[TEPaul]

"My disagreement with Pat and Mike focussed on the reasons behind suggesting trees be removed. Crump's intent certainly has merit, but is difficult to pin down with absolute clarity. Strategic value is where we disagreed because, like your proposed shot into 15, I don't think there are two shots on the course that would be played differently if the trees were all removed to the outer edges of the bunkering...but the visuals would be off the charts...and it seems like they are moving in that direction."


Sully:

Strategic merit of various shots down there if the trees were removed surrounding the old bunkers and their sightlines is most definitely not some black and white issue. The point is that's the way the course was when he built it and I don't see any reason to speculate that he would've planted trees to shut down multi-optionality if he hadn't done that in his 5-6 years creating that place. Crump pretty obviously considered trees on that course when he cleared that site, left what he did and apparently planted other places that he'd looked at for holes but not end up using for holes.

If they cleared the trees surrounding all the bunkers and their sightlines as it once was there certainly are more than two shots out there that some golfers would try to play differently. I can think of 6-7 of them off the top of my head right now.

[JESII]

That's a discussion I would like to have.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

One of the problems here is you've started so many threads on Pine Valley recently it's sort of hard to know which one to go to or refer to.

When your attention span barely rivals that of a chimp, I can see how you might get confused by about five seperate threads

However, you mention above the approach to #15. You might mean on the right side that still has those two little fir trees about 30 yards short of the green. I don't feel they are of much consequence on that hole


We disagree.
And, why did they suddenly appear between 1957 and 1963 ?
Crump didn't plant them, they were planted about 40 years after his demise.  Why do you blindly defend their existence ?

but I most surely feel the entire left side throughout perhaps 50-100 yards along the approach as well as at the greenside left is really important both in play and in the look of it.

I agree, but, it's only in recent years that many of the lost bunkers have been uncovered.

This is an area that I think bears a good deal of analysis and discussion and needs to have a ton of architectural historic and evolutionary research plugged into it.

I'm not so sure that you need to cloud the issue with hypothetical presentations.  The chronological aerials provide more than adequate historical and evolutionary research.  Examining them and drawing prudent conclusions should satisfy the element of due diligence.

The fact is that area has changed considerably over the years perhaps even in recent years. Trees were allowed to overtake some of that hillside leading up to the green and at the green. I think some of it has been cleared but seemingly not enough to encourage a particular type of approach up into that green.

I agree 1000 %.

So the question remains, why have the curators of Crump's vision allowed unbridled encroachment ?

And one cannot help notice how much the bunkering all along there has been sort of incremented and formalized compared to what it once was. I think Bator may've done some to most of that but I'd have to check.


This is where the chronological aerials can be of great assistance.

Personally, it wouldn't make that much difference to me if that area was restored to that really elongated stretch of sand from way out in the approach up to and past the green or left with the incremented bunkering but if trees were really cleared all along up in there I think it would really encourage players to try a real high fade type shot which would come at some true RISK AND/OR REWARD.

And not to mention if it were cleared back to what it once was it could be seen beautifully all the way back over 600 yards from the tee (I know as I've looked at it carefully).

The incrementing of that bunkering up on that hillside could've been done to stabalize things compared to what it once was but I'm not sure about that.

I don't believe that inserting bunkers acts as a stabilizing force or influence.
I would imagine, just the opposite.

Anyway, that area if it allowed the attempt at a high fade approach could be one of the most interesting and exciting restorative measures that could be taken on the golf course, in my opinion.

At some point there must be recognition that Crump intended those bunkers to be visual hazards, clearly influencing the golfer's thoughts and play and not invisible hazards only discovered when retrieving an errant shot

[TEPaul]

"I don't believe that inserting bunkers acts as a stabilizing force or influence.
I would imagine, just the opposite."


Pat:

Some of the fairly massive unbroken sand area of Pine Valley that was in areas with some pretty fair slope to it was incremented, sometimes sort of terraced and low-level vegetated over the years. Pine Valley referred to the project or process as "Holding the course together" or "stabalizing the course."

I wouldn't expect you'd agree with that either or to understand the purpose of it or even what it means.

But look again at the stagger of aerials over the years and you should be able to see that the sand areas along the left side of the approach and the left side of the 15th green were once elongated unbroken sand area and in recent years they were turned into incremental and separated bunkers.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

"I don't believe that inserting bunkers acts as a stabilizing force or influence.
I would imagine, just the opposite."


Pat:

Some of the fairly massive unbroken sand area of Pine Valley that was in areas with some pretty fair slope to it was incremented, sometimes sort of terraced and low-level vegetated over the years. Pine Valley referred to the project or process as "Holding the course together" or "stabalizing the course."

You're confused....... again.

The areas "stabilized" were severely sloped areas like behind # 9 green.

You don't stabilize steep sloped areas by inserting bunkers, you stabilize them by adding vegetation with extensive root systems, to hold the soil together.  Grasses also help avoid erosion from wind and water on steep slopes.

I wouldn't expect you'd agree with that either or to understand the purpose of it or even what it means.

I understand better than you.
You think that inserting bunkers creates stability in a steeply sloped area when nothing could be further from the truth.  Bunkers destabilize a steep slope, unless you feel that gravity, rain and wind don't exist at PV.
Add to that the effect of golfers troding to and from them, in and out of them, and the erosive process is accelerated.

But look again at the stagger of aerials over the years and you should be able to see that the sand areas along the left side of the approach and the left side of the 15th green were once elongated unbroken sand area and in recent years they were turned into incremental and separated bunkers.


I looked at those aerials as far back as they could go, and, on # 15 those left side bunkers short of the green were always broken up into seperate, large bunkers.  That someone came in and populated pseudo or hybrid pot bunkers on the bunker closer to the tee.

Your constant defense of everything PV has done is remarkable.

As I stated, I understand your loyalty, its admirable, but, it prevents you from being objective.  If you view the situation with intellectual and architectural honesty, it's obvious that some of the work that was done needs to be undone and that some of the work that wasn't done, needs to be done.

While we might quibble over a particular area, globally, there's significant tree work that should be done, and not over the next 20 years.

The chronological aerials provide a PERFECT road map for this work, and you just might find that that road map leads to 1925

[TEPaul]

"You don't stabilize steep sloped areas by inserting bunkers, you stabilize them by adding vegetation with extensive root systems, to hold the soil together.  Grasses also help avoid erosion from wind and water on steep slopes."


Patrick:

My God is it impossible to carry on an intelligent discussion with you! The stabilizing of the course was the incremenatlizing of some of the largest sand areas of Pine Valley into grass edged or encirling terraces, individual bunkers, just grass or even trees in some areas or whatever. It was done all over the course on particularly sloping sand areas. The worst were in the front #2, #18, #10 greens and between the tee and green on #10, behind #9 and particularly all along the right of #6 but also numerous other areas to one extent or another.

In a few select other areas some of the smaller incrementalized bunkers such as left of #3 green were enlarged on Alison's recommendation but that area isn't exactly sloping.

You know you really should try not arguing with every single thing I say on here and start trying to learn something like the detailed history and evolution of the course and why it evolved as it did either through particular projects or naturally.

[Patrick_Mucci_Jr]

TEPaul,

I'm familiar with the faux terracing.

Unfortunately, you're in a time warp.

If you look at the chronological aerials from 1931 to 1963 you'll notice that much of the "stabilization" you refer to was attempted post 1963.

If one takes the position that in 1918 there was a clear intent to "shore up" select areas, then one has to accept that the "shoring up" was completed well before 1940 or 1963.

Compare the photos pre 1964 to the 1931 and 1940 aerials and you won't see much difference.  Most of the negative changes I've alluded to are all POST 1963,  yet, you keep telling everyone that there was a 45 year gap between the intent to "stabilize" and the actual stabilization.

You need to revisit history in the context of the reality of the chronological aerial photos.

They clearly support and reinforce my position.[/b]

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I have no idea what you think your point or points are on that last post but I can tell you they don't make much sense.

What you need is a good and comprehensive education on the details of the evolution and history of both when and why various things were done on that golf course and the fact is you are not going to learn that by just looking at a stagger of aerials through the years. You can certainly see what changed and in detail if you really analyze them but that will never teach you the why of it all.

I have huge respect for what Crump did down there but the fact is he died early and his work was by no means complete when he died. He explained to a couple of people what he wanted to do in some detail and thankfully they recorded it.

The fact is Crump made a number of mistakes and they had to be fixed. He apparently realized a lot of that himself and he planned to do it. He didn't have the chance obviously so various things were done for a number of years after he died including redesigning and rebuilding a number of greens and shoring up various areas of the course which tended to collapse or shift. In a few important areas that included some very large sand areas that one could probably call bunkers and incrementing some of those areas into a series of incremental and more formal bunkers.

That happened in app three very important green-end cases and if you think you know something about the evolution of the architecture of Pine Valley why don't you just put on here what at least 2-3 of the most important of those green-end areas was? If you can't do that or don't do it I think it shows you have a lot to learn about the architectural evolution of Pine Valley and some of the reasons why various things were done.

The fact is you may suspect what one or two of those areas are but that is by no means the extent of it. For that you need a comprehensive history lesson on the golf course and you just don't have that yet. Stick with me for about another decade though and perhaps you'll get close!

And I don't want to see another post from you with this bullshit about me defending everything that has ever happened down there. I don't have any idea for starters whether or not Pine Valley ever intends to remove all the trees from the existing bunkers and their sightlines. I have heard what I think are some reliable reports about what they plan to do over time but I sure can't confirm that as they do not actively or formally consult with me and never have.

Removing the trees from the bunkers and their sightlines has only been my own idea for a number of years. If they agree with that then great but whether they do or not I have no idea at all. But that is my recommendation and I see no reason to change it and so if they don't do that then why in the world do you constantly say I defend everything they do or don't do?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

While my first priority focuses on playability, and that would mean clearing the trees/shrubs/underbrush to beyond the bunker lines, the second priority has to do with visibility.

If you examine the old photos, ground level and aerial, you'll notice several things.  One is that there were a number of skyline greens.  # 2 and # 9 and probably # 17 as well.  # 10 almost appears to be a skyline green and # 1 would probably qualify as well.

So, while restoring skyline greens doesn't physically impact play, it mentally impacts play to a great degree.  It creates uncertainty, and, it allows the wind to be an unimpeded influence.

I like being able to see the entire green and everything between the tee and the green as I stand on the 12th tee.

I would like to see the 14th green surrounded by sand as opposed to it being closeted by trees.

But, those are vast projects and if you only support selective clearing you'll never recapture the architectural high water mark at PV.

While every tree removed benefits PV, a piecemeal approach won't achieve optimal results.

On a number of occassions I've cited, for you, the inside elbow at # 1.
Just go back and look at the chrono aerials and ask yourself, was the hole a better hole, for the wide spectrum of golfers, when it was wide open with sandy wastes, or, with dense forest ?

A golfer who slices far right will be lost in the woods for dozens of shots, whereas, as a sandy waste, he could reasonably extract himself and NOT ruin his round as it was just getting started.

YOU and I both know that the caddies MOVE the ball in the woods.

WHY ?

We both know the answer.

WHY, ?  Because the course is unplayable from a reasonable perspective with the dense forests surrounding each and every hole.

So, when you hit your ball into the woods, miracle of miracle, you not only have a swing, you have an open shot back to the fairway.

Can you imagine the probability of playing a course for 45 years and NEVER seeing a golfer stymied by a tree.

If for NO OTHER reason, that's reason enough to clear the trees.

Case Closed !

[W.H. Cosgrove]

It's been several years since I played PV but I do remember walking through the forested area to the left of the 12th fairway and being amazed at how much bunkering was still evident and yet grown in. 

While the aerial evidence shows the narrowing of the course over time, it is astonishing to actually see the amount of work and character at PV that was done at construction and how much it has changed.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding what you said in Post #58 we have been over the importance of these details so many times before but you just don't seem to know, understand or appreciate them. In every case with the things you seem to suggest they matter a great deal, including the analysis of restorations of those skyline greens you mentioned. Today, probably only one of them would be actually doable if one wanted a real skyline green restoration where the back of it is framed by sky and not trees at some point in the distance.

As for my years long suggestion for tree removal on #1 (or perhaps even completing what Crump had planned on #1) I put that on another of your PV threads which is probably on about page 6 now in response to Sully asking for it. Apparently you missed that too.

[TEPaul]

Parrick:

The following is from the Splendid Isolation thread and contains my own recommendations that were first mentioned on here years ago for tree removal and such for #1 which is based on a lot of old documentary material on what Crump's plans were for that hole.






"Sully:

I guess I should take that as a yes. If so I'll start on the first hole. It will contain some very interesting info, particularly from Crump's good friend, Father Simon Carr, about what else Crump apparently wanted to do with the first hole but, if one is familiar with the details of it, did not live to get to his additional ideas on it.



My primary suggestion on #1 would be to take as many trees out on the right side as possible without exposing something obnoxious far over to the right of the fairway. I'd like to see all the trees out that surround the constructed sand areas and fairly formal bunkers and their sightlines to the green all along the right side which go fairly far in to the right. If that gave the golfer a peak at the green from the tee, great, but that is a bit hard to tell on a cursory examination of the hole.

Crump was intent on improving and adding the bunkering on the right to conceptually drive the tee shot on that hole left. He actually added the bunkering on the right before the road pretty late like in 1917 I believe considering the date of an old aerial photo. But his intention was to do a lot more with the left side than has ever been there. Again, he didn't live and didn't get to it:

Here's the evidence from Father Simon Carr, one of his two closest friends and constant playing partner:

"At holes #1, 9, 13 and 18 he planned long second shots to the greens. At No. 1 his plan was to compel the player to keep his tee shot WELL TO THE LEFT, hence he brought out the bunker on the right. (I feel sure it does not project far enough into the fairway to accomplish the purpose, neither is it deep enough to prevent getting to the green with a lofted iron). The ditch on the left was only a temporary arrangement to keep water from washing over the fairway until he secured a growth of grass. He intended to install good sightly bunkers there. Also push the fairway straight ahead into the rough for a very long drive. He decidedly wished to make No. 1 as much on the principles of No. 1 at Hoylake as was possible. Not to drive down to the corner of the bunker on the right and then to pitch to the green is no more like the Hoylake hole than chalk is like cheese. Holylake's No. 1 is a very difficult hole and on the authority of John Low is the best 19th hole in existence. Numberless important matches have been decided on it. George emphatically wanted such a hole as his No. 1 and No. 19."



Interesting stuff and even if a bit hard to interpret some of it on the left side obviously Crump intended more elaborate looking bunkers left on the tee shot than the narrow ditch or river bunkers that are all along there now that Carr described as temporary to solve a sheet water problem on the unturfed fairway.

I would not take out trees at the green end at all. Patrick thinks that hole was supposed to be a skyline green look but anyone who really knows the details of the land back there even over the road outside the fence knows that's ridiculous or frankly impossible.

Next, W.P. Smith's words on what Crump wanted which are actually dated---eg 5/9/15!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

The trees behind the 1st green should be removed.

The topography behind the 1st green is conducive to a skyline effect.

# 2 and # 9 should also be skyline greens.

Those pines behind # 9 don't stabilize the bank to the exclusion of other plantings.  Those trees were introduced for framing purposes and not to anchor the steep bank that falls off sharply behind # 9.

# 17 should be a skyline green as well.

You may argue the point all you want, the topography, old aerial and ground level photos prove you wrong.

Invasive trees/shrubs/underbrush have erroneously become part of the fabric of the golf course and unfortunately, part of the culture of the club, that's why they haven't been removed.

The invasive trees have NOTHING to do with Crump's intent, which is the position you've maintained.  The chronological aerials, the photos you don't want to acknowledge prove my point.  Analyzing 1931 through 1963 proves my point, and if you won't accept 1925 as a target year, let me hear your argument for not accepting 1931, 13 years after Crump's demise.

But, as I cited previously, the greatest argument for tree removal is the fact that the caddies move every ball guests hit into the woods, allowing them a good lie, swing and exit corridor.

You KNOW that that's the truth and that that practice wouldn't have taken root had the course not become overgrown beyond reason.

[TEPaul]

"# 17 should be a skyline green as well."

Essentially it is a skyline green numbnuts but #10 cannot be for the reasons I've already given a number of times which don't seem able to get through your stone-for-brains head.

These discussions on Pine Valley's evolutionary history and the reasons for it are good ones, in my opinion, because they continue to show how someone (in this case you) can come up with stupid remarks because they haven't bothered to comprehensively or properly learn a course's detailed architectural history! 

[TEPaul]

"The invasive trees have NOTHING to do with Crump's intent, which is the position you've maintained."

Patrick:

For years my recommendation has been to remove all the tree surrounding bunkering on that golf course and within its sightlines. There are plenty of invasive trees that have grown within and surrounding numerous areas of bunkering on that course and within its sightlines. So don't tell me my position has been to maintain those invasive trees. That's bullshit and you know it. If you don't you're incapable of reading and understanding fairly simple posts and sentences! 

If you want to have a specific and intelligent discussion on this DG about intelligent tree removal on that course which takes into consideration the realities of the course's architectural history (including what is known about what Crump intended to do) and evolution than I'm willing to do that, certainly including hole by hole specifically, but I'm not going to waste any more time with your evasive and deflective responses which do precisely no more than make it obvious that you need an education on the history and evolution of that golf course and why various things were done at particular times, and that you know you need it.

If you're not willing to learn those details and then have an intelligent discussion based on them then I'm done here.

It's your call at this point, pal; I'm tired of wasting my time on this. What you know about the details of the history and evolution of that golf course and the reasons for it completely pales in comparison to mine, and if you don't feel like taking advantage of it, then that's your problem. 

Once again, suggesting that trees should be cleared in all areas on that golf course that appear cleared in a 1925 aerial is just not understanding a good deal of the important architectural history of that golf course. All the aerial photographs combined with the architectural history of the earlier days are necessary to analyze together but that 1925 aerial is not the best blueprint for tree removal, for reestablishing various sightlines and things like skyline greens for a variety of reasons.

That is basically what I've been trying to explain to you all along but apparently you're far too obtuse to understand any of it. Semi-informed suggestions and recommendations like yours is how some golf courses make serious restoration mistakes!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Why WON'T you address the tree and caddy issue ?

Do you think that was Crump's intent ?

Mulligans and Free Throws ?

Please remember, the Sixers came much later

[TEPaul]

Guys:

If anyone has the slightest idea what Pat Mucci's last post means be sure to let us know. It'd be nice if he'd try to get into a hole by hole discussion of intelligent tree removal on that golf course combined with some historical documentation that explains the evolution of the aerial stagger of the first 30 years or more but I think it's pretty obvious why he doesn't and why he posts replies like the above instead!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You may be able to diagnose and operate on a patient without seeing him in a year, but, I'd prefer to examine the patient in great detail before offering my diagnosis and treatment plan.

I'd be happy to do a hole by hole analysis ON SITE where I can have immediate access to the data/patient/hole.

As to historical documentation, neither you nor anyone else knows of Crump's true intent because he never published his thoughts or his intent.

Speculation based on third party references is a questionable resource.

What is factual are the chronological aerials.

They substantiate the position I've taken on this subject over the last 45 years.

PV remained fairly static until post 1963, 45 years AFTER Crump's death.

Pine Valley in 1925, 1931, 1940, 1957 and 1963 isn't that different.

It starts its real metamorphosis post 1963, yet somehow, you keep clinging to what you speculate that Crump wanted in 1918.

I've already referenced the general changes I'd recommend, but, in order to make specific hole by hole recommendations, I'd do the prudent thing and only make them on site.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

The "remembrances" from Crump's two closest friends down there obviously don't answer everything that anyone would ever want answered about what Crump had in mind at any point in time but they do go hole by hole and are in a certain amount of detail and for that reason and others they surely are valuable if one wants to know what Crump had in mind. It is also important to know the reasons why various things were done on the course in the next decade or so after he died such as the work of Alison and the 1921 advisory Committee.

But since you don't know any of that I can certainly understand why you dismiss it as you have and just go on a whole lot less information when you make suggestions.



"I've already referenced the general changes I'd recommend, but, in order to make specific hole by hole recommendations, I'd do the prudent thing and only make them on site."


I realize that and that's because you don't have the information I've had for a decade. Those recommendations, some of which I've put on here over the years, were developed over a number of years of analyzing the course hole by hole (generally not while playing) and I did it all with the entire evolutionary history of the course. So I can make my specific hole by hole recommendations right here and right now but I can certainly understand why you can't and why you probably wouldn't even understand it as well as why you'd need to go down there now. If so I hope you have plenty of time.

It took me some years and a ton of  time on the course from a ton of places and angles and a lot of referencing all that evolutionary material in the process. As I mentioned before I did most all of that with John Ott who lived right off the 9th fairway. He just loved going out on the course and looking at it with that old material including all the aerials ever shot of the place.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You can't have it both ways.

Crump clearly wanted a feature in the 18th green, be it a hump/mound or a ridge/spine.

If you want to champion Crump's intent you must support the restoration of the hump/mound or ridge/spine.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

What do you mean I can't have it both ways with the 18th green?

Have you ever heard me say I think that infamous pimple should be restored? Never. You're the only idiot who's ever suggested such a stupid thing as that to my knowledge, and also completely contrary to extremely reliable evidence.

The archives of the club contain very direct first hand information from two of Crump's best friends down there about what he told them was the reason he built that pimple and that he considered it to be temporary as well as what he intended to do with the green when it was removed.

I would whole heartedly approve of a form of a ridge line in that area being done if interpreted correctly. But there's no way I'd ever suggest that pimple be restored when it is completely obvious it was totally unpopular and was only intended to be temporary in the first place. There are various other things from the "remembrances" of those two friends of Crump's about what he intended to do on various holes or was even in the process of doing when he died suddenly that never were completed. I would very seriously recommend that some of them be considered and/or done now or in the future.

However, you don't even know what those things are so I've never understood why you think you can try to comment on them. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

What do you mean I can't have it both ways with the 18th green?

What I mean is that you can't go trumpeting "Crump's Intent" when it comes to your interpretation of the tree issue and isolation, and then oppose "Crump's Intent" when it comes to the feature/mound/ridge in the 18th green.

You should learn, like me, to be consistent.

For if you believe in adhering, philosophically and physically to "Crump's Intent", then you must trumpet and champion the restoration of an internal feature in the 18th green, be it a mound or a ridge

Have you ever heard me say I think that infamous pimple should be restored? Never.

That's my point.
Not restoring the mound or ridge is CONTRARY to Crump's intent.
He designed and built that mound in the midst of the 18th green so we KNOW that that was HIS INTENT. 

He also stated that the 18th green needed an internal feature, a ridge or spine.  No such feature exists.  So, if you insist on carrying out "Crump's
Intent" you MUST champion the insertion of a prominent feature within the 18th green, be it a mound or a ridge

You're the only idiot who's ever suggested such a stupid thing as that to my knowledge, and also completely contrary to extremely reliable evidence.

That's completel untrue.
I'm in perfect harmony with Crump.
He designed and built a feature/mound in the 18th green.
That's a fact.
He also stated that the 18th green NEEDED an internal feature, a ridge or spine.
So, Crump and I are in perfect harmony.
You're the one who is out of step and out of touch with Crump's Intent when it comes to the 18th green

The archives of the club contain very direct first hand information from two of Crump's best friends down there about what he told them was the reason he built that pimple and that he considered it to be temporary as well as what he intended to do with the green when it was removed.


The archives of the club CONFIRM that Crump designed and built the 18th green with a mound in it.
The archives further CONFIRM that Crump intended and wanted the 18th green to have an internal feature, a ridge or spine.

YET, to date, none exists.
Why don't you champion "Crump's Intent" when it comes to the 18th green ?

I would whole heartedly approve of a form of a ridge line in that area being done if interpreted correctly.

That's a crock.
"interpreted correctly" ?
By whom ?
It ain't rocket science.
His intent was to create seperatation within the 18th green.
To divide it into sectors or playing quadrants.
The current green is bland, lacking substantive impendiments which would challenge the golfer on his approach and with his putting.
ANYTHING would be an improvement over the current green.

Ray Charles and I could design a feature that would improve that green/hole dramatically.

But there's no way I'd ever suggest that pimple be restored when it is completely obvious it was totally unpopular and was only intended to be temporary in the first place.


Since when is popularity the criterion by which golf courses are designed.

IF GCA was a popularity contest there wouldn't be a golf hole or golf course in the country that wouldn't be disfigured by now.

There are various other things from the "remembrances" of those two friends of Crump's about what he intended to do on various holes or was even in the process of doing when he died suddenly that never were completed. I would very seriously recommend that some of them be considered and/or done now or in the future.

That's irrelevant to the issue.

The issue of an internal feature within the 18th green is well documented, by Crump and others, yet you cling to the notion that the green should remain bland, which is factually contrary to "Crump's Intent"

And, you know I'm right.

However, you don't even know what those things are so I've never understood why you think you can try to comment on them. 

I can comment, with authority, on the 18th green.
Crump ALWAYS INTENDED for that green to have a pronounced feature seperating the putting surface.

You can't have it both ways.
You can't champion "Crumps Intent" throughout the golf course and then suddenly REJECT "Crump's Intent" on the 18th green.

What I love about this discussion is that you know, that I know that you know that I'm right.
But, you just can't admit it in public

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

At this point, no one had studied or analyzed the details of the creation or evolution of PV more than I have over the last decade to twelve years. If you don't believe that just ask around, but ask in the right places and not in uninformed places. I'm no longer interested in your opinions if they are anything like that one just above, and of course the club wouldn't be interested either. If you want to try to impress people on this website, most whom hardly know the place, with posts like you've put on these PV threads you've started, then go for it. But always know you'll never get the attention this way with people who really do understand the history and evolution of that golf course.

If you want to take the time to understand the history and evolution of the course and the reasons why I'll help you. But I guarantee you it isn't simple. Otherwise your suggestions on here are both uninformed and consequently gratuitous and the most level-headed observers should consider it so as Pine Valley certainly does and should! The very last thing a classic course club should do, particularly one of the stature of Pine Valley, is to consider some uninformed, hip-shooting opinion of someone like you! Your years long suggestion on here that the 1925 aerial is the best blueprint for tree removal is precisely that. I've told you that for years now but you just don't get it, and that has to be the only reason you write posts like the one just above and most of the rest on these PV threads you've started recently. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

At this point, no one had studied or analyzed the details of the creation or evolution of PV more than I have over the last decade to twelve years. If you don't believe that just ask around, but ask in the right places and not in uninformed places.

Your studies can't change the facts.

The facts are that Crump designed and built a mound in the middle of the 18th green.

The facts are that Crump ALWAYS intended that there be an interior feature, be it a mound or ridge, in that green.

Are my facts CORRECT ?

I'm no longer interested in your opinions if they are anything like that one just above, and of course the club wouldn't be interested either.


Your attempt at revisionist history fail and fall on your own words.
In previous threads you've admitted that my position is factual and accurate.  Why do you attempt to refute these facts at this time ?

If you want to try to impress people on this website, most whom hardly know the place, with posts like you've put on these PV threads you've started, then go for it.

I'm not trying to impress people, I'm trying to get you to admit that my position is factually correct.  You know it is, yet, for some strange reason you continue to contradict yourself and deny the facts.

But always know you'll never get the attention this way with people who really do understand the history and evolution of that golf course.

If they understood the history and evolution, as you say, then they too would know that my facts are correct.

I ask you again.  Are my facts correct ?
If not, cite where my facts are incorrect.

If you want to take the time to understand the history and evolution of the course and the reasons why I'll help you. But I guarantee you it isn't simple. Otherwise your suggestions on here are both uninformed and consequently gratuitous and the most level-headed observers should consider it so as Pine Valley certainly does and should! The very last thing a classic course club should do, particularly one of the stature of Pine Valley, is to consider some uninformed, hip-shooting opinion of someone like you!

Despite your attempt to create a smoke screen, I'll ask you again.
With respect to the 18th green, are my facts correct ?


Your years long suggestion on here that the 1925 aerial is the best blueprint for tree removal is precisely that.
I've told you that for years now but you just don't get it, and that has to be the only reason you write posts like the one just above and most of the rest on these PV threads you've started recently. 

Since you dispute the 1925 aerial as the desired authority, which aerial would you choose ?  1931 ?  1940 ?

Tell us, based on all your study, which year's aerial would be the best aerial to base tree clearing on ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

There's no benefical reason to continue this as we're just saying the same things over and over again. My point is you are looking at PV with far less than the necessary information about its creation and evolution one would need to have to make informed decisions about anything to do with the course including tree removal. You can continue to write the kinds of posts you have been in various ways but that fact is just not going to change and it is very apparent. It's probably basically the same with any golf course one makes suggestions about----one really does need to do the research to understand the details of its evolution and the opinions of the people who were involved, and you just haven't done that. Again, just walking into a club and looking at something like that 1925 aerial and then suggesting that's the complete blueprint for tree removal today is not intelligent. It's not a bad place to start but one needs a lot more information than that.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()