[Tom MacWood]

Mike
The steps you will go to protect your precious myths is ridiculous. Distorting and misrepresenting a historically important architect that really has nothing to do with this is shows just how desperate you are. You should be ashamed of yourself. You have no credibility.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Posting Fowler's own words is somehow an issue here?

Pat,

I think you should read your email and reconsider the interpretation of that map on your last post.

See you later today.  I'll bring my accursed wedge and his evil twin brother, my equally afflicted putter.

[Tom MacWood]

The idea of daming the bog likely hatched much earlier than even this date as they began damming the creek near the clubhouse a year earlier.

Jim
It seems to me you were trying to link the two events.

It was an afterthought because the second lake was not part of the original plan in July 1913, nor the plan in January 1914. Both those plans show the damn near the clubhouse, but keep the bog as is.

The current 13th was discovered sometime in late 1914 or early 1915, and the idea of the second lake was introduced around that same time. We have no idea if the two were linked or not. What point are trying to make?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Iposting Fowler's own words is somehow an issue here?

Pat,

I think you should read your email and reconsider the interpretation of that map on your last post.

See you later today.  I'll bring my accursed wedge and his evil twin brother, my equally afflicted putter.

First of all, any objective reader of the first article from 1920 would not conclude Fowler was arguing for "harshly penalizing elements without giving much room to catch one's breath." That is a complete distortion. Second of all when there is a ton of material on Fowler written by Fowler, by Simpson, by Darwin, by Hutchinson, by Ambrose, etc, etc, and you choose to ignore that information and present an editorial writer in Youngstown, OH (who obviously has no clue) as proof of his architecture shows just how desperate you have become. You are a disgrace to objective historical analysis and representation.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

What is more accurate than presenting Fowler's own words?   I'll present the first part of his essay shortly.

And the point here isn't what all those men you mentioned thought of his philosophy.

The point is how his philosophy was viewed IN AMERICA during 1913/1914.

[Mike Cirba]

More of Fowler's philosophy, which is part 1 of the essay on the Championship courses of Britain from 1920.   I cannot see how anyone could objectively argue that he wasn't looking to create much more stringent courses with penalizing hazards and where every hole should be a stern challenge?;

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Since you asked which architectural contributions were made by the various architects who Crump consulted, with, let's start with Mr. Railroad himself, AW Tillnghast, who we know was there from the very beginning.

While we can't know for certain who was responsible for every element on the course, later in life Tilly stated how thrilled he was that Crump took two of his conceptions in their entirety, the 7th and 13th.    We also know that Tilly wrote that Crump asked for advice from many architects, but sifted that information and personally made all the decisions himself.

THAT is what a leader does, no?

Tillinghast donated this picture of himself and his wife to the club, and in his own handwriting inscribed the back;






Lay out?  Lay out??  

Wait...Doesn't that mean that Tillinghast was out there constructing the course on the ground??   Perhaps with shovel and pick-axe?    

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

What is more accurate than presenting Fowler's own words?   I'll present the first part of his essay shortly.

And the point here isn't what all those men you mentioned thought of his philosophy.

The point is how his philosophy was viewed IN AMERICA during 1913/1914.

When did Fowler make those comments, and what was the context? Was he being serious or humorous? Can you translate what he said and tell us exactly what he was arguing for?

Tom Simpson and George Thomas were proteges of Fowler, are they penal leaning too?

Fowler designed and redesigned about a dozen courses in the US, including Eastward Ho!, LACC, Ambassador Hotel, Del Paso, and the 18th at PBGL. Which of his American designs do you consider penal?

You have thrown Macdonald, Whigham, Barker and Colt under the historical bus with you misrepresentations and distortions, now its Fowler's turn.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

What is wrong with the philosophy of presenting 18 challenging holes?   He seems to be arguing for the type of course many of us here enjoy...more of a match-play philosophy where medal score is superfluous to exciting, risk-rewarding holes.

Certainly Crump pulled that off well, no?    And if Fowler, or at least his interpretation of Fowler, was one of his inspirations for that approach, more power to him.

I cannot for the life of me see why you'd object to my point that Crump and his followers were enamored with the approach outlined by Fowler that every hole of a championship course should be a strong one?   Are you saying Fowler was joking?  

Further, if you can readily accept that Great Britain produced its own "Amateur Sportsman" architects, e.g. Fowler, Colt, Mackenzie, none of whom was a particularly world-class player, in response to the lackluster courses being designed by the "pros" at the time, then why do you deny the same phenomenon occurred in the US?   Or is it only the Philadelphia architects you seem to have issue with?

[JESII]

Pat,

Regarding your post #990: which column would you put that information in? Would you say your ideas there are 1) fact, 2) speculation, or 3) pulled completely out of you ear?

Does it occur to you how your own ridiculous arguments come back to haunt you later in the same conversation?

Do you think Crump cleared every tree between 13 and 15? Remember, they're 80 feet tall with "jungle like undergrowth" so if you're going to see the lake they better clear them all...maybe they thought they could better see the rowboats crossing the lake with the "materials and labor" you speculated about earlier...

The articles in January 1914, December 1914 and January 1915 draw a very distinct line between the idea to dam the lake and the architectural epiphany to build the current 13th. The "linchpin" in this timing is Father Simon Carr calling the 14th a mashie approach par 4 in the same article which declares the plan to dam the lake.

Tom, damming the two lakes are only linked in that it's provable they had the knowledge of how to dam the second lake once they had demonstrated the benefit of planning the first. In fact, it's unreasonable to consider the second lake an "afterthought".

[Tom MacWood]

...PV men greatly admired the philosophies of Herbert Fowler who argued for more stringent shot-making on golf courses, and while they also greatly respected Colt, there was likely some disagreement on how tough to make the course at Pine Valley....

...Fowler prefers courses with no letup in their demands...

...these guy were major disciples of a school of architecture exemplified by Fowler in which their was no letup of challenge, which was one of the tenets of the Pine Valley founders, as well.

Tom MacWood,

Are you telling us that THIS is the guy who wasn't arguing for more stringent golf courses featuring harshly penalizing elements without giving much room to catch one's breath?  

This is further evidence of what some Americans thought of Fowler's penal philosophies, circa 1914, as published in "American Golfer";

Are you still going to tell us that Fowler wasn't viewed as somewhat draconian in his approach at that time, an approach that greatly appealed to Crump and friends??

Fowler's penal philosophy....draconian approach...a school of architecture exemplified by Fowler. This is all a load of crap. Your attempt to present Fowler as a penal architect is a load of crap. Your attempt to say Fowler was a major influence on Crump and the design of PV is a load of crap. Your perverted approach to golf architecture history is a load of crap. Other than that you are pretty much spot on.

[Tom MacWood]

Pat,

Regarding your post #990: which column would you put that information in? Would you say your ideas there are 1) fact, 2) speculation, or 3) pulled completely out of you ear?

Does it occur to you how your own ridiculous arguments come back to haunt you later in the same conversation?

Do you think Crump cleared every tree between 13 and 15? Remember, they're 80 feet tall with "jungle like undergrowth" so if you're going to see the lake they better clear them all...maybe they thought they could better see the rowboats crossing the lake with the "materials and labor" you speculated about earlier...

The articles in January 1914, December 1914 and January 1915 draw a very distinct line between the idea to dam the lake and the architectural epiphany to build the current 13th. The "linchpin" in this timing is Father Simon Carr calling the 14th a mashie approach par 4 in the same article which declares the plan to dam the lake.

Tom, damming the two lakes are only linked in that it's provable they had the knowledge of how to dam the second lake once they had demonstrated the benefit of planning the first. In fact, it's unreasonable to consider the second lake an "afterthought".

They had the knowledge of how to dam a lake? That is like saying they had the knowledge of how to build a road or they had the knowledge of how to use the yellow pages. Where are you trying to go with this...what is your point?

We know the second lake was not an original thought because it was not included in the original design (two designs), and the reporting of its creation came a year and half after the original design...that is not an afterthought?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Fowler's own words support my position.

The same debate was going on in Philly as guys like Ab Smith and Tillinghast were seeking to toughen courses so as to create a better class of competitive golfer.

It's no wonder they greatly admired Fowler.

[JESII]

We know the second lake was not an original thought because it was not included in the original design (two designs), and the reporting of its creation came a year and half after the original design...that is not an afterthought?

Who cares if it was an "original thought"? You couldn't begin to identify and prove what were "original thoughts" at Pine Valley and that has nothing to do with this.

The point of this is simple, you and Pat were/are speculating that the creation of the second lake was "inextricably linked" to the final evolution of 13 - 15. That's only true in the same way deciding to build the golf course was inextricably linked to those holes because of how those holes ended up. The articles make it clear the lake was decided upon prior to the hole concepts that are 13 - 15 and I assume you cannot disagree with this because you're trying to twist my position.

Holes 14 - 16 do not rely on the lake as opposed to the swamp for pure architecture, certainly the aesthetics are greatly improved and the logistics of having the waterworks could have been on their minds at an early stage but I have no idea when, prior to December 1914.

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Fowler's own words support my position.

The same debate was going on in Philly as guys like Ab Smith and Tillinghast were seeking to toughen courses so as to create a better class of competitive golfer.

It's no wonder they greatly admired Fowler.

What words? Give us some specific quotes.

[Tom MacWood]

Who cares if it was an "original thought"? You couldn't begin to identify and prove what were "original thoughts" at Pine Valley and that has nothing to do with this.

The point of this is simple, you and Pat were/are speculating that the creation of the second lake was "inextricably linked" to the final evolution of 13 - 15. That's only true in the same way deciding to build the golf course was inextricably linked to those holes because of how those holes ended up. The articles make it clear the lake was decided upon prior to the hole concepts that are 13 - 15 and I assume you cannot disagree with this because you're trying to twist my position.

Holes 14 - 16 do not rely on the lake as opposed to the swamp for pure architecture, certainly the aesthetics are greatly improved and the logistics of having the waterworks could have been on their minds at an early stage but I have no idea when, prior to December 1914.

I don't believe I ever said the creation of the second lake was linked to anything. The article does not make it clear the lake was decided upon before the new 13th hole was found. You have no idea precisely when the new 13th was found. The new 13th dictated a new 14th and 15th.

It is clear, however, when the new 13th hole was created it brought the routing out further southeast, which meant the 14 and 15 would have to deal more with the bog (or lake). Who knows if that was why the lake was created, or it was created prior to. We have no way of knowing.

[JESII]

You keep saying we have no way of knowing. Why is that? The lake is going to be built as of December 1914. At that point the the 14th hole is a par 4. How long do youthink it took to realize the new 13th hole was not going to leave room for a par 4 14th?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Regarding your post #990: which column would you put that information in?
Would you say your ideas there are 1) fact, 2) speculation, or 3) pulled completely out of you ear?

Mostly FACT with some mild speculation.

Does it occur to you how your own ridiculous arguments come back to haunt you later in the same conversation?

Not at all, I think the four kids are contributing to your sleep depravation which in turn clouds YOUR thinking.

Do you think Crump cleared every tree between 13 and 15?

Pretty much so.  He cleared the trees to such an extent that you could see the 13th green from the 13th tee.
He cleared trees on the slope in order to achieve that direct line of view.

Remember, they're 80 feet tall with "jungle like undergrowth"

Not so quick sleepyhead.
I stated that that specie of tree grew to a maximum height of 80 feet, not that every tree on the property was 80 feet as you infer.
And, you rarely see specimen trees growing in a bog, same for undergrowth.
If you've ever been in a swamp/bog you'll know what I'm talking about.

Secondly, the jungle like undergrowth was well below the horizon line from the ridge.
The elevation differential is so sharp that any undergrowth, especially undergrowth well down on the slope, wouldn't impede a line of sight to the lake.

so if you're going to see the lake they better clear them all...maybe they thought they could better see the rowboats crossing the lake with the "materials and labor" you speculated about earlier...

Please have one of the Merionettes explain sight lines to you, especially sight lines from a location 50 to 70 feet above the lake.

The articles in January 1914, December 1914 and January 1915 draw a very distinct line between the idea to dam the lake and the architectural epiphany to build the current 13th. The "linchpin" in this timing is Father Simon Carr calling the 14th a mashie approach par 4 in the same article which declares the plan to dam the lake.

You don't get it.

The lake most likely came first.
Then, Crump realized that the view from above, from land that AWT describes as "hidden by nature", filled with timber and undergrowth, would be terrific, thus, the view from that elevated fairway, down to the lake is what inspired Crump to extend the 13th hole, which in turn cause the 14th to be a par 3, transitioning from the higher elevation to the lower elevation.

Now, go get some sleep and when you wake up, reread what I've written.

[JESII]

I'd love to see you breakdown the fact/speculation ratio...

[JESII]

The lake most likely came first.

Then, Crump realized that the view from above, from land that AWT describes as "hidden by nature", filled with timber and undergrowth, would be terrific, thus, the view from that elevated fairway, down to the lake is what inspired Crump to extend the 13th hole, which in turn cause the 14th to be a par 3, transitioning from the higher elevation to the lower elevation.

The Plan for the lake absolutely came first, on that it looks like we agree.

[JESII]

Pat,

The more I read your most recent posts the more it's clear that your lack of familiarity with the terrain is making it impossible for you to understand what's being discussed.

There are about 100 yards of trees between 13 and 15 and it only took 20 or 30 to see the green from the tee. There are still more than 50 yards of trees. In addition, the current 13th fairway is at a higher evevation than the drawn 13th, so seeing the lake that was planned over a higher elevation in between just doesn't make sense. The ridge of the 13th hole is the highest point in the area.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

Yeah,  I shook my head at that argument of Patrick's, yet another nonsenical one made just to argue.  Well, a bit better than the boating argument, I guess.

But, to inject some reality in this discussion, I am 90% or more certain the lake was created because they needed more water for irrigation and the club facilites.  That 90 GPM artesian well wouldn't be enough to even flush a few toilets.  I knew that last week when I asked the question, and have since heard from TePaul who says it's in the club records that they started looking for more water for those purposes.  Views and what not are a load of crap, really, even if they did exist from 13.

Of interest to me is just how short the course would have been if they hadn't lengthened 13, which lengthened 15 as well.

[JESII]

But shortened 14...

[Jeff_Brauer]

Jim,

One map had the 14th as the same par 3, but on the near side of the pond.  I guess we need to clarify which routing version was changed from what, to what!

[JESII]

When they found 13 it resulted in changing 14 from a "mashie (5 iron) approach" par 4 to a "one-shotter".

Call it close to 200 yards although I agree there are alot of different drawings and iterations, I think this switch made permanent the idea of having the 14th as a par three...simply due to available space.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()