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.