[Paul_Turner]

Seems like this tread is still just about alive.  So I might as well post all the pics:



Skyline 2nd.  The bunker was too difficult to keep from washing out...the more formalised bunkers now.  But would it work with bunkerwol


Starker look of the 4th tee.


Crump and Co at the 4th green.


6th tee..maybe can see the green from tee!?


6th green...it was changed by Alison.


The awesome 10th.  Undeniably a more dramatic hole then.  And still isolated enough-I would argue.  If the trees were pulled out in that area, the 17th would be skyline too.


16th tee.


16th approach


Zoomed in.  Can just make out work on the 14th green.


One of the great vintage photos: the 18th tee shot.  You might recognise it from Colt's Essay book.


Trench bunker at the 18th.  Like the 2nd, the bunker got washed away... Bunkerwol again


Another view of that mound and also the temporary clubhouse.


Similar look to Tommy's, looking back.

[ForkaB]

Very interesting pictures, Paul.  Not at all flattering, but food for thought.  Thanks.

[Paul_Turner]

Rich

Not flattering?  You don't like the look of the old course?

Cheers

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

Thanks for posting the pictures.

The skyline green at # 2 is remarkable, it must have been a very exciting green to play to.  The visual quite intimidating to the approaching golfer.

# 18 sure looks isolated to me.

I also liked the ladders in the bunkers, that's when you know you have a challenge

[ForkaB]

Paul

Compared to some of those holes, TOC looks like Disneyland!

PS--I'm sure I can see the young Tom Paul caddying in a few of those shots.  He's the one with the fag between his teeth and an attitude that just won't quit.......

[TEPaul]

Pat:

You really are funny the way you grasp at straws to try to keep some point alive. Are you now asserting that PVGC has a "turf" problem due to your "darkened hallway" theory??  

About the only thing PVGC needs to do with trees is remove only those that are within and interfering with the features that were designed for that course---eg legitimate shot angles, bunkering, and sand waste areas in hole corridors--no more.

They do not need to determine which trees Crump planted and which he didn't, they do not need to restore the tree look and situation at PVGC back to some old aerial you happened to see from the 1920s or early 1930s when the course was relatively immature, and they most certainly do not need to do what Oakmont did and take all the trees off the golf course. That was the way Fownes wanted Oakmont and not the way Crump wanted Pine Valley.

Yes, trees did encroach on some of the old shot angles and grew up within some of Crump's bunkering, mounding etc but they are taking those out now---they just aren't doing it on your timetable---they're doing it own their own timetable---just get used to that!

What the hell is your point anyway? If the club got the trees that now encroach in some of the original shot angles, bunkers and mounds and hole corridor sand waste areas out of there what more would you recommend anyway?

If you're saying you think the club should remove as many trees as would take the look of the course back to those old photos when the course was relatively immature, or something that makes PVGC look like Oakmont you really are full of it! And furthermore, you have no understanding or respect for what the man who built the course wanted to do with it----and that ain't good! That's frankly no different than some egotistical green chairman who does things because of some personal agenda----the very thing you're alway yammering about on here! Are you now saying that doesn't apply to you concerning a course you don't even belong to?

[TEPaul]

"The skyline green at # 2 is remarkable, it must have been a very exciting green to play to.  The visual quite intimidating to the approaching golfer."

Pat:

What have I been telling you about that for the last few years---you putz? What are you going to do next tell me you thought up the idea??    

[T_MacWood]

Paul
Those pictures are fascinating...there are only a couple I've seen before...the rest are all neww to me. It is amazing what you are able to come up with...thanks for sharing them.

[Michael Dugger]

Stunning pictures.  

Absolutely stunning.

I have to run to the bathroom to jerk.........oh nevermind

[TEPaul]

The photo looking down to the green on #16 is an interesting one as you can see clearly where Crump once planned to take the green way down to the right by the RR tracks and make the hole a par 5.

[Paul_Turner]

Where Tom?  I thought that sand in the background is the 14th green being built??

[TEPaul]

I've never seen a photo of Crump's original 6th green, I've only seen an outline drawing of it from Alison. Apparently it sloped too much from right to left to be pinnable enough and it was a bit shorter than the present one. Crump planned to move the green back perhaps another 50 yards to the end of the ridge. Alison moved it back about 20 or so yards only---he should have gone farther back. I do like how wide Crump's old green was and how it seems to be perched right at the edge of the ridge on the right. With a green slanting severely right to left perching the right side on the ridge is pretty cool--pretty intense!

[TEPaul]

"He had decided to change this hole, either to leave it where it is and eliminate all grass strips in front of green making one large bunker or to build a new green far out on the right overhanging deep hollow toward railroad."
W.P. Smith 10/10/17

This idea would explain how Crump had planned to have a 17th hole of up to 365 yards instead of the shorter version that was built and is there today.

[Paul_Turner]

One interesting photo is this one of the 15th tee.  It appears to be in the right place, so I think you can infer that the 14th would be in about the right place by the time this set of photos was taken...1916.



One of the 3rd which I think will be new to you:



And a few that have been reproduced in G Shackelford's book:


5th


HHA


2nd at its best.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

That photo you say is the 15th is actually looking back up the 16th. In 1916 the 14th was not built. The position that photo was taken from is behind the present 14th green, not to the left of it where the present 15th tees are.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

That photo is labelled by Crump, in pencil, as the site the 15th tee.  The photo might be pointing in the wrong direction, but isn't the position of the photographer, roughly about right.

Colt also has this exact pic in his Essay book (1920)...labelled as "15th Tee PV"

Are we sure that the outline of 14th wasn't built before Crump died?

[TEPaul]

The photo of HHA is interesting too. You can more clearly see the large mound on the right at the end of HHA. Crump had planned (actually was in the process of) to turn that hole into a "double dogleg" and the correct play was to hit the ball over that mound (it was called "The Alps") and considerably to the right of where you now need to hit it. Most of the fairway you can see to the left of "The Alps was going to be removed and an enormous waste area put in its place extending to the green. The fairway area on the left was going to be flipped over to the right. From the middle of the first stretch of fairway before HHA all you were supposed to see is a little bit of fairway to the left of "The Alps"---the rest of the fairway area to the right was blinded by "The Alps". Crump had already reoriented the green to face well out to the right as you can see it does today!

[TEPaul]

"The photo might be pointing in the wrong direction, but isn't the position of the photographer, roughly about right."

Paul:

No it isn't. The position the photographer is standing on is behind the 14th green, not to the left of it where the present tees now are. Ironically, that area the photographer is standing on (or slightly to the right and behind it) is the position the "new" back tee may go adding about 35 yards to that hole.

Don't forget, although holes #12 through 15 had been designed by Crump and perhaps partially built those holes were not completed when he died.

The position the photographer is standing on is actually the ideal postion for a tee for #15 tee, in my opinion. The reason it was probably never put there is the commute to it and back around the pond past #14 green again is longer and sort of cumbersome. Alison recommended just building a low bridge (pontoons) directly across the pond instead of walking way around the pond to the left but the 1921 Advisory Committee apparently didn't want to do that.

[Paul_Turner]

OK but doesn't that photo of the "15 tee" (as labeled by Crump) strongly imply that the green site for the 14th was set and in about the right place by 1916?  The other interations for the 14th just wouldn't make sense with this tee for the 15th.  

[Paul_Turner]

PS

I don't care what anyone says.  Being able to see the 6th ridge from the 3rd tee is an incredible vista and it would build anticipation in the player.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Probably the initial iteration for the 14th hole was as a relatively short par 4 coming down the hill from a tee way to the right and short of the present 13th green with the green site probably in the same relative spot as the present 14th green but perhaps a bit farther back. That brings up a lot of interesting questions. If the 14th was at one point conceived as a par 4 where would the remaining par 3 have been? That may have been why that cape hole iteration happened on paper. The landform that is now #15 could have been a long par 4 (a tee next to the lake on the right side of what is now the beginning of #15 fairway) and #16 the other par 5 as we know that Crump considered making #16 a par 5. Alison recommended turning the 15th into an exceptionally long uphill par 4!

[TEPaul]

Paul:

That is a great look back up to the ridge of the 6th hole. The only problem with trying to return that look is they'd have to clear-cut the area in between and replant it with trees that would never get much more than about 15 feet high as they were in that early era. The additional problem is there're now houses in that area that would likely be exposed too.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

The very first 14th was, I assume, as Colt drew it on the topo map.  A par 3 down the ridge but from a tee well short of the current 13th green.  The 15th as drawn by Colt, is as the hole is now, but without the forced carry.  But I think it would still be a par 5.  The 15th shown on your set of unattributed drawings is of very similar length...and no forced carry.

Tillinghast reports that the current 13th was discovered in March 1915.  So, with the 13th green site decided and with the 15th tee as in the above 1916 photo i.e. the forced carry clearly evident.  I think it's pretty clear that the current 14th was decided on, in routing at least, by 1916...there's no other hole interation that makes sense.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Apparently the first 14th was a 210 yard par 3 but was changed to a 400 yard par 4 down the hill. The 15th on those unattributed hole drawings does appear in the same basic landform but there's no forced carry across the pond because the tee for that hole drawing is on the fairway side of the pond and the hole to the area of the present 15th green is only about 475 yards, not the almost 600 it is today. There's also a possiblility that the  green site on #15 could have been moved farther up the hill because that area behind present #15 green was cleared. Those unattributed hole drawings are in scale, by the way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You really are funny the way you grasp at straws to try to keep some point alive. Are you now asserting that PVGC has a "turf" problem due to your "darkened hallway" theory??  

That's your interpretation, I never said that.
If you would cite where I said that I'd appreciate it.[/color]

About the only thing PVGC needs to do with trees is remove only those that are within and interfering with the features that were designed for that course---eg legitimate shot angles, bunkering, and sand waste areas in hole corridors--no more.

They do not need to determine which trees Crump planted and which he didn't, they do not need to restore the tree look and situation at PVGC back to some old aerial you happened to see from the 1920s or early 1930s when the course was relatively immature, and they most certainly do not need to do what Oakmont did and take all the trees off the golf course. That was the way Fownes wanted Oakmont and not the way Crump wanted Pine Valley.

Yes, trees did encroach on some of the old shot angles and grew up within some of Crump's bunkering, mounding etc but they are taking those out now---they just aren't doing it on your timetable---they're doing it own their own timetable---just get used to that!

That would indicate that they were not aware of the problem earlier.  If they were, what possible reason could they have for not taking action to correct the problem?[/v]

What the hell is your point anyway? If the club got the trees that now encroach in some of the original shot angles, bunkers and mounds and hole corridor sand waste areas out of there what more would you recommend anyway?

That's a big IF.
The FACT that they haven't done it would indicate that the either didn't understand the problem and/or that they were complacent

You can't give them a free pass and condemn everyone else[/color]

If you're saying you think the club should remove as many trees as would take the look of the course back to those old photos when the course was relatively immature, or something that makes PVGC look like Oakmont you really are full of it!

Once again, I never said that, that's just another erroneous, wild conclusion that you've jumped to.
Could you cite where I was alleged to have said that ?[/color]

And furthermore, you have no understanding or respect for what the man who built the course wanted to do with it----and that ain't good!

On what basis do you make that judgement, that's just another erroneous, wild conclusion on your part.[/color]

That's frankly no different than some egotistical green chairman who does things because of some personal agenda--

In all my years serving on Boards and Green committees I've never put forth a personal agenda, I've always done what I've felt was best for the club, and not my personal interests.  And, that's on the record[/color]


--the very thing you're alway yammering about on here! Are you now saying that doesn't apply to you concerning a course you don't even belong to?

I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about

By the way, you don't belong to Pine Valley either, do you ?[/color]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()