News:

Welcome to the Golf Club Atlas Discussion Group!

Each user is approved by the Golf Club Atlas editorial staff. For any new inquiries, please contact us.


Mike Cirba

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #550 on: August 31, 2011, 11:35:42 AM »
Patrick,

Once again, you're just flinging poo at the wall and seeing what will stick.  

Nothing has.

How big is a "scrub tree" -  40 to 70 feet?    ::)

If you have any actual facts, as opposed to pure conjecture, misinformation, and speculation, please present it.   You're just repeating the same misleading crap, and time has not diminished its odor.

By the way, regarding Tillinghast, by January of 1918, in the middle of winter, in the middle of World War I, five years after the inception of Pine Valley and still only 14 holes completed, it's unlikely that many of Crump's closest friends in the beginning were actually with him and/or in daily, or even regular contact at the end.   With Tilllinghast tending to his critically ill father at the time (he died roughly a month later), it's unlikely he was in regular contact with Crump, as well.  

If he did shoot himself in his house in Merchantville, which is probably likely if he was out with his sister and brother in law the night before, then Tillinghast would have no reason at all to doubt the family's story of sudden death that was reported the next day in the newspapers.

It's also probably why Alan Wilson spoke of the sadness and guilt of Crump's closest friends, mourning the passing of Crump with the words; " we who had advised so much and helped so little".  


As regards NGLA, read it again...it's very straightforward.

The company agreed to sell CBM 205 acres and because the boundaries of the golf course were yet undetermined the company agreed to let CBM locate the holes anywhere he wanted within 205 assumed contiguous acres of the the 450 acre property that had never previously been surveyed.   That took place in December 1906.  



After that agreement, reported as CBM "securing" the land, he ("We") THEN ("Again") studied the contours earnestly, picking those which fit in with the classical holes he had in mind, "AFTER WHICH WE STAKED OUT THE LAND WE WANTED".  

As all those reports from December 1906 and January 1907 tell us, that process took place over the first several months of 1907, with construction beginning in the spring.

By the way, what do you think a "survey" consisted of, if the property had never been "surveyed" prior?

During the NGLA thread, most folks on there, myself included, seemed to think that a "survey" related to the creation of a topographical map.   As Bryan Izatt showed with his discovery of a topo map of the general area in question prior to 1906, it's not true that a topo map wasn't created prior.  

But, as part of a larger land acquisition by Alvord involving thousands of acres, the specific property known as Sebonac Neck had never been "surveyed" prior to determine it's dimensions and boundaries.

That's what CBM was referring to in his book, that's why they used the general estimate of "450 acres" and it's also the original reason he hired Seth Raynor.

A property survey is a sketch or map of a property showing its boundaries and other physical features. Residential property survey reports also show the relative location of a house, shed, other building and fences on the property, and it usually includes the position of any public or municipal easements. Property surveys are done for a number of reasons; they may be required by local law or ordinance whenever property changes ownership. In the U.S., property surveys must be done by a professional surveyor who is licensed in the state where the property is located. Residential property surveys can be very simple or highly complex; be sure you know the requirements for your situation.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 01:26:44 PM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #551 on: August 31, 2011, 04:31:06 PM »

Tom M,

Didn't Crump buy the land in October 1912? How could he have possibly first seen it less than three months earlier?


Jim,

A good friend of mine was riding down the NJ Turnpike, saw some land nearby, stopped his car, called the broker for the land, and bought it the next day.

It's not like GAC entered a bidding war for that property, and, there was but one seller.


Pat,

Was he planning to spend the rest of his life building a golf course on it? If so, I'm surprised he would jump on it so quickly. If not, what was he planning to do with the land?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #552 on: August 31, 2011, 04:32:44 PM »
When CBM left Ardmore in late June they agreed to make the purchase as soon as possible. They made the initial transaction in mid-December.



"Why would it take longer than two months?"


Seriosly, it takes 2 to 3 months to buy a 1/4 quarter acre lot in this day and age.



I don't think the two situations are comparable for obvious reasons.



Which two situations? Merion and PV? Or PV and me buying a small house for my family?

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #553 on: August 31, 2011, 08:15:25 PM »
If nothing else Mike Cirba is living proof that some people do not learn from their mistakes.  This has got to be the sixth or seventh thread where he has thrown out one of his idiotic theories on NGLA as if it were a matter of fact.  In most or all of the previous occasions he has been proven wrong, but he just slides under a rock for a while and then slithers out with the same poison a few months later.

To summarize:  One of the revolutionary aspects of NGLA was that the course was routed prior to the land having been chosen.  It was not routed by contour map but by careful study of the land.  Much of the routing had been discussed in the papers prior to the land even having been purchased.  Scotland's Gift sets it all out in chronological order but of course Mike neglects to include the next portion where it says they purchased the property

1.  There were 450 or so acres available on Sebonac Neck.
2.  CBM and HJW spent two days on horseback inspecting the property andy studying the contours and determined that they wanted the land if they could get it at a reasonable price.
3.  The land company agreed to sell them 205 out of the 450 acres at a reasonable price, and let M&W choose the acres to suit their purposes.
4.  CBM and HJW earnestly studied the contours and figured out where the holes would go, and staked out the land they wanted.
5.  After staking out the land they wanted, CBM and HJW acquired on option of on the property, leaving wiggle room for the final boundaries to be determined later.  
6.  At that point surveying was done of the holes, and a contour map may have been created, but I am not so sure.  All of the contour readings of which I am aware are basically centerline elevation change readings, as if the survey came AFTER the holes were routed.      

It is that simple.  They came up with the rough routing BEFORE THEY OPTIONED THE PROPERTY, and BEFORE THEY HAD CONTOUR MAPS CREATED.  It is absolutely ridiculous that Mike is pulling this crap again, as if his view was accepted.  It wasn't.

Here is what Max Behr said about NGLA:

The ideal method was followed at the National. First the right sort of territory was found. Then the course was roughly sketched out using all the best features of the landscape.  Then enough land (about 205 acres) was bought to embrace all the necessary features. And in actually laying out the course (which really laid itself out to a large extent) no concession was made to economy in the use of land. Even so a considerable part of the 205 acres is not touched by the course and is available for other purposes. And there you have the solution of the whole business.

First the found the course.

But this thread is about Pine Valley, and I'll not revisit this except to the extent I just did.  To those who might be reading and hoping to learn something, just know that Cirba gets most things wrong most of the time, and the more adamant he is, the more wrong he usually is.   He is a great example of why partisan cheerleaders do not make the best researchers.
________________________________________

Jim Sullivan,

Contrary to Mike's claim, the Merion purchase is incomparable to the Pine Valley situation, for numerous reasons.  For example, at the time site committee recommended the purchase,  HDC did not control all of the property.  Namely, they had not yet secured or purchased the Dallas land, and that purchase was not completed until much closer to the time of the sale.  The consolidation of the land was apparently a precursor to the transaction taking place (HDC couldn't sell land they didn't own or control) and that did not happen until November (if memory serves.)     Also, there were funding issues -- Merion had to raise the money and HDC was under capitalized to exercise their options on the rest of the land an develop the property.  So Merion had to work out a way to not only fund the golf course, but to fund HDC as well.   (One paper reported that funding issues delayed the deal, and as we know Lloyd and a few others ultimately had to step in and bridge the deal. There are other differences, but again, THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT PINE VALLEY.

__________________________________________________________________

As to the general question of using contour maps in the planning, I believe Willie Dunn had been using them going well back into the early 1890's.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2011, 08:17:19 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #554 on: August 31, 2011, 08:38:34 PM »
So you're saying it's not surprising for a guy to see a piece of land for the first time and study it enough to know he would build hs dream golf course on it and make settlement with a corporation all within three months David?

Mike Cirba

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #555 on: August 31, 2011, 10:20:10 PM »
David,

Sorry, but that is not what CBM wrote, nor was it what was recorded and written contemporaneously by multiple Dec 1906 accounts quoting CBM and you know that.

It's ok...I know it's very difficult for you when contemporaneous accounts inconveniently pop up to trump your superior logic that discovers things no one else has in a century but I'm rather sure you ego is big enough to absorb the shock.

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #556 on: August 31, 2011, 10:28:15 PM »
Mike (and David),

That particular debate on NGLA (and Merion) all hinges on the exact meaning of the word(s) "Undetermined or Not Yet Determined"...that's it in my opinion.

I agree with David on the meaning at both courses...but I thought this was about Pine Valley...

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #557 on: August 31, 2011, 10:39:14 PM »
David,

Sorry, but that is not what CBM wrote, nor was it what was recorded and written contemporaneously by multiple Dec 1906 accounts quoting CBM and you know that.

It's ok...I know it's very difficult for you when contemporaneous accounts inconveniently pop up to trump your superior logic that discovers things no one else has in a century but I'm rather sure you ego is big enough to absorb the shock.

The 1906 account? You post articles like they are going out of style. Why not post the 1906 account?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #558 on: September 01, 2011, 12:09:44 AM »
Patrick,

Once again, you're just flinging poo at the wall and seeing what will stick.  
Nothing has.

You always make these derogatory statements when things aren't going your way.


How big is a "scrub tree" -  40 to 70 feet?    ::)

If you were really familiar with Pine Valley, you'd know the answer.


If you have any actual facts, as opposed to pure conjecture, misinformation, and speculation, please present it.  
You're just repeating the same misleading crap, and time has not diminished its odor.

Are you out of your mind ?
YOUR man, AWT stated this in the 01-13-13 article YOU POSTED

What a joke, you post an article to prove your point, YET, when there's information in the same article that refutes your position, you claim that I'm presenting false facts.  On repeated occassions you've made the same mistake.


By the way, regarding Tillinghast, by January of 1918, in the middle of winter, in the middle of World War I, five years after the inception of Pine Valley and still only 14 holes completed, it's unlikely that many of Crump's closest friends in the beginning were actually with him and/or in daily, or even regular contact at the end.

That's not true, that's just another wild, irresponsible statement on your behalf, one without an iota of supporting evidence.
Why do you just make things up.
A look at the list of initial members will disprove your point.
 

With Tilllinghast tending to his critically ill father at the time (he died roughly a month later), it's unlikely he was in regular contact with Crump, as well.  

That's nonsense that you gleened from Phil in his email to all of us.
My Mother was critically ill for years and I carried on my responsibilities to my wife and children and continued my contacts with my friends, business associates and others.  Stop the lame excuses and wild irresponsible claims


If he did shoot himself in his house in Merchantville, which is probably likely if he was out with his sister and brother in law the night before, then Tillinghast would have no reason at all to doubt the family's story of sudden death that was reported the next day in the newspapers.

Are you nuts, that's even more reason to be suspicious.]
He was out and seemed normal, but the next day a tooth infection suddenly killed him.
If his tooth infection was so bad, why was he out and about enjoying himself as was reported.

And, by the way, YOU CLAIMED THAT HE KILLED HIMSELF IN THE WOODS AT PV WITH A SHOTGUN.
How many different stories are you going to tell us.
You make crap up, and when it's refuted, you change stories, instead of "manning up" and admitting you were full of crap


It's also probably why Alan Wilson spoke of the sadness and guilt of Crump's closest friends, mourning the passing of Crump with the words; " we who had advised so much and helped so little".  

That's irrelevant.

Stay on topic, Pine Valley.

Or, are you admitting defeat with respect to your attempt to preserve the myths.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #559 on: September 01, 2011, 12:12:35 AM »
Jim, David & Tom,

Mike Cirba is trying desperately to divert this thread away from Pine Valley.

Please ignore his attempts and remain on topic.

Thanks

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #560 on: September 01, 2011, 12:17:37 AM »

Tom M,

Didn't Crump buy the land in October 1912? How could he have possibly first seen it less than three months earlier?


Jim,

A good friend of mine was riding down the NJ Turnpike, saw some land nearby, stopped his car, called the broker for the land, and bought it the next day.

It's not like GAC entered a bidding war for that property, and, there was but one seller.


Pat,

Was he planning to spend the rest of his life building a golf course on it?

Hard to tell.
Maybe, maybe not.

But, it's apparent that his desire to build this course received his overwhelming attention.


If so, I'm surprised he would jump on it so quickly. If not, what was he planning to do with the land?

We don't know the full details regarding his rejection or inability to purchase Absecon or Browns Mills,

One reason to jump on it, might be the price.

At $ 50 an acre that's only $ 9,200 for the entire parcel.

It would be interesting to see what other properties in and about Clementon sold for in late 1912.



DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #561 on: September 01, 2011, 02:49:39 AM »
So you're saying it's not surprising for a guy to see a piece of land for the first time and study it enough to know he would build hs dream golf course on it and make settlement with a corporation all within three months David?

No.  I didn't write anything like that.   Only setting Mike's misrepresentation straight.

_______________________________________________________

Mike Cirba, 

It is a waste of time to discuss anything with you.  You are too emotionally involved to think reasonably and too dimwitted to even realize it.

This thread is about Pine Valley.  Leave your misrepresentations about NGLA and Merion to the threads you will inevitably start to further muddy their histories. 

Good Luck with that. 
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #562 on: September 01, 2011, 06:58:33 AM »
Well, when every post from these guys starts by insulting me and then neglects to provide any factual information, nothing but more wasteful speculation, I'm pretty confident that I'm not the only one rejecting their specious, misleading theories.

And David is so out of any facts that he quotes Max Behr's brief summary from several years after the fact from an article about how much land to buy for a golf course, but the funny thing is that Behr wasn't there when all this was going on at NGLA.   David knows that, of course, as well, but is only to happy to misrepresent again.  

So, I'll continue on something relevant to the topic.   It's clear Patrick doesn't want to talk topos because he doesn't have a clue about Pine Valley's topos.   For instance, if Crump had a topo he was working from prior to 1913, why would he get a topo map made in 1913?   Why would Tillinghast tell us in January 1913 that once the property was topographically charted, he felt it would prove to be not as daunting as it might look if Crump was already working from a topo?

Duh.

And since this thread is supposed to be about topos, and their first usage, why do we think CBM had Raynor make him a "contour map"?  Related, why do we think CBM credited Raynor with helping him in the purchase of the property?  

Talking about being able to see, if CBM supposedly had the magic to route a course in two days on overgrown land that one couldn't even traverse except on pony at NGLA (as Patrick contends), why did he tell Merion four years later that without a contour map he couldn't even tell them if they had enough room for a golf course on their wide-open farmland site?

For that matter, if Raynor's contour map wasn't already completed at NGLA prior to CBM's blueprint routing, then where did the elevation change markers down the middle of each hole come from?   They were part of the original map rendering, and not added later.

To get back to facts, let's start with someone who WAS there.




Jim,

Why would Crump purchase 184 acres without having previously routed the golf course?

At a time when the prevailing, written wisdom of guys like CBM and Max Behr was that a golf course standard was around 120 acres, how is this any different from CBM buying 205 acres at NGLA without having located 18 tees, fairways and greens?

Why can you accept the obvious truth of one and not the other...especially when the articles stating CBM had secured 205 "undetermined" acres tell us that he and his committee were going to spend the next several months determining which template holes to build and then staking out the course?

How is that different from what Crump did at PV?

I think the contemporaneous records and the written histories in all of these cases show that the properties were first considered in terms of soils, size, transportation access, and then general natural features that could be used for golf holes, and then enough property secured out of larger tracts to encapsulate those natural features (in the case of NGLA and Merion with some boundaries of that purchase still undetermined), and then a routing taking place over several months followed by the final purchase.

The only difference at PV is that Crump likely skipped the initial "securing" and just went ahead and purchased enough land outright that he knew he could fit a golf course on it.   CBM purchased that much land (205 acres) because he originally intended to incorporate building lots for his founders.




« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 07:25:19 AM by MCirba »

Mike Cirba

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #563 on: September 01, 2011, 09:42:17 AM »
Tom MacWood,

Per your request for the 1906 articles, there are a slew of them documenting the NGLA project from inception to completion at this link;

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,47100.0.html

In December, 1906 when Macdonald secured the property, a number of articles came out detailing the next steps.   Here is a representative one that was published the day following Macdonald's announcement;




Macdonald is quoted and spells out the coming activities over the next five months in this one;

« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 09:57:18 AM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #564 on: September 01, 2011, 12:57:00 PM »
Pat,

Regarding your post #560; I was asking about your friend, not about GAC. Did your friend make his impulse buy in order to build a golf course? If not then what is/was his plan for it?


David,

I think you were responding to/participating in my disagreement with Tom Macwood regarding a 2 - 3 month turnaround from site discovery to completed acquisition. You pointed out all the reasons Merions acquisition was stretched to as long as 6 months after I had used it as a contemporary example.



Mike,

I think the CBM paragraph describing the process makes it clear they knew very well where the tees and greens were going but were also happy to retain latitude on the final width...

Mike Cirba

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #565 on: September 01, 2011, 01:02:04 PM »
Jim,

How would CBM know where his 18 tees and greens were going to be and only focused on width when he was quoted as saying, "Distances and the holes to be reproduced will be decided on by the committee in the next five months", in December 1906?

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #566 on: September 01, 2011, 01:08:37 PM »
A straight hole is shorter than a dogleg...

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #567 on: September 01, 2011, 01:39:49 PM »
David,

I think you were responding to/participating in my disagreement with Tom Macwood regarding a 2 - 3 month turnaround from site discovery to completed acquisition. You pointed out all the reasons Merions acquisition was stretched to as long as 6 months after I had used it as a contemporary example.

I was offering no opinion on how long the process took at Pine Valley.  Just pointing out that Merion's acquisition is not a good point of comparison.
______________________________________________________


Just ignore Cirba and his idiocy regarding CBM.  While those articles have been explained to him repeatedly he refuses to consider them in the light they were written.  

Perhaps we should all chip in and hire a little yellow bus to take Mike to his own "special" website.

Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #568 on: September 01, 2011, 02:06:12 PM »
A straight hole is shorter than a dogleg...

Jim,

And, a par three is shorter than a par four or five, right?   So, if the holes to be reproduced had not even been determined yet, with the exception of a couple of locations for template holes that were located based on natural features, how can you say the routing was completed?

Perhaps we are disagreeing to by a matter of degrees, based on how we each define "routing".

David hedges his bets and says the had a "rough routing".   From everything I've read from those first few months, I think I'd accent the word "rough".   Frankly, I'm not really sure what exactly a "rough routing" is exactly and seems to leave lots of room for interpretation.

On the other extreme, Patrick argues that they magically routed all 18 holes, tees and greens on ponies looking over the scrub bushes in a day or two.

For my purposes, I'm defining routing the course as determining the general location, length and direction of each hole, how they fit together, their estimated yardages...really the whole trip from the first tee through the "route" of all 18 holes and greensites.  The routing as I see it would be the "to be" plan, with the understanding that locations of bunkers, etc., would all be subject to change within the greater construct.

Is that what you consider routing, or is your understanding different?


David,

Just because you tried to explain those NGLA articles away doesn't mean that anyone except the usual suspects actually bought it.

Some of us aren't buying the myth and are actually still trying to understand the process as it happened, including what Raynor's original"survey" entailed, as well as subsequently when and why he was hired to create a "contour map" if the course was already magically routed on ground perfectly suited to reproducing the template holes and features CBM envisioned.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 02:09:08 PM by MCirba »

JESII

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #569 on: September 01, 2011, 02:14:42 PM »
Mike,

In the context of NGLA, I think they knew where enough of the holes were going to be placed to determine within a very tight margin of error where there golf course was going to be before they agreed to buy the 205 acres. The tight margin of error is only in there because I'm defining the word "undetermined" as not yet finalized whereas I think you are defining it to be not yet contemplated.



Pat,

It seems to me your desire to keep this about Pine Valley is being addressed here. Isn't Mike trying to say NGLA was predated Pine Valley as a course primarily designed via topo map?

Patrick_Mucci

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #570 on: September 01, 2011, 02:55:25 PM »
Mike,

In the context of NGLA, I think they knew where enough of the holes were going to be placed to determine within a very tight margin of error where there golf course was going to be before they agreed to buy the 205 acres. The tight margin of error is only in there because I'm defining the word "undetermined" as not yet finalized whereas I think you are defining it to be not yet contemplated.

Pat,

It seems to me your desire to keep this about Pine Valley is being addressed here.
Isn't Mike trying to say NGLA was predated Pine Valley as a course primarily designed via topo map?

Jim,

If Mike's contention is that NGLA was designed primarily via topo map then he's trying to rewrite history.

That's just another wild, absurd, irresponsible statement on Mike's part, one that defies CBM's written word.

Next, Mike will be claiming that GAC shot himself in the woods at PV with a shotgun. i


Patrick_Mucci

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #571 on: September 01, 2011, 02:59:28 PM »
David, Tom & Jim,

Please, Please, Please stop discussing NGLA, it has no relevance to the PV thread.

Mike is just trying to create another of his absurd, uninformed diversions.

If you want to resurrect the NGLA thread that he started, please do so, but, don't engage in discussions regarding NGLA on this thread.

Thanks

Mike Cirba

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #572 on: September 01, 2011, 04:28:17 PM »
Patrick,

Why did CBM have Raynor make him a contour, or topographical map?

Why, if he simply eyeballed the land of NGLA to route the course as you contend, did he tell Merion that without a contour map he couldn't even tell them if the could create a first-class course on the land they were considering?  That was 4 years later...did he forget how to route by eyeballing it in the interim?

Jim is exactly correct that this is my point and directly related to your original question.

If you want to understand more about the first uses of topos, or about PV's topos in particular, the answers have been here all along and I'm awaiting you finally discussing the topic.

Jim,

We definitely differ by degree but I would say that although a lot of the general areas contemplated for golf on the property looked to have great potential, more than half of the specific final product golf holes were not yet envisioned?
« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 04:52:21 PM by MCirba »

DMoriarty

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #573 on: September 01, 2011, 04:49:34 PM »
Pat,

It seems to me your desire to keep this about Pine Valley is being addressed here. Isn't Mike trying to say NGLA was predated Pine Valley as a course primarily designed via topo map?

Jim, that is what Mike is trying to say, but him saying it (over and over again) doesn't make it so. Mike is just twisting and misrepresenting the record, playing it against itself.  He even had the nerve to misrepresent the early blueprint of NGLA as a contour map.  There are NO CONTOUR LINES ON THE MAP.  

This is what happens in every thread.  Mike gets some inane idea and like a black hole he sucks all the life out of these threads.  How many hundreds of pages have we wasted on Cirba's crazy tangents?    CBM told us how the process worked, in 1906 and again in Scotland's Gift, and Whigham told us to.  So did others.  He twists and changes the story, pretending that roughly locating the holes is the same thing as a detailed plan for construction.  They aren't the same at all. CBM described earnestly studying the site to locate the holes.  For Mike to call this a myth is  arrogant beyond the pale.   How can anyone be wrong so often yet still remain arrogant about every opinion?   Mike is the definition of a fool.  

Obviously CBM realized the importance of surveying a site to aid in construction, and obviously he used surveyor's maps extensively in constructing NGLA, the one's he acquired abroad and used to create many of the greens. And while Mike misrepresents it directly above, CBM first hired Raynor to survey the property. It wasn't until after this that CBM hired Raynor to create a contour map of the property.  By then the holes had been located. From the various early descriptions it sounds as if the original survey was either just a general survey or a centerline survey of the rough course, and the later contour map (if ever completed) was for construction and detail work.  As CBM described in Scotland's Gift and in the 1906 articles, they had already found the holes and roughly routed the course.

That said, CBM's comments at Merion and descriptions of how he worked with Raynor at NGLA and elsewhere indicate that he knew the importance of contour maps and did work off of survey and possibly contour maps at least when it came to the construction and the details of creating the course. By the time Pine Valley was started CBM had helped create a number of courses and I my guess is that survey's and/or contour maps were used in contracting most of them.  

Also, as I have said, I think contour maps had been in use for a couple of decades before Colt designed Pine Valley.  
___________________________________________________

Patrick,

I agree that Mike ought to be ignored.  He has nothing relevant to offer on NGLA and just throws out the same crap over and over again.  He is dead weight.  An anchor who keeps these threads from advancing.   Discussing anything with him is like golfing with a corpse.  Hit the ball, drag Cirba.  Hit the ball, drag Cirba.

But despite this, there is some evidence that CBM was using surveys in the construction process and probably for the detailed planning on the courses he was creating from or before NGLA.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 04:55:00 PM by DMoriarty »
Golf history can be quite interesting if you just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will.
--Tom MacWood (1958-2012)

Mike Cirba

Re: Pine Valley and Topos
« Reply #574 on: September 01, 2011, 04:54:47 PM »
David,

Some evidence??

CBM tells us he hired Raynor to do a contour map....how much more evidence do you need?

The rest of your usual insults...some were even slightly funny, which is a welcome change.

The rest, I simply consider the source and laugh harder.
« Last Edit: September 01, 2011, 04:59:22 PM by MCirba »