...instead it's still very diagonally favoring a shot from the left side of the fairway and the profile is exactly as it was in that pre-Ross 1914 photo.   The green is also very small.    Beyond that, the "stiffening" on the drawing indicates mounding built up on the back of the green, which does not exist.


On the next hole, the 5th, the evidence that Ross's plan was not followed for that green will become more clearly evident.

Speaking of which, let's go there now...

[Mike_Cirba]

A short, uphill par four, the 5th features a rising fairway that falls off on both sides into what used to be sand pits, but is now just rough grass.



This photo shows the second shot of the golfer who goes short left.   The yellow flag is barely visible in the distance.



Another from the left bunker..



Bunkers span the front of the green.





From the left side of the green..



And closer.




An aerial view (running left to right) of how the hole looked in 1920 before the sandy areas became overgrown.

[Mike_Cirba]

I've created a bigger blowup of the instructions here, because Ross wanted to create a double punchbowl green and turn the original green into a bunker.




This one is a bit hard to read, so let me type it out..

Next to the present green he writes, "Present punch bowl now a sand pit".

No 1. - Continuation of present pits

No 2 - Continuation of present mounds

No 3 - Present Sand pit deepened

No 4 - New pit cut in face of new double punchbowl green

Extend fair green forty yards to the left 


No 1 referred to the right side sand pit in the fairway

No 2 referred to the right side mounds on the top of the hill

No 3 referred to the bunker fronting the green

No 4 referred to a proposed new bunkers running the length of the new double punchbowl green.

Hope that helps..

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike,

What is the timeline of events from the conception of Seaview to Opening Day?

At which points does Wilson enter that timeline?

Kyle,

Based on the timelines these articles reflect, this is what it looks like to me;

May/June 1913 - Course building starts - The Evans article indicates Hugh Wilson was Geist's architect.

Summer 1914 - Course open to membership play

December 1914 - Hugh Wilson resigns as chairman of the Merion Green Committee citing the need to devote more time to his business.   He has just designed and built Merion East, Merion West, and Seaview as a hobby over the previous 4 years.

January 1915 - Official Grand Opening Tournament with celebrities Chick Evans and Jerry Travers in a four-ball and AW Tillinghast serving as referee

April 1915 - Club hires Wilfred Reid as pro and William Connellan as Supt.

April 1915 - Francis Ouimet partners with Hugh Wilson to defeat Clarence Geist and Wilfred Reid in a publicized match and also sets the new club record of 73

May 1915 - Club hires Donald Ross to "stiffen" the course by adding bunkers.

[TEPaul]

Kyle:

Another strong attribution that Wilson laid out Seaview is from a letter from Wilson's secretary to Piper explaining that Wilson brought in Fred Pickering (who did the construction work at Merion East and West until permanently passing out at which point Flynn took over construction on the West) to do construction work for him on the Seaview course.

[George_Bahto]

Mike - 5 is one of my favorite holes on the course

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

I would agree.   I find something very compelling about a "driveable" par four where the green is blind from the tee.   It's probably one of those holes that plays different, but still well, given technological changes.   Back in 1914 I'm betting reaching the top of the hill without falling off into sand pits on either side of the hogback fairway was a challenge for a lot of golfers with hickory.   Today, it's the temptation to try to bomb one over the fronting bunkers, or failing that, exactly where to lay back to for a fuller approach shot to a small, difficult to gauge green.

I also like the elevation change on that part of the property, which is quite unusual for south Jersey.   I'm wondering if it was built up with fill?   What does your trained eye think?

Happy New Year!! 

 

[George_Bahto]

......  and what about the berms, talking about extra soil - those are a greatest collection of berms I've seen in one place and I'm assuming they are all man made. I've phot'd all of them and will post some soon as I get a chance, if you'd like

[TEPaul]

Mike and Joe:

Here's Wilson's first letter to Russell Oakley on the Seaview project:



R.A. Oakley
U.S. Dept of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.                                                                                                         Novemeber 21, 1913


Dear Mr. Oakley--

             I am very much interested in the golf course at Atlantic City where five of the holes are on salt meadows. The have drained the meadows and put in a sluice gate and have pumped in sand for the formation of some of the greens. In pumping in the sand they have pumped in a great deal of mud over the marsh and made a pretty bad mess of it. They have diked the marsh and put in a sluice gate but it does not seem to dry out very well. They are anxious to get an expert to come down and go over the ground with them and tell them what they ought to do and what can be done. Is there anyone you can tell me about who really knows something of this kind of work? It is not a question of cost, as they are perfectly willing to pay them any reasonable sum for the work.
              I asked them to send you some of the sod or peat by express so that you could look over it and see if it would not be very useful in treating the sandy soil as top dressing. 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 of will it have to stand longer before the salt is out of it and it is thoroughly purified?
                                                                                                             Very Truly Yours,
                                                                                                                      Hugh I. Wilson

[Mike_Cirba]

George,

I think photos of those berms would add immeasurably to this thread.  Thanks!

Tom,

Thanks for posting that letter.  It really is a big part of the story of early course construction in this country that growing turf was a huge part of the challenge and learning curve for these guys and Wilson made enormous contributions in this area.

I also hope I don't sound too sentimental when I say that reading him in his own words was an emotional experience for me...I'm beginning to feel that I know him somewhat.

Thanks for that.

[TEPaul]

MikeC:

I know what you mean about feeling a bit like you're getting to know him when you read his own words and obviously agronomy was very important to them back then (so little was known about it back then compared to today) but you should know that it doesn't necessarily mean that's all he cared about. Hugh Wilson was extremely efficient and when writing to somebody like Oakley or Piper he pretty much kept his correspondence to the point and in context and that's what Piper and Oakley were into---agronomy.

He sure did have a neat little dry sense of humor though that really comes through from time to time and I don't think it's that hard even in his letters to tell that he seemed to sense that his race may not be a long one (that's why he kinda reminds me of JFK, as well as his neat little sense of humor) and he seemed to be in a hurry with everything he did. Wilson seemed to be sort of the opposite of a hypochondriac but he really was never a well man.

After a decade and more of this letter writing and working together you can also tell their real affection for each other but they all seemed sort of the opposite of sappy about it. At the end of it all these men did a whole lot for golf and those who knew them certainly understood that.

The other thing that really comes through for me is how ethical and principled Wilson and his brother were. As you can imagine in what they were doing in those years---eg in a real way taking part in perfecting the experimentation, use and dissemination of bent grass as well as promoting efficiencies in golf generally there most certainly was the opportunity to profit from it but they had such a wonderful sense of both where and how not to ever cross that line. These guys were the essence of the so-called "amateur/sportsman" that was a pretty big deal back then amongst some.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul,

The more I learn about Hugh Wilson the more I want to know.

I sense optimistically that there is a lot more out there to find about his life, somewhere, but I also conversely think that perhaps his self-effacing style wasn't into creating a whole bunch of documentation around his efforts.

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.

I fear that perhaps I venerate too much of the past, but certain men (and women) do seem to stand out the more one reads of history, and as you say, many of them seem to be those who left us too soon.

In almost all cases, those folks also seem to have had some sense of pre-destination...of knowing that their time here was short and thus seemed to live several lifetimes into a single short one.

Happy New Year...
Mike

[George_Bahto]

The berms at Seaview’s Bay Course

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()