What's missing in this photograph? Why?

[TEPaul]

"I just wanted to see if going back over the evidence months later with a clear mind revealed any different angles or new ways of looking at the existing evidence that would be more iron-clad."


Mac:

As of now all I would say for existing evidence is that the DA could have appeared or begun to appear as early as late 1914-1915 to as late as 1922-23. Those are app. the bookends of the actual photographic evidence of the area it would be in and when it first appeared photographically.

There is some other evidence that may point to who called for it (Crump?) but it's not conclusive, and certainly not as conclusive as a photo of the DA.

However, if some photograph of it that could date it before 1918 turns up then I would have to say the bunker was Crump's.

Also between Crump's death (Jan 24, 1918) and the work of the so-called 1921 Advisory Committee (early 1921) with architect Hugh Alison acting as the consulting architect, I don't believe anything was done to Pine Valley architeturally, at least I'm not aware of anything being done to the course architecturally during that time. It was obviously a massive shock to the club that Crump was gone so suddenly and it's pretty safe to say that with him went the available money for the course which was the way it had been done when he was there.

During that three year timespan just about all they did is work on fixing the agronomy and the condition of the course and they continued to play the course as only fourteen holes (they'd play the first four holes over again and that was 18 as the fourth hole was right at the clubhouse.

[Tom MacWood]

A square, rectangle or circle, we can agree, disagree or agree to disagree for the next several pages of this thread, but the underlying question remains unanswered.

[JESII]

Tom,

I'm not sure which underlying question you're thinking of, but I would be curious whether you'd agree that feature is just about right where the DA is today.

[Tom MacWood]

The question is when precisely was the DA introduced, and by whom.

[JESII]

Is anyone skilled enough to layer the drawing over a photo (or vice versa) of the Colt drawing and the as-built DA?

[TEPaul]

"Tom,
I'm not sure which underlying question you're thinking of, but I would be curious whether you'd agree that feature is just about right where the DA is today.

Sully:

I agree that if by 'that feature' you mean that little round red circle on the "blue/red line" topo----then absolutely that is just about right where the DA is today.

Some of these guys on here don't know enough about the details of this material to even understand that the area the DA is in that appears as front greenspace on the B/R line topo and on Colt's drawing is not greenspace, was not intended to be greenspace or even why it couldn't be.  

All they need to do is look at the first photo of that green (without the DA) to understand that.

Also, look at the round red circle on the actual map at PV or even on the photo I took of it which is much better and closer than the one on here. You can see it much clearer than on that photo of the map on this thread which they blew up 5x-10x which made it look nothing like it does on the map that Crump drew it onto.

[TEPaul]

"Is anyone skilled enough to layer the drawing over a photo (or vice versa) of the Colt drawing and the as-built DA?"


I think that would be pretty pointless because the original green shape on both maps was done before that hole or green was built and it's not hard to see it really wasn't built to exactly conform to the shapes on those maps. Crump didn't really follow Colt's drawings anyway and Crump himself was a pretty amateurish drawer. He didn't need to be that good anyway because he and Govan were right there anyway on the ground overseeing everything when that course was being built.

[Patrick_Mucci]

The question is when precisely was the DA introduced, and by whom.

And, how did it morph and migrate and who was responsible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What sense does it make to narrow down the theories when they are just that, theories.
If one is disproven, great...but to do it for the sake of convenience is foolish.

Sully,

Judging by the number of posts to date, TEPaul is quite capable of answering for himself, he doesn't need you to deflect the issue.

As to your question, finding the answer often lies with deductive logic.
When two theories are diametrically opposed to one another, they both can't be right,
Yet TEPaul had championed both theories as valid, and we know that each theory is at odds with the other, so which theory does he now endorse and which theory does he now reject ?   He can't continue to support both theories, two conflicting theories.
So, which is it, the Crump theory or the Steineger theory ?

For what it's worth, I think your Creationist theory is much more likely than any Evolutionist theory...

but I disagree that the placement moved from when it first appeared (1921 ?) to where it is currently...

If you view all of the photos presented and referenced, there's no way you can believe that the DA bunker hasn't morphed and moved over the years.

you used the word "considerably"...how would you define considerably?

The same as most dictionary's,
But, remember, "relativity" is an important issue.
The bunker didn't move to Cleveland, but it clearly migrated and morphed from inception to current date.

Additionally, whether that Red circle is a circle or a rectangle (as you and Tom M are grasping to...), it is in basically the exact position relative to the tee and the center of the green as the as-built DA. Please note on the full Colt drawing that several of the holes do not have a closed front end to the green so there is evidence that the extended shaping on that hole is intended to be approach fairway, not green space so your contention that the circle/square is flanking (or adjacent) is wrong.

I'm not grasping, I'm describing, and there's a difference.
I've also refered to the red figure as a circle/square.

I don't care how several of the other holes are drawn, I only care about how the 10th hole is drawn.
That's ALL you can rely on, the evidence presented on # 10, not some other hole.

My contention that the red circle/square is a flanking feature remains valid according to the schematic posted by Mike Cirba.

[TEPaul]

"As to your question, finding the answer often lies with deductive logic.
When two theories are diametrically opposed to one another, they both can't be right,
Yet TEPaul had championed both theories as valid, and we know that each theory is at odds with the other, so which theory does he now endorse and which theory does he now reject ?   He can't continue to support both theories, two conflicting theories.
So, which is it, the Crump theory or the Steineger theory ?"

Patrick:

Are you actually telling me you can not see how both theories COULD be true? If you can't you really don't appreciate the evolutionary nature of much of the documentary material we have at our disposal. I'm not saying both theories ARE true just that they most certainly COULD BE. There is nothing about either that makes them necessarily mutually exclusive. And if you think so then no wonder you're a terrible historical architecture analyst.

[JESII]

Pat,

I asked about the other holes because clearly it was not the habit of the person who drew that diagram to delineate the front of the green every time...and I think #10 is one of those holes. The area adjacent to the DA feature is probably not intended as greenspace so I would not call that feature "flanking" the green.

As to the DA's migration, from Cleveland or otherwise...are we saying it moved relatively considerably? I think the front edge may have moved up to three yards. Would you say it moved more or less than that?

[Patrick_Mucci]

"As to your question, finding the answer often lies with deductive logic.
When two theories are diametrically opposed to one another, they both can't be right,
Yet TEPaul had championed both theories as valid, and we know that each theory is at odds with the other, so which theory does he now endorse and which theory does he now reject ?   He can't continue to support both theories, two conflicting theories.
So, which is it, the Crump theory or the Steineger theory ?"

Patrick:

Are you actually telling me you can not see how both theories COULD be true? If you can't you really don't appreciate the evolutionary nature of much of the documentary material we have at our disposal. I'm not saying both theories ARE true just that they most certainly COULD BE.

There is nothing about either that makes them necessarily mutually exclusive. And if you think so then no wonder you're a terrible historical architecture analyst.

Of course there is.

If Crump conceived of the DA bunker, it's relative position and configuration, then your belief in the alleged Steineger theory fails because the bunker didn't just evolve due to wear and tear, it was a preconceived notion.  And, if you look at the bunker, sitting in its elevated footpad, removed from the green, it's obvious that it was no accident.

Historically, architectural accidents don't occur at Pine Valley.

If the Crump theory is valid, then the Steineger theory is invalid.

You don't want to admit that because you've supported BOTH theories.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I asked about the other holes because clearly it was not the habit of the person who drew that diagram to delineate the front of the green every time...and I think #10 is one of those holes. The area adjacent to the DA feature is probably not intended as greenspace so I would not call that feature "flanking" the green.

Sully, the use of words like "probably" can't be permitted in the context of ascertaining the facts surrounding the creation, location and configuration of the DA bunker

As to the DA's migration, from Cleveland or otherwise...are we saying it moved relatively considerably?

If you have a bunker with a diameter of 3 paces and it is moved 3 paces, that's considerable, especially in the context of the narrow terrain in that area.

I'm glad you finally agree with me.

I think the front edge may have moved up to three yards.
Would you say it moved more or less than that?

I can't provide the exact measurments at this time.
What I do know is that the location and configuration has changed, and I'd say, to a considerable degree.
Look at the elevated footpad the early bunker sat in.  Look at the configuration of that bunker and how it's offset from the fronting bank.

That bunker didn't get there by accident or just appear vis a vis random wear and tear.

That bunker was clearly conceptualized and constructed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Do you support the Crump theory ? or

Do you support the Steineger theory ?  or

Do you support the "duality", the Crump and Steineger theories ?

Please, just make your position known and CLEAR

OR, do you support the "tooth fairy" theory, that the DA began as a pinpoint cavity that became impacted and larger, causing PV and Crump considerable pain ?           

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The first order of business would seem to be locating photos/aerials that would pinpoint, within a relatively short period of time, when the DA first appeared.

The next order of business would then be to obtain photos/aerials on a quinennial basis from that point on, so that the migration and configuration changes could be studied and further narrowed down in terms of establishing time frames.

Then, once armed with the dates of origin and change, we can zoom in on who the active parties and consultants were on those dates.

I don't believe that architectural changes at PV occur randomly, except for benign tree management/neglect.

It may be that we never learn when the DA made its debut, or when and why it morphed and moved, but, it's an interesting mystery to pursue.

The same could probably be said of the "Road Hole" bunker, that too would probably be an interesting study.

[Mike Cirba]

A good friend sent over this frame showing the DA in 1962.

[Mac Plumart]

In these pictures am I noticing the green changing dimensions...shrinking, growing, etc?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

That's a terrific picture, especially when compared to this one


And this one

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43341.0;attach=4662

 

[TEPaul]

"A good friend sent over this frame showing the DA in 1962."


Don't be so mysterious; not just a good friend but arguably the guy who has more historical material of this area's historic architecture in his own personal archives than anyone----eg Ferdinand Alphonse Wayno "Pissboy" Morrison VI, Esq.
 
And to think that some of these duffus interlopers from out of region, out of state and such thought they could compete with him in that vein? No way and no how; not back then, not now, not ever!  

[TEPaul]

"The next order of business would then be to obtain photos/aerials on a quinennial basis from that point on,...."



Hey Patrick:

Look, I realize you understand you are amongst some GCA intellectuals on here and that your mentor and master is arguably the uber-GCA intellectual of all of them but try not to get too carried away with yourself trying to impress them, OK?

Quinennial? QUINENNIAL?  

What the f... does that mean Patrick? Is it supposed to mean like every five years or something you mix with gin or vodka? Try to get the paplum out of your head before you try for too many big words, OK, or you might hurt yusself.

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,

Do you support the Crump theory ? or

Do you support the Steineger theory ?  or

Do you support the "duality", the Crump and Steineger theories ?"



Patrick:

Support?

What I have done is raise some avenues of inquiry regarding an investigation of the origins of an interesting and famous golf architecture feature, the exact origins of which have never been completely determined as far as I know or as far as I know anyone knows; and I think I've probably had a whole lot more interreaction and collaboration with some people from that club who would be the ones in a position to know than you ever have.

The story that the DA first began to evolve as a depression has been around that club for years and I find it interesting that long-time super Eb Steineger confirmed that story to Tim Nugent's father.

As for the little round red circle that shows up on the "blue/red line" topo map in the same area that the DA would be built in is another piece of information which leads to an important avenue of inquiry----eg Crump himself.

That's the way these kinds of historic golf architecture investigations and analyses are done or best done. But I wouldn't expect you to embrace that or even understand it because it's pretty obvious all you ever do on here and all you are interested in doing is just verbally arguing with everyone about everything. I guess you feel that makes you appear smart or something on here. I think there is a good place for "Devil's Advocacy" and counterpointing in any intelligent investigation and analysis but not if that is all one ever does as is the case with you on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.

It would also probably help if you actually went out and did some of your own research and analysis with this original material rather than arguing with everyone else's who have done it.

You're something like your "Cousin Vinnie" who, as his family proudly said about him----"Just loves to argue, actually just lives to argue."

[Rick Sides]

That is an interesting photo that was just put up from Hogan vs. Littler in 1962.  I believe if you look closely where the D.A. is in that photo (1962)  and compare it to the black and white photo form post 16 (1923) , the D.A.  appears to be in the same spot.  Although the camera is a bit different in both photos it looks in the same spot.  Does this disprove the D.A. migration theory?  We know that the green no longer runs down to the D.A. like it use to, but other than that, the D.A. looks to be in the same spot in the 1923, 1962, and current photos.  How it was created is still a bit of a mystery.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Actually, I think the more interesting comparisons are these;









It appears to me less that the bunker "moved" than the front of the green was altered.

EDIT*** Rick..our posts crossed.   I think we're on the same page with the bunker being in the same spot.

Actually, Joe Bausch and I were going to go over there this past Sunday on our way to play Greate Bay and demand they tell us when and where and why they moved the Asshole, but the guard heard our line of questioning and forbade our entrance. 

[TEPaul]

"In these pictures am I noticing the green changing dimensions...shrinking, growing, etc?"


Mac:

Basically, at that time they just mowed down into greenspace what had previously been rough grass. I liked that application a lot but now that area is pretty much back to roughish grass. The ball does not release off the front like it used to when they had it in that "false-front" greenspace application. Archie Struthers who has been around that course for many years mentioned the same thing on one of these threads.

[TEPaul]

"Does this disprove the D.A. migration theory?"


Rick:

The "migration" theory?

I'd say that is nothing more than the paplum-brained Pat Mucci trying to argue with people more informed than he is. There is no question at all that the DA is a bunker that is and has been more than a little problematic over the years. There shouldn't be much doubt why that is to those who actually know that course and its history well which apparently paplum-brained Mucci doesn't and arguably never will. Consequently he comes up with pap like the "Migration" theory.