[JESII]

Tommy,

If you're not doing anything else, go ahead and post it. I'd be curious to read it and then try to see what you think will be easy to create.

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

I find this discussion on number 18 green rather interesting.
If someone would have asked me to comment on any green on the course that was somewhat or comparatively balnd...it certainly would not be number 18 gree.
I belive it to create a considerable challenge unless you are able to ensure you stay "under" the hole with your approach shot.
Perhaps that was easy whne hitting a 8 or nine iron into a firm green, but thos edays are gone and controlling the placement now when hittin a mid to long iron in there is very difficult.

Heaven firbid you are on the left side of that green putting to a right sided pin!

I think it is a brutal finishing green, but then again nobody ever accused me of been Mr Crenshaw on the putting surfaces!

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I will consider posting it----however, not unless and until Patrick first stipulates on here he does not now and never has known what those "Remembrances" actually do say.

In the meantime, just watch how he will try practically anything and everything to avoid stipulating that on here. There is only one way to deal with slimy, weasel-like, bold-faced double-talking troglydytes like Patrick who live and hide under bridges in putrescent and grubby and muddy water and who prey on other people's assets and information and that is to back them into a total corner from which there is no escape! The ball is in his court now, that is if one can actually call the muddy, putrescent, slim-filled hole under a bridge he lives in and operates from!   

[JESII]

On Patrick's behalf I will attest that he doesn't know shit...now let's get on with the discussion...

[TEPaul]

On some expert counsel I have just been advised that putting the actual wording on here is probably not a good idea.

In a sense it is no different than the demands of some a while ago that we MUST put the actual wording of MCC's meeting minutes on here. That would be just fine with us if the club agreed to it but for now since they haven't you all will just have to take my word for what it says. If you're not content with that as Moriarty and MacWood weren't with the MCC meeting minute material then that's your problem just as it was their problem with what MCC's meeting minutes speifically say.

Sorry guys but this DG is not a court of law and this DG does not have a requirement such as legal Discovery in a court of law. I realize a guy like Moriarty tried to advocate that this kind of material must be quoted on here or simply not brought up on here or talked about. That is his opinion, and it's never been mine on GOLFCLUBATLAS's DG.

Again, if you don't want to take my word for what it says, so be it. 

[JESII]

What a jip...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Does the 18th green, as pictured below, resemble today's 18th green, or, was it modified beyond just removing the hump ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim Sullivan,

Since TEPaul mentioned a "court of law", you should be aware that any statements made by Carr and Smith would be considered "Hearsay" and inadmissable as fact, when it comes to Crump's stated intention.

Analagously, TEPaul can't remember what he had for breakfast yesterday, so how are we to rely on his "rememberances" of what Bill Coore allegedly said to him six years ago ?

[TEPaul]

"Jim Sullivan,
Since TEPaul mentioned a "court of law", you should be aware that any statements made by Carr and Smith would be considered "Hearsay" and inadmissable as fact, when it comes to Crump's stated intention.

Pat:

Perhaps you consider GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's Discussion Group a court of law but I certainly don't. In that vein, it seems you started down the wrong path on here when you endorsed that specious article on Merion entitled "The Missing Faces of Merion" and what its author suggested on some threads following it on here about what must be produced to critique it.

That would make sense since you have no more understanding of the details of Merion's creation history than you do on Pine Valley or he did on Merion.

Furthermore, if this DG chooses to consider the opinion of someone like you as more accurate on what Crump's intentions were for his course than his two closest friends there, Carr and Smith, then they're welcome to it.

You've never seen what they wrote about his intentions for that course, have you? Why do I know you will continue to ignore answering that question---even a simple yes or no? 



"Analagously, TEPaul can't remember what he had for breakfast yesterday, so how are we to rely on his "rememberances" of what Bill Coore allegedly said to him six years ago ?  "

"Remembrances" of what Bill Coore said to me six years ago?? Hmmm, I wonder what that might have to do with this subject---eg the history of the 18th green at Pine Valley and Crump's intentions for it?!?! Bill and I have talked about a lot of things to do with golf architecture but Crump's intentions for his golf course and the 18th green there have never been one of them! 


You asked:
"Does the 18th green, as pictured below, resemble today's 18th green, or, was it modified beyond just removing the hump?"



Other than removing that mound as suggested via the considerations of the 1921 Advisory Committee, the 18th green was never redesigned.

Direct quotes from the "Remembrances" deleted:


Pat, I think the sentiments of some of the contributors on this site that you get back to describing the holes of NGLA on that enchanted journey thread of yours are good ones. It would probably be best for you to stick with a course like that one that you actually know something about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Furthermore, if this DG chooses to consider the opinion of someone like you as more accurate on what Crump's intentions were for his course than his two closest friends there, Carr and Smith, then they're welcome to it.

That's very funny.

First you extoll Crump's intentions, then you deny them, and now you're back extolling their virtues.

How do you reconcile your resistance to introducing a pronounced feature, a spine/ridge within the 18th green ?  You've been resisting my suggestion from the get go, yet, you extoll Crump's intent.
Crump ALWAYS intended for the 18th green to have a pronounced feature.
He even designed and built a mound in the green.
Proof of his efforts is contained in the photos accompanying this thread.

You've never seen what they wrote about his intentions for that course, have you? Why do I know you will continue to ignore answering that question---even a simple yes or no? 

Because, with one exception they're immaterial to the issue at hand, namely the pronounced feature within the 18th green.

You can say all you want about what's been alleged about Crump's intentions on the 18th green.
The IRREFUTABLE FACT IS THAT HE DESIGNED AND BUILT A MOUND IN THAT GREEN.

A mound that survived Crump.
A mound that was removed about 7 years subsequent to Crump's death.

So, what do we attribute more credibility to, Crump's actions, vis a vis the design, construction and completion of a mound in the 18th green, or, Crump's alleged intentions, vis a vis hearsay from one or two individuals ?

I'm content to let prudent men decide.

You asked:
"Does the 18th green, as pictured below, resemble today's 18th green, or, was it modified beyond just removing the hump?"

Other than removing that mound as suggested via the considerations of the 1921 Advisory Committee, the 18th green was never redesigned.

Are you absolutely certain that when the mound was removed, that the green wasn't altered ?

Would pictures taken today, from the same angle, reflect an identical green, sans mound ?

"18th hole.-Complete as suggested. (Mound on green)"
"18th hole. Modify the pronounced mound on green."


TE, don't you find those notes or "rememberances" a little vague ?

Are they the sum total of the information regarding # 18 green ?

[JESII]

Pat,

I think the grass is greener these days...

[TEPaul]

"So, what do we attribute more credibility to, Crump's actions, vis a vis the design, construction and completion of a mound in the 18th green, or, Crump's alleged intentions, vis a vis hearsay from one or two individuals?"


Pat:

I attribute much more importance to Crump's intentions for the green---eg he intended that the mound be temporary, that it was put in temporarily to test a way to penalize shots sliced to the right across that green and that he planned to remove it and create a 'heavy roll' extending to the right rear of the green. That is what was recorded in writing by his two closest friends there and apparently recorded somewhat independent of one another.

That is what was recorded and Smith even dated his writing of those intentions of Crump's for the 18th green which happened to be dated about three months before Crump died. You can dismiss this kind of documentary material information which you've never even seen but I don't and either did the 1921 Advisory Committee when they made the suggestion that the mound should be removed as Crump intended. The entire spirit of the 1921 Advisory Committee was to finish off the golf course as they understood Crump intended it to be. That too was written into the report of the 1921 Advisory Committee and into Alison's report for the 1921 Advisory Committee neither of which you have ever seen. 

All the foregoing is why I believe actually restoring that temporary mound should never be considered but that creating something like that 'heavy roll' that Crump's two closest friends both wrote Crump was considering at the time that could extend to the right rear of the green could be or even should be considered.

I have said that on here for years while you have recommended in the past and on this website that the infamous mound be restored. I believe that would be an incredibly unintelligent thing to even consider and definitely something that Crump never intended to be a permanent feature of that green.

Again, I can understand why some people such as yourself tend to dismiss documentary material information about the history and evolution of a golf course they are not aware of and have never seen. This is precisely why I believe anyone even attempting to make these kinds of suggestions do the necessary and comprehensive documentary informational material research FIRST! You have never done that with Pine Valley and it shows. And it will continue to show unless and until you do it.

[TEPaul]

Direct quotes from the "Remembrances" deleted;

Patrick:


No, I really don't find them vague but I can understand why you might think that and say that, even taking into consideration the fact that you have never actually seen them or read them! 

Frankly, I think some of the "Remembrances" of Carr and Smith are amazingly specific, particularly when you consider those men back then who wrote it and the others that were considering it at that time all knew each other and the creation and evolution of the course extremely well.

I don't think any of them felt the need to have to spell every detail out to each other the way it would have to be spelled out to some argumentative dolt like you about a century later who doesn't understand much of anything about the creation, history and evolution of that golf course back then, as well as what George Crump said to them about what he wanted to do with that course or that green.

Was the mound removed as Crump intended it to be? Of course. Was that 'heavy roll' that they wrote should stretch to the back right corner of the green the way they said Crump told them he wanted it to be put in there in its place? No, I can't see that it really seems like it was and that is precisely why I have been saying for years now it should be considered and perhaps done now or in the future.

Would it take some interpretation? Of course it would but the fact is what they wrote Crump said to them about the way he thought it should be and for what purpose IS specific enough to make that interepration now very doable.

This is what I've been suggesting for years now and you know that. So what are you disagreeing with me about? If you are still suggesting that the mound the way it appeared in those photographs should be restored the way it once was, I will tell you again, and for about the twentieth time, that is incredibly unintelligent for a variety of documented reasons; it totally flies in the face of what Crump's recorded intentions were for that temporary mound!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TE, don't you find those notes or "rememberances" a little vague ?
Are they the sum total of the information regarding # 18 green ?"

Patrick:

No, I really don't find them vague but I can understand why you might think that and say that, even taking into consideration the fact that you have never actually seen them or read them! 

Several caddies told me that I was one of the best readers of greens they had ever seen.
On the 18th green I made a particularly nuanced read and Rocky and a fellow caddy claimed it was the finest read they'd ever seen.  So, I have seen them, and I have read them, quite exceptionally, I might add.

Frankly, I think some of the "Remembrances" of Carr and Smith are amazingly specific, particularly when you consider those men back then who wrote it and the others that were considering it at that time all knew each other and the creation and evolution of the course extremely well.

TE, I'm intriqued as to why Crump chose # 2 and # 18 as his two most favorite holes.

I say that because the mound was present in the 18th green when Crump made that choice.
It's hard to believe that he would list # 18 as a favorite if he wanted to eliminate a pronounced feature from that green.
It doesn't make sense that the hole was his favorite if he was going to undo his work.
It doesn't make sense that he would choose a hole that he was dissatisfied with.

I don't think any of them felt the need to have to spell every detail out to each other the way it would have to be spelled out to some argumentative dolt like you about a century later who doesn't understand much of anything about the creation, history and evolution of that golf course back then, as well as what George Crump said to them about what he wanted to do with that course or that green.


I'm not so sure about that.
If I had a favorite hole at PV or NGLA or Seminole, I sure wouldn't champion a substantive alteration, a destruction of a distinctive feature.
Perhaps Carr and Smith enjoyed too much of the grape one night and were halucinating when they penned their "remmemories or remammaries or Rembrants" 

Was the mound removed as Crump intended it to be? Of course. Was that 'heavy roll' that they wrote should stretch to the back right corner of the green the way they said Crump told them he wanted it to be put in there in its place? No,

Then, according to you, PV isn't carrying out Crump's intentions.  They're disrupting Crump's design integrity, ignoring his wishes.

I can't see that it really seems like it was and that is precisely why I have been saying for years now it should be considered and perhaps done now or in the future.

I'm glad that you finally agree with me

Would it take some interpretation? Of course it would but the fact is what they wrote Crump said to them about the way he thought it should be and for what purpose IS specific enough to make that interepration now very doable.

TE, you and I both know, that with modern technology, AND... all that land, PV could easily recreate a replica to experiment with, until they got that mound/spine just right.  Then, they could introduce the ideal feature back into the 18th green.  My guess is that they could accomplish this within 3 years if they began now.

This is what I've been suggesting for years now and you know that. So what are you disagreeing with me about? If you are still suggesting that the mound the way it appeared in those photographs should be restored the way it once was, I will tell you again, and for about the twentieth time, that is incredibly unintelligent for a variety of documented reasons; it totally flies in the face of what Crump's recorded intentions were for that temporary mound!

That's not quite correct, Crump's intentions weren't recorded.
Allegedly, Crump's discussion with Carr and Smith was cited by Carr and Smith.

I still have trouble understanding why someone would choose a hole as his favorite if he was unhappy with elements of its design, especially at the green end.

So, while I may accept what Carr and Smith wrote, I don't know that I accept it as The Gospel.
I think any prudent person would question the apparent conflict.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The more I think of this the more logical disputing your position becomes.

Who designs and builds a huge mound in the middle of a green with the knowledge that you're going to subsequently remove it ?

If it was temporary, as you claim, why not build a little mound ?
Why build a monstrosity ?

Why build a mound whose removal will have a traumatic effect on the green ?

Why waste that money ?

Did Crump build other features, intended for removal, at a later date ?

Was that his modus operandi ?

It just seems so counter intuitive.

Who thinks, I'm going to build a mound in the middle of the green that's temporary, so let me build a really big one ?  It doesn't make sense.

Then, you have to look at function, cause and effect.

A little mound or a tiny ridge accomplish very little on a green that's over 11,000 Sq/ft.

A small feature doesn't have the same strategic impact, and that's what Crump wanted, a pronounced feature that would affect the golfers mind, the play of the approach and recovery shot and the roll of the ball on the putting surface.

A little, or low mound or ridge would present NO impediment to any of those functions.

The more I analyze each facet, and as I collectivize that analysis, it reinforces my opinion.

While you may not share that opinion, to the degree that I do, I think I can convince you to distance yourself from your present view, and while I don't expect you to totally embrace mine, I can see you wrapping your arms around a good deal of it.

Open your mind Luke, feel the force within you !    

[TEPaul]

"Did Crump build other features, intended for removal, at a later date?"

Yes he did.



"Was that his modus operandi?"

Yes



"It just seems so counter intuitive."

And that is why someone like you could never possibly be in perfect harmony with George Crump (as you stated on here above ).

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

Regarding your post #138, and according to those "Remembrances" of Carr and Smith that reflect what Crump told them he wanted to do hole by hole, had Crump lived a good and long life it is very unlikely that a single hole at PV would look exactly as it does today or did when he died in 1918.

I can understand that you can't appreciate or even understand that but what does that matter? There is absolutely no reason at all that Carr and Smith, Crump's two closest friends and playing partners down there, would just make up the things they wrote in those "Rememberances" out of whole cloth----particularly Smith who clearly kept a diary of the things Crump talked about with him for the course that were individually dated as far back as 1914 and through to Oct. 1917 during which timespan Crump was very much alive and probably read them and discussed them with him. 

It has always been both fascinating and fairly humorous to me how some people on here that would certainly include you and MacWood and Moriarty just gratuitously dismiss or try to rationalize away the important things some very close to some architects said about particular courses and architects they were very close to in some attempt to support at all costs some odd and uninformed notion about what happened. This was true of with them about what Alan Wilson wrote about the Merion courses and his brother and now it's true again with with you about what Crump's two closest friends at PV wrote about Crump and his golf course.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If what you posted is the sum total of their knowledge about Crump's intent on # 18, then much of what  you've said is pure speculation.

What's germane is the dates Carr & Smith recorded their thoughts (Crump's intent) relative to the 18th green.   The dates are important for other reasons.  Could you provide the dates and the entirety of Carr and Smith's comments on # 18 green, so we can avoid the cat and mouse game that was involved on the Merion thread.   

In terms of our discussion about # 18 green, I have the facts on my side.
Crump designed, constructed and completed the 18th green during his lifetime.
Pictures reflecting his work on # 18 have been posted as evidence of, not only his design intent, but his design achievement.

Anyone who has worked or walked a precompleted golf course knows that you don't always end up with what you stated you wanted at the begining.  Field changes are made all the time, especially by guys who design by the seat of their pants or the soles of their feet.
Crump himself was conflicted on design thoughts, yet, we're to believe that his initial thoughts were cast in concrete.

As support of the removal of the mound in the 18th green, you speculate that every hole at PV would be different had Crump lived.  That's pure conjecture on your part, not fact.

NO ONE said that Carr and Smith made up things.  But, that doesn't mean that their "rememberances" were accurate, non-interpretive and precise in every detail.

12 Jury members look at the facts, presentations and representations and come up with different conclusions, but, we're to believe that Carr and Smith's recollections are unimpeachable, perfect in every detail.  [/b]

Smith who clearly kept a diary of the things Crump talked about with him for the course that were individually dated as far back as 1914 and through to Oct. 1917 during which timespan Crump was very much alive and probably read them and discussed them with him.

"Probably" ?  That's a quantum leap of faith, isn't it ?

As to Merion, Moriarty and McWood, they provided valuable insight that allowed many issues to come to light and be resolved.  Some remain unresolved.  Let's not attempt to divert this discussion off topic, namely, the 18th green at PV.

You keep ignoring an important fact, one that's not open to interpretation.
Crump designed, constructed and completed a large mound in the 18th green.
Not a small mound, not a ridge, but a large mound.

Why would he construct a large mound in the 18th green if he always intended to remove it ?

This isn't an attempt to support an odd or uninformed notion, as you couch it.
That mound was real, designed and built by Crump himself and it lasted in its original form for as long as he was working on PV, and beyond.

[TEPaul]

"Could you provide the dates and the entirety of Carr and Smith's comments on # 18 green, so we can avoid the cat and mouse game that was involved on the Merion thread."


See Reply #129.

Like the MCC meeting minutes I consider the "Remembrances" not to be in the public domain and I am not going to put them on here unless those clubs give it a green light. If you consider that a cat and mouse game that's too bad; I don't. I've had all that material for about a decade, I've read it many times, and I've described what it says. If like Moriarty and MacWood you choose to dismiss it or call it speculation, that's your problem.

Like them we recommended they take the time to introduce themselves to MCC (which Merion GC is no longer a part) and ask if they would mind if they looked at it. If you want to read PV's "Remembrances" I suggest you introduce yourself to the club, explain your interest in this material, and see if they will let you read it.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Reply # 143 is a total cop out on your part.

When asked to produce information that would support or undermine our respective positions, you suddenly claim that the data is privileged information.

Your reluctance to reveal pertinent information would certainly lead a prudent person to believe that the dates are more favorable to my position than to yours.

Certainly the dates Carr and Smith are alleged to have indicated that the mound be removed can't be privileged, unless you're hiding something that undermines or compromises your position.

We've seen the mound, we know when it was there, we know it was removed, and we know the dates it was removed (I believe you stated it was removed in 1926 or 1927)
So how top secret can the dates that Carr and Smith make their statements be ?

You choose to view Carr & Smith's comments in a vacuum, isolated and unrelated to the realities of club life.  I take a different, more pragmatic view.

Like a little kid, you've chosen to take your football and go home.

So be it, but, it only reinforces my views and theories. 

And, it doesn't change the FACTS that have been presented to date.
Facts that tend to support my view.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

It seems all you want to do on this website is just argue with everyone on thread after thread and post after post. I'm not interesting in that anymore.

I wasn't describing in a vacuum the things Carr and Smith wrote about and what they spoke with Crump about, including his intentions for the golf course and hole by hole. I was describing it in the way it took place and was written at the time with Crump and with the 1921 Advisory Committee that finished off the course by asking Carr and Smith to present to the committee what they knew and recorded. Carr and Smith were his two closest friends down there when he was creating Pine Valley; he spoke to them about the course all the time. Carr was the secretary of the club.

I might be one of a few, perhaps the only one on here who's read all that material but if you want to constantly argue with me about the way I've described it then I guess I can't stop that. You don't know what it says, and so you just dismiss and rationalize away the way I describe it on every post. Why is that? Apparently just to show this website that you can argue with everyone about everything and like a child all you seem to want to conclude is you're right about everything and without even seeing it for yourself.

In my opinion, that gets really dangerous when you try to make suggestions about things that should be done on the course when you don't know and don't understand the history behind them. If you're so interested in the details of Pine Valley then you should try to do what I've done over the last decade or so----eg get to really know it and the specific details of it.

Otherwise, it is your opinions on here that are in a real vacuum and why your suggestions are continuously uninformed. But go ahead and make them anyway, for what they're worth. I'll just watch; I'm quite sure it will be entertaining and amusing. This also makes it much clearer why you reviewed, endorsed and then suggested that massively uninformed revisionist essay on Merion be put on this website. The people who were responsible for that, apparently including you, should've let some people who know more about the details of that club's history review it first! But like you, apparently they are just constant uninformed arguers so they decided not to do that. All the better to just continue the real purpose---constant arguing, I guess.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It seems all you want to do on this website is just argue with everyone on thread after thread and post after post. I'm not interesting in that anymore.

To suggest that we should just roll over and agree with your opinions and conclusions is ..... elitist, to say the least.

As to arguing, if that's what you want to call not agreeing with you, so be it.

I recall Tom MacWood arguing with you about his contention that Crump committed suicide. 
You contested his facts and his conclusion, yet, he was right. 
Should he have stopped arguing with you on your say so ?
Should the facts not have been revealed and the truth uncovered ?

I've asked valid, relevant questions as to the exact dates when Carr and Smith made their remarks and I've asked valid, relevant questions as to the exact words Carr and Smith used when they made their remarks.

You chosen to refuse to answer those questions.

I wasn't describing in a vacuum the things Carr and Smith wrote about and what they spoke with Crump about, including his intentions for the golf course and hole by hole. I was describing it in the way it took place and was written at the time with Crump and with the 1921 Advisory Committee that finished off the course by asking Carr and Smith to present to the committee what they knew and recorded.

Evidently you didn't understand the meaning of the word "vacuum" in the context in which I was using it.

Carr and Smith were his two closest friends down there when he was creating Pine Valley; he spoke to them about the course all the time. Carr was the secretary of the club.

While that may be true, the exact words they used and the exact dates of their statements are important and relevant, unless you want to supress research.

As to accepting as The Gospel, the musings and writings of third parties, why not accept Chick Evan's statement where he says, "Pine Valley, which I helped lay out"  Or, Colt's writings, where he states, in an article he penned in 1914: " ..... the new course at Pine Valley, near Philadelphia, which I had the honor to lay out last year".

I've read SOME of Carr's writings, and what I read was rudimentary, general and vague in nature, absent detailed specifics.

Yet, you want us to accept, on blind faith, along with your insistance, that Carr's & Smith's writings are irrefutable.

Before I accept that, all I ask is to see the words they wrote, and the date that they wrote them.

Were Carr's words spontaneous, or was he asked to "recollect" or "remember" what Crump wanted ?

And, if he was asked to "recollect", who asked him, and for what purpose ?
Please try to respond to these inquiries without getting defensive, it make it look like you've got something to hide.

I might be one of a few, perhaps the only one on here who's read all that material but if you want to constantly argue with me about the way I've described it then I guess I can't stop that.

I've asked you specific questions as to the words used to describe what we're discussing and the dates those words were recorded.  That you choose to categorize intellectual curiosity and research as arguing, is beyond a stretch, but, it's your choice of words, not mine.

You don't know what it says, and so you just dismiss and rationalize away the way I describe it on every post.

When I ask you what it says, specifically, you refuse to respond.
When I ask you when it was said or written, you refuse to respond.

That's not dismissing and/or rationalizing.

As President Regan said, "Trust, but, verify."
I'm asking for verification and you're refusing.
What message does that send to GCA.com ?
What are you afraid of ?  That possibly another counter cultural revelation might be forth coming ?

Why is that?


Because I'm not willing to accept your conclusion without seeing the underlying support for it, that's why.

Apparently just to show this website that you can argue with everyone about everything and like a child all you seem to want to conclude is you're right about everything and without even seeing it for yourself.


What's childish is your, "I'm taking my ball and going home, so you can't play anymore", attitude"
Why are you reluctant or afraid to answer two simple questions ?
What exactly did Carr and Smith say ?
And, when, exactly did they say it ?

In my opinion, that gets really dangerous when you try to make suggestions about things that should be done on the course when you don't know and don't understand the history behind them.


That's very funny.
So now, you're the protector of the history of the course, but, you won't reveal what you know, leaving us to just take your word for what should and shouldn't be done to the golf course.
That's convenient.

I"ll let GCA.com participants decide which is the more dangerous of the two.

What you conveniently leave out is my 45+ years of playing PV, which gives me a little understanding of its architectural history from 1964 to present date, the aerial photos, chronologically, from 1925 to present date, and, Pine Valley's official History, "Pine Valley Golf Club  A unique Haven of the Game"   Collectively, they provide a reasonable understanding of the golf course, club and their histories.

If you're so interested in the details of Pine Valley then you should try to do what I've done over the last decade or so----eg get to really know it and the specific details of it.

I've asked you for the specific details !   You refuse to provide them.
I don't have the time to pursue the endeavor you suggest.
And, I'm certainly not going to spend a decade of my life, especially at my age, playing detective.
In the interest of time and this discussion I've asked you to provide the information you have.
You've refused.
One could conclude that your silence is self serving.

Otherwise, it is your opinions on here that are in a real vacuum and why your suggestions are continuously uninformed.

I believe that my suggestions are far, far from uninformed, and are in fact, valid, prudent and practical.

But go ahead and make them anyway, for what they're worth.

Crump thought they were pretty good, after all, he's the one who designed, constructed and completed a mound in the 18th green.  A mound that survived for about 13 years, starting at about 1913.
During Crump's entire life at PV, that mound was in play.

I'll just watch; I'm quite sure it will be entertaining and amusing. This also makes it much clearer why you reviewed, endorsed and then suggested that massively uninformed revisionist essay on Merion be put on this website.

I thought Moriarty's work was deserving of being presented, rather than being supressed
If a vote were taken, perhaps only you, Wayno and Cirba would disagree.

You also objected to Tom MacWood's treatise on Crump being posted on this site, yet that too was deserving of publication rather than supression.

The people who were responsible for that, apparently including you, should've let some people who know more about the details of that club's history review it first!

That's nonsense, and nothing more than a smokescreen on your part.
Ran felt as I did, that the piece was deserving of publication.
David Moriarty shared his information and his sources, you and Wayno weren't so forthcoming with yours.  Do you see a pattern ?

Now let's get back to PV.
What were the exact words Carr used and what were the dates he used them.
You're the self proclaimed historical expert on PV, surely, you know the answer to both questions.

But like you, apparently they are just constant uninformed arguers so they decided not to do that. All the better to just continue the real purpose---constant arguing, I guess.

My argument is factually sound, and logically structured.

Your argument is vague, based on alleged third party comments, and by your choice, privileged information.

[Mike_Cirba]

Patrick,

I never said that David Moriarty shouldn't have published his paper here.   I encouraged him to do so, in fact, even though I hadn't read it prior to publication as you had.

I also suggested that given the amount of contradictory information that surfaced after its publication that he should either ask that it be taken down or wholly revise it to include those findings, much as he originally said he intended.   I believe he called it a "work in progress", and it could have ultimately been much more valuable if he had been more willing to accept the input and findings of others instead of debating whether "laid out" meant constructed or designed, or whether the words of all of Hugh Wilson's contemporaries and various other news accounts back then had real substantive value, or the location of the Francis Land Swap, and a host of other things.

In any case, I think probably unintentionally David's paper served a very useful purpose because it sent a bunch of us back to find a host of incredible historical and even primary source research material, not only on Merion, but on Cobb's Creek, on Seaview, on Hugh Wilson, and on early Philadelphia and regional golf that has never been known or told before.

Ironically, in the case of Hugh Wilson, we now know he was much more experienced and qualified to design and build Merion than previously believed (and certainly way more than David's paper suggested), and we also know he was anything but a one-trick pony, and was heavily involved in golf course design, construction, and a pioneer in agronomy throughout almost all of his too-short life.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I too thought a lot of positives evolved from David's treatise.

Now back to the subjects in this thread

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Id really prefer not to revisit that whole Tom MacWood/Crump suicide issue on here AGAIN, but you just brought it up again as usual you really do have your facts fucked up all over again.

I don't care what you think that was about but the rumor of Crump's suicide had been around Pine Valley probably from the beginning. I heard about it from one of my closest friends down there over thirty years ago. Had anyone from Pine Valley EVER wanted to find out the circumstances behind his death I seriously doubt they would've had any problem from the township, police or State in doing that! If some guy who has nothing to do with Pine Valley, never been there and knows no one there could do it of course they certainly could have, had they wanted to expose that rumor as a fact.

Why didn't they ever try to find out? If someone like you really needs to even ask a question like that at this point you really don't have much undertanding of PV, manners, etiquette or even common sense, in my book.

In my opinion, and in Wayne's, MacWood duped that township manager by failing to tell him why he was even calling him. Both MacWood and the township manager told me that so it has to be true. Then MacWood tries to blame me for calling the township manager about it? Why would MacWood blame me for doing that? Does he think I should be held to some confidence about what he was up to(even after he told me how he got that information from that township manager) when I never wanted to see him expose that suicide rumor in the first place?

But in the end I think he wrote a pretty good essay about Crump including the real circumstances behind his death, which were obviously circumstances Crump's family clearly hoped never became public? The only other thing I disagree with MacWood on is he didn't even have the decency to call Pine Valley--not ever---and explain to them what he was writing it for or that he even wrote it and put it on here. I had this discussion with Geoff Shackelford about his writing about Crump's suicide nearly ten years ago. That discussion involved informing PV about it first. He said he certainly didn't have to do that but if he didn't he wouldn't write about it and he decided he wouldn't.

I'm the one who arranged to have MacWood email it to John Ott, but he did that AFTER it was put on this website. He never spoke to anyone at Pine Valley about it before he put it on here.

Maybe that kind of thing works for you but it doesn't with me.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()