Pine Valley and Topos

[Sean_A]

Mike & Tommy Mac

I think you are both correct.  Certainly Fowler was seen as designer of new strategic school of thought, but I think he was at the penal side of the spectrum.  Which is to say for the modern British movement (post 1900), probably more penal or at the least just as penal as any other famous contemporary - including Braid and Taylor who I believe are often erroneously labeled penal archies.  Fowler's use of cross bunkers, broken ground, natural features such as streams, bull rushes and gullies all point to penal characteristics.  However, its all relative.  Compared to what would soon be built in the States, Fowler becomes firmly entrenched in the strategic school.  After Victorian architecture died I think of penal architecture as almost exclusive to the States. 

Ciao

[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??

Sean
I'm glad you agree with Mike. You two should collaborate on an essay about Fowler's penal leaning architecture. Mike clearly is exaggerating, both Fowler's approach to architecture and his influence on Crump & PVGC, but at least he has an ally in you for the purpose of distorting golf architecture history.

Fowler was known for his very deep bunkers....to my knoweldge that is the only penal leaning aspect of his designs, but their placement and utilization was hardly penal.

The use of the cross hazard was not considered penal. It was considered outdated because of its over use and stereotypical use in the Victorian period, and as an overreaction they were practically banned. But Hutchinson and Darwin both argued it should be reintroduced for variety sake, and because it was sound strategic hazard.

You are the first person I know who refers to broken ground, natural features such as streams, bull rushes and gullies as penal features. Every strategic British golf architect of that period used all those features along with the cross-hazard, including Colt, Simpson, Abercromby, Park, Mackenzie, Campbell, Hutchinson, Hutchison and Alison.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike & Tommy Mac

I think you are both correct.  Certainly Fowler was seen as designer of new strategic school of thought, but I think he was at the penal side of the spectrum.  Which is to say for the modern British movement (post 1900), probably more penal or at the least just as penal as any other famous contemporary - including Braid and Taylor who I believe are often erroneously labeled penal archies.  Fowler's use of cross bunkers, broken ground, natural features such as streams, bull rushes and gullies all point to penal characteristics.  However, its all relative.  Compared to what would soon be built in the States, Fowler becomes firmly entrenched in the strategic school.  After Victorian architecture died I think of penal architecture as almost exclusive to the States.  

Ciao

I know you love Braid, but Braid's famous article of 1908 in which he details his thoughts on architecture, and in particular his thoughts on bunkering were clearly penal. And Hutchinson, who gave him the platform, had no problem saying so afterward. Have you read Braid's 1908 series of articles on architecture?

[Mike Cirba]

Sean,

I would agree completely.   I think to be strategic one needs hazards.   I think to be strategic and exciting, one needs hazards that are truly hazards, and I'm very comfortable that Mr. Fowler was in my camp there.

Tom MacWood,

Have you actually read the articles of Fowler's I posted that basically say every GBI Championship course besides Westward Ho! are puny and weak or seen the pictures of Westward Ho! with forced carries over the rushes?   Have you read Tom Doak's "31 Flavors" essay about WH??   

Pat,

Great to see you, and see you did some field work.  I'm sure it was painful!   

It was also very good to see you looking hale and hearty the other day.

As far as your PV assessment, I think Bryan is correct once again...Tillinghast called them "Scrub trees" that covered the property.

If you really want a valid comparison, though, I think we need to get back down there in Jan/Feb when the undergrowth goes dormant.   I'm confident we'll see enough to intrigue us that the property might be interesting for golf. 

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

The depth of a hazard has nothing to do with "penal" architecture.  Its the placemnet of the hazard which is key.

First we have to agree on what "penal" means.  I contend that forced carries and dictated routes of play constitute penal architecture.  This would include proper cross bunkers (no fairway alley to play around), playing between "pinching" bunkers and over hazards either man-made or not.  That isn't to say one type of forced carry can't be more strategic (read diagonal) than another, but a forced carry is a key component of penal architecture.  Operating on the above definition, of the post 1900 British archies working during the classic era (say 1900 to WWII) I believe Fowler was the biggest exponent (in practice).  Braid may well have liked the idea of more penal architecture, but in my experience, he rarely practiced it. Instead, I think Braid was a realist in fitting the style of design to the intended users and available budget.  I have searched for that seemingly elusive penal Braid design, but to no avail.  Perhaps his work at Carnoustie, such as what little he did there, is the smoking gun.  I think Taylor was a bit more insistent on penal designs, but even he was clearly won over to more strategic designs, certainly by the time he paired with Hawtree.  

All that said, and I thought this was made clear, in essence, my stance is that true penal architecture did not for any intents and purposes truly exist in the UK after 1900ish.  There were penal elements used, but in an overall framework of strategic design.  

Ciao
    

[Tom MacWood]

You two figure it out.

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

This uncharacteristically magnanimous of you.  Thanks, I have.     

Ciao

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Yes, the entire map has topo lines.  I believe I read that the ones in that area were traced over for clarity.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Brian,

Did you enhance the rotated Red/Blue plan, esp. the blue contour lines?

As to your topo question, I think there is no doubt they used the survey Crump paid for rather than the USGS.  One possible scenario is that they started with the USGS and found out how inaccurate it was, basically useless for their purposes of final design.  In any survey method, the accuracy of the contours is about half the contour interval itself - if the map has 10 foot contours, then it may be off 5 foot in any location.   2 foot contours may be off a foot, etc.  10 ft contours just aren't enough for reliable design, especially when you are trying to fit holes right up agains features like ridges, ponds, swamps, etc.

Can you highlight the several iterations of the 14th on that map?  I see several, but am not sure which belong to who, like the 14th Cape Hole by Travis.  If not, I understand.

[Tom MacWood]

Tommy Mac

The depth of a hazard has nothing to do with "penal" architecture.  Its the placemnet of the hazard which is key.

First we have to agree on what "penal" means.  I contend that forced carries and dictated routes of play constitute penal architecture.  This would include proper cross bunkers (no fairway alley to play around), playing between "pinching" bunkers and over hazards either man-made or not.  That isn't to say one type of forced carry can't be more strategic (read diagonal) than another, but a forced carry is a key component of penal architecture.  Operating on the above definition, of the post 1900 British archies working during the classic era (say 1900 to WWII) I believe Fowler was the biggest exponent (in practice).  Braid may well have liked the idea of more penal architecture, but in my experience, he rarely practiced it. Instead, I think Braid was a realist in fitting the style of design to the intended users and available budget.  I have searched for that seemingly elusive penal Braid design, but to no avail.  Perhaps his work at Carnoustie, such as what little he did there, is the smoking gun.  I think Taylor was a bit more insistent on penal designs, but even he was clearly won over to more strategic designs, certainly by the time he paired with Hawtree.  

All that said, and I thought this was made clear, in essence, my stance is that true penal architecture did not for any intents and purposes truly exist in the UK after 1900ish.  There were penal elements used, but in an overall framework of strategic design.  

Ciao
    

If you are still having trouble differentiating between strategic and penal may I suggest Wethered and Simpson's 'Architectural Side of Golf', they do good job of explaining it....they even have pictures. By the way Simpson was Fowler's long time partner and mentor.

As far as Braid is concerned this thread is about PV. If you want to talk about Braid and his architecture perhaps you should start a new thread. And may I also suggest you read Braid's series of articles on architecture from 1908. Those articles have pictures too.

[Tom MacWood]

A cross hazard is not a penal feature because you have the option of playing short. The cross-hazard is a completely sound strategic feature, especially if it is used in conjunction with a variety of other strategic options. A lake from tee to fairway is penal if there are no other options. Variety is the spice of life.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Great to see you, and see you did some field work.  I'm sure it was painful!   

It was also very good to see you looking hale and hearty the other day.

As far as your PV assessment, I think Bryan is correct once again...Tillinghast called them "Scrub trees" that covered the property.
Bryan doesn't know what he's talking about.
He's never set foot on the property.
One only has to view the areas removed from the golf course to see what the land was like.
In addition, the old photos and the descriptions provided by AWT and Simon Carr are graphic.
AWT's reference to the area of the 13th being so dense that it was "hidden" it telling.
They had owned the property for over two years, yet, due to the heavy timber and thick undergrowth, they couldn't see the value of the land for golf. They had owned it since Oct/Nov 1912, that means that they experienced three (3) winters and still hadn't been able to see it.

If you really want a valid comparison, though, I think we need to get back down there in Jan/Feb when the undergrowth goes dormant.   

Are you saying that Crump hibernated in the winter of 1912, 1913 and 1914 ?
He lived through three winters there before discovering the area, due to the thick timber and underbrush.

I'm confident we'll see enough to intrigue us that the property might be interesting for golf. 

No you won't.
What you forget is the configuration of the land form, the ridges that block your view.
You'll certainly concede that nothing was in view on the upper plateaus.
Even the 1st fairway is elevated above the tracks, leaving two other areas below the tracks, the 18th near the water and the swamp, presently the lake.

It stands to reason that Crump, already intimately familiar with the land, mentioned, on passing the approximate location, that he intended to site his golf course there.

The myth that he first spotted great land for a golf course from a passing train is beyond belief for anyone who inspects the site.

[Mike Cirba]

A cross hazard is not a penal feature because you have the option of playing short. The cross-hazard is a completely sound strategic feature, especially if it is used in conjunction with a variety of other strategic options. A lake from tee to fairway is penal if there are no other options. Variety is the spice of life.

Aye, Tommy, but eventually ye have to cross the damn thing, no?   What's particularly strategic about that?    


Pat,

We won't agree, but there will be a bunch from the site visiting Oct 2nd so maybe some of them can weigh in at that time. 

Fact is, Tillinghast described most of the property as being covered by "Scrub trees".   I think it's likely that some heavier woodlands existed along the ridge where 13 was discovered, but I don't think that was the predominant situation across the property in 1910.

Also, if I get down during the winter, I'll bring a camera. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Re the topo map below, I assume you have seen it up close and in person. 

No, I didn't have a chance to do that on my most recent trip.

Could you clarify whether there are topo contour lines over all of the map. 
Based on the picture, I only see what looks like contour lines in the top left of the map around 13, 14 and 15.

On my next visit I'll try to look closely for you.


I have taken that picture and emphasized the red hole outlines and the blue contour lines that I can see, and then flipped the picture so that it is more easily compared to the 1898 topo.




The contour lines from the red blue plan don't align very well with the USGS 1898 topo.  Which do you suppose was wrong?  Which was right?

As another point of reference, I found this 1953 topo map. 
Neither the red blue nor the 1898 topo align very well with it. 
I assume that the 1953 map is more accurate. 



If I recall correctly one of your theories is that the early designs were done working from topos rather than in the field. 
That was never my theory, I think you misunderstood it or misstated it

How difficult do you think that might have been if the topos of the time were inaccurate?

On paper, it wouldn't be difficult at all.
Once in the field, I'm sure that the errors would become apparent and field modifications made

As a separate thought re your posting about your recent walking tour, has anyone here suggested that Crump could see the whole of the property from the train or see where a golf course routing might fit on the land based on passing on the train? 

That was my point, that very little of the property could be seen, and what could be seen was a swamp and very little else.

The fact that you're totally unfamiliar with the property is hampering your ability to understand the dilema.

All that Iwould gather out of the train story was that he could see enough of the hills, valleys and trees, and water/swamp/streams to convince himself that it was worth further looking. 

Bryan, you base your theory on what ?  Your personal observations of the property ?  Or a wild guess ?

As I stated, land forms, ridges rise up to obstruct ones view of the property, and not just the steep hills.

In other words, that the general topography of the property looked like it would fit the purpose of a golf course.

Absolutely NOT.
You're making absurd declarations and you've never seen the property.
If you saw the property, if you walked the tracks, if you walked the land adjacent to the tracks, you'd realize the errors of your way, and as a result, as distasteful as it is, you'd be forced to agree with me.

[Sean_A]

A cross hazard is not a penal feature because you have the option of playing short. The cross-hazard is a completely sound strategic feature, especially if it is used in conjunction with a variety of other strategic options. A lake from tee to fairway is penal if there are no other options. Variety is the spice of life.

Heavy sigh Tommy Mac.  

GCA 101: Penal design is based on the principal of limiting choices.  Cross hazards must be crossed (for sure, I spose one could choose not to finish the hole if he wants to exercise his right to continuously play short of a cross hazard, but then that wouldn't be cricket) - hence the name of the hazard.  One can only choose when he will cross, not if he will cross.  This categorizes all cross hazards as penal in nature because they inherently limit options.  For sure, I spose one clould choose not to finish the hole if he wants to exercise his right to continuously play short of a cross hazard, but then that wouldn't be cricket.  Of course a diagonal cross hazard can offer more options about the best place to cross, but the over-riding principle is that it must be crossed.  

GCA 102: Strategic design is based on the principle of offering options - hence allowing players to avoid hazards and choose the type of shot they would like to hit.  

GCA 103: All design is on a spectrum from very penal to very strategic and the vast majority of courses fall somewhere in the middle.  Even the most famously penal courses such as Oakland Hills can arguably be considered mainly strategic because much of the design is strategic. In any case, it is nowhere near the end of the spectrum, yet most call Oakland Hills a penal design.

GCA 104: Fowler was Simpson's long time mentor.

I am waiting to hear about the penal course Braid designed.  When you discover the name of this smoking gun, please let me know.  

If you need more lessons in basic gca from me, we can discuss financial terms off-line.

Ciao

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

That lake also provided electricity for the club

Could you expound a bit on how the lake provided electricity?

Bryan,

It's a pretty neat and creative use of the water.

The dam is a complex concrete structure with a building attached/adjacent to it.

As the water comes to the dams edge, it feeds over a spill way.
That spill way has two exit points, or mini water falls, one straight ahead and one to the right.
The one to the right contains a water wheel.
The water falling over the right side spillway turns the water wheel which generates electricity, which was then sent to the clubhouse and other buildings vis a vis lines.

I should have taken a picture of it.
I was fascinated by the structure the very first time I visited PV in 1964.
It's an efficient use of the water.
It's been some time since the water wheel has been abandoned, but, I wonder, in the "green" world we live in, if it would ever be made operational again.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

If I recall correctly one of your theories is that the early designs were done working from topos rather than in the field.

That was never my theory, I think you misunderstood it or misstated it

Perhaps.  But, does this mean you are disavowing this quote (emphasis mine) of yours from page 2?  And, what is your theory about the use of topos at PV?

With such dramatic elevation changes and such difficult terrain, it seemed to me that an individual with no prior design experience, traipsing about thick woodlands and swamps, would be hard pressed to envision those holes.  It seemed more likely that topos were a primary tool in discovering the holes and routing.

I was hoping that a 1910 topo of the area that includes PV might be available from the railroads or other sources.
If so, I was hoping to compare that topo with the "Red" and "Blue" topo.

Re the last point, I've provided you with comparisons of a contemporaneous topo with the red blue topo.  What do you make of the comparison?  Does it support your theory (whatever it is) or not?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Why do you continue to try to prove that the majority of the property can't be seen from the train?  Has anybody claimed that Crump could? Seems to me that the claim is that he could see enough of the hills, swamps, etc to tweak his interest.  You don't agree.  We get that.

[Bryan Izatt]

Tom,

Can you provide the reference to where the 1915 drawing of the 13th and 14th is?


Patrick,

Are you saying that this Travis article is incorrect as it relates to "dwarf pines and stunted oaks"?  No, I haven't seen the property personally, but then you weren't there in 1910 or 1915 either.  Do you really believe that what you see today, even in untouched areas, is the same as it was in 1910 or 1915?

Tom,

Re 8/1915 article regarding Pine Valley in American Golfer, it provides drawings of holes 1 and 16, but not 13 and 14.  Did you have another article in mind?


Patrick,

From said American Golfer article of August 1915, following is the first paragraph:

"IF EVER there was a piece of
ground destined by Nature for a golf
course of the "purest ray serene,'' it
is that occupied by the Pine Valley
Golf Club, of Sumner, N. J., some
fifteen miles from Philadelphia.
There may be others equally as fortunately
situated on this side, but
their identity or locality yet remain to
be disclosed. Here we have the raw
material in all its pristine beauty . . .
a rolling country of sand dunes with
a thin covering of dwarf pines and
stunted oaks. And with the added
advantage of running water forming
several fair-sized ponds, furnishing
excellent water hazards."

Hmmm, dwarf pines and stunted oaks.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

If I recall correctly one of your theories is that the early designs were done working from topos rather than in the field.

That was never my theory, I think you misunderstood it or misstated it

Perhaps. 
But, does this mean you are disavowing this quote (emphasis mine) of yours from page 2? 

NO

And, what is your theory about the use of topos at PV?

With such dramatic elevation changes and such difficult terrain, it seemed to me that an individual with no prior design experience, traipsing about thick woodlands and swamps, would be hard pressed to envision those holes.  It seemed more likely that topos were a primary tool in discovering the holes and routing.

Tillinghast seems to support my premise.
He declared that after more than two years, nature, in the form of trees and underbrush, had hidden portions of the golf course from the eyes of mortals.  Does that sound like field work was so productive ?
That portion was on the upper plateau.

I was hoping that a 1910 topo of the area that includes PV might be available from the railroads or other sources.
If so, I was hoping to compare that topo with the "Red" and "Blue" topo.

Re the last point, I've provided you with comparisons of a contemporaneous topo with the red blue topo. 
What do you make of the comparison? 

It's irrelevant.

Does it support your theory (whatever it is) or not?

As I stated, your subsequent topos and any comparisons are irrelevant.

COLT and CRUMP layed out the golf course using THE topo/s at their disposal.

And, judging by the results garnered through the use of the topo/s at their disposal, they crafted a masterpiece.
A masterpiece that conforms to their topo

[Patrick_Mucci]

Are you saying that this Travis article is incorrect as it relates to "dwarf pines and stunted oaks"?  

Yes, I'm stating that.
Travis's article was written AFTER the land was cleared.
Did he EVER see the site BEFORE it was cleared ?
Evidently not, as he references ponds and other features not visible to the mortal eye in 1910
The trees he mentions were probably in existance, but, they weren't the only trees on that property.
Why do you deny the photographic evidence which shows dense forests of tall trees on the site and adjacent to the site.
Why do you deny the veracity of Simon Carr's and Tillinghast's description.
Both men were far, far more familiar with the property than Travis and they were there at the begining whereas Travis was a Johnny come lately compared to them.

No, I haven't seen the property personally,

but then you weren't there in 1910 or 1915 either.  Do you really believe that what you see today, even in untouched areas, is the same as it was in 1910 or 1915?

YES.

The photos from 1910-1915 reflect the same dense forests as exist today.

I find it amazing that someone who has never been there can posture that they know what the site was like, in land form and vegetation, in 1910-1915 and today.  But, you continue to offer your opinion despite never having seen the land form.  How do you account for that ?
Caveat:  My personal experience only goes back to 1964

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Sorry to hear that your desire to compare a contemporaneous topo to the red blue topo was irrelevant.

Ooops, I guess I missed in the 1000+ posts where this definitive conclusion was arrived at.  Of course, I could just be misunderstanding what you mean by "layed out".  Maybe we should consult David on that definition. 

COLT and CRUMP layed out the golf course using THE topo/s at their disposal.

[Bryan Izatt]

I don't claim to know what it looked like in 1910 -1915.  I'm reflecting what people who were there had to say.  As are you.  You choose to believe certain accounts and throw away others as incorrect.  Feel free to do that.  I'm just trying to understand which accounts you feel are irrelevant or incorrect.  So  far, it seems you have thrown at least Tillie and Travis in the trash basket.

With all due respect, what you see today, or in 1964, isn't all that relevant to what was there in 1910-15.  The trees did not stand still for 100 years. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

We won't agree, but there will be a bunch from the site visiting Oct 2nd so maybe some of them can weigh in at that time. 

Fact is, Tillinghast described most of the property as being covered by "Scrub trees".   I think it's likely that some heavier woodlands existed along the ridge where 13 was discovered, but I don't think that was the predominant situation across the property in 1910.

Why did you leave out Simon Carr's description ?
Wasn't he intimately familiar with the site ?

Also, if I get down during the winter, I'll bring a camera. 

Even if I had taken a camera, I just didn't have the time to take pictures.
I did see fellows taking pictures of the DA.

I did get a chance to look at some wonderful old pictures in the new lodge.
Your impression of what existed at PV doesn't match those photos.

[Bryan Izatt]

Jeff,

Yes, I enhanced the outlined holes and the contour lines around 13 and 14.  The photo is not good enough to enhance the iterations in that area.  We need a better picture.  Maybe, someday someone will be there and get a better picture and post it.

Brian,

Did you enhance the rotated Red/Blue plan, esp. the blue contour lines?

As to your topo question, I think there is no doubt they used the survey Crump paid for rather than the USGS.  One possible scenario is that they started with the USGS and found out how inaccurate it was, basically useless for their purposes of final design.  In any survey method, the accuracy of the contours is about half the contour interval itself - if the map has 10 foot contours, then it may be off 5 foot in any location.   2 foot contours may be off a foot, etc.  10 ft contours just aren't enough for reliable design, especially when you are trying to fit holes right up agains features like ridges, ponds, swamps, etc.

Can you highlight the several iterations of the 14th on that map?  I see several, but am not sure which belong to who, like the 14th Cape Hole by Travis.  If not, I understand.