Forced Carries

[TEPaul]

Paul:

It’s fine with me if you wish to give Harry Colt co-design credit for Pine Valley—you certainly wouldn’t be the first. You seem to think I’m trying to minimize his architectural contribution there. Nothing of the kind. I’m just trying to understand what happened and when and then hopefully who’s ideas were used regarding the way the course got built. To do that it’s extremely important to establish when various things happened---that can create an all important timeline particularly one before Colt arrived which of course is essential to do if one wishes to understand which ideas and holes may have been uniquely George Crump’s (or Harry Colt’s). After Colt was at Pine Valley for a week or two things become more complex to understand who came up with what obviously. I suppose it’s also important to understand that Colt never returned to Pine Valley after May 1913 and perhaps never again to America.

Luckily Colt left something very valuable at Pine Valley—his individual “hole design” booklet and a few people have looked carefully at that for decades. He also left plenty of evidence on the topo routing map that’s hung on the wall in the front room of Pine Valley for years. People have looked at that for years obviously. But did they understand that some of it was Harry Colt’s hand? I don’t believe they did. I believe, still today, there may be less than a handful of people who’ve ever understood that. Why? Because no one apparently knew to make the distinction between the blue lines and the red lines. As far as I can tell I may have been the first to notice that. I thought Mayor Ott told me that but he says he didn’t. It’d be interesting to know if Tom Doak ever noticed that as he seems to be one of few who actually looked at the archives and also Colt’s booklet with at least a concentrated thought as to who did what and when. But did he notice the light blue pencil used in the booklet appears to be the same one used on the topo routing map? I doubt it. Did he ever really analyze that topo routing map and also notice the distinction between the red and blue lines and furthermore what that meant? I don’t know.

Anyway, one should probably go even further to establish the blue lines on the topo really are Colt’s. The way I did that is simple. I used a fact that appears irrefutable from the contemporaneous text of the time of the creation of the course---the fact that it’s written by Carr in his “remembrances” that Crump said “no good” to Colt’s iteration of placing #2 green almost on the left side of what became the #4 hole (and consequently placed #3 tee squarely in the middle of what became #2 green). And there on that topo routing map one can see that green drawn in light blue pencil off to the left almost in hole #4. So to me that’s good enough to establish Colt’s hand really was the light blue lines and I’m sure it’s good enough for you too, probably anyone at this point.

Did Colt draw the blue lines on that topo first and before Crump drew any of his red lines. I don’t really know but it seems logical to assume that and it does appear to be that way on certain holes as the blue lines do sometimes seem to be underneath the red lines. Does that mean then all the holes that show blue lines (and are the way the routing of the course turned out to be) are the original ideas of Harry Colt? Of course not, although it could turn out to be that way with other evidence (although that evidence may not exist). All it means at this point is Colt put blue lines on the topo first.

(continued)

[TEPaul]

(continued)

So how could anyone ever tell what ideas on routing the course Crump may have had before Colt got there? Only by comparing how the course got built to explanations of the routing before Colt arrived or possibly some other routing evidence. There appears to be some of both. One appears to be Tillinghast’s article either written during a time or later about a time he spent on the first six holes with Crump before Colt arrived (as well as the fact that he said app nine holes had been laid out (apparently before Colt arrived). You said  Tillinghast may’ve been writing about a time he spent walking those first six holes with Crump in April 1913. I thought he said in one of the articles it was earlier in the winter of 1913 but all that really matters for this purpose is that they walked those holes and Tillinghast explained them the way he did at some point before May 1913 when Colt arrived. Tillinghast didn’t explain which holes may have made up the remaining holes that were laid out. In that group all he did is explain the beginning of the 7th which we can now probably see was going in the opposite direction from the way it got built.

And then I became aware of an apparently earlier stick routing topo (from Ian Andrews). Was what was drawn on it earlier than Colt’s arrival? I don’t know. But if what was drawn on it preceded, even by a day, the time of Colt’s arrival in May it also can say a lot, particularly in conjunction with what Tillinghast described before Colt arrived.

And so it goes on through the course, although again, things get more complicated to figure out who came up with what after Colt arrived and with the things drawn on that earlier routing map that don’t conform at all to the apparently later iteration and the way the course got built.

I also make another huge distinction on a course that came into existence as Pine Valley did. That would be what I’d call the three phases of creation;

1.      The routing
2.      The “designing up” of the routed holes (basically sets of hole drawings)
3.      The actual construction of the routing and hole designs.

What I’m basically talking about here between Crump and Colt is the routing phase. The “designing up” of those routed holes can be looked at in another post. I could and probably will go through the holes on another post and discuss how their routing may have come into being and who was responsible, and you can do the same, but at this point some appear to be more certain than others but again, at this point without establishing certain facts that create a timeline not that much can be certain regarding either Crump or Colt (except the first four appear quite certain to me in a routing sense). And then one is left to wonder about the remaining five hole (that made up some combination of nine in total that Tillinghast mentioned apparently before Colt arrived).

But why has there always been so much confusion about what Colt may have done at Pine Valley? Probably because there exists articles like the one of Simon Carr in 1914 giving Colt a lot of credit (at that point) and other articles at other times giving him very little credit or even minimal credit for things that happened much later (when clearly he was long gone). But mostly because so many of the architectural design details in Colt’s individual hole design booklet really don’t look very much like the details of the way the course was built, particularly the bunkering and probably the greens too. Mostly it’s probably because basically until very recently no one has EVER fully realized that Colt also did something on the topo routing map.

One can see this fact from the two history books written about Pine Valley by first Warner Shelly and then Jim Finegan. Jim Finegan, or perhaps Warner Shelly before him assumed there was no Colt routing map. One or both obviously assumed that not necessarily because they were trying to glorify Crump and give him more credit than he was due (or Colt less credit than he was due) but simply because either one or both authors assumed that the surveyors date on the routing topo map that’s hung on the wall so long was the date that the routing topo was completed by Crump. And they obviously only made that assumption because that date (March 1913) preceded Colt’s arrival by a couple of months.

So one can see right there how a very simple mistake in analysis has the capacity to throw off much of what followed that date. It frankly wouldn’t have been that difficult to understand that the routing was not completed on that topo map until many years later because the final iteration of #13, for instance, shows up on the map too. That final #13 iteration may not have come into being until perhaps 1917. But what would that even matter to them since apparently no one until recently ever noticed the distinction between the blue lines and red lines and that they may have been the hand of two different people? It appears that to everyone who ever looked at that topo routing map that it all had to be Crump anyway, so what did it matter. To me this shows no bias towards Crump or against Colt. It was all just a misunderstanding.

But there’s no reason to perpetuate more misunderstanding. And in that vein it does no good to say things like you’ve implied, Paul, that the course looks to you like the Heathlands and Sunningdale so that concludes that it had to have been Harry Colt that designed the golf course. Whether it’s Ben Sayers, you, or someone else that says that now---that’s just not good and not accurate. We can do better than that now with what we know to be true so far.

The exact story of who did what and when may never be fully known, but I think a lot more of it will be than ever has been before. And the best way to do that is to figure out first as exactly as possible what happened before Colt got there and then as exactly as possible what happened after he left and how that may have departed or not from what he did there and left there design-wise. In the “designing up” phase that’s going to be fairly easy to do---but in the routing phase it may never be.

[ForkaB]

T Paul

Excellent piece of thought and writing.  I await Paul T's reply.

As an idiot savant who often wonders why we care who "designed" a course (not to mention the fact that any course over 1-2 years old has already begun to have been re-"designed" by golfers, greenkeepers and/or gods....), let me ask the following question:

The works of great painters are immediately obvious when one walks into any musuem.  It is very difficult to NOT be able to spot the Rubens or Poussin or Vermeer or Caravaggio at first sight, once you have gained just a little bit of experiential knowledge.  The reason you can do that is (at least in part) because they all have an esthetic "signature" that is unique.  And yet, an expert forger can replicate that "signature" and fool even the most skilled and experienced art historians.  OK, time to get to the question(s)......

Do golf course architects have "signatures?"  We debated this about Ross a year or so ago and I was shocked at the lack of evidence or even theory that DJR had some sort of consistent themes to his work.  Even if they do, can they not be "forged" just as the artists above?  Does Pine Valley look like a Colt course, or something completely different (Crump, amalgam, 1921 Committee, etc.)?

Paul T. seems to be saying that it does have the "signature" of Colt's heathland courses.  What say ye who have played both?  I've only looked at pictures of each and am not allowed to comment.........

[TEPaul]

"Do golf course architects have "signatures?"  We debated this about Ross a year or so ago and I was shocked at the lack of evidence or even theory that DJR had some sort of consistent themes to his work.  Even if they do, can they not be "forged" just as the artists above?  Does Pine Valley look like a Colt course, or something completely different (Crump, amalgam, 1921 Committee, etc.)?

Paul T. seems to be saying that it does have the "signature" of Colt's heathland courses.  What say ye who have played both?  I've only looked at pictures of each and am not allowed to comment........."

Rich:

Sure golf architects have certain "signatures". Whether any particular architect actually means or meant to or not is a pretty good question though. Some of the modern more well known architects probably do for obvious reasons.

An architect such as Ross probably had a vague "signature" to his work that might have been the result of sort of a career design "modus operandi" that he perfected for time and efficiency's sake as much as anything. For instance, I feel that Ross may have become a very proficient "topo" router and just got into a particular contour line style of routing that way which gives many of his courses a certain tee/fairway/green look in a topographic sense.  

Can an architect "forge" another architect's style? Definitely. And the better that architect is--the more observant he is the better he can do it. But most of the really good architects don't seem to like to copy and imitate some other architect's style as they generally feel they can and should do their own thing which is fresher and more individualistic.

Doak, for instance, has said often on here he sees no reason to copy someone else--that that's sort of a copout and he'd rather do his own thing.

Coore and Crenshaw, on the other hand, have occasionally purposely done a course that might be considered a broad tribute to another older respected architect in some way or perhaps a tribute to an era or region they respect and understand. They've admitted that Hidden Creek is sort of an early Heathland tribute. The reason they did that is HC's site in New Jersey sort of reminded them of the original Heathland look.

And sure Pine Valley reminds a lot of people of the Heathlands and the early Heathland courses such as particularly Sunningdale. But the sandy soil and smallish sort of scrubby natural piney feel of that site originally does too.

But does that in and of itself mean that Harry Colt had to be responsible for the design of Pine Valley because someone thinks it has a certain similar "signature"? Of course not. Crump had eyes too and he did spend time in the Heathlands in 1910 for the specific purpose of studying golf architecture. That wasn't the only place he went and how or why he came to pick the site in Clementon isn't completely known in detail nor is it ever likely to be known in detail.

All that's known about Crump and that site is he found it on his own and told or wrote his friends;

"I think I've landed on something pretty fine."

He never said Colt or the Heathlands inspired him to pick that site and build what he did there, that's for sure. But can we assume that Crump's Heathland experience had something to do with it?

I guess that might be a reasonable assumption--as assumptions go.

[BCrosby]

Rich -

Golf course architects don't have signatures? You can't mean that.

You can't spot No.2 or Holston Hills or Salem as Ross? From the parking lot?

Do you really have a problem seeing CPC as MacKenzie's?

There are, of course, hybrid courses where specific attributions are difficult. PV may be one of them. There are lots of others.

But a Ross course that has not undergone much tinkering is as distinctive as a Caravaggio. (Not to suggest that Ross ranks with Caravaggio as things artistic go. He doesn't. But his work product is no less distinctive.)

All of which is why I think that in this big bad universe of golf courses there is surely a couple of little spots where we might make the attempt to preserve some of the "distinctiveness" of some of these architects.

Bob

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

It’s fine with me if you wish to give Harry Colt co-design credit for Pine Valley—you certainly wouldn’t be the first. You seem to think I’m trying to minimize his architectural contribution there. Nothing of the kind. I’m just trying to understand what happened and when and then hopefully who’s ideas were used regarding the way the course got built. To do that it’s extremely important to establish when various things happened---that can create an all important timeline particularly one before Colt arrived which of course is essential to do if one wishes to understand which ideas and holes may have been uniquely George Crump’s (or Harry Colt’s). After Colt was at Pine Valley for a week or two things become more complex to understand who came up with what obviously. I suppose it’s also important to understand that Colt never returned to Pine Valley after May 1913 and perhaps never again to America"

Tom, I agree, but you have to come up with some substance on what Crump actually did in those remaining 5 years, particularly on the first 14 holes built.

Regarding the routing map.  The red pen is definitely over the blue for the hole outlines (apart from the second half of 13)  The hole outlines were first drawn and defined by Colt.  

The green shapes look reasonably accurate for the blue pen.  I don't see many greens

The routing is critical and even more so on a fantastic site like Pine Valley.

I do agree that Colt would have been primarily involved in the routing and hazard placement, given the time constraint.

Regarding the bunkers.  I don't think the red bunkers drawn are entirely more accurate than Colt's blue bunkers.  This is true on some holes but certainly not all:

Look at how the red hand has drawn a cluster of about 20 bunkers down the right hand side of the 6th, underneath that is a huge single bunker drawn by Colt. The same could be stated for the left hand greenside bunkers.   In these cases, Colt's bunker is more accurate to what was actually built.

For the 10th, I count about 10 bunkers drawn in red, Colt's blue bunkers are hard to decipher- I believe I can make out two large bunkers- but the hole was never built as it was in red.

There are bunkers in blue that were never built, and there are bunkers in red that were never built.  

There are a couple of holes in blue that were never built (13 and 14) there is a single hole in red that was never built (14).

And then one is left to wonder about the remaining five hole (that made up some combination of nine in total that Tillinghast mentioned apparently before Colt arrived).

Again, Tillie didn't describe 9 holes before Colt arrived.  Just 6 and a very weird 7th (I don't see how this 7th could have gone from the present tee in the opposite direction, that's over the boundary.)  I have the Tillie articles.

But why has there always been so much confusion about what Colt may have done at Pine Valley? Probably because there exists articles like the one of Simon Carr in 1914 giving Colt a lot of credit (at that point) and other articles at other times giving him very little credit or even minimal credit for things that happened much later (when clearly he was long gone). But mostly because so many of the architectural design details in Colt’s individual hole design booklet really don’t look very much like the details of the way the course was built, particularly the bunkering and probably the greens too. Mostly it’s probably because basically until very recently no one has EVER fully realized that Colt also did something on the topo routing map.

One can see this fact from the two history books written about Pine Valley by first Warner Shelly and then Jim Finegan. Jim Finegan, or perhaps Warner Shelly before him assumed there was no Colt routing map. One or both obviously assumed that not necessarily because they were trying to glorify Crump and give him more credit than he was due (or Colt less credit than he was due) but simply because either one or both authors assumed that the surveyors date on the routing topo map that’s hung on the wall so long was the date that the routing topo was completed by Crump. And they obviously only made that assumption because that date (March 1913) preceded Colt’s arrival by a couple of months.

I don't think the Carr article is confusing.  It hasn't been commented on, or noticed, in any of the Pine Valley histories- either it was missed or ignored.    Finegan was the one that got confused about the routing, Colt is usually credited or co-credited with the routing phase.  In fact one of the Pine Valley histories does mention the routing plan on the wall and credits it to both Colt and Crump, there are 3 club histories.

I don't see any magazine articles other than Tillie's, immediately after Crump's death, that minimise Colt's credit.  It's interesting that at that time, Tillie doesn't make any claim for Hell's Half Acre and 13th. He does later on.  I think that club reveres Crump and sees the course as a monument to him, and this will naturally tend to minimise the credit given to Colt.  If I asked to see the Colt booklet do you think I could (probably blown it now!)?

But there’s no reason to perpetuate more misunderstanding. And in that vein it does no good to say things like you’ve implied, Paul, that the course looks to you like the Heathlands and Sunningdale so that concludes that it had to have been Harry Colt that designed the golf course. Whether it’s Ben Sayers, you, or someone else that says that now---that’s just not good and not accurate. We can do better than that now with what we know to be true so far.

I'm not perpetuating a misunderstanding.  I am being specific about STYLE of design.  When Colt writes in his detailed booklet "tear ridge..." for that huge bunker at the 17th, I look at his work immediately prior to working at Pine Valley and see the famous photo of the 8th at St George's Hill.  That photo is shown on the cover of Hunter's "The Links" and I can obviously see a huge, torn out, ragged bunker, can't you?  I know for a fact that Colt took photos of St George's Hill to America, it's stated in Golt Illustrated (UK).  I see great similarities of bunkers like those shown at St George's Hill's 8th and that bunker at Pine Valley's 17th.  Crump didn't see St George's Hill and those bunkers were much larger and far more dramatic than anything built before on the heaths at Sunningdale, Walton Heath...

I believe your theory of a Carr and Crump using Colt's name as a publicity stunt perpetuates more misunderstanding than anything I've written.  As does the repetion of Crump only giving credit to Colt for moving the 5th green, I don't know where that comes from.

I'm not sure what style Crump had in mind before Colt arrived.  As he had no prior design experience, it's very difficult to say.  I do agree that the London heaths would have been of some influence.  The fact that Crump was considering Alpinization, that Colt disliked this style and it was never built, suggests that Colt's design style was influential.

It would be good if Tom Doak could comment on Colt's design booklet.

[ForkaB]

Paul T

Great stuff.  Your and T Paul's last post are as good as it gets, architectural history-wise, on GCA.  Almost as good, as a matter or fact, as the Sponge Bob Square Pants thread and any post written by JakaB whilst off his medication......

Bob C

Never played either HH or Salem.  Of the Ross's I've played (Winchester, Pinehurst #2, Leo J Martin, Weston, Gulph Mills, etc. ) I can't think of any common characteristics other than high tees down to low valleys up to high greens.  To me, the fact that neither could others with more experience do so inclines me to believe that DJR had less artistic integrity than, say Caravaggio.  As for CPC, 1, 2 and 3 could be anywhere by anybody.  4 and 5 are Dr. MacK tours de force.  After that no particularly compelling Mackness. Even Raynor or Hunter or Lapham or Hollins of Huntley could have designed 16 in their sleep...........

[BCrosby]

Rich -

We either inhabit different universes or you are being iconoclastic for the sake of being iconoclastic.

Not that there is anything wrong with parallel universes or being an iconoclast.

Bob

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Obviously you and I tend to look at the same material in sometimes different ways and to draw different assumptions from it. But unless and until I can prove anything to do with that routing either towards either Crump or Colt on any hole, or you can, to me what I say will remain just my own assumptions. There's no reason to go over again some of the assumptions I've made as for instance on the first four holes against what Tillinghast wrote. You may think they're significantly different but I don't. All the reasons I've made other assumptions are already in this thread on some of the former posts and I stick by those assumptions for whatever there worth at this point.

When you say something like this Paul;

"Tom, I agree, but you have to come up with some substance on what Crump actually did in those remaining 5 years, particularly on the first 14 holes built."

If you mean by that I have to  prove something to disprove what you've said about them I don't have to do anything of the kind because you haven't proven anything that happened in detail out there back then either on those holes or otherwise. Nevertheless, I do hope to prove a lot more eventually if and when I can get a look at everything.

But when it comes to bunkers and greens and such and how they appear on that topo routing map in blue lines vs the way the course was built and still is you really aren't even close, in my opinion. Basically the red bunker lines of Crump are essentially the way that course was built and still is. So many of the smaller Colt blue pencil bunkers just were never done or done the way he drew them.

You seemed to be under the impression that Crump and any collaborators he may have had there spent the remaining years on the course with Colt's hole drawings or blue-lined topo drawings building the course to that and clearly that just wasn't the case at Pine Valley. Crump was out there doing whatever he thought worked well and whatever the hell he felt like doing that way. It's called "working in the field" as a basic modus operandi. There's so much available evidence of that it's overwhelming. Just go back and read the "remembrances" of Carr and Smith if you really want the full overall flavor of that and the way things were obviously done out there. But Crump did seem to put what he wanted or did on that topo routing map to some degree.

Possibly you think all architects follow a detailed plan that's been drawn up and agreed upon before construction begins. Some do that--Flynn certainly did but most certainly George Crump did not. Matter of fact, he did something pretty dangerous that way and in a way it's sort of amazing it all worked out as well as it did. He actually started constructing the course incrementally before he had a clear and final idea of how his specific variety and balance idea going into that project would actually play out across that entire routing. Basically that's called building your way into a box particularly if you have the detailed shot demand and balance idea and some other specific ideas for a golf course that Crump apparently had before he even got going! One shouldn't wonder why then it took him a couple of years to finally settle both his specific routing and hole designs out in that 12-15 stretch. And even the remmebrances show when he died he wasn't very happy with #15! I'd say if ever a guy was working in the field as he went with some of the details of his holes it was Crump. Interestingly he obviously put most of it on that topo routing map, hence the late entry #13 green site shows up on it.

And I for one would never assume that just because Colt may have put a blue line on that topo first that the idea had to be uniquely Colt's. We do have the factual evidence in both text and on the topo that Crump didn't want what Colt drew green-wise on #2. So how did it turn out? Look again at #7's green sites and the blue lines vs the red lines. How did that turn out? How did #12, #13, #14 turn out against Colt's blue lines?

The alpinization idea on #3? That idea seems to me to have gone out of architecture as quickly as it came in. Merion experimented with that on #9 early and removed it. So if you're trying to prove that Colt talked Crump out of that proving that Crump deferred to Colt I just don't buy it.

But mostly, I believe you have to appreciate better what went on out there after 1913 and 1914 and on. The course was in constant construction with Crump and unbelievably and ironically he viewed much of the course even to the date he died as temporary to be fixed and improved later and probably for the rest of what he expected to be a long life--certainly a longer life than he had.

I expect to look at that Colt hole drawing booklet in a month or three but I certainly do expect it to show me about the same thing it's shown others who do know that course intimitally like Ott and Shelly who've lived there for decades and Finegan whose been a member for decades---and that would be more differences than similarities from Colt's booklet in that also important hole "design up" phase.

[Keith Williams]

Bob's comments about Ross "signatures" has got me thinking about something out at Holston Hills.

For those of you who have seen it, what do you think about the distinctive mounding found on the fifteenth hole?  It is a very unique feature on a pretty unique hole.  My experience on Ross courses is very miniscule so I was wondering:  did ross use mounding like what is found on the 15th at HH often?  The only other spot on HH where I remember similar mounding was framing the somewhat blind tee shot on 13.  Does anybody feel that this mounding is in any way out of character with the rest of the course?  Is it out of character with "typical" Ross?

Keith.

[ForkaB]

Bob C

Not sure what you are getting at.  Please elucidate, elaborate, or just tell us what you want to say.

Rich

[TEPaul]

Rich;

Bob C's probably implying that comparing a good architectural discussion on Pine Valley to the SpongeBob thread is iconoclastic. Or put another way he's probably implying you're being a smartass just as I am with you most of the time and also how you seem to return the favor some of the time.

Unless of course you actually do believe that SpongeBob Square Pants has a lot in common with George Crump and/or Harry Colt which to your way of thinking might not only be possible but highly likely.

[ForkaB]

TomP

You gotta read my stuff more closely.  The Sponge Bob comments were directed at T Paul and Paul T, and not Bob C (and the Bearcats, if they are still around.........).

I asked, and will ask again, if Bob C (or anybody else) can tell me how (for example) I could walk onto the 1st tee of  Holston Hills or Salem or any other Ross course and say "by gum, that's ole Donnie's work!," or whatever.  I asked you the same question a year or so ago and you didn''t have an answer.  Maybe Bob or somebody else will....

[TEPaul]

"Just 6 and a very weird 7th (I don't see how this 7th could have gone from the present tee in the opposite direction, that's over the boundary.)  I have the Tillie articles.

Paul:

If you have GeoffShac's book "The  Golden Age of Golf Design" look on page 66 at the very top middle of that 1925 aerial photo and you can just make out a cleared swath at the very top well out past and in the same direction as #6 goes and the opposite direction that #7 now goes. I'm quite certain that's what Tillinghast was talking about when he mentioned that 7th hole with a drive over a deep gorge or valley. When I read that I just couldn't figure out where Tillinghast was describing that Crump was going. It sounded to me at first as if he was coming back off the ridge #6 is on from maybe behind present #6 green towards where the cluhouse now is. But that really didn't make much sense as there really isn't  much room in there given the very steep topography and the pond and creek running past #5.

So I asked Mayor Ott about that description and he said if you went straight out past #6 you would cross a gorge and hit a ridge over where the short course now is. So it started to make sense and then I happened to look at GeoffShac's aerial and saw that clearing out there where Mayor Ott was describing.

The way Crump analyzed possible holes probably right from the fall of 1912 was to look first at the ground and then to clear all the trees off some possible hole corridors he may have been interested in testing. Then he would hit a ton of shots to see how it felt. Crump was a real inveterate shot tester and that also explains why Pine Valley's early aerials show a bunch of cleared spaces here and there that don't seem to make much sense. They were clearings he was analyzing as holes or parts of holes. It probably took 20 or more years for those clearings to grow back in and no longer be noticeable from the air.

But on the aerials they're some of the most interesting things to look back at and try to piece together what he was thinking about. I remember when Mayor Ott got those aerials from the Hagley Museum (Dallin Collection) he couldn't figure out what those clearings were all about and then we started to piece together the written evolutionary evidence of what was happening out there in comparison with those early clearings and it all started to fall into place.

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Do you really expect me to spend my life continuously explaining all these things to you? Jeeesus man, if you'd just do some reading and studying like some of us or most of us on here do you might have a shot at figuring some of these things out for yourself.

Do you have any idea what I mean by Ross's topographical routing style of basically maxing out high tees valley fairways and high green sites? And don't come back and say that's impossible to do on all 18 holes! Of course it is but hopefully you'll get the drift.

If you don't get that or you disagree with it I suggest if you think you're on a Ross course just go to the side of any tee at about the middle (front to back) and start to rip out about 4"-6" of turf and soil. If you rip out enough soil you're bound to find a small stone plaque that says "built by Donald J. Ross" and a little representation of his signature next to that.

And don't forget to carefully put back all the turf and soil you ripped up---OK!?

[BCrosby]

Rich -

I'm not sure how to respond to you. Is this like a philosophy seminar where we debate whether the red ball sitting the table is really red? And if you think it is, how do you know? Might I be mistaken? Could it be a blue ball?

Identifying courses to architects is something like the same exercise. If not by the first hole, then certainly by the third hole, it is abundantly clear to me (and to most people) that No. 2 is by Ross, Yeaman's is by Raynor, CPC is by MacK, Harbor Town is by Dye, Southern Hills is by Maxwell, ad nauseum. It hits you right between the eyes.

You will find that answer unsatisfactory. You will point out that I failed to list necessary and sufficient markers that I used to identify courses by those architects.

I guess I could take a stab at listing those markers. I don't have the time to do it. But more importantly, when would we know that my list was satisfactory? When you can take a computer to the course, load my criteria and have it crank out the right architect? Do you have another test in mind?

Come to think of it, I don't even know how to list the necessary and sufficient markers for being certain that a red ball is really a red ball. Emmanuel Kant couldn't do it and he was a whole lot smarter than any of us. And if you think doing it for a red ball is hard, try doing it for something as glorious and complex as a painting is by Caravaggio.

I could tell you that those architects have a developed and consistent style. That they shape bunkers and green complexes in characteristic ways. That each uses water, rough and contouring in ways that you would recognize on other courses they designed and that are not typical for other architects. I could go on.

In the end - to paraphrase G.E. Moore - we just know that certain courses are by certain architects. Even without sneaking a peek at the scorecard. In exactly the same way we know that a painting is by Caravaggio.

We (well, most of us) share a set of expectations about certain architects. Sometimes we see those confirmed on a course, sometimes we don't. If I turn to TEP and say this looks like a Ross course, he may agree with me. He may not. But he does not respond by asking me how I know.

It is in that sense that I find your views on this topic iconoclastic. I know and you know that you are a capable of recognizing courses by any number of famous architects. You do it because, ...well, because you recognize their syles. Despite yourself, perhaps. But you do. Just as you recognize your child's face.

It is iconoclastic to pretend you don't do this. Or that it is somehow a problem. Or that it needs to be explained before it can be trusted.

Not that there is anything wrong with being iconoclastic.

Bob

        

[ForkaB]

T Paul

I very much remember the fact that it was I who first made the observation (on this website) of DJR's predilection for high tee/valley/high green sort of routings.  You were kind enough then to acknowlege my perspicacity.  I regret that you are now having a Senior Moment regarding this issue, as is reflected in your previous post.

Rihc

[Brian Phillips]

Tom P and Paul T,

You guys should write a book together.  One of you arguing Colt's case the other arguing Crump's case.  It would make a great read.

Serious, it would make a really, really good book.

I believe that Colt designed the course and Crump did the detail work in site.

About the routing,  I have been on a couple of jobs (in my short career) already where the client has routed the course and really does believe that no one could do it better, I have seen Jeremy walk a site and find a better routing almost instantly which the client admits he never thought and he has lived on the site all his life.

As an architect/designer we work with routings all the time and hopefully we have a better eye to see good routings...it's our job.

Even on the trip we had around Gulph Mills with you Tom , Jeremy ponted out the trees you thinking of taking out would affect the view on another hole which if I remember correctly you hadn't thought about.

Colt wrote about his design in articles, why would such a professional man lie?

Brian

[Brian Phillips]

Rich,

I have played Pine Valley thanks to a very kind member and a very good friend as you know.

I have also played Sunningdale and walked Swinley Forest and played many other Heathland courses and Pine Valley is almost an exact copy of these on many holes.

I have also walked Hidden Creek and Mr. and Mrs Hansen both told me that they toured the Heathland courses and some of the holes are copies of holes of these courses.  One hole is a perfect copy of the tenth at Swinley Forest.

Brian

[TEPaul]

BobC said;

"I know and you know that you are a capable of recognizing courses by any number of famous architects. You do it because, ...well, because you recognize their syles. Despite yourself, perhaps. But you do. Just as you recognize your child's face."

BobC:

Dont' go jumping to conclusions here that're unsupportable. You're talking about and to Rich Goodale here. The only way Rich can or will recognize his own children is because his wife and their mother has taught the children to remind Rich who they are at all times.

They don't even mind any longer when they constantly remind him who they are and he calls them "absurd". His wife and their mother has explained to the children to their satisfaction that it's just that middle school existentialist thing that sort of fried Rich's brain years ago and he hasn't been able to graduate from all these years.

The psych people who've seen Rich aren't sure how he's still able to throw around big words such as Rubens, Poussin, Vermeer and Caravaggio though!

[ForkaB]

Bob

You assume that I (or anybody) can identify a Ross (or anybody's) course by the 3rd hole or so.  This is not true, at least for me.  Your inability (or unwillingness) to answer the question (in terms of how anybody can identify a "Ross" course (or any other architect's course) or not) proves to me that the answer is "not."

[ForkaB]

Tom P

I have just spoken to Dr. Katz and he will fill you in completely on my pathetic psyche if you just give him a wee Glesga kiss at your next scheduled session.

[TEPaul]

Brian;

Just in passing interest one of Crump's close friends wrote that Crump wanted #1 PVGC to possess the same principles in the way of difficulty as Hoylake's #1 and also that it possess what he wanted as a 19th hole (playoff hole). The writer mentioned that he took it on the authority of John Low that Hoylake's #1 was the best playoff hole in existence.

And for his hole #12, a hole he struggled with for a long time,  he was trying to do something along the lines of the 16th green at Myopia.

Would one architecturally call either of those Colt Heathland?

[Chick_Evans]

TE Paul
Do you know who drew the red lines. Do we have evidence of Crump's drawing style, because I believe you are giving me the shaft.

"As for CPC, 1, 2 and 3 could be anywhere by anybody.  4 and 5 are Dr. MacK tours de force.  After that no particularly compelling Mackness."

"You assume that I (or anybody) can identify a Ross (or anybody's) course by the 3rd hole or so.  This is not true, at least for me."  

Rich Goodale
I guess you need four holes. What is this Mackness that is so obvious to you? And why are you so in tune with the Mackness but not the Rossness?

[TEPaul]

Rich;

Katz and I do not get along. We've never gotten along. Katz is a charlatan and a troglodyte. If you're speaking to him that might explain some of your problems. It's me you need to speak to! Well, belay that--don't bother to speak just read what I write and silently take it as gospel!