Pine Valley history Book...

[Brian Phillips]

Just looking at the other Topo map was another eye opener about what was done on the 16th, especially near the green. I find that topo even more interesting than even the 'original' routing..

It really is one of the fascinating stories not only in golf but also in the history of GCA.

[TEPaul]

"It really is one of the fascinating stories not only in golf but also in the history of GCA."

Yeah, it sure is Brian. From start to finish, and the way it was done was pretty unique in the history of GCA. I don't know that there ever has been a course that so many well known people in golf architecture were around and analyzing during those ten years or so from the time it began to the time it really was finished. It's some story, alright. And the fact that a guy who'd never done anything with architecture before was living there the way he did and was there just about every day for five solid years overseeing the creation of all of, and apparently paying for it too is perhaps the most interesting thing of all about it.

But one of the problems with that Colt map we bought is there are no contour lines on it. If there were it would help a lot.

[Brian Phillips]

TP,

I have said before if you got a good scan of the topo map on the other wall near the entrance I could then place the Colt routing (if we had a scan of both) on top of that one to analyse how much was actually moved.

Now that would be just as fascinating as what we have discussed in the last five years.

[TEPaul]

"TP,

I have said before if you got a good scan of the topo map on the other wall near the entrance I could then place the Colt routing (if we had a scan of both) on top of that one to analyse how much was actually moved.

Now that would be just as fascinating as what we have discussed in the last five years."

Brian:

I don't think so---not by a long shot. The most interesting overlay is the first and second topo maps because both have contour lines on them and with the second map it is clear to see that it was used by Crump for years after Colt left for good. Also I know the course and the land well enough to simply be able to read the elevation numbers on the contour lines on either map and match them to the land on the golf course.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

You seem to want to avoid discussing these issues you've called speculation on speculation on speculation, and I can't say I blame you because if you discuss it further it'll obviously make you look like an idiot regarding what you've said to date. Is that the reason you're avoiding this or is there any reason why you're avoiding the issue, such as you think Tillinghast was dreaming, lying regarding what he wrote in American Golfer in April 1913 or perhaps you think that enormous dip somehow disappeared?



  Re:Pine Valley history Book...
« Reply #222 on: Yesterday at 08:15:01am »    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"TE
I don't know where the 6th and 7th were (or the 8th and 9th). If I was a betting man I'd bet on a diligent researcher like Phil figuring it out in the end. Speculation upon specualtion upon speculation is obviously not the answer."

Tom MacWood:

Then lets see if Phil can figure something out and let's see if it makes any sense. First of all, has Phil ever seen Pine Valley? No, he said he never has. If not does he know what the land looks like? Could he identify the topography Tillie is describing if he's never seen the land? I guess not, huh?  Do you also notice Phil is not accusing those who do know the site of speculatoin on speculation on speculation?   Why do you suppose that is?

You've never seen it either have you? No you haven't, so how do you expect to identify the topography Tillie was describing as the par 5 6th and the undeveloped 7th over an enormous dip with a stream of clear water? And why are you accusing someone who does know the site and the topography out there of speculatoin on speculation on speculation if you don't know anything about the topography of the site and what Tillie was describing with that hole with a drive over an enormous dip with clear water if you don't know the site? That's what I'd like to know for starters.  


But what we do know is what Tillie was describing for the 5th hole---eg a short shot from app the tee of the present 5th hole (it was either on or just to the right of where it is now if one looks at the first topo). Tillie describes that as a short iron to a green on the hillside beyond a very pronounced depression and over a creek.  If one looks out from around PV's 5th tee that could've been a shot to the left hillside, straight ahead to the first part of the present hole below or perhaps even to the right across the creek (now a pond) across from where Crump built his bungalow.

If one looks on the first topo one sees a number of itearation lines in those various directions but one notices Crump circled a green site on the hillside to the left.  

So if that is where he was planning his 5th green when he was out there with Tillie, and perhaps in early February or March before he was even given that topo survey map on which he made his first stick routing, then one can assume the 6th tee must have been near that early iteration of Crump's short iron 5th hole green.  Are you with me so far?  

THEN, if one understands that land and its topography it's not very hard to see where Crump HAD to go with that par 5 6th hole. Basically there aren't many options where he could go from there with a par 5 and then have that par 5 be followed by a 7th hole from a tee with a drive over a stream of clear water.

Tillie says he cleared some of that area where that 6th hole par 5 iteration was and if one looks on the aerials one can see that that is where the 5th hole eventually went and where the par 4 6th hole went (the present 6th hole) which in another iteration was Crump's 8th hole because instead of continuing to entertain any ideas of that par 5 6th and the 7th over an enormous dip, Crump decided instead to take the 6th hole from a tee next to that short iron par 5 on the left on the hillside over the ridge to a green to the right of the present 10th and then the 7th from a tee next to the right of the beginning of what would eventually be the 11th to a green near John Ott's house to the left of the present 9th fairway. From there he used the present 6th which was listed as the 8th on that first stick routing. From there his 9th hole iteration on the stick routing is what became the present 7th hole!  

That's the way routing iterations happen on site, MacFudd, but never having seen such a thing take place on site on a construction project there's not much possibility that you'd understand that. Obviously not understanding this kind of thing you just assume it's all speculation on speculation on speculation.    

[TEPaul]

From the above post:

"Tom MacWood:
You seem to want to avoid discussing these issues you've called speculation on speculation on speculation, and I can't say I blame you because if you discuss it further it'll obviously make you look like an idiot regarding what you've said to date.
Is that the reason you're avoiding this or is there any reason why you're avoiding the issue, such as you think Tillinghast was dreaming, lying regarding what he wrote in American Golfer in April 1913 or perhaps you think that enormous dip somehow disappeared?"

Tom MacWood:

What is the reason you continue to avoid this question or refuse to answer it?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

How often must I remind and teach you.

If an individual's quote reinforces Tom MacWood's position, he embraces it.

If an individual's quote undermines Tom MacWood's position, he rejects it.

You have so much to learn and I only have so much time  

[TEPaul]

Patrick, my dear fellow, for once I agree with you.  

MacWood admits he has no idea where that iteration of #6 and #7 that Tillinghast described in the April 1913 issue of American Golfer was, but yet he maintains my description of where those holes were is speculation on speculation on speculation. That's pretty interesting logic, don't you think?

I've asked him if he thinks Tillie was dreaming or lying about those iterations since all he seems able to say is they're speculation. Since he obviously doesn't know PVGC very well I can't say I blame him for just avoiding this thread now. But if Tillie was telling the truth about those iterations they had to be there somewhere.  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Even though I have said I suppose I can see why you continure to avoid this thread I'm still waiting for your answers.

Since you've admitted you have no idea where the hole iterations for #6 and #7 Tillinghast described in the April 1913 issue of American Golfer were, I do understand why you can't imagine where those hole iterations may've been, not the least reason being you aren't familiar with Pine Valley or its topography.

Nevertheless, Tillinghast did describe a par 5 #6 hole iteration and a 'undeveloped' 7th hole with a drive over an enormous dip with a stream of clear water.

So my question to you, once again, is do you think Tillinghast was dreaming or lying when he described those hole iterations in the April 1913 issue of American Golfer?

And if you don't think he was dreaming or lying, would it be safe to say that those hole iterations were out there somewhere, even if you may not now know where they may've been? Or should I assume you haven't even gotten that far?

I think we should have an answer to those questions from you.

Is it really useful to simply suggest that my explanation is nothing more than speculation on speculation on speculation, and just leave it at that? And if you think that's a useful and informational way to leave it one probably needs to ask why you feel that way?  

Is it that you're trying to avoid something or even that you just don't know?  

[Tony_Muldoon]

Don't know if this is pouring petrol on or just completely irrelevant.  The following pictures are from the 1990 Grant Book’s reprint of "Some Essays on Golf-Course Architecture" by Colt & Alison.  I believe it's a faithful reproduction of the original book published in 1920 - it would be easy to check how faithful, Sean Arble knows the publisher.

So it seems reasonable to assume that Colt put forward these pictures for inclusion, by implication, as examples of their work.  (I should make it clear nowhere is it explicitly stated in the book).  One also assumes they are from the long lost collection of photographs of PV that Colt had and Alison asked for at his death.


Do they sit happily with the facts as described above if they are of work by Colt?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony,

Thanks for the pictures.
The first one would seem to confirm my theory on the tees/play of the 15th and 5th holes.

I've maintained that the carry over the water was TOO heroic and that there may have been forward tees.

You photo of # 5 seems to indicate that the land beyond the water was maintained as FAIRWAY, which would make sense.

I can't see anyone carrying that chasm, all the way to the green, in the early days, given the equipment.

quote author=Tony Muldoon link=board=1;threadid=12132;start=210#msg512985 date=1166291327]

[TEPaul]

Tony:

The photos above if they were in the possesion of Colt very well may be from an album on PVGC that apparently Crump presented to Colt, perhaps in 1914, perhaps later. On the other hand, those photos may be from a later date (you said 1920). I believe that album is in the possesion now of the USGA. If it isn't that one, it's one like it. It really is a wonderful piece of history and the USGA is very proud to have it. I do not know how it got there (eg who gave it) but it wouldn't be hard to find out.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

PVGC only used one set of tee markers up until the last ten years or so (that fact alone could've been fairly unique for any golf course anywhere). I can assure you that there were no shorter tees in general play on either #5 or #15, not in Crump's conception or otherwise, although there is a shorter tee below the regular large tee on #5. I don't know how long it's been there but I'm quite sure it is not original. There were shorter tees added on some holes under the presidency of Ernie Ransome (particularly #16) and actually some have been added in the last few years on a few holes.

As for whether the area you see over the creek on #5 was intended to be fairway, yes, Crump very much wanted that area to be fairway but I'm not sure it was ever maintained that way, at least not in the last 85 years. There was no forced carry at PVGC in its original design longer than app 175 yards. However, for some golfers back in that day that was a long way to carry a golf ball---eg too far for some to practicably carry. That is why Crump maintained that the course was only for 'champions' (elite players), and was not exactly intended to accomodate others.

[TEPaul]

Here's a repeat of post #235;

How about it Tom MacWood? Are you going to just keep avoiding the subject and the question???  

Tom MacWood:

Even though I have said I suppose I can see why you continure to avoid this thread  I'm still waiting for your answers.

Since you've admitted you have no idea where the hole iterations for #6 and #7 Tillinghast described in the April 1913 issue of American Golfer were, I do understand why you can't imagine where those hole iterations may've been, not the least reason being you aren't familiar with Pine Valley or its topography.

Nevertheless, Tillinghast did describe a par 5 #6 hole iteration and a 'undeveloped' 7th hole with a drive over an enormous dip with a stream of clear water.

So my question to you, once again, is do you think Tillinghast was dreaming or lying when he described those hole iterations in the April 1913 issue of American Golfer?

And if you don't think he was dreaming or lying, would it be safe to say that those hole iterations were out there somewhere, even if you may not now know where they may've been? Or should I assume you haven't even gotten that far?

I think we should have an answer to those questions from you.  

Is it really useful to simply suggest that my explanation is nothing more than speculation on speculation on speculation, and just leave it at that? And if you think that's a useful and informational way to leave it one probably needs to ask why you feel that way?  

Is it that you're trying to avoid something or even that you just don't know?

[TEPaul]

Isn't it interesting how Tom MacWood continues to avoid this thread and continues to avoid answering a few pertinent questions he obviously can't answer due to the things he's said to date?  

[RSLivingston_III]

Pat,
Can I say once again that I am very sure the balls the better players were using were comperable too if not exceeding the power of a ProV1? All of those shots would have been very much accomplishable by the quality of players that frequented the course.
You really need to play with a good set of these clubs to learn what was going on. I can only go so far trying to explain it, you have to experiance it.

[TEPaul]

And another day goes by that MacWood avoids answering some pertinent questions about some of the things he's said on this thread.

I wonder why?  

[TEPaul]

Tom MacWood:

Are you getting any warmer on figuring out what Tillinghast was referring to when he described that #6 and #7 iteration in the April 1913 issue of American Golfer?  

And if not what do you think about Tillinghast's description? Do you think perhaps he was dreaming or lying?

How do you explain it pal?

You can certainly continue to say you just don't know which is obviously true but then why would you say the way others explain it is merely speculation on speculation on speculation?

Your continued avoidance of this thread and subject is getting more indicative every day!    

Does anyone who has a pretty good familiarity with PV and its land want to take a shot at what Tillie was describing in April 1913 for a par 5 6th and the "undeveloped" 7th hole iteration with a drive over an enormous dip with a stream of clear water below?

Tom MacWood has obviously put his foot in his mouth in that vein on this thread and he obviously does not want to have everyone see him have to remove it on this thread. If he had to do that obviously he feels it would effect his credibilty as a self proclaimed "expert research and architectural historian"

[CHrisB]

Tom,
Would the undeveloped 7th mentioned by Tillinghast go from just short and right of the present 6th green, teeing off over the stream/wetlands area back behind the present 4th tee (the wetlands that seem to be preventing the club from building the way-back tee on the hillside behind), with the fairway running back behind the 3rd green?

[TEPaul]

Chris:

Exactly. If you walk about 30-35 yards behind the 6th green you come to the end of the ridge and you will see it. I think the direction was a little more to the left of what you just said---eg off to the left of the road (behind the 4th tee) to the Short Course.

Tom MacWood automatically assumes that's speculation on speculation on speculation for the simple reason he's never been to the course and he can't visualize that area. And then he automatically assumes Crump didn't even own that land so if he was actually looking at it he assumes he must have been nuts or stupid. He doesn't seem to understand that Crump obviously could've bought additional parts of that large tract of Sumner Ireland land and during the next few years that's just what he did do.

But the funny thing with MacWood is he obviously can read what Tillinghast described but yet he calls what I explained speculation on speculation on speculation and yet he refuses to admit that Tillinghast was certainly describing some big dip and stream that's out there in that area, unless of course MacWood thinks Tillie was dreaming or lying.

It's just not that hard to visualize if one knows Pine Valley, is it Chris?  

[CHrisB]

It's just not that hard to visualize if one knows Pine Valley, is it Chris?

Tom,
I don't wish to interject myself into the back-and-forth that you have been having with Tom MacWood on this or the Merion thread, and admittedly I don't have 1/100th of the knowledge of the history of GCA that either of you have, but I do have a question for Tom MacWood that has been bugging me for so long now I feel compelled to ask:

For someone who is obviously passionate about researching the origins of the courses at Pine Valley and Merion, why is it that you have never made the trip to see each course and the property on which each course sits?

Do you plan on making a site visit to either Pine Valley or Merion any time soon?

I'm sure there are many practical reasons for not making a site visit but I would think it would be an absolute must for a researcher/historian of GCA, particularly as it relates to the origins and evolution of each course.

I don't think GCA is like art, where (arguably) once you see a picture of the Mona Lisa in an art history book, you (arguably) don't need to make a trip to the Louvre to see it for yourself so that you may fully understand it. Don't you really need to (eventually) see Pine Valley and Merion for yourself? I can't imagine how it would not greatly benefit you as a researcher/historian of GCA.

[TEPaul]

Chris:

I've asked Tom MacWood that question literally scores of times and the fact is he just continues to avoid answering it, or even to acknowledge the question whenever it's been asked of him . Is there really any wonder why?

But since he never has seen Pine Valley, and consequently could not possibly be familiar with the land there, I've asked him why he would call my explanation of what Tillinghast was describing as speculation on speculation on speculation particularly when he admits he has no idea were those hole iterations Tillinghast was decribing could've been.

What he has said when asked those questions is that Crump would've been off the property if he was looking at a potential hole as Tillinghast described for the 'undeveloped' #7, and that Crump would not have done that as he was an intelligent man. MacWood went on to say that the fact I would offer an explanation like that must mean I'm calling Crump an idiot!

Is Tom MacWood certain that Crump even was off the property? Of course he isn't certain of that. Apparently he's assuming the corner of the surveyor's topo map was the corner of the property. Is that true? Perhaps not, and even if it were at that time it is very clear Crump could've bought whatever part or whatever amount of Ireland's very large tract out there he wanted to. That fact is obvious and is also proven by the fact that that is exactly what Crump did do.

Tom MacWood is also not acknowledging that it's also pretty logical to assume that Crump probably didn't even have that survey map when he was out there with Tillinghast looking at that hole iteration because the surveyor had not yet produced it.

I then simply asked him if he has no idea where those hole iterations were and since he's calling my explanation of where they were speculation on speculation on speculation, does he feel that perhaps Tillinghast was dreaming or lying when he described them as he did in the April 1913 issue of American Golfer?

These are certainly all logical questions in a discussion on the subject but Tom MacWood just continues to avoid the entire issue.

Again, is there really any wonder why?  

[TEPaul]

What's happening Tom MacWood?

I see you're still in your avoidance mode.

Why is that?  

[TEPaul]

"TE
I don't know where the 6th and 7th were (or the 8th and 9th). If I was a betting man I'd bet on a diligent researcher like Phil figuring it out in the end. Speculation upon specualtion upon speculation is obviously not the answer."

No, Tom MacWood obviously doesn't know the answer. It would seem that Tillihnghast did, however. Having asked MacWood what he makes of Tillinghast's description and where those hole iterations may have been or even if he thinks Tillie was dreaming or lying in what he described in that April 1913 issue of American Golfer, he just avoids the subject altogether for a week despite being asked constantly.

Even if he admits he doesn't know he nevertheless proclaims my explanation as speculation upon speculation as obviously not the answer.

He also says if he was a betting man he'd bet Phil Young would figure it out in the end.

How about it Phil? Do you think you can figure it out, and if so why don't you give it a shot? See if you can get MacWood to win his bet, that is if he was a betting man.  

At least that would be a more productive dialogue and discussion than Tom MacWood who just droned on in one myopic direction endlessly, then despite being aware of the thread every day dedicatedly avoided the subject altogether for about a week and then threatened to leave the website.

What a way to discuss some of the interesting details of the early architectural stage of Pine Valley.  

[Phil_the_Author]

Tom,

I hereby officially accept your challenge to figure out, "where the 6th and 7th were (or the 8th and 9th)..." as spoken about by Tilly were originally conceived.

Now in order to do this, I will need copies of the drawings that you have and, as I have never had the privilege to enjoy even a second on the grounds of the club, I will need access to the course a rime or two at the least.

I am certainly hoping that you can arrange this!