Pine Valley and Topos

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Please see the articles above in CBM's own words.   He wanted to reproduce all the most famous holes in the world "as near as possible"

Please also read what Whigham wrote in the eulogy.   If you have the book available I'd appreciate if you could copy the paragraph or two here.   Otherwise, I'll do it later when I get home.

I do enjoy the attempt at humor though..."Buffalo Breath"...too funny!  

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

As regards Pine Valley, didn't you note my pictorial which indeed shows how the terrain comes into view in the winter, despite any tall trees, in that the undergrowth goes dormant?

Although the photos are not taken from the tracks adjacent to PV in winter, you couldn't miss the rolling terrain once the undergrowth falls away.

This winter, if the inspiration strikes, I'll take a ladder and camera down the tracks in Clementon to emulate what it likely looked like.

Anything to get through the longish winters we've been having here in the northeast lately.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Don't worry I've looked at the words of those articles and dozen others. You know, I know and everyone else who has honestly looked into this subject understands what the original idea was...and it was never to make slavish copies of the originals. They would adapt the concepts to the given site. It was the architectural concepts that they wanted to copy, not the holes themselves. That was the most important aspect. And in some cases the adaptions were better than originals. CBM and Whigham believed their Alps was was better than original.....and that was in their own words.

Do you ever tire of twisting and misrepresenting these things for your own purposes? I would think at some point your curiosity and desire to find what really happened would eventually replace the lengths you have to go to to constantly defend these old myths. I can tell you from personal experience its more enjoyable and interesting to study and research history with an open mind.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I also received TEPaul's email on Ardmore Ave.

Is it your claim, as you stated above, that Ardmore Ave is sunk 3.5 feet below grade on the north and south side of Ardmore Ave.

Is it your further claim that the elevation at the 250 yard mark is constant from that point to the mid-point of the putting surface ?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I didn't need Tom's email to tell me that you were misrepresenting what those steps were used for.   It is very much like a haha in that area...I've looked at it in person in light of the original thread.  

You step down onto the road from the 10th fairway side, and as those steps and portion of the road visible on the 1st fairway side clearly shows, you walked up a few steps from the road to the green.

But yes, the fairway portions on both sides of the road were, and are, very close in elevation.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Speaking of purposeful misrepresentation meant to fool folks who have never been there, why would you knowingly misrepresent what those steps are there for?  

You KNOW that even today Ardmore Avenue is a bit sunken from the adjacent terrain on BOTH sides, about 3.5 feet on the 10th fairway side and about 3 feet on the 1st fairway side.   In fact, it's almost a bit like a "Ha-Ha", or a sunken road not visible until you're right up on it from the 10th fairway side.

In fact, you also know that the 1st fairway side is actually a slight bit lower than the 10th fairway side.  

Given that the original 10th green was elevated a bit you couldn't have missed it from anywhere beyond the bottom slope of the 10th fairway, perhaps 150 yards at most from the tee..

The 10th green was elevated ?
Didn't you claim it was below grade /
How do you know what the grade levels were ?

Yet, you portray those steps as coming up from the terrain on the 10th fairway side to the unknowing,

That's absolutely untrue.
And, everybody knows that Ardmore ave bisected the hole.
You even posted a diagram reflecting same, so how could anybody be unknowing as you allege ?

instead of coming from the sunken roadway of Ardmore Avenune.   Why is that?

It's that way because you falsely portray it that way.

What happened to Ardmore Ave when it rained ?
Did it become unpassible due to its sunken nature ?
If if was sunken, and surrounded by higher land, the water had to have drained onto Armore Ave from both sides of the road.

Besides, Robert Lesley already told us what principles of the Alps they wanted to reproduce there...not blindness, but a approach shot requiring a carry over a cross bunker.   Why don't you guys believe him?

The two aren't exclusive of one another.
Just take a look at NGLA and Yale.

Instead, you and David are trying to make a molehill into a mountain! 



If Ardmore Ave preceeded the golf course at Merion, why would the road be sunken ?
Why wouldn't the road be at grade ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I didn't need Tom's email to tell me that you were misrepresenting what those steps were used for.   It is very much like a haha in that area...I've looked at it in person in light of the original thread. 

Then why didn't you respond prior to the disemination of his email ?  

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I didn't respond last night because between that whopper and the equally preposterous one claiming you could see the flagstick from the 3rd at NGLA I realized you would say anything to sway those who had never been to either place.

Unfortunately, I only had my blackberry available watching the Phillies game when I read it and wasn't going to type a response on the tiny keys.   Instead, I simply noted that you guys were out of ammo and it was a nice place to wrap things up, back where they started on the original 10th hole lo those many years ago.

And yes, I bet that road was a muddy mess when it rained, although it wouldn't drain north/south, but downhill west to east towards Cobb's Creek, just like it does today.

When I see you, I won't mention that you're wrong on virtually all of these historical issues, either.   Perhaps we can discuss something we agree on, like the greatness of MR's green contours?

[Mike Cirba]

As regards what Findlay wrote about the hole in his Opening Day article;




Here's the approach from the fairway to the 17th green at Prestwick, over the giant dune;




Now, I love Alex Findlay's courses and I probably have played more of them than anyone on the planet, but...

I have to ask...did they have LSD back in 1912?  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I didn't respond last night because between that whopper and the equally preposterous one claiming you could see the flagstick from the 3rd at NGLA I realized you would say anything to sway those who had never been to either place.

Mike, your lack of familiarity with NGLA is astounding, causing me to wonder about your familiarity with Merion and Pine Valley.
Would you like to wager on one's ability to see the flagstick from the fairway on # 3 at NGLA ?
I'll give you two to one odds, and you can syndicate your bet, getting as many people and as much cash together as you can find.
I'm certain that Jeff Brauer, Sean Arble and others will send ample funds in support of your position.



Unfortunately, I only had my blackberry available watching the Phillies game when I read it and wasn't going to type a response on the tiny keys.   Instead, I simply noted that you guys were out of ammo and it was a nice place to wrap things up, back where they started on the original 10th hole lo those many years ago.

Why weren't you watching the Yankee game ?

And yes, I bet that road was a muddy mess when it rained, although it wouldn't drain north/south, but downhill west to east towards Cobb's Creek, just like it does today.

But, Mike, if the road was built prior to the golf course, wouldn't the engineers build it at grade to avoid the road flooding ?
Why build a "sunken" road that would be prone to flooding ?

When I see you, I won't mention that you're wrong on virtually all of these historical issues, either.  
Perhaps we can discuss something we agree on, like the greatness of MR's green contours?

Yes, on that there's no debate.
I just hope the weather co-operates.

The flooding in the area is the worst I've seen in a long, long time.

Let me know when you're finished syndicating your bet.
Bring the cash with you when we next meet
I can guarantee you that you'll get better gas mileage on the way home since your car and your wallet will be much lighter..

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

I don't know why the road was sunken, but it was sunken then as evident in your picture and remains sunken today.   You're not suggesting they moved earth to create an elevated golf course across the entire section north of Ardmore Avenue, are you?    

Perhaps it was sunken because it functioned as a HaHa, as many farmland roads from that era were.   Recall that the "Johnson Farm" was on both sides of that thoroughfare.

In either case, thank God it's below grade...it would be awfully unsightly today with all of the traffic.

Noun   1.   sunk fence - a ditch with one side being a retaining wall; used to divide lands without defacing the landscape
ha-ha, haw-haw

[Patrick_Mucci]

Speaking of fun and frivolity, I do have to admit there is some good humor in correcting Pat's repeated nonsense and unfounded statements, although I can't imagine why he'd want to fool people who have never been privileged to visit the courses in question...it seems sort of mean in a way.

For instance, he tells us that you can see the flag on the green at NGLA from the far right side of the fairway.   Technically, he's correct.
Mike, I'm not just "technically correct", I'm visually correct.

You see, if you can do a Bubba Watson and carry the cross bunker on the right side of the fairway at 320 yards from the back tee, which CBM located to threaten layup second shots, and let it run out to about 350 yards then yes, you can pass the mountain up the right side and see the green.  

Mike, you're lack of familiarity with NGLA is showing again.

The carry, from the back tee, an elevated tee, over the far right corner of the diagonal bunker is 220 yards, not 320 as you misrepresented.
Why do you make this stuff up.

Ideally, most golfers attempt to hit a 250 yard drive to the base of the hill/end of fairway, just short of the center bunker in the hill, if the hole is cut behind the hill.  If the hole is cut to the right side of the green, the prefered tee shot is down the right side giving the golfer a perfect view of the green and flagstick.  From the DZ I described above, the approach shot is 150 yards from the front of the center bunker in the base of the hill.

As you can understand, since you're so far off base on NGLA and the play of the holes at NGLA, I have to question your familiarity with the holes at Merion and Pine Valley and the play of the holes at Merion and Pine Valley, especially 100 years ago.

Anyone who did that back in 1910 was hitting their third or more shot.


Don't forget, that tee is elevated far above the DZ in the fairway below.

This from a guy who just told us that most players couldn't reach 250 yards back then from the elevated tee of Merion's 10th.  

Again, your lack of familiarity undermines your position.
The fairway on # 10 at Merion rises up to stop the ball, whereas the fairway just over the bunker falls away from the golfer promoting more roll.
So, at Merion, you're hitting into an upslope, but, at NGLA you're hitting into a downslope.
Surely you understand the difference.

Earlier he told us that one could not see the land at Pine Valley from the train because of the undergrowth and tall trees.

I wasn't alone in that view.  Simon Carr, Crump's closest friend, described the area as forested by pines and oaks with undergrowth so thick it was jungle like.

In that regard, let's look at one of my favorite courses, Cobb's Creek, another course with dense undergrowth and tall trees.
My thread isn't about Cobb's Creek, it's about Pine Valley.
If you want to start a thread on Cobb's Creek, please, don't let me stop you.

From slightly further back to the original sixth tee across the creek, one can see in the following photo with even the early spring undergrowth already starting the landform is clearly visible through the trees.

Again, Cobb's Creek has nothing to do with Pine Valley.
The topography is vastly different as are the views, or rather, lack of views from the RR tracks

Here's a video from the 17th tee, which unfortunately doesn't show the hole, but gives some sense of this wonderfully delightful man, who was US Publinks Champion Joe Coble's caddie back in the 1920s.

Irrelevant.

From that same tee, here are a few shots from early spring, showing all the land forms clearly despite tall trees, simply because the undergrowth is largely dormant.


All irrelevant as the land forms are vastly different.

Of course, this is only common sense, but Pat argues these points so vociferously that I wonder if he isn't simply pulling all of our collective legs.

Let's put it this way, you have as much chance as "visualizing" a golf course from a speeding train as it passes the land that would become PV as you do with you pulling the wool over everyone's eyes with pictures from a site not remotely similar to PV.

Back to the Merion discussion.

Yes, the mound behind the original 10th green served dual purposes, including acting as a hazard from the 1st tee as well as protecting folks on the 10th green.

I never knew that the 1st hole at Garden City was one of CBM's template holes!    

That's why you have so much to learn.
You should read the article C A R E F U L L Y


And finally, this 1923 article talks about the changing of the 10th, 11th, 12th, and 13th holes.   It would certainly suggest that Hugh Wilson was actively involved at the time Merion was looking to purchase property for the course in Ardmore.

What do you mean, it "suggests that" ?  Either it states he was or it's silent on the issue.  That doesn't suggest anything.

  
It also speaks to the fact that their inability to get the parcel of land they wanted below the creek (which was part of a much larger estate) resulted in the less than ideal holes around the turn.


Please READ the articles before you post them.

The article is obviously flawed since it declares that you had to drive across Ardmore Ave when playing the 10th and that's not the case.

In addition, the article states that the primary motivation for change had to do with Ardmore Ave, and NOT the architectural features of the hole.

Your lack of familiarity with these matters is alarming, especially since you're the one posting them.

Joe, as usual, you do a great job in finding these articles.

Unfortunately, I think the great majority of newspaper articles on these golf courses are flawed, just like Mike's ability to reason.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

How tall would you say the flagstick is on NGLA's Alps?  

And I wasn't talking about the carry bunker from the tee...I was referring to the cross bunker at 320 up the right side for those bailing out on their second shots.   You can see it out there in the bailout zone.



Here's what CBM and Whigham had to say about the Alps in 1914.

It is impossible to reach the green in two unless both
the tee-shot and the second are real big golfing strokes,
hit in the middle of the club, and that can be said of
very few holes with a maximum distance of only 413
yards.

[DMoriarty]

Patrick,

I've been in your shoes, and I see now why so many people have asked me why I would even bother to try and reason with someone with a total lack of scruples and mental acuity like Cirba.  It it is just a waste of time.  He is obviously again shilling for his buddies behind the scenes, which is fortunate in a way because they are not so dense.  Unfortunately they are as least as sleazy.  

A bit back Cirba quoted -quoted - one of the articles as saying that there was an "'eight foot rise'" between the bunker and green.  He wasn't paraphrasing or interpreting, he put in in eight foot rise in marks to indicate that he was copying the article verbatim.    

But the article says no such thing.   Nothing about an "'eight foot rise'" between the bunker and tee.  In fact, what the article actually indicates is that the opposite; the ground slopes as it does on the left and in back, down to the green.  From the article:  "Beyond the trap the ground slopes about eight feet to the green.   The same slope is noted on the left side and in the rear which runs up against the back of the high mound seen at the first hole."

So according to the article the ground slopes eight feet to the green, the same slope as at the left and back.  
- Was there an "eight foot rise" to the green from the high backing mound?  Of course not. The ground sloped downs toward the green!
- Was there an "eight foot rise" leading up to the green from the left.  Of course not!  The diagram accompanying the blurb shows an arrow from the left toward the green, indicating the ground sloped down toward the green.  The photos show the same.  
- If the ground in front was like the ground to the back and to the left as the article claims, then there was a pronounced slope down to the green.    
So as I have said, and the other articles such as the NYtimes article suggest, the green was in a bowl, sunken well below the surrounds on at least three sides, including the front.  

This was in line with CBM's requirements for the hole - a blind green in a hollow with a tall bank behind, and a pronounced downslope from the fronting bunker to into the green.

When you guys talk about blindness, you keep trying to place the green on the level of the ground as it is now, when the photos and descriptions indicate that the green was sunken well below the surrounds. Where do you suppose they got the dirt for that giant rear mound anyway.  Laughably, Brauer suggests they shipped it in.  It seems more likely it came from the hole they dug for the green.  from the hole they dug for the green.  

Why do we put up with this sleaziness?  The false quotes, the idiotic, self-serving interpretations, the smarminess?

(While the sleaziness of the falsely quoting the article is pure Cirba, I should mention in fairness to him that he did not come up with this ridiculous notion of the upslope between tee and green on his own. He is just parroting his mentors.)
______________________________________________

As for Mike's speculation that the road was sunken it is just that. Self-serving speculation.  But again he is just parroting his mentors.  I say prove it.  

By the way in the photo with the steps, one can see golfers standing in the bunker and  leaning forward against the front it, and looking down at the action on the green.   Where is Cirba's 8 foot rise up to the green?

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Here's the photo of the green.

Perhaps you can point out for us 1) the 8 foot rise between the front bunker and the green the article refers to, and 2) the invisible elevation change between the road up to the surrounding golf course requiring steps you apparently can't see.

I kept it at original size so you'll have to use the scroll bar, but I wanted to be sure it was big enough so I'm not accused of diminishing that 8 foot abrupt bank between the bunker and green.

Thanks.




While you're at it, perhaps you can also show us why the 8 foot rise in front isn't blocking or impeding our view of the back bunker, which starts just above the green surface behind it, from down in the valley just above the 9th green?




I agree the hole was intended to be an "Alps", very loosely, and in the principle that Robert Lesley told us...requiring an approach over a cross  bunker.

But, the flagstick would have been visible from the landing zone, and the back of the green as well.

And as far as the road, anyone who has even been to Merion should be able to tell you that the road is sunken a few feet on both sides of Ardmore Avenue in that section.   Didn't you say you visited once?

Here's the article you referred to.  

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I just re-read your posts and realized that after your first batch of insults I moved on too quickly.

I thought you were arguing that there was an eight foot rise between the bunker and the green which obscured the view of the green, which is why I questioned that article in that regard in the first place.  

I would agree that the green sat in a bit of a bowl and was a bit of a punchbowl.

I would agree that the green was not elevated eight feet beyond the bunker, but once on the green the ground did slope up pretty quickly to the back.

I would not agree that the elevation change would make either the flagstick or the back of the green invisible from the landing area.

All of that is pretty self-evident in these photos.

And as far as the road, anyone who has even been to Merion should be able to tell you that the road is sunken a few feet on both sides of Ardmore Avenue in that section.   Didn't you say you visited once?

[Patrick_Mucci]

While you're at it, perhaps you can also show us why the 8 foot rise in front isn't blocking or impeding our view of the back bunker, which starts just above the green surface behind it, from down in the valley just above the 9th green?

Mike,

Look at the tremendous elevation of the people in the foreground.
The green sits well, well below them.

Your own photo shows the green sitting down, well below the spectators.



I agree the hole was intended to be an "Alps", very loosely, and in the principle that Robert Lesley told us...requiring an approach over a cross  bunker.

But, the flagstick would have been visible from the landing zone, and the back of the green as well.

I disagree with your statement.
How can you say that when ALL of the contemporaneous accounts state that the hole replicated the blind shot which characterizes an Alps hole ?

And as far as the road, anyone who has even been to Merion should be able to tell you that the road is sunken a few feet on both sides of Ardmore Avenue in that section.   Didn't you say you visited once?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I agree the green was sunken a bit, I've said as much.

However, if you can see the entirety of the back bunker from down in the valley below the 10th tee, you would certainly be able to see the back of the green as well as the flagstick from any hole location on that green.

And no, ALL of the articles didn't say it was blind.   Not even Findlay's.   The only one that suggested it was from a NY Times article David found, but none of them say you couldn't see the flagstick.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

How tall would you say the flagstick is on NGLA's Alps?  

Six feet or so.

And I wasn't talking about the carry bunker from the tee...I was referring to the cross bunker at 320 up the right side for those bailing out on their second shots.   You can see it out there in the bailout zone.

Mike, the hole plays seriously downhill, AND as you can see from the picture you posted, the land over the cross bunker slopes away from the tee, giving the golfer a "turbo" boost.

The bunker you reference is but 110 yards from the green.

In your photo it looks like you can see the right side bunker and bank of the green and your photo isn't even taken from the DZ over the right side of the cross bunker.  If it was, you could see the right side of the green and the flagstick located on that portion of the green



Here's what CBM and Whigham had to say about the Alps in 1914.

It is impossible to reach the green in two unless both
the tee-shot and the second are real big golfing strokes,
hit in the middle of the club, and that can be said of
very few holes with a maximum distance of only 413

So ?
You have to hit two good shots, just like you do at # 8, 10, 11, 12, 15 and 16.
The hole is currently 426 red tees, 411 green tees and 378 white tees.
And again, the tee sits high up above the fairway.
yards.

[DMoriarty]

Cirba falsely quotes an article and claims an "'eight foot rise'" between the bunker and the green.  I call him on it an point out that the article was really describing "an eight foot slope" down to the green like on the left and in back, and he scolds me for claiming their is an eight foot rise?  

This is what we are dealing with here. The guy can't even keep track of his own misrepresentations. Makes you wonder who is writing his posts for him now.

Where there an "eight foot rise" to the green as Cirba and his mentors have claimed, then the green would not have been blind.   But there was no rise, there was a fall.  A slope down.  A hollow.  Just as CBM described.  

Now even Cirba admits that the green was in "a bit of a bowl."  A bit of a bowl?   Yesterday, "beyond the trap the ground slopes about eight feet to the green" meant there was an "eight foot rise" in elevation.  He even disingenuously uses quotations.   But now that he knows it was a slope down, what happened to the eight foot elevation change?

And he has the nerve to claim that the photo makes his blind speculations about what was visible and what wasn't visible "pretty self-evident?"  He is a charlatan.  

The photo is take from the left and shows the bank mound and the spectators standing on the right. Those on the right appear to be standing on ground a substantial upslope or on mounding, and the ground on the right appears higher or rising towards the road.  

The photo does not show any of the crap Mike claimed.   It does not show what is in front of the green.  It does not show the fronting bunker.  It does not even show the entirety of the front of the green.  It it does not show any mounding short of the road.  It does not show how much the land rose from short of the road to past the road.   It does not show what would be visible from the landing area, well short of the road and possibly on the upslope.

In other words, when Cirba told us that proof of all of his claims was "pretty self-evident" he was lying.  Making shit up to pretend he had factual support when did not.    He does this again and again.

 The photo tells us nothing about whether the hole was blind from the approach.

Why do you lie like this, Mike?   Why do you pretend the photo supports your claims when it doesn't?

_____________________________________

Why are we even discussing this?   At the time it existence, the approach was described as blind.   Cirba and his endless lies and idiotic interpretations cannot change that.

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

Are you juicing these days?   No wonder there's so much 'roid rage on this thread!  

Unless you're driving it about 340 down the right side you're not going to see the flagstick that's in the hole on the green.

From down in the valley of the approach area...no way.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

I told you my misinterpretation of what you were saying as well as the article.  If you were even a reasonably decent and civil person, I'd apologize for reading too quickly, but it's getting difficult to see any factual statements behind your continued flurry of angry personal insults.

And David, here is what I wrote....I never claimed there was an 8 foot rise to the green, but assumed that the article said so.   In fact, I questioned the article.   So please stop lying...er...misrepresenting what I wrote..

The article mentions an "eight foot rise" from the bunker to the green", which is strange as one sees in the next picture.   Perhaps the bunker was eight foot deep, but unless one is going from the road to the top of the backing mound, it's hard to see how that is accurate, as seen in this 1916 picture from the left side of the green.

As far as what the pictures show..

You can see how far the green sits below the back bunker on this photo.



If some large mound was obstructing the front you'd never see the entirety of the back bunker from down in the valley.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Are you juicing these days?   No wonder there's so much 'roid rage on this thread!  

Not at all.
I do remember days when carrying the right side of the diagonal bunker and sometimes even right of the diagonal bunker was a challenge, a foolish one unless the hole was cut on the right plateau.

A nice draw down the right side is aided by a wonderful turbo boost, leaving one no more than 150 from the green, and often, far, far less.

It doesn't pay to hit the ball straight and long down the middle since the hill and bunker will impede your ability to reach the green in two, so drives that are long should go down the right side

Unless you're driving it about 340 down the right side you're not going to see the flagstick that's in the hole on the green.
That's absolutely NOT true.
Any drive of 230+ into the right slot will be able to see the green and the flag if the hole is cut to the right plateau
I just don't think you or whomever is guiding you, is familiar with that hole.

From down in the valley of the approach area...no way.

Mike, yes, from the right side slot, in the fairway, the green and flag on the plateau are clearly visible.
It's a very intimidating look, not unlike the one at # 8 when the flag is on the right of the green.
Now, if you're wrong about how # 3 at NGLA looks today, how can you be so certain as to how # 10 at Merion looked 100 years ago ?

[Mike Cirba]

Pat & David,

My views are my own...please stop the nonsense about people guiding me.

I'm the only one stupid enough to still be talking with you guys here.

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

If some large mound was obstructing the front you'd never see the entirety of the back bunker from down in the valley.

"From down in the valley?"  More Cirba B.S.  The photo was obviously taken from the opposite hill.  And it is taken at an entirely different angle from that of the approach, so it gives us little if any clue as to what was visible form the landing area.    

And it is entirely misleading for Cirba to claim that we can tell how far the green sits below the bunker because even Cirba admitted that the back of the green sloped sharply down from the back.  It was after all a bowl.

Pat & David,

My views are my own...

That would explain the unreasonableness.