[DMoriarty]

David,

I wasn't telling just you...only correcting your usual wild, baseless speculation for everyone else.

Wild and baseless speculation?   It was in Hawtree's book, and based on that alone it is worth considering and exploring.  Besides, given your track record, it is a bit of a farce for you to be pretending to correct anyone, don't you think?   

I don't think anyone here is disputing that Colt put together a plan for the course, which was generally followed with a number of holes from Crump's original routing, and then some revision by Crump (and others) over time through the almost 10 years it took to get eighteen holes in play.

What a joke.

[Mike Cirba]

I wonder if those claiming sole credit for Colt at Pine Valley have ever really seen either Colt's routing or the individual hole drawings?

I'd ask them the following questions;

1) How many of Crump's original routed holes conceived before Colt arrived did he use?

2) How much of Colt's proposed routing did Crump use?

3) How much of Colt's proposed internal features did Crump use?

Anyone want to point out the differences hole by hole, even though as Paul Turner points out, that was done here years ago.

Those seeking to minimize Crump's architectural role here are not playing with facts, only agendas.

[Tom MacWood]

....Colt put together a plan for the course, which was generally followed with a number of holes from Crump's original routing, and then some revision by Crump (and others) over time through the almost 10 years it took to get eighteen holes in play.

Mike
A number of holes from Crump's original routing? What routing?

[Tom MacWood]

1) How many of Crump's original routed holes conceived before Colt arrived did he use?

I'm not aware of a routing conceived by Crump. What routing?

2) How much of Colt's proposed routing did Crump use?

The biggest changes were the 13th and 14th holes, which had no major affect on the routing of the other holes. Tilly gave credit to Crump for the new 13th at the time it was discovered, but then gave himself credit for it after Crump's death. Its difficult to say who deserved credit. It is unknown who came up with the design of the new 14th.

3) How much of Colt's proposed internal features did Crump use?

What are internal features? Bunkers?

Did Colt continue to advise Crump after 1913? It would seem logical to me, and there appears to be evidence they were communicating. The fact that Alison was brought in right after the War is also interesting. I reckon he deserves some credit for the bunkering/internal features. What do you think?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Notice any differences at 2, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17?   The 1st through 4th, and 18th were already planned by Crump prior.  

And once again, we have mysterious invisible correspondence cited, things that seem "logical" to you on which to based our history.

Your seemingly stunted powers of observation are only dwarfed by your limited powers of analytical reasoning.

[Mike Cirba]

I have been asked to remove the Colt map of Pine Valley from the Internet and will respect the wishes of the requestor.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Notice any differences at 2, 7, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17?   The 1st through 4th, and 18th were already planned by Crump prior.  

And once again, we have mysterious invisible correspondence cited, things that seem "logical" to you on which to based our history.

Your seemingly stunted powers of observation are only dwarfed by your limited powers of analytical reasoning.

Mike
The only major change to Colt's routing was the change at #13 and #14.

Crump planned #1 through #4, and #18? Where did you come up with that?

[Tom MacWood]

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have been asked to remove the Colt map of Pine Valley from the Internet and will respect the wishes of the requestor..
Mike,

Why would you accede to the request of a non-member who doesn't speak in any capacity for the club ?

This is Deja Vu all over again.

Previously, others represented that they spoke for Merion, when in fact they didn't, and Merion's official historian/archivist forwarded information that David Moriarty had been requesting, directly to David Moriarty in a co-operative effort/spirit.

You were embarrassed by this incident because you were one of those posturing that you represented Merion's official position, when nothing could be further from the truth.

This attempt at faux protectionism is ridiculous, especially if the information had been previously put into the public domain.

You, TEPaul and Wayne attempted to stifle discovery and debate, deliberately and falsely posturing that you represented Merion's official position, when, in fact, you didn't.

Don't make the same mistake.....again.

One question for you and the other pseudo protectionists.

Why wouldn't you want the process of discovery and the resultant production of the truth/facts to be revealed or confirmed ? [/size]

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

I can understand completely anyone or any club who doesn't want their materials exhibited in the circus that GCA has become.

If you don't respect their wishes, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I respectfully disagree.

As far as being "embarrassed", the only thing I'm embarrassed about is spending my time entertaining the three of your ridiculous and insulting assertions and wild speculation.

Everyone else with half a brain...Brauer, Izatt, Young, Sullivan, and countless others...have moved on from this nonsense.

[Mike Cirba]

As far as which holes were planned prior to Colt's arrival, apparently some here can't read very well.

[DMoriarty]

Pat,

I can understand completely anyone or any club who doesn't want their materials exhibited in the circus that GCA has become.

Did a representative of Pine Valley call you this morning? We have to start distinguishing between these clubs and a certain pompous ass who cannot stand to be anything but the center of attention, and who constantly pretends to speak for these clubs, much to their embarrassment.  And if GCA has become a joke, this is why.    

If you don't respect their wishes, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I respectfully disagree.

After the complete farce you guys have made of Merion's history and policies you have some nerve accusing Patrick of disrespecting these clubs.

As far as being "embarrassed", the only thing I'm embarrassed about is spending my time entertaining the three of your ridiculous and insulting assertions and wild speculation.

If this is really the only thing your embarrassed about, you are pathological.

Everyone else with half a brain...Brauer, Izatt, Young, Sullivan, and countless others...have moved on from this nonsense.

I don't blame them.  I wouldn't want to be associated with you and your pompous friend either.
____________________

As for your newspaper article, I believe Tom MacWood has explained what was left of the holes described.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I can understand completely anyone or any club who doesn't want their materials exhibited in the circus that GCA has become.
What clubs do you pretend to speak for ? 

If you don't respect their wishes, I'm sorry you feel that way, but I respectfully disagree..

Once again, you pretend to speak on behalf of these clubs.

Merion co-operated with David Moriarty despite statements to the contrary by you, TEPaul and Wayne.
The three of you wrongfully assumed a position of authority on behalf of Merion.
Merion disagreed with all of you and your position  and co-operated with David

As far as being "embarrassed", the only thing I'm embarrassed about is spending my time entertaining the three of your ridiculous and insulting
 assertions and wild speculation.

Protecting the status quo and myths when you don't have the facts to support your position seems to be your forte

Despite your attempts to stifle and terminate a thread you started, a good deal of valueable information was discovered.
Information that was contrary to the position that you maintained, so I can see how you'd want to label the discovery process  and search for the truth as ridiculous and wild.

But, the search will continue despite your attempts to abort it

Would you answer the question I asked you in the last sentence of my previous post ?[/size]

Everyone else with half a brain...Brauer, Izatt, Young, Sullivan, and countless others...have moved on from this nonsense.

Evidently, the "official" folks from Merion haven't.  And I don't believe that JS has.
You want to stop the discovery process so that you can preserve the status quo rather than search for and/or confirm the truth.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Where in that article does it state Crump planned those holes?

The first and second seem spot on; three and four not so much; five, six and seven, definitely not; eighteen sounds pretty close too.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

I think you're laboring under a false impression.

Once an item enters the Public Domain, it resides there in perpetuity, despite protestations to the contrary.

When the Cold map went up for bid on EBay, it entered the Public Domain.
It probably entered prior to that time, but, certainly, it entered the day it went on Ebay.

While TEPaul's purchase and donation of the map to Pine Valley was certainly a noble gesture, it doesn't remove the map from the Public Domain.  The only thing that changes is where that particular map resides.

That map is nothing more than a 100 year old schematic of a golf course, it's not a schematic with instructions on how to craft a nuclear device or CBW. 

But, here's another question to you, what's the harm in having this map as part of the Public Domain.

Please don't give me the privacy nonsense as you seemed to ignore that on your NGLA thread.
And, it can't be a privacy issue once the map entered the Public Domain.

So, what are you and TEPaul afraid of ?

What's the objection to the map REMAINING in the Public Domain ?

[Tom MacWood]

I'm confused. The map I posted appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, and was originally posted by Joe B.

Whoever is complaining about the posting of a map that appeared in a newspaper 97 years ago is an idiot.

[DMoriarty]

This is quite entertaining.

We have a pompous blowhard who is not even a member of this board trying to control whether we post clippings from old newspapers!  Who does this arrogant jerk think he is?  And if there are things out there from Pine Valley's private records, it is most likely because he was treating their stuff as his personal property and distributing it as he saw fit.   Pathetic. 

[Tom MacWood]

Here is a link to the original thread:

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,32551.0/

This is an interesting subject, and it is a shame we would allow it to be distracted by silliness.

What I find most interesting about these two maps, they both appear to have been created by the same hand (Colt), but there are distinct differences in the two maps, which tells me Colt revised the plan within a year of the first plan.

If in fact he revised the plan within a year, isn't it probable he continued to tweak the plan right through Alison's tweaking in 1921?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

You and TEPaul owe David Moriarty, Tom MacWood and me a profound apology.

Colt's map evidently entered the Public Domain as early as January of 1914, having been published in the Philadelphia Enquirer on January 4, 1914.

Here's Joe Bausch's original post:
Author Topic: January 4, 1914 drawing: Pine Valley  (Read 3092 times) 

Joe Bausch
Sr. Member

Posts: 3445

January 4, 1914 drawing: Pine Valley
« on: December 19, 2007, 12:56:07 PM » Quote 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the drawing published in the Philadelphia Inquirer for Pine Valley from 1914:

Headline: Pine Valley Course Designed for All the Year 'Round Playing and Calling for "Thinking Golf" by Players; Article Type: News/Opinion

Paper: Philadelphia Inquirer, published as The Philadelphia Inquirer; Date: 01-04-1914; Volume: 170; Issue: 4; Page: 11; Location: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


That you on GCA.com and TEPaul in nasty emails attacked Tom MacWood for posting the map, after Joe Bausch had posted it four years earlier, quoting from the "Philadelphia Enquirer" is outrageous.  Then, attacking David Moriarty, Tom MacWood and myself for advocating that the map should remain in the Public Domain when it had appeared in newspapers is the height of arrogance.

As I indicated, you and TEPaul owe the three of us a profound apology.

You guys are so deluded as to your self appointed roles that you didn't even remember participating on Joe's thread.

And, to show the height of your arrogance, NOT ONCE did you demand that Joe remove the map, yet, you lambasted Tom MacWood for posting the same thing that Joe Bausch posted.

You embraced Joe's posting, and attacked Tom MacWood's posting.

WHY

Because you have personal vendettas that cloud your thinking and prevent you from being objective.

This episode above all others shows how biased, arrogant and wrong you are.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Cirba,

TEPaul formally apologized to David, Tom and myself via a group email, and I thanked him for that.

We're still awaiting your formal apology on GCA.com.

[Tom MacWood]

There is no need to apologize to me. Mike never criticized me for posting the map; I assume he realized it was different from the one he posted.

What I find most interesting are the differences in the two maps that were brought up on that original thread. What do you make of those differences?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom MacWood,

The answer may lie within the dating of the two maps.

One may be an alteration of the other.

The key would seem to be determining the date of each.

[Tom MacWood]

The first plan is from July 1913, and the second was published January 1914.

Among the differences:

* the second drawing uses roman numerals
* the swamp is identified in the second drawing
* the 7th doglegs in the second
* the yardages are not in scale in the second, they do match what is drawn, in particular the 14th is listed at 390 yards but looks to be a par-3 on the map

[Mike Cirba]

Mike Cirba,

TEPaul formally apologized to David, Tom and myself via a group email, and I thanked him for that.

We're still awaiting your formal apology on GCA.com.


Patrick,

Your arrogance here is only exceeded by your ignorance of the subject matter, which is typical of your track record in these historical discussions.

The photograph I posted was never in the Philadelphia Inquirer, but was a photo of the original Colt map itself.   The person who purchased the map and then donated it to Pine Valley asked me to remove it from the thread as he no longer participates here and I respected his wishes.  

Is that so difficult to understand and respect?

You rail on about letting the process of discovery continue yet you are the same person who casually dismissed all of the contemporaneous news articles written about NGLA because they don't jive with your beliefs and mythology of how that course was designed and built.   You talk about the value of historical discussion but what actual facts, evidence ,or research have you either uncovered on your own or even bothered to read here?   You were rude and insulting to me throughout the NGLA and other threads, calling me a liar, as did David, and now you have the nerve to suggest I owe you both an apology??  

You owe me one, frankly, as Brauer and others pointed out.  

As far as waiting for my apology to you and David...don't hold your breath.   

[Tom MacWood]

As far as which holes were planned prior to Colt's arrival, apparently some here can't read very well.

Mike
You referred to Crump's plan, where in this article does it state Crump planned those holes?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()