Pine Valley's Mystery Origins/Early Course Review UNEARTHED!

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Joe:

An IMPORTANT and wonderful find. You've uncovered another gem. I can't wait to read it.

Anthony

[Paul_Turner]

Mike

Yes I agree.  But if the same statements, even if marked as "supposition" keep getting repeated over and over and over and over, they can get mistaken for fact.

[ANTHONYPIOPPI]

Paul:

Saw your quote from Nassim Taleb at the bottom of your posts and came across this:

Talen also believes that people are subject to the triplet of opacity, through which history is distilled even as current events are incomprehensible. The triplet of opacity consists of

   1. an illusion of understanding of current events
   2. a retrospective distortion of historical events
   3. an overestimation of factual information, combined with an overvalue of the intellectual elite

Numbers two and three surly are apropos to this discussion and all three to many topics found here.

Anthony

[TEPaul]

"Now that's speculation in a nut shell."

Paul:

Sure it is. As Mike Cirba said, a lot of what we talk about on here is speculation. What we hope for is informed speculation. Can you honestly say what I wrote there seems even remotely illogical? I don't think so.

I grew tired years ago of some on here who'd tend to support the notion that if something wasn't actually written down somewhere by the person in question----in this case Crump, it should never even be considered as a logical possibility which of course is the meat of informed speculation.

I know you Paul, we're friends but we sure have been on opposite sides of this entire Pine Valley Colt/Crump equation. You've constantly been pretty touchy about anything at all you think tends to minimize the perception of what Colt did there.

At this point I believe the real story of what Colt did and what Crump did is in place and it's the historical truth. It's less from Colt than some Pine Valley people once thought (for a reason you may not be aware of) and it's less of Crump than what other Pine Valley people thought for a time (for reasons you may be aware of). My position is fortunate in this way because I've known so many people from Pine Valley over the years and I know what they thought in this vein (Colt/Crump) and it was basically all over the place for reasons that never were historically valid.

Unfortunately both you and Tom MacWood really don't know many or any Pine Valley people and so your assumption has always been that somehow the club has ALWAYS attempted to glorify Crump at the expense of Colt. That is simply not the case with all from that club but there could be no way for you to understand that. There were a pretty good number who always assumed that the entire routing and design was Colt (again for a reason that you've never understood).

But in the last 6-7 years for various reasons that has changed now and the true story and the details of it over Crump's years there are in place. The true story of the next few years following Crump's death are also in place and that was a part of Pine Valley's architectural history which practically noone understood in the modern era for reasons that very few are aware of.

[john_stiles]

Did Colt write about Pine Valley ?

Not sure I remember from past years what was said in that regard.

[TEPaul]

"Did Colt write about Pine Valley ?"

John:

I know he mentioned it but I don't know if he ever wrote about it in detail. I do know he mentioned it, though, in at least an article probably in England around 1914 or 1915 saying something like he was fortunate enough to design it.

On second thought, that is an excellent question of yours about whether he actually wrote about the course or in detail.

As far as I can tell Colt may've visited the course again briefly in 1914 but there isn't any actual evidence of that other than in an article by Tillinghast that said Colt MAY visit PV in 1914 and as far as I've ever been able to tell Colt never again returned to America after 1914. There is nothing I know of in the Pine Valley archives that indicates Colt returned in 1914. Crump died in 1918 while the course was still under construction and there were still four holes to be completed. 18 holes did not open for play until 1921.

So if Colt ever did try to write about how the course turned out when it was completed I can't imagine how he would've known much about the details of it unless he asked his partner Hugh Alison in detail or happened to read his master plan recommendations for the committee that I call the "1921 Advisory Committee."

In my opinion, the most little known architectural fact about Pine Valley is what-all Alison recommended for the course at that time and what was done from his recommendations. His master plan is very detailed as is the committee's responses to his recommendations. Alison not only offered the master plan but he was actually on the committee. The club wanted him to implement the recommendations but unfortunately he wasn't around then or couldn't be so it was done by others, primarily including Jim Govan, Flynn, probably the Wilsons and maybe a visit or so from member George Thomas.

[Paul_Turner]

Did Colt write about Pine Valley ?

Not sure I remember from past years what was said in that regard.

John

Colt always regarded the course as one that he (and presumably Alison) designed.  He included it in the company's ads through until the 1930s.  In contrast, he did drop other courses that from his ads that he had worked on, where there was a potential conflict of interests:  Alwoodley when Mackenzie left the firm and Addington when Abercromby joined Fowler and Simpson.

As Tom points out, Colt would have been familiar with how the course turned out even if he didn't return to the US after WW1.  Alison knew the details and Colt also had a detailed photo book from Crump showing most of the holes.

The bulk of Pine Valley was built over a normal time frame i.e about 2years. ..11 holes were open within a year from the start of construction:  Feb 1914.

One interesting question to ponder is:  why did the Pine Valley committee turn to an English architect, Alison, in 1921 instead of all the local talent (including Fownes who was on that committee)? 

To enhance the "signature" design and keep the members

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I'm not sure what your remark about enhancing a "signature" design and keeping members is about but if there was any intent of enhancing some "signature" in 1921 via that "1921 Advisory Committee" it was definitely to maintain or enhance Crump's "signature". That was why the club asked Carr and Smith to compose their hole by hole recollections of what-all Crump had in mind (that I call "The Remembrances") and even asked them to do it independent of one another. This is no speculation on my part as the "1921 Advisory Committee" report stated that directly.

As far as keeping members that was certainly of no problem whatsoever in 1919 and would not be until well into the depression.

As to why they hired Alison in 1921 they did not say. It may've been so as not to have to choose between one of their many member architects as much as anything else.

It's also important to know that between Crump's death and the opening of all 18 holes in 1919 the Wilsons of Merion and Flynn completed the last four holes. Flynn went on Pine Valley's payroll during this time even though he was a member and Howard Toomey was on the Board of Directors.

In a general sense as to who did what and when between Colt and Crump I think this article above is a pretty good indicator as that article has to be a pretty in-depth interview with Howard Perrin who from the beginning up until just after 1926 was the president of the club. I suppose people like you or Tom MacWood could continue to maintain or imply that Perrin was either glorifying Crump, exaggerating or engaging in hyperbole with what he said in that article but I doubt anyone with a good working knowledge of the history of Pine Valley would buy your contention. It happens to be the same uninformed explanation and defensive response that was constantly used in the discussions of that revisionist essay about Macdonald, Wilson and Merion.

But that article tells the general story. The facts of the specific story about who did almost exactly what and when between Colt and Crump and others is all very much in place and in my opinion it is pretty much undeniable for a whole bunch of reasons, primarily including a well documented "timeline."

The real irony to me about Pine Valley is it seems pretty obvious that Crump himself never had any problem at all allowing all kinds of people to take credit for all kinds of things, even if he quietly over-rode them and continued to do his own thing with the goal of making the course the way he wanted it to be.

In that vein, those "Remembrances" really are important to understand in the architectural creation of Pine Valley and I also like Crump's remark when he was asked why he was taking so long and when he would complete the course. Apparently his response (as reported in Carr and Smith's documents) was his famous stentorian; "NEVER!"

In my opinion, there no longer is any mystery, including the details, as to who did what and when down there or between what Colt did and Crump did, or even with what Tillinghast, Travis, the Wilsons, Flynn and Alison did or proposed. A good timeline and documentation in many forms pretty much establishes it all now, and so in a sense Colt has finally gotten the due he deserves as has Crump and a few others certainly including Jim Govan, the Wilsons, Flynn (probably Thomas), Maxwell, and Fazio.

[Mike_Cirba]

Tom Paul & Paul Turner,

I recall in the past that Tom wrote a pretty thorough essay here on some thread that indicated who he believes the evidence shows was responsible for what holes, and what changes on what holes at PV.

While I know you two have generally disagreed on who deserves more credit for PV generally, I don't recall there being much debate on the interpretation of the evidence on a hole by hole basis.

Did I miss something?

[TEPaul]

"Colt always regarded the course as one that he (and presumably Alison) designed.  He included it in the company's ads through until the 1930s.  In contrast, he did drop other courses that from his ads that he had worked on, where there was a potential conflict of interests:"

Paul:

If that is true, in my opinion Colt either did not understand very well what transpired with the course between 1914 (the date of that photo album Crump gave him) and 1919 (which would not be unusual as he never again returned to America after 1914) or else he understood that Crump had very much given him permission to say something like that early on (which really does fit in to my feeling that Crump purposefully tried to make the course appear to be a Colt design around the time eleven holes officially opened for play (late Nov. 1914 when all those articles were generated giving Colt so much credit)).

Despite what Colt thought in that vein the facts are the facts and they are documented and undeniable now.

[TEPaul]

"While I know you two have generally disagreed on who deserves more credit for PV generally, I don't recall there being much debate on the interpretation of the evidence on a hole by hole basis.

Did I miss something?"


Mike:

Yes, you probably did miss something. A lot of people probably did. But the real deal is the essential "timeline" of the creation of Pine Valley makes what happened hole by hole and who specifically did what and when pretty clear.

In that vein that timeline is sort of remarkable for a specific reason and that is we really do know (it's documented) what Crump did BEFORE Colt first arrived and it is also documented what Crump did that departed from anything Colt recommended or left as a plan AFTER Colt left and never returned. If that had not happened in that particular way (basically the fact that Colt only made a single site visit to PV) the timeline would inherently be much more complicated to decipher and assign attribution.

And it goes further. We have what Crump did before Colt arrived and we can compare that to the way the course turned out and we have what Colt left (as a plan) when he was there that single time and we can also compare that to the way the course turned out in the years after he left for the final time and we can consequently track all the differences between Colt's plan and the way the course turned out. Again, if Colt had come back for numerous site visits this entire timeline and what it says would be much more complicated.

I mean someone like Paul Turner can argue that the way the fairways and bunkers turned out at Pine Valley were on Colt's plan but I feel anyone can see they really aren't and there are many and general differences. And not just that but the vast difference between Colt's blue lines and Crump's red lines (basically bunkering) tell that story in specific detail. Also Colt never provided green designs in the plans he left except general outlines which don't really match some of the greens and there are no plans or directions or instructions for any kind of internal contouring at all which is a lot of the beauty and quality of PV's greens. Paul's answer to that in the past has been he doesn't think Colt did that with his plans on courses. Well, maybe he didn't but if he was only around for one week in 1913 and never returned I'm pretty sure the greens of Pine Valley including their beautiful internal slopes and contours) were not all designed and built in that single week! 

In my opinion, what Colt really did for Pine Valley is to pretty much unravel a basic routing glitch that Crump had gotten himself into before Colt arrived. That and the fact that the bunkering schemes on #9, basically #10 and #11 are very similar to Colt's hole plans that have always been in Pine Valley's archives.

That in and of itself (the unraveling of a basic routing glitch), I believe is a truly significant story and it tells a great deal to people who really don't understand the intracacies and interconnections of routing golf holes and certainly routing golf courses on intricate, interesting and complex topography like Pine Valley's.

What Colt did in that vein (unravel a basic routing glitch) some who don't undertand routing very well may think wasn't much but in the way a routing of holes can interconnect (particularly if one is looking for the kind of specific balance and variety Crump was, including his demand that green to next tee be about as tight as possible or as tight as any course extant (other than #11 to #12)), it really is a pretty significant contribution on Colt's part, in my opinion. In my opinion, essentially his recommendation on #5 (which is such a famous story with Colt at PV) got most of the rest of the routing to just fall into place like a jigsaw puzzle.

Again, that is a separate story and one that should be told. I think I've touched on it on this site in the past but it really is a complex story, not the least of which was how and why Crump got stuck with those last 4-6 holes and what he finally did to resolve it years after Colt had been there.

It is a complex creation particularly if one wants to analyze most of the details but they're all documented now and I don't think there is much or any mystery left in who did what and when.

I should also say, again, if it hadn't been for Tillinghast constant generally contemporaneous reporting over the years either as himself in various newspapers and periodicals or as "Hazard" or "Far and Sure" in AG this specific PV timeline would've been really hard to near impossible to put together. Tillie supplied some very important events and particularly their dates which in a basic sense put them either before Colt, during Colt's one visit or after Colt.

[TEPaul]

To get back to the specific subject of this thread----eg the Ford article from 1925 that Joe Bausch provided, it is an important article to be able to understand the creation of Pine Valley in a general sense.

The reason is it certainly seems to include a pretty in-depth interview with long time Pine Valley president Howard Perrin complete with direct quotations from him of what went on during those construction years.

If there are some on here as there have been in the past who try to dismiss it and Perrin's account as glorification or exaggeration or hyperbole as they have with other courses and other local architects and club members closely connected to these courses around here, including Merion and Pine Valley, I would hope the contributors on here this time would view their dismissals and rationalizations with a serious grain of salt.

[Paul_Turner]

"Colt always regarded the course as one that he (and presumably Alison) designed.  He included it in the company's ads through until the 1930s.  In contrast, he did drop other courses that from his ads that he had worked on, where there was a potential conflict of interests:"


Despite what Colt thought in that vein the facts are the facts and they are documented and undeniable now.

The facts as you interpret them.  Nothing more.  You choose to downplay the importance of other "facts" as reported by Carr etc in 1915. 

Colt was surely more familiar than you are regarding the development of Pine Valley.  And the sum total wasn't "unraveling a routing glitch" by moving the 5th green!

Additionally, you have assumed you have all the available information.

[Paul_Turner]

The stick routing that Ian Andrew uncovered hasn't been dated or properly analyzed.. 

The drawing style is not consistent for all holes.  The greens are labelled with a G for most of the proposed holes on the back 9 whereas the holes 1-4 and 18 have no labels.  The hole that ended up as the 7th is a prime example with two potential green sites which look to be drawn by different hands:  the circle size is different, one is labelled G9 and the other either has a very small number or is not labelled.   So that certainly hasn't been fully analyzed. 

The bunker scheme for 6 is v similar in Colt's plan and 17 was basically as Colt drew, up until Crump's death.  The cross bunker was turned into waste area after Crump died.  The 5th is pretty similar too.  I don't think the 3rd is very different either although I'm sure Tom thinks they're not alike. 

The strategies for most of the holes, is very similar as is the hole shape and width.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I don't disagree with most of that but that's not all that much in the broad scheme of things in the design of a course or the final design, and most certainly nowhere near enough for someone like Colt to put his name on an course alone as its architect. But that is really beside the point anyway because we really do know what-all Crump did and when there.

I'm not sure what you're implying about what I call Crump's stick routing. Ian didn't exactly find that as it's been hanging in the superintendent's office for many, many years. What Ian did is photograph it. It's just that as with a lot of the archival "assets" at Pine Valley noone really comprehensively analyzed some of them or all of them together to produce a specifically accurate over-all story or creation report of Pine Valley from around the very beginning of 1913 to 1919 or 1921. (And for some reason much of Alison's contribution in 1921 was heretofore mostly overlooked or underconsidered).

The question as to who actually put pen or pencil to paper on that Crump stick routing is an interesting one and probably a question that won't have an exact answer for us. I doubt it was Crump and certainly not Colt as it would appear in his week there in 1913 it was the next topo map (the so-called "Blue/Red" line one) that Colt primarily worked on or with (which fairly closely resembles his hole by hole booklet that so few have ever really analyzed carefully) and with which Crump obviously worked on himself in the years that followed (again, another good indication of the value of "timeling"  ).

I believe someone other than Crump probably put the markings on Crump's original stick routing (which I believe he used until Colt got there. By the way, in my opinion, Crump was not a very good golf arhitecture drawer. ) and that would most certainly explain the meaning of that very interesting and curious notation that Crump wrote on the top of that first and early stick routing (which certainly leads me to believe that Crump was working probably pretty much exclusively on the ground in the beginning and before Colt first arrived and also that Crump was not very good at deciphering the contour lines on a topo map and where they specifically were on the ground! ).

"Am not sure if the greens are marked on the map as I marked them on the ground." GAC"

[TEPaul]

"The facts as you interpret them.  Nothing more.  You choose to downplay the importance of other "facts" as reported by Carr etc in 1915."


Paul:

I'm not downplaying those facts as reported by Carr in January of 1915 at all. What I am doing is offering a reason why he probably wrote the things he did about Colt in that article (almost exactly the same things that Travis and Tillinghast wrote at the same time in other articles almost in the same month after eleven holes first opened for play (Nov, 1914)). All of those people who wrote those articles were very good friends of Crump's so for you to think and imply Crump did not have a very direct hand in those articles is really illogical to me.

But where you really miss the boat on the creation story of Pine Valley is you almost always point to that Carr article that explains things up to the end of 1914. What you are not understanding or are completely overlooking is all that Crump did there with the course in the next three years. You apparently don't think it was much but I do think it was a lot, and it was a lot, not necessarily in a routing sense (although there sure are some significant hole differences in Colt's plan and the way those holes turned out in the end routing-wise) but certainly with the details of the holes including bunkering, fairway configuration and green designs and contouring. Colt called for a good deal of "chipping area" around a number of greens and Crump did none of that at all, for instance. You also completely dismissed Crump's novel "fairway areas" that in no way match what Colt drew. It does however match what Crump drew.

When Finegan, who's been there for decades and knows that course like the back of his hand (and who happens to be probably the only other person who has carefully analyzed Colt's hole by hole booklet) mentioned in his Pine Valley history book that the course has more differences than similarities to Colt's booklet and plan, he is absolutely right about that. 

You can say that is wrong and there are way more similarities than differences, but come on Paul, how many times have you ever seen that course? Twice at most? And Tom MacWood continued to say the same thing you do. How many times has he seen that course to make that kind of detailed comparison? He's never seen it. He's never been there and neither one of you has ever seen Colt's booklet either.

I realize you two want to do everything you can to get credit for Colt for Pine Valley but the facts are the facts and they are not just my interpretation. The facts with Colt are both what he left there and the way the course turned out when it opened for play a number of years after Colt left never to return, and those things are both actual, physical and very easily observable if one has enough time and inclination to do it all and analyze it all in real detail.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks for this discussion, gents.

"That in and of itself (the unraveling of a basic routing glitch), I believe is a truly significant story and it tells a great deal to people who really don't understand the intracacies and interconnections of routing golf holes and certainly routing golf courses on intricate, interesting and complex topography like Pine Valley's."

TE - I can't add anything to this discussion, but this reference to routing reminded me of what for me is the basic 'historical' question about not only Pine Valley but many of the great early courses, i.e. how ultimate design credit is granted.  I can't get past the belief that routing a course - envisioning all 18 holes, their lengths and shapes and basic shot-making demands, and how those holes drape over the landscape and connect to one another -- is the main criteria. And yet, I'm not sure the designers/architects themselves -- including the famous amateur-sportsmen -- would agree with me. That is, time and again I read about how those designers/architects for months and years worked on (and revised) the bunkers and other hazards. In short, they seemed to feel that the overall quality and even greatness of their courses had quite a lot to do with the quality of the hazards -- or at least more to do with it than I do now, looking back.

Anyway - not much of a point or a point for discussion I guess, just a thought and an observation (that may or may not be accurate).     

Peter

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Hang on.  Other than the drawing of 17 in  a magazine, we don't know if Crump drew anything.  I assume you are assuming that the red lines are his.  I don't necessarily think that's a wrong assumption.

I don't put as much stock in the lack of waste areas on Colt's drawings as you do.  Much of that was inherent in the site and Colt had already built holes with carries long over sand/heathery scrub, including a  couple with island fairways.

[TEPaul]

"Colt was surely more familiar than you are regarding the development of Pine Valley."


Paul:

Since Colt was there one time for a week in 1913 I have no doubt he certainly was more familiar than I am or any of us are with what went on at that time and probably up until that time (what Crump had done before he arrived).

But as far as Colt being more familiar with the details of what went on with the development of that course after he left in 1913 and never to return again, I would seriously doubt he was ever as familiar with that time period in the course's development and what happened during that time, as I am.

I mean perhaps you are under some impression that he kept in constant contact with Crump and Pine Valley from England for the next 4-5 years after he left America for good but I see absolutely zero indication of that other than that photo album from 1914 Crump gave him.

As an example of that, let's just take a look at Hugh and Alan Wilson both of whom were prominent members of Pine Valley and both of whom were directly involved in both its architecture and agronomic development.

Around 1920 Colt wrote Wilson a letter asking him if he would kindly send him a copy of the Green Section bulletins and in the course of that letter Colt said he hoped Wilson remembered him it had been so many years since they'd been in contact.

It is no knock at all on my part on Colt, Paul, but that does not sound like a guy who had been keeping in touch with what went on at Pine Valley architeturally or otherwise and those who had to do with the course in the years following 1913.

[TEPaul]

"I assume you are assuming that the red lines are his."

Paul:

I am indeed and have for 5-6 years. I assume the red lines are Crump's just as much as I assume the blue lines are Colt's. That frankly is the very thing that allowed for the specific unravelling of who did what and when which was all essentially corroborated timeline-wise by Tillinghast's constant contemporaneous reporting.

[TEPaul]

"I don't put as much stock in the lack of waste areas on Colt's drawings as you do.  Much of that was inherent in the site and Colt had already built holes with carries long over sand/heathery scrub, including a  couple with island fairways."


Paul:

I know you don't. You said the same thing a few years ago on here. I just don't believe your explanation is a good one at all via what Colt did versus what Crump did in that vein.

Although there are enough similarities between the blue lines on that "Blue/Red line" topo map which you have seen (thousands of people have since it's been hanging in the club's front room for decades), I think you are going to have to carefully analyze that hole by hole booklet of Colt's, which you have never seen, to have a complete understanding of the similarities and differences between what he drew and how the course turned out in the four and a half years after he left when Crump was there working on its design and construction practically every day.

[Joe Bausch]

I've grabbed many of the Tilly articles from 1912 until mid-1916 from the newspaper The Philadelphia Record.  On another thread I've posted some of them.  It seems on this PV thread I started with the large Ford review from 1925, it might be neat to see how Tilly talked about PV in The Record.  Below are all of the PV mentions from Jan 1913 until mid-1916.  Note:  I still don't know for many more months or years Tilly wrote for this newspaper, but I'll know that in due time.

[Phil_the_Author]

Joe,

You mentioned, "Note:  I still don't know for many more months or years Tilly wrote for this newspaper [Philadelphia Record], but I'll know that in due time."

I apologize... I thought I had sent the reference to you.

In the March 1919 issue of the American Golfer, Tilly wrote, "Mr. A.W. Tillinghast, who for many years contributed the golf column in each Sunday's edition of the 'Philadelphia Record', has resigned from that publication's staff. His activities as a golf course architect prevent him from writing so much as of old."

Though I don't know the exact date of his last column, I also believe that he had stopped writing weekly for them for quite some time by this date, though I could be mistaken.

[Mike_Cirba]

Joe Bausch,

I really want to thank you for the tremendous efforts you've put forward over the past year or two in unearthing all of this wonderful historical material that has given us such greater insight into what exactly transpired in these early days of golf in and around Philadelphia.

To sit here and read this stuff written as it happened that probably hasn't been looked at in almost 100 years is just absolutely tremendous.

I know some folks here think all of this historical research, debate, arguments, and discussion is so much "speculation", but f*cking A...it sure beats the hell out of another discussion of ratings, of Tiger Woods, of Michelle Wie, of where to play when I'm visiting X, and a host of other non-architectural, non-related topics.

[Mike_Cirba]

And yet, I'm not sure the designers/architects themselves -- including the famous amateur-sportsmen -- would agree with me. That is, time and again I read about how those designers/architects for months and years worked on (and revised) the bunkers and other hazards. In short, they seemed to feel that the overall quality and even greatness of their courses had quite a lot to do with the quality of the hazards -- or at least more to do with it than I do now, looking back.

Peter,

I think that's quite the insightful and valid observation.

When Merion was first opened in the fall of 1912, a number of writers including Tillinghast, Alex Findlay, and "Far and Sure" all seemingly believed that it was much too early to really fairly and effectively analyze or review the course because so few of the bunkers or "artificial hazards" had been established.

A number of writers of the time clearly felt that the only really effective way to place bunkering on a new course was to watch play for some time after the course opened, and then act accordingly.

Findlay even went so far as to call them "Mental hazards", which clearly inferred the strategic and intellectual aspects of the game, and also argued that their placement should await further visual examination of how the course actually played.

What's interesting is that this thinking absolutely flew directly into the face of the thinking that modelled holes against great ones overseas, to a large extent.    If you consider the famous template holes, almost all of them were defined by their bunkering patterns, yet here these guys were arguing that instead of placing a row of bunkers diagonally down the middle as in a bottle hole, or at the left front flank and foreshortened as in the redan, or in the direct front and front left as in the Eden, or in the length of the diagonal back and with a deep circular pit right in the central bowels as in a road hole, or along the lengths of each side as in a Biarritz, etc., etc., these men seemed to suddenly be arguing that this type of rote placement really didn't make much sense except in broad, conceptual terms...not in on the ground routine placement.   

Instead, I believe these men had some revolutionary ideas of their own which argued that each course and golf hole should have its own identity, and should leverage the unique landforms and variables of its own uniqueness, and that any work of man should first and foremost take into account the particulars of that individual piece of real estate without preconditions and preconceptions.