Forced Carries

[TEPaul]

Nigel, my good man;

You will quickly find that threads on Golfclubatlas.com are rarely about what they say they're about. Sometimes they're not even about what they are about. And regarding contributors like Rich Goodale Scotland's greatest and also America's greatest expatriate existentialist contrarian (middle school existentialist unfortunately) nobody has any idea what his threads or posts are about. Pat Mucci creates threads of a million and one questions always refusing to admit what he thinks the answers are about. And then there's me who can take a thread on a 90 degree left turn tangent before you can think Jack Robinson! Oh yeah, there's JakaB--and it's positively frightening to imagine what his posts may really be about.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Brian Phillips,

You're right, this would make a fascinating book, or at the very least, an article, a white paper debate for any of the major golf periodicals.

Paul Turner & Tom Paul have both presented informative and interesting arguments for their positions, and it would seem a waste to let this discussion fall to the back pages without being preserved elsewhere.

Pine Valley is always an interesting study for most golfers and these two highly informed individuals should create a presentation on the influences Colt & Crump had on the Architecture at Pine Valley.

Paul Turner & TEPaul,

Please consider authoring an article for publication.

This was/is great.

TEPaul,

I've changed my mind about you, by 50 %
I'll now concede that you're right 3 % of the time.

[TEPaul]

"Pine Valley is always an interesting study for most golfers and these two highly informed individuals...."

Pat:

You actually complimented me! I see you were momentarily in that 2% correct phase!

"TEPaul,
I've changed my mind about you, by 50 %
I'll now concede that you're right 3 % of the time."

Does that mean you also think I'm 50% smarter than you too?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I give credit when due.
When you're right, you're right, I don't care how rare it is.

I don't know if Dr. Katz has shared your diagnosis with you, but, it's a fairly rare condition, it's a malady known as "numericalis reversis disorder", commonly refered to as the "oasis syndrome".

It's where people see things that aren't there, or, when they are there, they see them in reverse proportion to reality.

This should help you understand the inverted perspective by which you make conclusions, and the true validity of my positions.

Don't just look at the 1 % increase in your being correct, look at it as a 50 % improvement.  Just think, with about seven more of these 50 % increases, you'll be right about half of the time.  That's not bad for you.

But, in a brief moment of brilliance, your posts, along with Paul Turner's were terrific.

Now if only RPURD could have joined in and contributed with his insightful comments.

[ForkaB]

Pat

Get a hold of yourself!

Tom has been more articulate and reasonable than usual on this thread, but he has not yet in any way been proved to have been "right."  And, even if he were deemed to be so, one additional correct post in a universe of 6,500 or so hardly constitutes a statistically significant improvement.

I agree with your publication idea, but I suspect that most of the people who would want to read it have already done so on this site.

[Paul_Turner]

What I see on #10 is both red and blue line bunkering that's fairly representative of the way the hole was built. And "fairly representative" is probably about as accurate a description as need be of an "in the field" modus operandi that PV was under George Crump. #10 is a hole that's been credited to Colt (as to it's conception) by a number of architects back then and I accept that as a very logical assumption.

On #6 I see some red line bunkering that was built and on the hole drawing that I believe to be Crump's I see bunkering “placement” that's more complete as to the way the hole was built.

The way I interpret most of those larger red line bunker placements and drawings (that look vaguely like bloodshot eyes) is basically what some have called undulating waste areas that basically turned into semi-vegetated and undulating sandy areas with what might be called vague demarcations of bunkering. HHA on #7 would be a good example as would the right side of #6, and probably #2 green fronting area just before it swept up to the green front (until that part collapsed) etc.

I'm not of the same opinion and  this goes to show that these drawings are open to interpretation.   When is a demarcation in a bunkers a real demarcation??  Down the right of the second and left of the 1st, demarcations are drawn in the bunkers and we know they were built.  I don't see any obvious reason why the demarcations like those shown on the 10th should be interpreted any differently than these; and this hole was built without them.  

Why are you willing to accept the 10th as Colt's and not other holes?  Because of Hunter's labeling?  If so, that seems to be a pretty abritrary decision.

The waste areas drawn showing HHA and the 16th are drawn differently, not really demarcated-more of a wavey/curved line pattern.

"At holes Nos. 1, 9, 13 and 16 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."

Can you see what that says and the clear drift of it all? Those "remembrances" which still to date are the best example and representation that can be found of what Crump did there say what HE wanted to do, what HE planned. Crump unfortunately didn't really write about what he did and wished to do--he just did it. And those "remembrances" are just chocked full of the same thing over and over again--ie, "He wanted this and that, HE planned this and that, HIS intention was to do this and that......" etc. And a great deal of that he did do before he died but he unfortunately didn't quite finish and so the "remembrances" became the real blueprint to the completion of the course.

Who is "HE" Paul that's referred to over and over again? It's George Crump--it's not Harry Colt

You can continually ask me to supply you with more evidence but it's right there staring you in the face, and I have provided it, and I am providing it, and you either can't or don't choose to see it, or else, which is more likely, you just aren’t looking at it properly in its overall which is the way it needs to be looked at.

The report by Carr/Smith tells us what Crump planned to do.  Some of this was acted on, with Alison doing most of the design work, but the most radical planned changes, involving routing changes at several holes, were never were built.   I suspect because the members finally wanted a complete and static course.  Why do you think these planned changes were never acted on?   This report may well prove a "modus operandi" before Crump died, but it doesn't give us any specifics for the earlier 5 years.  

I understand that Crump was in charge in the construction of Pine Valley.  I am simply asserting that Colt still deserves huge credit for the course, taking the changes that actually happened into account.  

Something that you appear set against or don't see:

In these threads you've claimed that the entire back 9, apart from 10, is Crump's with no supporting evidence.  That the construction foreman possibly deserves as much credit as Colt.  There's the publicity ruse argument.  And you claim you're not trying to deny Colt credit?

You also appear to believe that Crump may have had a full routing plan before Colt arrived.  I see zero evidence that this was the case.  And list my reasons above, to why I think it's very unlikely.  (Notice I haven't resorted to the Burbeck/Tillinghast argument, that Burbeck was incapable of routing a great course.)

The routing plan that Colt drew, along with his booklet tells us a lot (but obviously not everything).  As do contemporary photos and articles/quotes with the necessary dates.  When I look at the photos and plan, I see the majority of holes that look like Colt's plans in routing.  I think that's undeniable.  Tillie's article does imply that holes 1-4 could have been routed prior to Colt's arrival, but also suggests that the routing was far from complete.      

The few actual changes from the original routing plan drawn by Colt are readily apparent from the plan.  I've stated and accepted what these are above.  Whether Crump is fully responsible for these is open to debate; we know that Tillinghast claimed HAH and the 13th.  This situation seems different from the Carr/Smith reports, where the credit is clearly given to Crump for the proposed changes.

I'm pretty sure that Crump, Alison and Maxwell would be largely responsible for green contouring.  Colt may have mentioned some of this in his booklet, but it isn't shown in that hole plan of the 17th shown in Finegan's book.  He probably just discussed green contours verbally with Crump.  I'm certain he would have expressed his ideas about bunker construction and their natural appearance; particularly the 8th at SGH with it's massive "torn out" bunkers, which are consistent with his annotations and many of those bunkers built at Pine Valley.

We disagree about the bunkers.  And we can argue about the style until the cows come home.  But as I see it, the shot strategy, as dictated by the bunkers and terrain, isn't much different from Colt's plans on most holes.

Perhaps you need to get a grip on this a bit more. If you don't I don't believe you'll ever really understand what went on there and how that course came to be built. It was pretty much unique in the way Crump went about it.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I'm pretty sure I've got a solid grasp of how the course developed.  Perhaps you have might possibly have some incorrect perceptions?

What do you think preoccupied Crump's time after the 14 holes were completed?  This was done pretty quickly, a couple of years at the most.  I suggest that he was working on 12-15 (main changes being at 13 and 14) and agronomy issues (although he hadn't finished the 12th and 15th by the time of his death).  

You might find that galling, but what are your suggestions?  Going through bunker interations?  Trying out a variety of green contours on different greens? He might have been doing this, but I haven't come across any photos or reports to indicate this, in any significant degree, in the old photos.
 

What you need to do is look at all this again with a more objective eye to what really did go on. Stop fixating on things like Carr's article in 1914 and look at the ensuing years all the way to the final recommendations and work of the 1921 Advisory Committee and what all of them believed to be Crump’s roll in the creation of Pine Valley, and what that really was.

Where is any of this have I made any assumptions or used a subjective eye?  I'm not fixating on the Carr article, I've addressed many other issues.   But I'm not going to brush the Carr report under the carpet, or ignore it like others appear to, just because it doesn't fit into my perception of how the course developed.  Particularly when it was written by Carr, who was closer to the project than we can ever be.   (likewise with Tillinghast, Travers, Travis et al).

Again, the Carr/Smith report doesn't tell us anything specific about what happened before Crump's death.   We have to use the other sources, which I'm trying to do.

Crump obviously went through a steep learning curve over that 5 years.  But I think it's clear that Pine Valley wouldn't have been nearly as good without Colt.  I think that should be properly recognised.


 

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW said:

“TE
I have a few questions.

What is the story with the stick routing....did Ian post it on GCA? I would sure like to see it.

When was the current 14th hole designed and built? It is the one hole that appears totally different from the Colt and Crump ideas - at least on the topo map.”

Tom;

No Ian didn’t post it on GCA and I’m glad he didn’t. PV doesn’t like photos taken there and then disseminated on something like the Internet. I’d certainly hope we can respect that on here or any type of cooperation or access may logically be restricted by them.

I’m not exactly sure what the story is with the “stick routing”. There’re a number of possibilities with it. What I think I can see so far is it was just another fresh topo survey map of PV that came off the surveyor’s desk in March 1913.

Frankly, that very date on both topos is pretty important at this point. The reason being is the date is probably when Crump first was able to work with a topo survey map after analyzing that property for may be a year.

And second, for some reason, Jim Finegan, or perhaps even Warner Shelly and J. Arthur Brown before him (all wrote histories of PV) assumed that date represented the time Crump FINISHED working on the routing of Pine Valley when in fact it was when A topo survey of PV FIRST became available to him.

That’s an assumption on my part of course but I think a very logical one because March 1913 was only about 5-6 months after Crump bought PV’s 184 original acres. Before that time (March 1913) there’s plenty of evidence that Crump had spent a good deal of time analyzing everything about that property which he bought in the early fall of 1912. It’s also very logical to me that Crump would've spent a good deal of time analyzing the property of one Sumner Ireland for a golf course long before he bought it. Wouldn’t you? Wouldn’t anyone? I sure would. Otherwise one could be buying a “pig in a poke”.

The property that became PV was by no means the first property in that vicinity Crump had looked at for a golf course. Others had problems and he passed on them obviously. And it’s important to note that the property search was done by Crump alone. The idea of a “winter” golf course had occurred to Crump and his friends but he was doing this search on his own.

Crump’s idea to do this took hold apparently when he was in Europe analyzing architecture in 1910. He wrote home and ordered real estate maps of Eastern NJ for the purpose of a golf course site search.

The story of Crump discovering PV from the window of the train to Atlantic City or back is apocryphal—it’s just sort of cute lore. Crump had hunted throughout a good deal of that land anyway and was probably quite familiar with it. But when he finally found the land of Sumner Ireland’s (that had the railroad stop called Sumner next to it--and now the Pine Valley RR stop) that was to become PV he obviously analyzed it carefully for a golf course and then wrote his friends with the now sort of famous words; “I think I’ve landed on something pretty fine” and he bought 184 acres of Sumner Ireland’s land. That was in the early autumn of 1912.

Then obviously he studied it throughout the winter and early spring of 1913 perhaps even having certain landforms cleared of small trees to analyze and perhaps test for golf shots and then potential holes. It’s likely he took Tillinghast (and obviously others) on these walks analyzing the property and obviously thinking of the routing of golf holes. It appears Tillinghast described what were to basically become the first six holes (with the exception of a shorter lower #5 in a slightly different direction) on one of these early walks. Tillinghast seems to imply that up to nine holes had been discovered. The important thing to note if this is so is that it appears to precede Colt’s arrival in May 1913.

But back to that early stick routing topo map. If it can be determined that the stick routing hole lines are Crump’s alone then obviously that means a lot, particularly if it appears that none of Colt’s hand is on it. There’re ways of analyzing the drawing styles too since Crump’s seem to be very distinct (I think he was a very poor drawer). There’re all manner of little idiosyncrasies that show up on particular architect’s drawing styles.

Of course it’s just as possible that the early stick routing may be in Colt’s hand alone and then that would obviously show a lot. It certainly wouldn’t prove to me though that the routing ideas were as completely Colt’s as it would show the routing ideas completely Crump’s IF it’s his hand alone on that early topo. The reason being obviously Crump had been on that property long before Colt’s arrival in May 1913.

Or perhaps it might even show both their hands and then that’d indicate they’d both worked on both topos together. But the point is if the lines on the earlier topo are just Crump’s it makes it much more likely that what conforms on that early topo to the way the course ended up being routed were Crump’s ideas. It wouldn’t exactly prove that totally obviously because it’s possible, I suppose, that Crump could’ve gone back after May 1913 and worked on that earlier topo alone but that’s highly unlikely and extremely illogical since he had a later one (that hangs now in the front room).

The earlier topo seems to show holes #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, the beginning of the direction of #12, and #13, 17, 18. And holes #12, 13, 14 never got routed much like Colt’s iterations. So that would leave holes #5, 8, 9, 10, 15, as holes that could be uniquely Colt’s ideas if those holes on the earlier topo really were done before Colt arrived. And those five holes seem to be the only ones that don't really show up at all on the earlier topo. #16 is interesting. There seems to be a line for a hole right on #16 corridor and it appears waved out by a line. It also appears it may be a hole that goes in the opposite direction which wouldn't make much sense. And if that could be proved somehow it would settle a lot.

I’m not saying that’s what happened at all but given those two separate topos that’s where I’d start to see if a provable distinction between Colt and Crump's work could be made. And as for looking at it the other way around, I really can’t see how one could prove that something Colt drew hadn’t occurred to Crump beforehand anyway. And again, it's certainly possible that both could have worked together on both topos. But if there isn't a single blue line on that earlier topo it might make one start to wonder.

Again, I’m not saying that it happened this way but it seems to me if one wants to try to prove something this would be the best way to start to go about it.

#14 was obviously a very late entry in the routing of Pine Valley probably the last hole to fall into place in both routing and design. They say it was routed and designed before Crump died but obviously not by much. In what I believe to be Crump’s own individual hole drawings this hole shows up as a really interesting cape hole going in 90 degree different direcion, apparently a fairly long par 3 or a very short par 4 with an alternate way to the green to the left.

The fact that #14 fell into place so late in Crump's life could also explain why he was having so much trouble figuring out what to do with #15 at the very end of his life (the mention by Carr of the last thing he heard from Crump before he died).

#12 is the only other hole that doesn’t show up on Crump’s individual hole drawings as it got built and there was some stuff written that he wasn’t really happy with the way he had it which wasn’t quite like it got built.

But the rest of the 16 holes in Crump’s individual hole drawings are very similar to the way the course got built.

[Paul_Turner]

I superimposed the Stick routing on the Colt plan; it's easy to do because the contour map is the same, here's the correctbeakdown:

1-4 are similar.  Although the 1st has a much sharper dogleg.  The 3rd green in the full plan is between the two green iterations shown on the stick plan.

6 looks about rightbut the tee is about 50 yards forward, 7 is the right length but, the green is on the current 8th tee.  

There is a green between the current 11th green and 8th fairway, the fairway for this hole is in the direction of the 16th tee.

The 18th green is right, but the tee is on the current 10th green and the fairway goes about 30 yds further left and then doglegs slightly to the right.

There's a hole that starts on the current 16th green and finishes on the current 11th tee (different from the current 17th).

I don't agree that the 13th is there.  There is a hole up in that area, but the green is way short of the current 13th.

There's a hole that starts above the sharp dip in the current 13th fairway and finishes downhill by the start of the current 15th fairway.  Another hole from that point uphill into the ridge between the current 12th and 15th holes. Then another from there, and  downhill back to the far edge of the 15th fairway.  A Zig-Zag sequence!

Another hole from the ravine below the clubhouse up to a green just short and right of the current 10th.

There does look to be a short hole across the ravine near to the current 5th.  Another short hole from near the start of the 11th fairway to the middle of the 9th fairway.

There's a green in the hollow in front of the current 8th tee.  I think the tee starts on the ridge between current 12th and 15th.

There's some other small bits and pieces I can't really decipher.  But they don't resemble anything built.

Some similarities but miles away from the final complete routing.  And some really weird holes too (IMO).

[TEPaul]

"Some similarities but miles away from the final complete routing.  And some really weird holes too (IMO)."

Paul:

That's not the way I'd look at that earlier topo routing. What you just did is basically point out all the dissimilarities. But once again it's probably far more important to point out the similarities to the second topo hanging in the clubhouse because as I said before one can see these holes in the earlier topo that are also in the second topo and basically the way the course got built (excepting that 12-14 stretch);

The earlier topo shows holes #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 17, 18 in stick routing form that's basically the way they got built. That's a total of nine holes. You can add to that holes #12, 13, 14 that we all know Colt didn't route as they were built. That's a total of 12 holes and leaves six other holes as routed and built--#5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 that are possible Colt ideas IF, in fact, that first topo's stick routing was done before Colt's arrival.

But what you did is describe a number of other iterated holes (other than all those I just listed that did get built) and described the whole thing as;

"Some similarities but miles away from the final complete routing.  And some really weird holes too (IMO)."

But what you're failing to point out is all those described as "weird holes" are iterations that are not part of a complete 18 hole golf course. In other words if one counted up all the "iterations" (lines of possible holes) on that earlier topo map one would probably come up with about 25 possible holes and iterations and that's not the way to compare the holes that were on the first topo and ALSO on the second topo and ALSO got built.

Doing golf hole iterations on an early topo in a routing search can produce many more possibilities on that early topo map than just 18, in other words. That's not uncommon at all and I'm sure particularly not uncommon in 1913. In other words Crump wasn't exactly able to call up the surveyor and say "burn me another fresh topo off the copy machine". All an architect is doing is just putting any possible hole or iteration in stick routing form and isn't actually worrying yet about weeding those hole "iterations" down to a final 18.

So it's the ones that got in similar form from the first topo to the second topo to built we're interested in, not  other hole "iterations" that were never used or even made it onto the second topo--they're unimportant to consider--and certainly at this point.

[T_MacWood]

I must say the stick drawing is very interesting - and very confusing. The first four holes look to be drawn in a similar manner-with very small round greens. The same is true with #7. Five also looks like Crump before Colt changed it. Six is confusing-it looks to have two or three greens. There is nothing following #7 - no eighth hole. #3 looks like a new second green was drawn (proposed) which necessitated a second new 4th tee.

There must be at least 23 holes on the map. One that crosses the 5th. Perhaps the first iteration of Colt's 5th.

There are lines everywhere and the back nine is very hard to read. It doesn't appear the best land has being utilized.

My guess is this stick routing is part Crump, part Crump working drawing and part Colt working drawing.

I'd be interested when Colt was contracted. I'd guess after his visit. It appears to me he went home with his notes and topos and produced the routing and the detailed hole by hole plans. In fact Tillinghast wrote after Colt's visit that it was likely plans would follow. We know now that his plans did follow.

[TEPaul]

Whoa Tom, read my post #85 again. It doesn't matter if there're 23 or 32 hole "iterations" on an intial routing topo. It doesn't matter if one crosses over another or not, since all the iterations ain't gonna make the cut. That topo doesn't need to serve as the finished course. Mostly an architect is just out there analyzing potential hole possiblities, and mostly measuring things, anything and everything off of particularly interesting spots, contour lines and such to see how tee sites, LZs, approaches, green sites are working out and particularly how things, like potential holes are measuring out.

Measuring is a huge part of an initial routing search for interesting hole possibilities. When I did that for about 500 hours on Ardrossan and a few other sites that little clear 8" ruler and the pencil was in and out of my pocket onto the topo map about one million times. You keep looking and measuring and marking endlessly. Crump probably didn't have a little clear 8" ruler. He was a known inveterate shot tester constantly testing shots from any and all spots that interested him. That obviously was his technique for measuring anything and everything in the routing and then designing up phases. That's obviously why he had so much cleared so early. And that's why there are so many odd clearing lines on the early PV aerials. They were clearly potential holes in the routing that didn't make the cut in the final iteration of PV's routing (The best example of "shot-testing" measuring was obviously CPC's #16--Marion Hollins--and perhaps Colt's #5 PV iteration).

Think of initial routing as an enormous jigsaw puzzle but you actually get to make the pieces (potential holes) yourself. There's nothing unusual at all about all those crazy lines that were drawn on that initial PV topo map. If something doesn't seem to be making the cut an architect might take his pencil and wave out the stick routing line to sort of cancel that potential iteration out. You can see that someone did that on the early PV topo where the line for a couple of iterations were like on #13 and #16 and some others.

But as I said to Paul on post 85 all that's really important for the sake of this Crump/Colt discussion is stick routed holes that got from the first topo to the second topo and then got built in basically the same place and form as the original stick routing.

Things like the shapes of greens on that initial topo map are completely unimportant. All that's necessary is to get the placement or postion basically where you want it. Same for tees and the mid-body of holes.

Stick routings are basically just directional and length considerations in the very first routing phase. Once you've got potential holes sort of in basic position then comes the next topo iteration where things like green shapes, widths of holes, bunker and feature placement come into being on a topo. After that you can do individual holes in something like a booklet or measured to scale paper and really put in some detail, dimension with exact measurement, whatever.

A lot of architects do it differently but the routing "process" is basically the same if you do it on the land like Crump did.

Everybody really interested in architecture should try to do a routing out on the land and then onto a topo map. First stick routing, then the widths and features etc. etc It's about the most fundamental education in architecture imaginable, particularly to understand how they did some of those great old courses.

[T_MacWood]

TE Paul said: "Whoa Tom, read my post #85 again. It doesn't matter if there're 23 or 32 hole "iterations" on an intial routing topo. It doesn't matter if one crosses over another or not, since all the iterations ain't gonna make the cut. That topo doesn't need to serve as the finished course."

I understand that. That is why I characterized what I see as part Crump, part Crump working drawing and part Colt working drawing.Working drawing as in experimenting with a number of possibilities.  My point about the look of the circles/greens was that they appeared to be drawn at different times and/or by different people. They are not a consistent size, shape and appearance.

The survey was completed in March 1913. In March 1913 Crump had men clearing the land for seven holes. I would suspect one of the first things he would do with the topo is put down the seven holes he had already conceived. The stick drawing shows the 1st as Tillie described it. The second appears very close--a driver and 3- or 4-wood. The green in the stick pushed back a bit, so this matches. The 3rd was a 200-yard par-3 (with Alpinization) and the stick has the green well off to the left of the current hole and looks to be about 200. The 4th is described as two-shotter--the stick seems to match. The 5th a short par-3 over the depression and stream well to the left of the current hole--matches. The 6th is a par-5....looks about right, with the tee farther back nearer the old proposed 5th. The 7th is a driver over a depression and stream, and then a nine iron approach. This is not on the stick. That hole must have gone back toward the 3rd. Tillie said this hole was less developed and for whatever reason it was not put down on paper. (Possibly because it would've severely cramped the overall routing.)

In April (May issue) progress continues. Tillie says the ground is being cleared rapidly and the fairway and putting-greens prepared for seeding. In May (June issue) it is announced that Colt is to visit to review critically the work already outlined.

Colt offered three services: design a new course, remodel an existing course or advice regarding upkeep and minor changes. On his trip to the US in 1913 he advised Brookline and Garden City (Travis was a great admirer of Colt's and I suspect he may have had something to do with his involvement at  PV). I do not believe Crump had any intention of hiring Colt to design PV, he just wanted his advice.

In June (July issue) Tillie refers to him as "Mr. H.S. Colt, the British critic." He says he spent a week at Pine Valley...he liked the land exceedingly....greater possibilities than any in America....it is likely plans will follow. I suspect the critic convinced Crump he ought to hire an architect.

[Paul_Turner]

That's not the way I'd look at that earlier topo routing. What you just did is basically point out all the dissimilarities. But once again it's probably far more important to point out the similarities to the second topo hanging in the clubhouse because as I said before one can see these holes in the earlier topo that are also in the second topo and basically the way the course got built (excepting that 12-14 stretch);

The earlier topo shows holes #1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 11, 17, 18 in stick routing form that's basically the way they got built. That's a total of nine holes. You can add to that holes #12, 13, 14 that we all know Colt didn't route as they were built. That's a total of 12 holes and leaves six other holes as routed and built--#5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 that are possible Colt ideas IF, in fact, that first topo's stick routing was done before Colt's arrival.

You must be seeing things if you think the current 11th and 17th were built that way!  Look more closely at the maps, I can see it very clearly when I superimpose the two plans.  Obviously the difference at 7th is less and the 6th even more so.  The 18th is a shift in the fairway, more up into the cliff, with a blind tee shot.  You're happy to indentify and emphasise the difference between Colt's green site for the second and yet seem willing to ignore the differences (some much greater) that I've pointed out!  Hardly consistent (The 12th on Colt's plan is as accurate as some of your claims).

I've simply described the holes I see on the stick map.  Many of which I think would have made weird holes!

As for the 14th, I think it was built be 1916.  I have a set of old photos, some of these were published in 1916 in GI.  There's a photo of the 16th approach and you can make out the 14th bunkers around the green.  Also, in a different photo, the site for the 15th tee is shown, which implies that the 14th was set.

[Paul_Turner]

One point I find confusing is Tillinghast's description of the 2nd.  He seems to describe a longer hole, with a 3 wood or 2-iron, approach after a good drive; but it was actually built for a mid-iron approach (and is shown as such on the stick and Colt plan).   Although the 2nd greensite and the 3rd tee seems correct from Tillie's description.

[Forrest Richardson]

I still say 70 yards.

[Paul_Turner]

This back and forth debate on Pine Valley is nothing new to GCA, here's link to one from nearly a couple of years ago.  At that time,  much less information had been uncovered, from magazine articles and a correct anlaysis of the routing plan.  We're much closer to the "truth" now.

There was actually an even earlier thread when the Colt hole detail book was discussed by Tom Doak, but I can't find it.  Wish I could, because personally, I think that Colt's drawings are probably much closer to the final holes than Finegan implies, particularly when you understand Colt's style of the time.  (Finegan's emphasis of the lack of forced carries is a mistake of interpretation in my opinion)

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/board/ubbhtml/Archives/Archive-000001/HTML/20020909-1-004429.html

[TEPaul]

Paul:

I see so many inaccuracies and semi-inaccaracies about the way you characterize almost every single hole off the earliest stick routing I think the best thing to do is to eventually just take this discussion hole by hole and in real detail.

To say something like the LZ and the "line"on the earlier stick on hole #18 is nearer the "cliff" is almost completely meaningless in an initial and stick routing sense. Whether the "line" is drawn 20-30yds to the left is meaningless. You've been to the course once--and can obviously see that hole is just a natural landform that was used as they found it. If the center line on the stick routng is slightly to the left of where the center line was built or is now is just meaningless. The tee is in the same place and the green is too. As to what you said about a 'blind drive', ie, "The 18th is a shift in the fairway, more up into the cliff, with a blind tee shot",  I've no clue. That's virtually impossible anywhere near PV's #18!

#2 is another good example. It's meaningless that someone might have described the hole as a drive and a 2 iron back then. The tee is basically in the same position as it is now except one can see it's probably possible that it could be moved back 30-40 yd. The green, as Tom MacW said did not move at all from the original stick routing. There's really no way it could move. The green then and now sits right on it's own natural very well defined ridge. All one has to do is look at the preconstruction contour lines to tell that. Both you and Tom may be mislead by the small circle for that green in the stick routing--it's probably one fifth the size of the green that was built and is there now, which basically uses most all that natural ridge. There's no way #2 green could be "pushed back" or moved forward! To say something like that is basically not being familiar with the course and the topography of it.

On Tillinghast's desciption of #7 in the winter of 1913 you're way off. There's no conceivable way a par 5 hole as he described it could come back towards #3. As I've already said a couple of times now it seems very clear it was routed out towards what's now the short course, just about 180 degree opposite direction from the way it goes now. Again, look at p 66 in GeoffShac's book and you can see the original clearing.

So it'd be best if we went hole by hole and discussed these routing iterations at some point. That's the only way we can compare these things. You're way off in your analysis of most of these holes at the moment and your making a major issue of really minor changes from a stick routing to the next topo iteration.  When you both become more familiar with the golf course of Pine Valley on the ground as it is and was then before construction you'll see what I mean. It's probably necessary to familiarize yourselves better with the contour lines on those topos and the way the golf course is and the land has always been.

And even with all these differences of opinion between us on the foregoing routed holes it really has no relevance to Colt and Crump and who did what and when and how to determine that.

Tom MacW:

I'm very interested by your post #88. It seems to say much more by Tillinghast of what Crump had done before Colt arrived at PV for the first and only time he was there than I previously realized. I'd like to see that material very much.

Paul:

Do you have those early articles of Tillinghast's? I seem to have misplaced mine?

PS:

Paul, there's no conceivable way #14 as it got built and is now was done in 1916. Just check your timelines. Holes #13-15 were not constructed until after Crump died in early 1918. Whatever photo your looking at must be misdated.

PPS:

There's another very good reason Wayne Morrison and I are interested in even PV's timelines. At least 13-15 were not contstructed at the time of Crump's untimely death (early winter 1918 ). We found a letter in the USGA's Green Section archives of Alan Wilson (Hugh's brother) to Piper and Oakley mentioning that William Flynn was to work at Pine Valley 3-4 days a week for an extended periond of time. Certainly the logical conclusion could be that Flynn and the Merion contingent were to be working on the construction of holes 13-15 and probably the finalization of #12 too.

[T_MacWood]

TE
I think you might be confused. Tillinghast said the 2nd was a driver and a 3-wood or 4-wood approach. The stick drawing has the green pushed back a bit in comparison to the current green.

On the 7th Tillinghast decribed as a driver-nine iron - a short par-4. The drive was over a depression and stream, the only depression and stream from the 6th green is back toward the 3rd.

The 6th was described in the Tillie article as a par-5.

The newly discovered 13th was described by Tillignhast in March of 1915.

[Paul_Turner]

To say something like the LZ and the "line"on the earlier stick on hole #18 is nearer the "cliff" is almost completely meaningless in an initial and stick routing sense. Whether the "line" is drawn 20-30yds to the left is meaningless. You've been to the course once--and can obviously see that hole is just a natural landform that was used as they found it. If the center line on the stick routng is slightly to the left of where the center line was built or is now is just meaningless. The tee is in the same place and the green is too. As to what you said about a 'blind drive', ie, "The 18th is a shift in the fairway, more up into the cliff, with a blind tee shot",  I've no clue. That's virtually impossible anywhere near PV's #18!

Tom

It's not meaningless, that;s just the way you want to see things!  I can see exactly how the routings are drawn, I can superimpose them with the images.  The stick diagram of the 18th has its tee on the 10th green and goes to the left with a blind drive.

#2 is another good example. It's meaningless that someone might have described the hole as a drive and a 2 iron back then. The tee is basically in the same position as it is now except one can see it's probably possible that it could be moved back 30-40 yd. The green, as Tom MacW said did not move at all from the original stick routing. There's really no way it could move. The green then and now sits right on it's own natural very well defined ridge. All one has to do is look at the preconstruction contour lines to tell that. Both you and Tom may be mislead by the small circle for that green in the stick routing--it's probably one fifth the size of the green that was built and is there now, which basically uses most all that natural ridge. There's no way #2 green could be "pushed back" or moved forward! To say something like that is basically not being familiar with the course and the topography of it.

Stop drawing conclusions about my opinion, read what I wrote again.  I'm simply unsure why Tillinghast describes an apparently longer hole.

On Tillinghast's desciption of #7 in the winter of 1913 you're way off. There's no conceivable way a par 5 hole as he described it could come back towards #3. As I've already said a couple of times now it seems very clear it was routed out towards what's now the short course, just about 180 degree opposite direction from the way it goes now. Again, look at p 66 in GeoffShac's book and you can see the original clearing.

What are you talking about?  I've simply said the green on the stick diagram is on the current 8th tee.

So it'd be best if we went hole by hole and discussed these routing iterations at some point. That's the only way we can compare these things. You're way off in your analysis of most of these holes at the moment and your making a major issue of really minor changes from a stick routing to the next topo iteration.  When you both become more familiar with the golf course of Pine Valley on the ground as it is and was then before construction you'll see what I mean. It's probably necessary to familiarize yourselves better with the contour lines on those topos and the way the golf course is and the land has always been.

I think you need to reread what I have written.  If you think a par 4 from the current 16th green to the current 11th tee represents the current 17th, then we'll just have to disagree.   Same with a hole from near 16th tee and a green beyond the 11th green= the current 11th hole.  

The 13th was discovered in March 1915, Tillinghast states this in his reports.  That is nearly 3 years before Crump dies!  The photos that I have from Colt's book (which I sent you, Tom, take a look at them) are reproduced, in part, in GI 1916.  The photos from Colt's book are numerically labelled, which implies that they were taken at the same time.  These photos show the 15th tee site and almost definitely the 14th green.  So I think the 14th and 15th are set by about 1916.  Why do you think these holes were much later, is that just the accepted sequence ?   Why would Crump wait almost 3 years to build the 13th!!

I will send you the Tillinghast articles, hopefully tomorrow.  Also the merged image of the Colt and stick plans, to prove you wrong  

[TEPaul]

"TE
I think you might be confused. Tillinghast said the 2nd was a driver and a 3-wood or 4-wood approach. The stick drawing has the green pushed back a bit in comparison to the current green."

Tom MacW;

I'll guarantee you I'm not confused about the 2nd green. Why do you say the green was pushed back? It's meaningless that Tillinghast said it was a 3-4 wood approach. The way the hole is today which is the same as it's routed on that stick routing may have been a 3-4 wood approach to Tillinghast. Once again, the green the way it's sited and was built and is today sits on the entirety of a natural ridge. Again, there's no way that green could or can be pushed back or forward then or now. #2 green is the second largest at Pine Valley at 11,361sf! That's more than twice the size of two normal greens. That circle in the stick routing you're looking at can't be more than 1,000sf.

Again, I can't find my copy of Tillinghast's early article about the potential iteration of #7 so when I mentioned it was a par 5 iteration I was mistaken by memory. I'd appreciate it if you'd email me a copy of that article(s).

But Tom, there's no conceivable way #7 could have come back towards #3. There isn't the room or the topograhy there to do even a very short par 4. Did you see what I said previously about the hole being routed out towards the short course? Well that's the way the hole that Tillinghast described went. Again, if you look on the top of the photo on p. 66 of GeoffShac's book you'll see the clearing for that hole Tillinghast mentioned.

If a hole was routed from around #6 tee back towards #3 green you could probably hit #3 green with a 2-3 iron! And to do it you'd have to come almost over the top of #4 tee. That's not a potential hole and that wasn't the routing direction Tillinghast was describing for that #7  iteration.

[TEPaul]

PaulT said;

"Tom
It's not meaningless, that;s just the way you want to see things!  I can see exactly how the routings are drawn, I can superimpose them with the images.  The stick diagram of the 18th has its tee on the 10th green and goes to the left with a blind drive."

Paul:

I guess I see what you might be talking about. There's a straight line that goes about to where #10 tee is now. I sure hope that's not the line you're referring to as the LZ line on #18. And #18 tee on that stick routing is where it is now. Look again, there appears to be two stick routing lines for the LZ on #18, one slightly lower than the other. Both would end up in the present #18 fairway! And Paul, if you stood on the middle of the present 10th green (and there were no trees in your way) you could look right down #18 fairway--there's nothing there that would blind a tee shot. #18 tee and #10 green just to the left of it are on the end of a ridge (with #17 green and #11 tee) that look down into #18 fairway below.

Instead of needlessly debating these things I'll try to get you back there one of these days soon and you can see for yourself.

And furthermore, even if it's the line that goes up towards #10 tee you're talking about there's nothing blind about that either. If one hit a ball from the tip of #18 tee to the 10th tee it would probably be about a 6-7 iron and very visible.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Perhaps it would help if you reminded those who have never been to Pine Valley, that the 18th tee elevation is such that you can  see the bridge spanning the Delaware River from New Jersey to Pennsylvania, which is 15 or so miles away.

One would be hard pressed to be confronted with a blind tee shot no matter what direction they were aiming.

I agree with you, there is no way that the 2nd green could be moved.  The ridge that green sits on, continues and becomes the blind ridge for the tee shot on # 4 and serves as the elevation for the tee on # 3.

What I miss in that green site, is the sand in the hill leading to the green, as evidenced in the photo next to the door to the parking lot, in the main room.

My question to you, and perhaps a partial answer to Tillie's 3-wood approach is, was the 2nd tee initially and always elevated to its current height ?  And, was it always in its current location ?

[TEPaul]

Paul;

Thank you sending me for the superimposed topo routings. I certainly stand corrected then and can't guarantee that the tee for #18 was in the same place in both topos. That you've proved the tee in the earlier topo sat on a piece of #10 green is fascinating. That wouldn't make the tee shot blind to #18 fairway but it does seem to me to have some really interesting ramifications anyway for other holes such as #17 green site and #11 tee site, and probably the routing of #9 and #10 too. (I always thought #9 and #10 were Colt).

I'm basically computer illiterate and can't imagine how you superimposed those two topos. But as I think about this that superimposition has the potential to really tell a story. Is it possible to print it and blow it up? But if so please don't put it on Golfclubatlas yet! If it's possible to print and blowup that could be very interesting and valuable for PV's archives. I'm certain no one ever thought to do superimpose those two topos. Matter of fact it seems that few have been aware of the earlier topo.

The only way to compare those topos before, for me anyway, was to try to scale things or measure variaitons off known  contour lines and compare the variations. I was using the photo of the old topo in my computer and actual snapshots I took of the second topo to do that, not an easy comparison to do.

It'd be fascinating to know if there're any blue lines on that earlier topo routing. In a way I hope not because it then may be far more logical to assume the earlier topo was Crump's work alone and then there'd be two very distinct products from the two men. As such it'd be more logical to draw certain assumptions as to who may have done what, changed what and even when, and even how they may have been working in tandem in the field.

The interesting areas in this way to me are #2, and then #7, and certainly this #10, 11, 17 and 18 contiguous area. To imagine how #2 appears to have effected #3 and certainly how #7 effected #8 and perhaps #9 but particularly how  10,11,17,18 effected each other and very likely #9 too is fascinating to conjecture on. I suspect it might've also effected what Crump did on #11 and how that may've effected what he also wanted to do with #11 green site (which was never ultimately done because the 1921 committee deemed it too expensive at that time).

The differences in #5 on the two topos is remarkable and certainly makes me see why Crump may have been so thrilled with that alteration for which obviously Colt received great credit. By the way, you wanted to know where that story about Colt's famous change on #5 came from. Apparently it came from a newspaper article of that time.

Again, that #10, 11, 17, 18 contiguous area is fascinating to conjecture on. I can see that the entire shift of various parts of those holes may have resulted from the green site on the earlier topo for #10 green (a par 4 hole coming up over the ridge from below the clubhouse being given up and altered. That green looks to be about 30-40 yards right and above the present 10th green. Can you see what appears to be a question mark next to that original 10 green site in what appears to be Crump's hand (but maybe not)?

It's sort of logical to me if #10 green site was shifted from there to where it is now then probably #17 green and certainly #18 tee would have to be shifted down too. The 17th green shift would then make room for about 50 or more additional yards on #11 too. And even shifting all of #17 50-70 yds lower and to the right would then make room for #16 green.

This is all very exciting and although it may not yet prove what were Crump's or Colt's ideas, and that may never be provable, it certainly starts to tell a very interesting story between the two topos and about whomever and however they may have worked on the later topo.

Great job superimposing the two topo maps. I think with that we should go through any alterations of each hole and discuss how an alteration of any hole may have had an impact on other holes and the routing generally.

[TEPaul]

Pat asked;

"My question to you, and perhaps a partial answer to Tillie's 3-wood approach is, was the 2nd tee initially and always elevated to its current height ?  And, was it always in its current location?"

Pat:

I don't believe #2 tee is elevated at all and never was. Yes, it's in the same position alongside #1 green it always was. I believe frankly that the entire hole throughout is completely natural landform in elevation. The thing that really blows my mind, though, is #1 green appears to be completely natural landform too. I always assumed that that entire green may have been raised 10-12ft particularly towards the green's end but the contour lines on the survey map seem to show the whole thing was that way naturally. That really does amaze me (when you go out there and look at it) and would probably explain how Crump so easily found and identified that entire first hole.

But as you know when you come off the 1st green you walk immediately down a number of steps to the 2nd tee below and again I think the entire tee and #2 hole is on natural grade, not elevated at all.

As for the enormous original sand faced bunker fronting #2 green, unfortunately that collapsed early on (taking some of the front of #2 green with it) and consequently that had to be shored up and turned into mostly sod facing (with smaller bunkering in it).

The exact same thing happened on #18 and the same solution was used. It's becoming more likely that the repair work on both holes may have been done by Flynn.

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW said:

"That is why I characterized what I see as part Crump, part Crump working drawing and part Colt working drawing.Working drawing as in experimenting with a number of possibilities."

Tom;

I absolutely agree with that--always have. When I said holes #11-18 could have been original Crump I never said I could prove that but only that it's possible. And the way to figure out the possibility of that is to just compare anything and everything from the first topo to finished product (assuming the first topo is ONLY Crump's hand).

But this superimposition of the two topos makes it much easier to do that and may really tell a story never told or noticed before. Unfortunately Crump and Colt never really wrote a thing about what went on out there between them and who did what and when and who came up with various ideas (except obviously the alteration to #5).

The super imposing of the two topos can tell a lot more for sure although I can't see how it could ever really prove who did what except if something is the same in the earlier topo to the second topo or it got built like the first topo and it can be proved that ONLY Crump worked on that earlier topo before Colt arrived. If that can be proved then anything that got from the first topo to finished product would have to be Crump. Wouldnt't you agree?