[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Now you are arguing with yourself.

You are the one who just said that the land slopes down to a trough and then back UP to the green.   That is so beyond self-evident in those pictures that it's ridiculous we're even having this discussion.

I pointed out that the left side of the green slopes down consistently down from the bunker to green surface, but as you move left to right the landform falls off and creates a rise from the trough up to the green, acting almost as a false front in that area.

This is what you wrote in a group email addressed to me;

Who ? Or what possessed you to claim, with authority, that the land between the fronting bunker and the green rises up to the green on the 3rd hole at NGLA ?

The land slopes sharply DOWN into the trough then rises back up.  (bold for emphasis mine)

what physical evidence was the basis of your claim ?





As far as speaking for others, or being "supplied" information, at times in the past I've posted quotes directly for Tom and/or Wayne and possibly others, but routinely I've indicated specifically that it was their words.   You have also routinely chastised me for that.

Can I say that I've never written something on this site based on something I've heard or read from someone else?

No, I can't.   Neither can you.

Enough nonsense, already.

[JESII]

David,

Assuming you understand my position now, what's your point?

[DMoriarty]

Jim Sullivan,

Before turning to your question . . . .

Judging from heir uninvited, unwelcome, and annoying cga.com spam via private email, my post #863 to you from yesterday seems to be causing quite a stir offline among TEPaul and his Merionettes.   A glance at the emails confirms that they blatantly misrepresent both me and the source material.  I'll file the emails with the hundreds of other unanswered emails TEPaul rudely sends me despite my requests he never contact me.  

As for post #836, despite the predictable reaction, I didn't intend to say anything different that what I have explained dozens of times from the very beginning of these discussions.  I assume you and others realize this.  But if not; if you or any other reasonable posters would like to question or discuss the post here on the discussion group, then I'd be glad to address your concerns.   Thanks.

Now turning to your question . . .

David,

Assuming you understand my position now, what's your point?

Unfortunately I don't think I understand your position.  I know you don't think CBM and HJW were calling the shots, and I disagree with you with regard to the hole concepts and hole placement. But let's set these things aside for the moment, to the extent we can.  

As far as the discussion of Merion's Alps goes, is the following your conclusion?   "The attempts at the template holes support the notion that CBM was helpful in an advisory role but never felt nor acted as though this were his project."  If so, then I am really lost.

Merion was never CBM's "project" in the sense that NGLA and Piping Rock and Sleepy Hollow were his projects, was it?  More specifically, CBM wasn't a member of Merion, and while he continued to advise them from a distance during construction, so far as I can neither CBM nor HJW constructed the course nor directed the construction of the course through themselves or Raynor.

So why would CBM ever have felt or acted as though this were "his project" when in the sense I described above?  More importantly, what does this have to do with whether CBM came up with the routing (except as explained elsewhere) and the hole concepts?   And what does this have to do with the fact that by the various accounts of those who were there, Merion tried to build an Alps hole modeled after a hole that Hugh Wilson had never even seen before?  

[Mike Cirba]

"And what does this have to do with the fact that by the various accounts of those who were there, Merion tried to build an Alps hole modeled after a hole that Hugh Wilson had never even seen before? "

David,

First, Hugh Wilson HAD seen an Alps hole prior to final design and subsequent construction at Merion.

He had seen the Alps hole at NGLA in early March 1911.

During that same visit he also saw CBM's topo of the original at Prestwick.

It's not that hard a concept...one would think a Princeton graduate might be able grasp the idea of a full carry approach over a hill with a crossing bunker to carry on the other side with a green sloping away to a backing mound, no?


Second, could you tell us all what the content of the discussion of the written correspondence was when you say;

"More specifically, CBM wasn't a member of Merion, and while he continued to advise them from a distance during construction..."  (bold for emphasis mine)

As much as I'd like to hear you explain what was discussed in their only correspondence we have record of, I'm sure you'll avoid that question, so I'll let the cat out of the bag.

Ironically and humorously, they discussed manure.  

[JESII]

David,

If you cannot gasp my position yet it's not likely you will with further questioning. I think however that you full grasp my position and would simply like to pick it apart as opposed to discussing yours. I have no problem answering any question you have. I'm confident that I am the ony one on this thread that might actually ever admit my position could be flawed, and will admit it when it's clear.

That said, I'll address both parts of that last post and then wait for you to explain your position.

I know your statement that's drawng all the offline hysteria is fairly consistent with previous statements. The only thing I'll say to address it is that it's conveniently vague. You have no problem making firm pronouncements like..."More specifically, CBM wasn't a member of Merion, and while he continued to advise them from a distance during construction, so far as I can neither CBM nor HJW constructed the course nor directed the construction of the course through themselves or Raynor"...and yet refuse to show this advice he provided. Will you post the letter? Or at least type wat it says?

As to my comment..."The attempts at the template holes support the notion that CBM was helpful in an advisory role but never felt nor acted as though this were his project." Very simply he wanted to create a brand of golf in America and if he were asked to route and design a golf course why would he stop before a shovel hit the ground? These template holes and concepts you have done a good job (for me anyway) of idetifying and explaining all lack something from the original. Thy all seem amateurish in their comparison to others of the same ilk. Why would CBM leave hislgacy to novices on good faith?

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

I have no further pictures of the 17th at Prestwick, but I think it is pretty obvious from the two pictures below.

In the first you can see that there is a collar of rough that slopes sharply down into the bunker.  If you were to land in that collar, the ball is most likely rolling back into the bunker.  The rough collar is a couple of yards.  There is maybe a yard of fringe at the top of the ridge.  You can also see in that picture that the top of the ridge fronting the green is the demarcation between the rough, the fringe and the green. 

In the second picture from the side you can see the front edge of the green on the left side of the picture.  Past the apex of the ridge is a bit of fringe and then green.  Anything short is part fringe and rough.  There is no fronting slope down to the green.  The green itself forms the trough.

Of course, what it looked like 100 years ago is another question.

[DMoriarty]

I don't know, Jim, haven't I been answering question after question about my points and my position for about five or six years now?  It doesn't seem unreasonable to ask you to answer a few.  Respectfully, your points are long on conclusions and opinions, and short on facts.

As for my "point," it is no different than it has ever been.  The various "template holes" at Merion are there because CBM and HJW wanted them there, and while those at Merion surely had some influence, Merion left it up to CBM and HJW to determine the hole concepts and routing.  

"Conveniently Vague?"  If I am vague it is either because we are speaking of generalities or because I don't know to a greater level of specificity.  Do you want me just to make shit up and pretend it is fact like the others?

As for the CBM letter, I am not hiding anything.  I don't remember the exact substance of the letter, but it has been posted multiple times and you are as able to dig it up again as I am.  No doubt letter was about agronomy, probably soil treatment in preparation for fall seeding.  Beale was a British agronomy expert!  Why else would he have been meeting with Wilson, then CBM?  And why would Wilson forward the letter to Piper/Oakley, agronomy experts,  for their opinion?  

More importantly, SO WHAT?  The letter indicates that months after CBM and HJW had determined the final layout plan, and months after Merion had decided to build the course the plan CBM and HJH had chosen, and after construction began, CBM was still involved with the project and communicating about the project.  And since when are agronomy matters such as soil preparation not part of the process of constructing fairways, tees, and greens?

I wonder if you are being influenced by the paranoia, irrationality, and hysterics that break out on and off the website in response to my posts.  I hope not, because these jokers almost always miss the point, and they missed the point here. The main point of the section you quoted is that CBM and HJW were not directly involved in constructing the course.  But these idiots want to make a huge issue out of the explanatory aside, which happens to be irrefutable fact.  While it may only have been from a distance, CBM was still advising HJW about the project after CBM and HJW had determined the final layout plan and the construction had began!  

______________________

Thanks Bryan.

[Mike Cirba]

Wow...you got all that, Jim?

Who exactly is paranoid and hysterical here?

Was there a single fact or piece of evidence in that entire post, much less an answer to any of your questions?

[Mike Cirba]

By the way,

Can we finally see the evidence by anyone who was there saying that CBM either routed the course or designed any of the hole internals?

Surely among all of those contemporaneous and retrospective accounts someone would have mentioned that little detail, no?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Now you are arguing with yourself.

No, I"m not.
 
The land slopes steeply down from the bunker to the bottom of the trough, then only rises up slightly at that juncture, like a soft "J"
 
The land does NOT conform to your description.
 
It's a steep slope downward from the bunker to just a few feet from the green where is gently rises up to meet the green.
 
And, you KNOW that you were trying to undermine David's premise that the 10th at Merion sloped down to the green from the fronting bunker with your flawed description of the 3rd at NGLA.
 
But, that's OK, we all make mistakes, well most of us that is

Why did you leave off the third picture, which I've posted below.
Is it because it positively refutes your erroneous claim about the land sloping up, when in reality it slopes down ?




You are the one who just said that the land slopes down to a trough and then back UP to the green.   That is so beyond self-evident in those pictures that it's ridiculous we're even having this discussion.

The difference is that the down slope is steep and prolonged, whereas, the upslope is mild and short.,
Like a very soft "J"
Why are you misrepresenting how the land slopes and why are you now misrepresenting your original position.

I pointed out that the left side of the green slopes down consistently down from the bunker to green surface, but as you move left to right the landform falls off and creates a rise from the trough up to the green, acting almost as a false front in that area.

Baloney, the downslope is pronounced.. You claimed that the land rose UP from the bunker to the green, when nothing could be further from the truth.


This is what you wrote in a group email addressed to me;

Who ? Or what possessed you to claim, with authority, that the land between the fronting bunker and the green rises up to the green on the 3rd hole at NGLA ?

The land slopes sharply DOWN into the trough then rises back up.  (bold for emphasis mine)

what physical evidence was the basis of your claim ?

That's what I stated.
So now, you post ONLY two of the pictures, conveniently leaving off the photo that reveals the steep downward slope of the land from the bunker short of the green.  AND, you never answered my question.

But, here's the photo you left off, which shows how dramatically the land slopes down away from the bunker.


And, here's what you wrote in Reply # 834

"Interestingly, CBM's version of the land between the fronting cross-bunker and the green DOES NOT SLOPE DOWN AT ALL except on the left side, but actually functions a bit as a false front for much of the green, REQUIRING A CARRY NOT ONLY OF THE BUNKER, BUT ALSO THE ENSUING RISE IN ELEVATION.

And, those BOLDED statements are absolutely untrue.
The land slopes, steeply, down with only a mild rise to the green.  Any ball that clears the bunker onto that slope is propelled onto the green.


Enough nonsense, already.

Mike, nonsense is leaving out the photo which totally refutes your claim, which you intended to use to disprove David's claim regarding the downward slope at # 10 at Merion.[/B]

[Tom MacWood]

By the way,

Can we finally see the evidence by anyone who was there saying that CBM either routed the course or designed any of the hole internals?

Surely among all of those contemporaneous and retrospective accounts someone would have mentioned that little detail, no?

Huh? Have you read Scotland's Gift? CBM wrote about riding the property with Whigham and finding the Redan, Alps, etc. Have you read CBM's article on the Ideal Links? He took that concept and basically recreated it in Southampton. Have you read CBM's recounting Horace Hutchinson's visit to the NGLA and how he influenced the design of the internal contours of the greens? What is your point? That CBM enlisted the help of others? No one disputes that, CBM made that clear listing a long list of names who advised and assisted.

Is this whole exercise your attempt to compare CBM's involvement at the NGLA with your beloved legends of Wilson at Merion and Crump at PV? It seems pretty apparent that has been you and your friends strategy all along, but its not one that helps your credibility IMO. We are talking about apples and oranges comparing the creation of the NGLA to Merion and PV. The creation of the NGLA is one of the most heavily documented in the history of golf architecture.

When your myths are under scrutiny why do you find it necessary to go after other legitimate historical figures and accounts? Diversionary tactic? I recall when it was learned I was writing an essay on Crump, the immediate reaction of you and your friends was to attack my Arts and Crafts essay. That was a bad idea then, and this is a bad idea now, because in the process of these diversionary attacks it becomes clear you are more interested in protecting myths than in documenting history and discovering the truth. Your behavior is very predictable, and is based on emotion and your emotional attachment to these legends. When documenting and analyzing history it is best to leave your emotions out of it.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

My post you quoted there was about Merion, not NGLA.

I should have re-specified when I double-posted last night.

Please show me where I attacked CBM in any way, either in this thread, or in the long-running one that shows all the contemporaneous news articles?

I did object to the ridiculous, unsupported modern portrayals here by some that he 1) routed the course on two days on land they couldn't even walk but had to ride on ponies, and that he 2) first secured a specific 205 acres that fit the routing like a glove, both of which are disproven by those articles, but used by their creators to try and promote their Merion Distory.

In fact, I thought the articles showed a much more realistic effort and much more complimentary version of CBM as taking meticulous, almost herculean effort to build his ideal course, as most of these amateur efforts were.   The idea that he'd do a slam-bang, two-day routing was antithetical to much of what he objected to about the earliest courses in America.

In terms of cross comparisons between the creations of NGLA, Merion, and Pine Valley, I find interesting similarities and differences, particularly how they went about the land acquisition and course routing process.   My understanding after reading the all the contemporaneous accounts is that each club first scoured the land looking for natural features they could use for golf, then secured (Crump bought PV outright) enough acres to encompass those features (in the case of NGLA and Merion, with borders subject to revision based on future completion of routing), then spent some months determining the placement of all 18 tees, fairways, and greens before actually completing each purchase.

In the case of Pine Valley, the land Crump bought originally (184 acres) was indeed enough to encompass his golf course, but he later bought a lot of additional land for other purposes, including isolation.   We all know that his routing process ended up taking a few years.

In the case of Merion, they first estimated (after meeting with CBM) they'd need about 120 acres for their golf course, secured 117, likely with the intent of also leasing the 3 acres of railroad land to get to 120, but because the golf course boundaries were still undetermined, ended up through Lloyd buying all of the 161 acres of the Johnson Farm and Dallas Estate.   By the time of purchase after the routing was completed the next spring, Merion ended up needing to buy 120 acres, and leased 3 for a total of 123.   At Merion, they were motivated to keep the routing and acreage as tight as possible to maximize the value of the adjacent housing component where they had first dibs.

In the case of NGLA, CBM and Whigham mentioned from 1904-06 that they'd need just over 200 acres for their plan that was to include a golf course and founder's building lots.   Their initial offer letter mentioned that they'd need around 110 acres for golf and 60 1.5 acre building lots.   CBM ended up securing 205 acres in Nov/Dec 1906 with boundaries that were uncertain to give CBM latitude in locating his golf course.   After a few more months studying the property and staking the grounds to that routing, he eventually completed the purchase in the spring of 1907 (although George's book mentions Nov 1907 as the sale date).   He ended up using approximately 165-170 acres of the 205 for the golf course, leaving not enough land for the originally planned building lots.

As regards your Arts and Crafts essay, please also show me where I ever attacked it?

Frankly, the whole issue of golf architecture's tie to larger building and garden architectural issues is of only mild interest to me, and i only read parts of the whole...perhaps your first essay, as I recall.   I know next to nothing about that movement and wouldn't/couldn't even try to speak intelligently about it.

That's ok...it generated a lot of discussion, and others of yours I read like George Crump's I enjoyed a great deal and thought it was well-researched and fairly analyzed.

Finally, what "myths" are you talking about specifically?   Can you list them?

It appears at least some knew that George Crump died of his own hand back then, but the family likely asked those closest to him to keep it a private matter.   Still apparently guys like Geoff Shackleford and Tommy knew it back when I played golf with them at Rustic Canyon about 15 years ago, so I'm not sure what's mythical about that?

As far as Wilson's trip, early accounts said he traveled "before anything was done to the course initially", and/or other words to that effect.  Considering that most of what was mentioned as being done to the course based on overseas influences (i.e. Mid-Surrey Mounding, an Alps that "take(s) a lot of making, bunkers added over time to emulate hole strategies from abroad, etc.), was done during construction, which is when he went abroad, I think the timing of his trip simply got misinterpreted over time based on the language used in those early articles, not some nefarious plot.

Any others?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick/Tom/David,

I find it incredible that none of you have seen fit to comment on Pine Valley's topographical maps since Sir Bob posted Tom's explanatory, detailed commentary on the content and timing of those maps, all of which fits Tillinghast's accounts I shared with you all on the first page.

Why the sudden loss of interest in the topic after 25 pages of pointless speculation and conjecture?

[DMoriarty]

Wow, Cirba won't or can't honestly and accurately portray his own claims from earlier in this thread, so it is no wonder he garbles what happened 100 years go.  His long post above is full of misinformation and twisting of the facts, his past claims, and the claims of others.  It is not worth addressing.   Same as about everything else he types.  He is a waste of time, and unfortunately he has made this entire process a waste of time.

[Mike Cirba]

He is a waste of time, and unfortunately he has made this entire process a waste of time.

David,

Yes, by definition my introduction of contemporaneous, inconvenient factual materials does tend to rain on the parade of an agenda-driven set of speculative conjecture and baseless conclusions, personal opinions and value judgements presented as fact.

In the absence of anything factual on which to form your rebuttal, and while managing to avoid answering my questions or Jim's questions once again, I certainly understand that it is simply easier for you to just continue to insult me personally.

Please, continue as you will.   I'm quite certain you're not changing anyone's opinion about me or any of these historical matters.

Although admittedly, more than a few have questioned my sanity for continuing to try to discuss these matters with the three of you.  

I tend to agree with them..  

[Tom MacWood]

The train story is a relatively minor myth. The biggest myths - Crump designed PV and Wilson designed Merion. Below that the myth that Wilson traveled to the UK in 1910 before laying out the course and that Crump died of a tooth ache. Also that Flynn was responsible for the design of Heartwellville at the age 19. They all defy logic.

[DMoriarty]

I'd be glad to answer Jim's question provided Jim narrows it down a bit.  But I have answered your questions repeatedly, yet you don't get it.  Trying to explain this stuff to you is like trying to explain Dostojevski to a mule.  It is pointless and I am admittedly a fool for ever having tried.  

And you aren't just as dumb as a mule, you are as stubborn as a mule as well. So no matter how many times we have covered it, you circle back to your same old legend and the same old misrepresentations, misunderstandings, and witch-hunts.  And if anyone dare ignore you, you foolishly claim victory.  Like you are doing here.  You are pretending that I have been ignoring you because you have outwitted me and proven your case. Never mind I have answered the same questions hundreds of times and for years!  

By the way, how many times have you falsely and prematurely declared victory?  How many times have you unctuously done your lame Paul Harvey closing, as if it was all settled?   How many times have you claimed to have figured it all out?How many times have you found your metaphorical Hugh Wilson traveling the Seven Seas?  I've lost track long ago, but it is a very large number.  And ever single time you have been wrong.   Every single time.  Think about that.  Yet you act as if it is me who has been wrong on every single issue throughout these conversations.  And as if you've been having to set me straight, repeatedly.   And that you deserve that I answer and address the same crap again and again.  

Look at your idiotic question above, where you ridiculously demand that I provide you with evidence that CBM and HJW were at all involved in the design of Merion East, because you don't think there is any?  Are you kidding me?  With all that we have covered you see no evidence that CBM and HJW contributed anything to the layout or hole concepts at Merion?   Nothing at all?   This is a joke, Cirba, and you are a joke.  Same goes for your ridiculous denial that they were working on the layout plan at NGLA, and most of your other ridiculous claims.

[JESII]

Narrow this down a bit?

David,

As to my comment..."The attempts at the template holes support the notion that CBM was helpful in an advisory role but never felt nor acted as though this were his project." Very simply he wanted to create a brand of golf in America and if he were asked to route and design a golf course why would he stop before a shovel hit the ground? These template holes and concepts you have done a good job (for me anyway) of idetifying and explaining all lack something from the original. Thy all seem amateurish in their comparison to others of the same ilk. Why would CBM leave hislgacy to novices on good faith?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick/Tom/David,

I find it incredible that none of you have seen fit to comment on Pine Valley's topographical maps since Sir Bob posted Tom's explanatory, detailed commentary on the content and timing of those maps, all of which fits Tillinghast's accounts I shared with you all on the first page.

What's really incredible is that I've tried to get this thread back on PV and the topos, but you've continually diverted the thread to NGLA and Merion.

Why the sudden loss of interest in the topic after 25 pages of pointless speculation and conjecture?

Everytime you're proven wrong on an issue, you try to divert the discussion away from that issue in an effort to mask the flaws in your facts and/or argument.  Your recent request is "proof positive" of that tactic.

As to continuing the discussion on the topo's, in an email to me dated, 09-13-11 at 12:51 AM, TEPaul indicated that he was going to email Paul Turner and suggest to Paul Turner that he think about backing off my questions to him.  The email indicated that TEPaul wanted to thwart my efforts to get up to "speed" on this subject.  So, while I'll attempt to once again get back on track with this thread, you should know that there are others out there who want to thwart and frustrate that effort.

The email also went on to call my approach "lazy".

But, I don't think it's in TEPaul's best interest to get into a discussion about, or a comparison of, our "work ethics"

As I've tried to explain to him innumerable times, I work for a living, and first and foremost have to focus my energies on my family and my business pursuits.  I don't have alot of idle time like he and others do, that would allow me to immerse myself in GCA.com and related subjects. 
For me, GCA.com is an avocation, not a vocation.

But, I will, once again, try to redirect the discussion back to PV and topos.

For me, the critical path lies in the chronolgy.

[Mike Cirba]

David,

You're now comparing your ramblings here to Dostoyevsky?

I was more reminded of the works of Fellini, but what do I know?

You are correct; I don't understand you and nothing would make me happier than for us to have no further communications.

Good luck.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I respect your research, but question your analysis and judgements based on what I see as preconceived notions and a predetermined agenda.

No biggie.

Pat,

What parts of the chronology are still unclear to you?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

What parts of the chronology are still unclear to you?

Date stick routing crafted onto 1913 topo
Date Blue routing crafted onto 1913 topo
Date Red routing crafted onto 1913 topo.

Did Colt see March 1913 topo, or any routing prior to his arrival at PV in May of 1913 ?

If you have the answers to these questions, please post them via the "quote' function, next to each question.
Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

No, I haven't played NGLA.  
But, by my definition, the original of any template hole has to be the best.  
Not to disagree with your contention that NGLA may be a better hole, in your opinion.

Then, it's your stated position that a "template" hole can never be improved upon ?

Most acknowledge that some of the holes at NGLA are superior to the holes that inspired them.
Evidently you don't, despite never having seen NGLA.
Interesting.

And, back to the topo question.  You have previously stated that you could determine topography that was good for a golf course, and route a course, all based on a topo map (or words to that effect).  

Given the topo map below, which piece of property would you have chosen and how would you have routed the course?
Since you're adept at computer tech, would you define the property lines on the land that was available for sale to Crump on the topos you've posted below.  Also, please add any features such as homes, structures, etc., etc.


Why would you pick one side of the tracks over the other? Why the north-west segment rather than the south-east or vice versa?
Probably because of the upper plateau on the Southern section, which is rather extensive and probably because the land north of the tracks gets rather narrow on what appears to be sloped land.  That narrowness almost dictates a linear routing similar to an out and back configuration and that's rarely a good idea.  Most courses that traverse or go with the slope aren't well regarded, most good courses ascend and descend land that's sloped in an attempt to get to flat land.  The back and forth routing across a slope rarely produces good to great golf courses.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick

1)  We know the blue lines are definitely Colt's because these are 100% his style and match the drawings from his hand drawn and signed 18 hole booklet at PVGC.  Jim Finnegan's book shows the 17th from Colt's booklet...compare it with the blue lines on the plan: it's the same.  The roman numerals are a give away too: "a dead ringer" for Colt's other plans at Hamilton

Then, would you say it's safe to conclude that Colt presented a plan subsequent to March 1913 and prior to his departure in June 1913 ?

The questions for me are:  Did Colt begin his routing/plan prior to his arrival at PV (1 receiving a blank topo prior, 2 receiving the stick routing prior) or did Colt begin his routing/plan after his arrival in late May 1913 ?

What was the date the stick routing that was placed upon the March 1913 Topo ?

Did Colt see the stick routing prior to crafting his routing, or is it possible that Colt didn't see the stick routing prior to crafting his plan ?


The blue lines also match the plan that was sold on ebay which has "as suggested by HS Colt" printed on it.  It's interesting that he outlined the major contours with his blue pen/pencil.  His visit was end of May/ Early June.

2)  Re the red lines.  
It's probably Crump's hand but it's difficult to know for sure because we don't have other examples of his drawing.  

Forgetting about authorship for a second, what was the date the Red Lines were drawn on the topo ?


Although I do have a lot of examples of his handwriting so it may be possible to be sure.  
That is Crump's hand on the 15th fairway and by the 14th green (in black).

But that does't automatically convey authorship of the routing.
What are his comments on # 15 and by the 14th green ?

3)  There was obviously some difficulty in deciding what to do with the swamp land where the current 14th green and 15th tee are.  
But I think the 15th tee was worked out by about 1915 and 1916:  

My eyes aren't the best, in fact I had another surgical procedure today, but it seems that there's a blue pencil image of the 14th on that Blue/Red topo.

The key would seem to be, the solution to the swamp was converting it to a pond, and did that process, either on paper or physically, coincide with the final rerouting that produced # 14 and # 15.

there's a photo showing its site and the dammed lake in a large photo album that Crump sent to Colt.  

Do we know the date of the photo ?

There are also drawings by Travis showing the dammed lake I think published in 1915 with the 14th shown as a cape hole across the lake.
When you say "Cape hole across the lake" could you detail the configuration of the hole ?
Was it a par 4 from a tee near # 13 green ?

4) The stick diagram likely predates Colt's visit because it mostly matches Tillie's descriptions and has the 5th as a short pitch hole.  
That would mean that it was crafted between March 1913 and late May 1913.
Prior to May 1913, who had examined the land and/or topos and acted as an advisor to GAC ?

Is the stick routing solely GAC's effort or were others involved ?

It's basically signed by Crump at the top. But there looks to be more than one drawing style on it and it needs to be looked at more closely to confirm.  The survey was done on March 1913 so it's likely the stick routing dates from around April/May 1913. Colt got there at the end of May/ early June.

I wonder if Colt worked in a vacuum on his routing, or if he was predisposed by what was presented to him upon his arrival ?

I think the 13th was worked out by about 1914 because the 13th hole length has been extended to its correct length in that Philly Enquirer article (Colt's blue plan and his booklet have a shorter hole).

What's the date of the PE article ?

I'm trying to figure out if the extension of # 13 to its present location is related to or coincided with the damming of the swamp.
Could it have been a cause and effect situation whereby the introduction of one, automatically defaulted to the discovery of the other ?

PS I am peeved that my photo got posted on the internet!

I think it's a very valueable contribution, one that shouldn't be kept secret, but, I do understand the sensitivity on the issue of disclosure.
You should speak to Mike Cirba about that, but, I don't think he posted it with any improper intent.
I will take a closer look at it when I next visit in October.
Thanks

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I deleted my posting of the red/blue map once Paul requested it.

My copy of it was taken from a prior posting on another thread by Tom MacWood.

I respected Paul' request and didn't even know until he asked that the photo was his.

Please don't make me out to be the one who ignored his request because it is not true.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()