[Patrick_Mucci]

It's photo interpretation time.

There are several flaws with your presentation.
I'll chalk them up to your lack of familiarity with the course rather than agenda driven intellectual dishonesty.

The picture I was working from doesn't mention the 3rd green. 

That's because your caption is incomplete.

How do you know the caption on your photo is right and this one is wrong? 

Because the author of mine was a member of Pine Valley in 1918 and became its President in 1925 and remained its President for the next 52 years.


I would interpret the line that I've marked with red arrows as the RR. 


It's NOT, and,
That can't be your interpretation for several reasons.
You should have said that it's your predetermined agenda.

First of all, look at the proximity of the white road/path to the cleared ground.
The RR tracks are far removed from that location.
And, the angle of the white road/path is more than parallel to the camera, while the RR tracks would be moving away from the camera.

Secondly, you've positioned the camera at the 6th green, not looking across the 4th hole towards the 2nd green and 3rd tee, but away from them.
Both captions are clear, the photo is from the 6th fairway, looking ACROSS the 4th to the 2nd green and 3rd TEE.

You've misrepresented the position of the camera, the angle of the camera, the object of the camera, thus, your conclusions are incorrect.
You've drawn your conclusion, and you're now searching for a method to try to achieve it.

I don't think it is connected to the meandering road in the left side of the picture.

It is 

The trees I've marked in the right foreground appear to be in the stream ravine that became the lake bisecting the 5th hole. 

They are NOT.
Now, I"m begining to think you're being intellectually dishonest.

The photo is taken from the 6th fairway, looking ACROSS the 4th hole to the 2nd green and 3rd tee.
The photo isn't taken from the 6th green looking down the 4th fairway to the 4th green as you've postured.

The sides of the ravine are 100 - 120 feet. 

Where are you coming up with that number ?

You can clearly see over those trees so they must be less than 35 to 40 feet tall.

You just don't have a clue.
Your lack of familiarity with the site, and that particular site, combined with your desire to fulfill your agenda has resulted in a misguided effort.




To humor you I have widened the camera angle to include the third green and the ravine to the right.  The field of view is about 45*, about right for a camera with a lens with a focal length of 35mm.

You've done no such thing.
You've mislocated the position of the camera and the object of the camera, ergo the angle of the camera and the field of view.
You've misrepresented where the picture is taken from and you've misrepresented the object of the camera.
I thought you had more integrity than that.

You can continue to try to fit a square peg in a round hole, but, I won't be commenting on your folly or rather your desire to fulfill your agenda, any further.

I know your sole purpose is to try to prove me wrong, but, on this issue, you fail miserably because you are totally unfamiliar with the property.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

No one has pursued the 1927 article because it contains glaring, obvious errors that fly in the face of all the contemporameous accounts of men who were actually there and because no one has a clue who the author is and whre he got his cockamamie story.

Tom MacWood's suicide story flew in the face of contemporaneous accounts too, didn't it.  Yet, he was correct.

You, who continually offer newspaper articles as pure fact, now dismiss this story because you don't know the author and where he got his source information.  Talk about putting your head in the sand.

You don't want to pursue it because it would rewrite the history of PV, further destroying your myth.

It's sort of like that article where :HH Barker had been hired to design Merion in Lakewood, NJ.

You can't deflect and deny the focus of the article by creating bogus analogies.
Fact is, you don't know if the article is correct or incorrect, and neither do I.
The difference is you DON'T want to pursue it and I do.
You don't want to engage in a search for the truth because it may undermine your myths or the status quo.

Why would you NOT want to pursue the article ?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Sometimes, one needs to use good judgement when ascertaining the validity of any particular article.   Joe and I have an article that states William Flynn designed Cobbs Creek, but that doesn't make it so, and none of the other contemporaneous evidence supports that contention.

For me, I'll take the word of the men and written accounts of the men who were there; Tillinghast, Perrin, Carr...than Jack Nuneville nearly 20 years later.

Bryan,

There is not a thing wrong with your photo interpretation.   It makes the evidence very clear and as usual when pointed out in the wrong, Patrick is protesting too much with no evidence to counter you. 

That little sandy road was almost certainly created to move fallen timber, or perhaps a remnant of former operations on the property (sand mining?), and if I'm not mistaken, can be seen on the left of this photo looking back up the hill as well.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Sometimes, one needs to use good judgement when ascertaining the validity of any particular article. 

Oh, like the article that said you could see the Atlantic and Shinnecock Bay from everywhere on NGLA except the low lying areas ?  

Joe and I have an article that states William Flynn designed Cobbs Creek, but that doesn't make it so, and none of the other contemporaneous evidence supports that contention.

Cobb's Creek and William Flynn have nothing to do with the 1927 article about Crump owning 300+ acres in Clementon.

You do NOT want to pursue the article because its accuracy would destroy your myth.

For me, I'll take the word of the men and written accounts of the men who were there; Tillinghast, Perrin, Carr...than Jack Nuneville nearly 20 years later.

That's not true.
You rejected Carr's description of the property.
Why suddenly are you now willing to accept his word as the Gospel.
You can't have it both ways.

Bryan,

There is not a thing wrong with your photo.   It makes the evidence very clear and as usual when pointed out in the wrong, Patrcik is protesting too much with no evidence to counter you.

Mike, your willingness to ignore John Arthur Brown's description of the view and your quest to fulfill your agenda have proven time and time again that you can't be objective.

Bryan's analysis is critically flawed in many areas.
One merely has to go to google earth to see how flawed his position is.

He can post all the arrows and lines he wants. the view is to the Northwest, not the Northeast.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Sometimes, one needs to use good judgement when ascertaining the validity of any particular article.   Joe and I have an article that states William Flynn designed Cobbs Creek, but that doesn't make it so, and none of the other contemporaneous evidence supports that contention.

For me, I'll take the word of the men and written accounts of the men who were there; Tillinghast, Perrin, Carr...than Jack Nuneville nearly 20 years later.

Bryan,

There is not a thing wrong with your photo interpretation.   It makes the evidence very clear and as usual when pointed out in the wrong, Patrick is protesting too much with no evidence to counter you.  

That little sandy road was almost certainly created to move fallen timber, or perhaps a remnant of former operations on the property (sand mining?), and if I'm not mistaken, can be seen on the left of this photo looking back up the hill as well.

Mike, you're looking at the wrong photo.
The photo below isn't of the same location.
How desperate can you get ?

But, since you've posted this photo, tell us, what objects can you see that are 25 yards into those woods ?
Can you see anything 25 yards into those woods ?
Or are they dense, matching Carr's and AWT's description ?
You remember them, they were there and you just told us that you rely on their accounts.
Well, their accounts tell us that the land was dense, jungle like and that the mortal eye couldn't see the land.

As an aside, these pictures were taken AFTER the land was cleared.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I didn't use the wrong picture.

One is looking from the third green across 4 and up to 6, which is what i just posted.   I said I think you can see a road in this pic, as well.

The other, as labelled, is looking from the upper points of the 6th fairway across the second green and 4th fairways.  

They aren't at the same angle, or even opposite angles, but perhaps based on this new information Bryan can estimate this photo as well and overlay it on his other map and we can all get a better sense of what we're looking at?

Why are you so quick to try and stifle new discoveries?    

[Mike Cirba]

Here's roughly the same view today from Google Maps.

[Mike Cirba]

Here's the photo taken from the 3rd green, roughly approximated using Google Earth.

[Tom MacWood]

Tommy Mac

Are you not surprised at receiving a sharp word when you act in an obtuse manner?
 
No wonder folks get frustrated dealing with you.  Where did I ever state that Fowler was a penal architect?  Its just made up nonsense on your part designed to hammer home some black or white truth which in reality didn't and doesn't exist.  Because Colt, Fowler, Simpson, Mackenzie, Darwin, and Hutchinson all advocated the use of the cross-hazard it is automatically considered strategic?  These folks were from a strategic schoool of thinking. That means they all believed in strategic design as a general framework, not that they designed exclusively strategic holes.

You obviously don't understand the concept that centreline hazards present more options than cross hazards and are thus more strategic in their nature and that any hazard designed to force a player to play a certain shot is more on the penal side of the spectrum.  Its not a judgement on the value of the architecture, merely a way to easily categorize architecture so we can more easily convey ideas.  This is basic stuff Tommy Mac.  Instead you go on about the depth of a bunker being penal?  "Penal" used in this way is interchangeable with "harsh", or "difficult".  It as nothing to do with penal (which isn't interchangeable with "difficult") architecture.  You are so caught up in the black VS white of this sort of stuff that you miss the big picture.  

Ciao    

Who said anything about a sharp word? I said your post was empty; there was absolutely no substance to it, probably because you have no idea what you are talking about.

When the founders of modern strategic golf architecture wrote that the cross-hazard was a useful strategic element, yes I do put a great deal of stock in it.

Interjecting yourself into this discussion because you see yourself as some kind of Fowler expert was a mistake. Firstly because you are obviously confused about what Fowler stood for as an architect. And second because in the process you gave legitimacy to Mike's completely illegitimate argument. Fowler was not a penal architect, he did not have a draconian approach, there is no evidence he had anything to do with the design of PV, and Crump and the others were not major disciples of a 'no let up' school of architecture led by Fowler. Mike is full of it, and apparently so are you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I didn't use the wrong picture.

One is looking from the third green across 4 and up to 6, which is what i just posted.  

Mike, you can't stand on the 3rd green and look across # 4 fairway and up to # 6 fairway, # 6 fairway is in the opposite direction, up on the extreme right

I said I think you can see a road in this pic, as well.

You "think" you can see a road ?  Whether you can or not is irrelevant to the photo taken from up on the 6th fairway, clearly depicting roads/paths.

The other, as labelled, is looking from the upper points of the 6th fairway across the second green and 4th fairways.  

NO, it's NOT, the photo caption states that you're looking ACROSS the 4th HOLE, NOT THE 4TH FAIRWAY, up to the 2nd GREEN and 3rd TEE.
You've completely misrepresented the caption, the photo angle and what the photo is focused on.
Why doesn't that surprise me ?

They aren't at the same angle, or even opposite angles, but perhaps based on this new information Bryan can estimate this photo as well and overlay it on his other map and we can all get a better sense of what we're looking at?

Why are you so quick to try and stifle new discoveries?    

"New discoveries" ?  And here I thought the land was static, never knowing that it moved around to suit your agenda.
You learn something new every day.

Having just spent a few days at PV and having studied various aspects of the course and surrounds, I'm confident that my perspective is accurate.
Can you and Bryan state the same ?

Did you know that AFTER the land was cleared and the 14th hole was built that from the 14th tee you could see the railroad tracks in the backround ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's roughly the same view today from Google Maps.

Mike, it's not the same view.  You've shifted the view far to the right.
Where's the 3rd tee in your photo interp ?  It should be in the CENTER of the photo, not the far left.

[Tom MacWood]

The old picture was obviously taken after some major tree clearing had taken place, and therefore the picture is really of no use. Anyone who has seen the before and after pictures in that history book knows what a difference those trees make when they had grown back in.

This whole exercise is moot because Crump was not playing golf in 1910, so he didn't take a train to AC with his golfing pals that year. The story is bogus.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

What surprises me about your response is that you KNOW that the photo can't be taken from where Bryan indicates because the land there rises up.  The entire right side of # 6 green and approach are elevated.

The photo is taken from a point at the begining of the 6th fairway to at most, the begining of the elbow of the fairway, looking across # 4 up to # 2 green and # 3 tee.

I can understand Bryan's ignorance and misplacing the location of the camera, because he's never been there, but, you know better.
Why didn't you bring that up and correct him ?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Raynor didn't design any courses before 1917 either, right?

[JESII]

Pat,

Are you saying this caption also mentions the 3rd tee? Is that a period or a comma after "2nd green"?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Can you post a picture of the caption that mentions the 3rd green. 

I don't have time right now, but I think if you draw a straight line from the 3rd tee/2nd green across the 4th fairway, you'll end up by the 5th green, not the 6th fairway.

Why do you think I have a predetermined agenda?

Why are you trying to stifle discovery and interpretation with these kind of demeaning comments?   


Mike,

I can't really see anything in the second photo.

[Bryan Izatt]

Did you know that currently PV is comprised of 25 lots in 6 blocks.  Do you suppose that they were originally bought as one block?  Or were the blocks purchased separately over the years.

The blocks that encompass the actual course are about 200 acres.  The total land holding currently is almost 625 acres.

How does this relate to the historical 184 or 300 acre stories?

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

That's odd...can you see a the correct location and angle?nything of my first pic?

If so, do you think I have

[Mike Cirba]

Yikes...the perils of Blackberry posting!

Can you see my first pic Bryan?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Can you post a picture of the caption that mentions the 3rd green.

If I knew how I would.
It states:
"Before-Construction view from the high ridge of the 6th hole, facing the now 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee. 

I don't have time right now, but I think if you draw a straight line from the 3rd tee/2nd green across the 4th fairway, you'll end up by the 5th green, not the 6th fairway.

I think you'll end up in an area near the begining of the 6th fairway to the elbow in the 6th fairway.
Instead of drawing a line through # 2 green and # 3 tee, draw the line from between the two, back to the high ridge on # 6.

What you don't realize and what Mike didn't tell you is this.
If the picture was taken from in front of the 6th green, as you illustrated, the land in front of the camera rises up, significantly, before it descends.
In addition, the land to the right is a huge cavernous pit absent any shoulder or slope that's seen in the photo.
A slope that I feel is the area below the house behind the 6th tee. (not visible in picture)

Why do you think I have a predetermined agenda?

Because you just like to disagree with me.
I don't think you've been objective.

Why are you trying to stifle discovery and interpretation with these kind of demeaning comments?   

The problem is that your location of the camera and the declaration of the view from there are incorrect.
But, Mike jumped on the opportunity to claim you were right, instead of carefully examining the features he's familiar with.
You're not familiar with them, so you're in the dark about some of the features, but, Mike's not.
I'm not trying to stifle discovery, I am trying to stifle trying to pass off erroneous data and conclusions as fact, which is what Mike has done.
The view from your camera location would be blocked in front of you by the rise and to the right there'd be an enourmous semi-circular pit, the rim of which would be clearly visible.

I don't doubt your motives/intentions, other than to argue with me, but, I do doubt Mike's motives/intentions since he's proven that he can't be objective.  He reaches his conclusions then tries to find anything to justify them, instead of finding the facts and letting them lead him to a prudent conclusion.

If you were able to go on site, you'd have a better idea of the spacial relationships, angles and views

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

Where did you ever read that the pic from the elevation of the sixth fairway includes any part of the 3rd hole?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Where did you ever tead that the pic from the elevation of the sixth fairway includes any part of the 3rd hole?

In JOHN ARTHUR BROWN'S BOOK "PVGC - SHORT HISTORY OF PINE VALLEY"

Published 1963, 19 years prior to Shelly's book.

Page 8

Your other picture is on page 9 and has the caption, "Example of terrain cleared for FAIRWAY construction"

John Arthur Brown was a member of Pine Valley from 1918 and served as it's President from 1925 to 1977, 52 years, so I have to think he was somewhat familiar with the land.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Did you know that currently PV is comprised of 25 lots in 6 blocks.  Do you suppose that they were originally bought as one block?  Or were the blocks purchased separately over the years.

Supposedly, the 184 acres came first, then subsequent parcels until the current 625 was acquired.

The blocks that encompass the actual course are about 200 acres.  The total land holding currently is almost 625 acres.

How does this relate to the historical 184 or 300 acre stories?

Don't know, but, it would seem to be worthwhile to pursue the 1927 article indicating that Crump had owned 300+ acres.

If David Moriarty or anyone else can tell me how to conduct a search, perhaps when I"m next in Clementon or the Camden County seat, I can look up the records circa 1908-1910-1912

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

Raynor didn't design any courses before 1917 either, right?

Yes, if you recall we looked into that and this what we found:

1910 - NGLA
1911 - Sleepy Hollow, Piping Rock, Merion
1912 - St. Louis, Greenbriar
1913 -
1914 - East Lake, Lido
1915 - Islip, CC of Fairfield, Westhampton, North Shore
1916 - Blind Brook, Shinnecock Hills, Greenwich, Mountain Lake

The courses in bold included the involvement of CBM or some other architect. There is very little known about the early creation of Fairfield, and I suspect you will find CBM involved in that course and Mountain Lake as well. So what is your point?

This exercise is moot. Tilly and Crump were not a train to AC in 1910 because Crump wasn't making any golf trips to AC in 1910. The story is bogus. Every other account has Crump finding the site while hunting.

[JESII]

Tom,

Do you think he owned the land in 1910? Do you know when he made his initial purchase of ~180 acres?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()