[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't know.  I am just curious and trying to make sense of it.

The 2nd green isn't far from the middle of 4th fairway, is it?

Google Earth will be more accurate than my guestimate...for what it's worth however, when you asked about the nearest point of the 2nd gree to the treeline on 4 I guessed 100 yards and Google Earth said 97 yards. I added in that I thought it would probably be 200 yards from the 2nd green to the water..it measured 195!

There's no way the cameraman would tak the picture from a point between the 6th tee and 150 yards out because the ground drops off significantly..

NO, it doesn't.
The path dips slightly, but the land left of the path is at a higher elevation.
The carry from the 6th tee to the fairway is substantially less than 150 yards

.and there's no way that picture is from ther 6th tee!

Why not ?

The 6th tee wasn't even in that location, nor was the 5th green.

And, these are PRE-construction photos, before any tee or green footpads had been built.

You could see the tracks clear as day on a straight shot down the ravine from just right of the 6th green...

Not in a million years.

The intervening elevations don't permit it, nor do the trees between the 6th green and the tracks.
If you had X-ray vision, I'd agree with you, but, none of us do, except Mike

[Patrick_Mucci]

Please look at this picture, and draw a line from the elbow of the 6th fairway and the 4th fairway, the 2nd green and 3rd tee.

Then draw it from the 6th tee, then from halfway between the tee and the elbow to the 2nd green, 3rd tee.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

The offline eyeball distance estimates you provided were right on.   You can caddy for me at Pine Valley any time.

As for the measures, I realize Google Earth will be more accurate, but I thought you'd have a better sense than me of where the ravine begins, etc.  Plus, this is gca.com, where I have been called a liar (and worse) for posting accurate Google Earth measurements, and I'd rather not go down that road again.

But since you suggested it, would you agree that it is only about 75 yards from the middle of the 2nd green to the middle of the 4th fairway, at the closest point?  And that the edge of the 2nd green is only about 30 yards from the edge of the 4th fairway?  

The reason I ask is that I am having trouble reconciling your description of the location of the 2nd green on the old photo with your description of the location of the middle of the 4th fairway on the same photo.  

I realize it is hard to say, but isn't your location of the 2nd green much further from that road than just 75 yards?    

While I believe you about RR tracks from the sixth green, I am still not sure why it matters whether one can see the RR from the sixth green.

[JESII]

Just to have handy

[JESII]

David,

The road looks to me like it's coming down a hill...if so, that means it's actually short of the fairway and through the waste area on the way up from the tee. All things considered, I think your numbers are pretty close, except that the intersection point in that road is what I would guess is at a similar range and elevation to the 2nd tee...which I do still think is awful cose to the letter D.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I'll address your insults and wild rant later except to say for now that you've been calling Tillinghast a liar since page one so it's now comical that you're canonizing him.

Let's move to more productive matters.

In relation to the sandy road coming up to the top of the hill in the left-center of the picture, please point out for us where you think the 2nd green 3rd tee, and 4th fairway are located.

Thanks.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

Is the whole road short of today's fairway?  If not, can you estimate where along the road the modern fairway would the have begun?  For example, doo you see where what we think might be a road makes a Y near the center of the photo? And then the left branch makes an immediate Y?   Where is that as compared to where you think the 4th fairway begins?Also, where do you suppose the 4th green would be if we could see it?  

Also, in real life is there a very, very slight saddle between the 2nd green and the 4th fairway?

Thanks.
___________________

Patrick,  

By now everyone should know Cirba's M.O.  I suggest we stop wasting our time trying to deal with him.  

[DMoriarty]

For example, going by your description of the road being through the waste area from tee to green, I've shaded a bit of ground after where the road splits.   Is this where you think the fairway was?   




[I'm not trying to say this is where it was.  Rather I am just trying to reconcile your description.]

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Herewith another rendering of your preferred field of view for the 6th, as well as an additional one for the 18th tee centered on the 18th green.




As you'll notice (even if you want to deny it) the206 foot high hill on the Short Course is within the field of view of both your preferred camera angle on 6, and from the 18th tee.  

Following is the 18th tee picture.  Look up at the horizon.  Do you notice the slope up the hill on the left side of the picture.  That's the 206 foot high hill on the Short Course.  Where is it in the 6th hole picture?  It's not there because that's not the angle the picture is taken from.   Q.E.D.  


  

[Bryan Izatt]

Here's my version of the view from the 6th fairway ridge with the 2nd green, 3rd tee and 4th fairway overlaid.

I think the location of the white road is between the 2nd green and 4th fairway.  But, it's kind of irrelevant.  It was probably a temporary road for the clearing process. 

I think that what appears to be the end of the clearing is the top of the ridge coming across through the second green and fouth fairway.  There was probably additional clearing beyond that, that we can't see.  The trees are beyond that, maybe even on the other side of the RR tracks.

[Bryan Izatt]

David,

It's really, really hard to focus on your intelligent contributions when we have to wade through so much vitriolic slagging of Mike to get there.  We're all big boys.  We can assess Mike's contributions and comment as we see fit.  We don't need your vitriolic haranguing to tell us how we should deal with Mike.  Stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

.............. vitriolic slagging deleted ..............

All else.  I finally pulled out both the Pine Valley books and looked at the images in question side by side and at a number of the other images as well.  A few generally comments.

Anyone who thinks that prior to clearing this was a scattering of small bushes (as you guys seem to implying with the constant sarcasm and comments about scrubs and dwarfs) and that the land would have been easily discernible from a moving train, then either you have not seen the photos in the books, or you are delusional, or like Mike you are purposefully misrepresenting the facts.

The comments about scrubs and dwarfs is actually from a Travis article from 1915.  He called them "dwarf pines and stunted oaks".  So, I guess you're slagging Travis too.  I'm not delusional and I'm not misrepresenting the facts.  The fact is that  that is what Travis said.

Your premise that I feel that " the land would have been easily discernible from a moving train" is wrong.  All I've said is that it is plausible that he could have seen the hilly topography from the train and been intrigued.  Shelley said it was plausible too.    

Bryan, there is a photo in both books showing the steam winch used to pull the stumps, along with a number of stumps. The "scrub" or "dwarf" stumps look to be in the range of eight inches to a foot in diameter, larger than a man's thigh but narrower than his waste.  While they may not have been redwoods, were not five foot saplings either.   ........  gratuitous vitriol deleted ........

Travis said they were dwarfs.  Perhaps he had a different opinion than you do.  From pine trees on my property, I would say that 8 inch diameter trees are relatively small - maybe 20 foot

As for the two photos in question:
- Neither is great, but the photo in the Brown book is much better.  Someone with a working scanner (not me) should scan it. You don't have a decent digital camera to get a better picture of the picture? 
- Both photos are cropped.   The photo in brown shows less sky, less immediate foreground (what appear to felled trees)  and a bit more to the left of the photo.
- There may be a few man made structures visible in the Brown photo, but I cannot tell for sure.  

As for what Mike is absolutely certain must be the RR tracks, it doesn't look like it to me at all.  To me it looks like more bare area that has recently been cleared.  The perspective and the exposure of the rough copy in the Shelly book make it look like a line but I don't think it is one.  Sure, it could be a sand road to remove the felled lumber.  It could also be the RR.  Neither of us know for sure which it is.

Here is a section of the 1931 Aerial from the Dallin Collection showing the area in question.  If nothing else it ought to give you guys an idea of this density of the surrounding woods, and everyone but Mike ought to be able to extrapolate back what the site might have looked like before it was cleared.  They didn't call it Pine Valley for nothing.  Actually, I see a fair amount of deciduous in the pictures too, but then Deciduous Valley doesn't have much of a ring to it.



And another aerial from the next year, showing a smaller area from the opposite perspective:

[Bryan Izatt]

Good sensible points, Jim.

If we're trying to prove the RR tracks either were or were not visible from the ridgeline, why not just look straight down the ravine/pond/lake from the 6th green?

For those unfamiliar, the 6th hole is at the bottom-right of David's last picture there, it's a dogleg right and the picture cuts off about 50 yards from the green. Now, consider that the green is about 60 feet higher than the lake just 100 yards to it's right (with a house in between, I believe it's Warner Shelly's house ironically...). That lake goes all the way to the tracks jut about...but what's the point? Who ever said you could, or could not see the 6th fairway from the train, or the reverse?

[Bryan Izatt]

I don't know.  I am just curious and trying to make sense of it.

The 2nd green isn't far from the middle of 4th fairway, is it?

Google Earth will be more accurate than my guestimate...for what it's worth however, when you asked about the nearest point of the 2nd gree to the treeline on 4 I guessed 100 yards and Google Earth said 97 yards. I added in that I thought it would probably be 200 yards from the 2nd green to the water..it measured 195!

There's no way the cameraman would tak the picture from a point between the 6th tee and 150 yards out because the ground drops off significantly..

NO, it doesn't.
The path dips slightly, but the land left of the path is at a higher elevation.
The carry from the 6th tee to the fairway is substantially less than 150 yards

Just to clarify - have you been to PV more times than Jim?

.and there's no way that picture is from ther 6th tee!

Why not ?

The 6th tee wasn't even in that location, nor was the 5th green.

And, these are PRE-construction photos, before any tee or green footpads had been built.

You could see the tracks clear as day on a straight shot down the ravine from just right of the 6th green...

Not in a million years.

The intervening elevations don't permit it, nor do the trees between the 6th green and the tracks.
If you had X-ray vision, I'd agree with you, but, none of us do, except Mike

What intervening elevations would those be?  The ravine, now pond, has no elevation changes if you are looking down its length.  Now, Pat you are just being dogmatically silly again.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Re the 1927 Camden article about the 300 acre hunting preserve, are you aware of any corroborating source?  It was written 12 years after the fact, and it very loosely says that Crump bought it many years ago. It doesn't even explicitly state that the golf course was built on those 300 acres.

David,

In that same article, the author, Jack Nuneville talks about "scrub oaks".  I guess he was as delusional as Travis.   

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Re the 1927 Camden article about the 300 acre hunting preserve, are you aware of any corroborating source? 

Bryan, I'm a little surprised at you, since you and others have accepted newspaper accounts in the past, without requesting corrorborating sources.
If you recall, I've asked on more than a few occassions, for the pursuit (research and verification) of the story.

It was written 12 years after the fact,

You didn't seem to have any problem with the Brown and Shelly accounts written 50 and 70 years after the fact, why the sudden concern with an account written in 1927 as opposed to the ones written in 1963 and 1982 ?

and it very loosely says that Crump bought it many years ago.

What's wrong with that ?

It doesn't even explicitly state that the golf course was built on those 300 acres.

Now you're adopting Cirba like logic and tactics, and showing a clear pre-disposition toward a predetermined outcome.  That's a no-no..
Do you think, if Crump owned those 300+ acres, that he'd go out and buy another 184 acres to build his course.
Or, is it more likely that he'd bifurcate the property

David,

In that same article, the author, Jack Nuneville talks about "scrub oaks".  I guess he was as delusional as Travis.   

Bryan, you're lack of familiarity with the property is hampering your ability to be objective. 
In fact, it sounds like you've picked your side, and rather than analyze any material presented, immediately attack that material to protect your predetermined conclusion/s.
 
Scrub Oaks, tend to be far more dense, with their limb structure, than say, "pin oaks" and other types of Oaks
In the winter, they're harder to see through.
They may not have the height of a mature pin oak, but, they form a significant barrier to lines of sight.

 

[Patrick_Mucci]

I'll address your insults and wild rant later except to say for now that you've been calling Tillinghast a liar since page one so it's now comical that you're canonizing him.

Your attempt to deflect or hide the truth by categorizing my post as an insult and a wild rant is proof positive that you're incapable of being ojective.

You clearly implied that the land, purchased from Lumberton, had been mined/cleared.
Yet, both Carr and AWT were crystal clear in describing the land as a dense, jungle like forest.
AWT went so far as to say that the dense woods and underbrush hid the land from mortal eyes.
Yet, you claim that GAC was able to see sandy soil and ideal land for golf on a speeding train along a stretch of land 4/5's of a mile long, heading to AC

YOU were keenly aware of Carr's and AWT's statement, YET, you implied that the land wasn't as Carr and AWT described, that it was cleared, thus giving GAC an unencombered view.  That's being intellectually dishonest, disengenuous.  Like Brutus, I think you protest too much.

The facts are clear.  What's wild is your creation of any story under the sun, stories that conflict with the stated facts, in order to protect your myth.

Since you stated that you'd get back to us later, how do you reconcile your wild, reckless statement about the land being cleared and two corrorborating eyewitness accounts from people very familiar with the land ?

As to AWT and the train, I've stated that it's my belief that GAC had selected that land, and on a passing train ride, pointed it out to those onboard.

Let's move to more productive matters.

Anytime you're caught in a flawed or false statement, you want to move on.
Why not admit that the land wasn't cleared, that the land didn't afford GAC a clear view of sandy soil and land ideal for golf.
Carr stated same as did AWT.  Why can't you ?

In relation to the sandy road coming up to the top of the hill in the left-center of the picture, please point out for us where you think the 2nd green 3rd tee, and 4th fairway are located.

Previously, I asked you to identify, with yellow markings, the location of the 3rd tee, 2nd green and 4th fairway.

You NEVER responded, and now, you're asking me the question I posed to you.

Unfortuntately Bryan, who appears to have taken your side, has given you a big head start.

Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Herewith another rendering of your preferred field of view for the 6th, as well as an additional one for the 18th tee centered on the 18th green.




As you'll notice (even if you want to deny it) the206 foot high hill on the Short Course is within the field of view of both your preferred camera angle on 6, and from the 18th tee.  

Bryan, it's not within view.  The ascending hill/land parallel to # 2 and # 3 block that view.
The tee at # 18 is at 41 M.  The land to the right of the 3rd tee is 48 M, ascending to 57 M at the house behind the tee and 58 M and SSW of that.  From the 18th tee at PV you can NOT see the short course or the hill on the short course due to the intervening hill to the right of # 2 green/# 3 tee.


Following is the 18th tee picture.  Look up at the horizon.  Do you notice the slope up the hill on the left side of the picture.  That's the 206 foot high hill on the Short Course.  

No it's not, that's the hill/land rising from # 2 tee up to # 3 tee.

Where is it in the 6th hole picture?  

It is there, look at the upper left, beyond the clearing and you'll see elevations.
Do you see how your horizon, running right to left, dips down and then goes back up again.
What do you suppose that is ?
It's your short course hill.

It's not there because that's not the angle the picture is taken from.   Q.E.D.  

Then you're denying your own photographic evidence.


  

[Patrick_Mucci]

All else.  I finally pulled out both the Pine Valley books and looked at the images in question side by side and at a number of the other images as well.  A few generally comments.

Anyone who thinks that prior to clearing this was a scattering of small bushes (as you guys seem to implying with the constant sarcasm and comments about scrubs and dwarfs) and that the land would have been easily discernible from a moving train, then either you have not seen the photos in the books, or you are delusional, or like Mike you are purposefully misrepresenting the facts.

The comments about scrubs and dwarfs is actually from a Travis article from 1915.  He called them "dwarf pines and stunted oaks".  So, I guess you're slagging Travis too.  I'm not delusional and I'm not misrepresenting the facts.  The fact is that  that is what Travis said.

Your premise that I feel that " the land would have been easily discernible from a moving train" is wrong.  All I've said is that it is plausible that he could have seen the hilly topography from the train and been intrigued.  Shelley said it was plausible too.  

Bryan, the problem as I see it is that you accept everything to support Mike's (your) position as pure fact and reject or question any evidence to the contrary.

For a second, Forget what Travis said, forget what Carr said, forget what AWT said.  AND LOOK AT THE PICTURES.

Do those trees, inclusive of oaks, hardwoods, pines and underbrush look like they provide unencombered views of the property ?

STOP your nonsense.  You've declared your position and in doing so reject the photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts.
As I told you, Scrub Oaks, Dwarf Oaks when combined with pin oaks, other hardwoods and pine, along with "jungle like" undergrowth present a formidale barrier, one that can't be penetrated by MORTAL eyes.

In the ground level photo I posted in reply # 1101 I asked you to tell me what you could see, 10 feet, 10 yards or 100 yards into that woods.
You and I and everyone else knows that you can't see a thing.  So why are you perpetuating the argument that you could see "sandy soil" and hills ideal for golf ??  You can't...  When you ride along East Atlantic Avenue, you can't see a damn thing through those woods.  They block your view, horizontally and vertically, making it impossible to see the "sandy" soil and/or hills.

You've never been to PV, and that's impeding your ability to understand the terrain and vegetation, leading you to draw a flawed understanding and flawed conclusions.

Bryan, there is a photo in both books showing the steam winch used to pull the stumps, along with a number of stumps. The "scrub" or "dwarf" stumps look to be in the range of eight inches to a foot in diameter, larger than a man's thigh but narrower than his waste.  While they may not have been redwoods, were not five foot saplings either.   ........  gratuitous vitriol deleted ........

Travis said they were dwarfs.  Perhaps he had a different opinion than you do.  From pine trees on my property, I would say that 8 inch diameter trees are relatively small - maybe 20 foot



Bryan, do the trees in the photo look like dwarf trees, no higher than 20 feet.
Do the trees in front of the 18th tee in the 1917 photo taken from behind the 18th tee look like they're no more than 20 feet high.
In that same photo, Do the trees to the north of the railroad track embankment, and embankment that Cirba declared was 18 feet high, (without any challenge from you) appear to be only 2 feet higher than the tracks ?  Or, do they tower over the tracks, bringing their height to about double 18 feet ?  Are we to believe that the trees south of the railroad tracks were completely different from the trees north of the railroad tracks.
Surely, you can see the folly of your arguement.

As for the two photos in question:
- Neither is great, but the photo in the Brown book is much better.  Someone with a working scanner (not me) should scan it. You don't have a decent digital camera to get a better picture of the picture?  
- Both photos are cropped.   The photo in brown shows less sky, less immediate foreground (what appear to felled trees)  and a bit more to the left of the photo.
- There may be a few man made structures visible in the Brown photo, but I cannot tell for sure.  

As for what Mike is absolutely certain must be the RR tracks, it doesn't look like it to me at all.  To me it looks like more bare area that has recently been cleared.  The perspective and the exposure of the rough copy in the Shelly book make it look like a line but I don't think it is one.  Sure, it could be a sand road to remove the felled lumber.  It could also be the RR.  Neither of us know for sure which it is.

Bryan, why would RR tracks, 20, 30 or 50 years old, with black/blue stone beds, wooden ties and steel rails, with dirt, debris, oil on them appear bright white in a photo ?  When's the last time you saw an old railbed in the northeast, at an angle, from a distance, through woods, that appeared to be bright white.

Here is a section of the 1931 Aerial from the Dallin Collection showing the area in question.  If nothing else it ought to give you guys an idea of this density of the surrounding woods, and everyone but Mike ought to be able to extrapolate back what the site might have looked like before it was cleared.  They didn't call it Pine Valley for nothing.  Actually, I see a fair amount of deciduous in the pictures too, but then Deciduous Valley doesn't have much of a ring to it.

Bryan, if you recall, PV is located in the PINE BARRENS, not the Dwarf Oak Barrens.

At this point, I think David and I have to view you as a "hostile" rather than an objective witness



And another aerial from the next year, showing a smaller area from the opposite perspective:

[/quote]

[DMoriarty]

David,

It's really, really hard to focus on your intelligent contributions when we have to wade through so much vitriolic slagging of Mike to get there.  We're all big boys.  We can assess Mike's contributions and comment as we see fit.  We don't need your vitriolic haranguing to tell us how we should deal with Mike.  Stop wasting our time with this nonsense.

Bryan, I didn't tell you how to deal with Mike, I asked you why you don't call him out for his constant counterproductive behavior?  And your response above begs this question.   Just as you find my "slagging" Cirba a waste of your time, I similarly find Mike's endless misrepresentations, sarcasm, half-truths, tangents, and general unctuousness a waste of my time.    If you want to have a conversation about how to improve the tone, then at least let's address both sides of the problem.  

- If you were a member of a club, and one of the members played at a snails pace, and NEVER let anyone play through, would you say something?  
- What if that member would repeatedly leave the hole he was on to go back and replay some already played hole over and over again in the hopes of attaining a result he was incapable of attaining?  And if he made everyone else join him and/or refused to let them pass while he did this?  
- What if that same member sat in the middle of about every fairway and insisted that everyone take detour after detour away from the actual hole, and toward holes he was just inventing as he went along, would you say something?  
- What about if he repeatedly lied not only about his own score, but about everyone else's as well?    
- What about if he repeatedly pronounced himself the club champion even though he was a double bogey golfer at best.
- What if did everything he could to stop or derail the real club championship from even taking place.  What if he insisted that he control the event, deciding on the rules as he went, and assigning scores as he saw fit?  
- What if had repeatedly spread malicious lies about other members?

Would you say anything?  Would you go after anyone who did?    

There is more ongoing here than me "slagging" Mike, and you know it.  

The comments about scrubs and dwarfs is actually from a Travis article from 1915.  He called them "dwarf pines and stunted oaks".  So, I guess you're slagging Travis too.  I'm not delusional and I'm not misrepresenting the facts.  The fact is that  that is what Travis said.

As to the "scrub oaks" and "dwarf pines, you are twisting my words beyond recognition.   I wasn't "slagging" Travis, nor do I think that the other contemporaneous descriptions were disingenuous or delusional. Rather I assume they were accurate.  I don't object to the descriptions because I am aware of what these terms mean, and I am aware that a thicket of such trees would render visibility almost impossible.   My objection is with the way the way those descriptions have been twisted and misapplied here in a transparent effort to create the false impression that such trees would NOT have severely hindered visibility of the underlying land.  That is what Mike has been doing here, and unfortunately and surprisingly, you have played along and repeatedly so.   I assumed you were playing along with Mike because you "had not seen the photos in the books" and were therefore unaware that these were real trees of substantial size, and that they would have rendered visibility of the underlying features very difficult or nearly impossible.   In other words, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.   Apparently, I was mistaken.

I don't understand why, if you understand the size and nature of such trees, you would continue to throw out the "scrub" and "dwarf" descriptors as if a thicket of such trees would not have obscured visibility?

You don't have a decent digital camera to get a better picture of the picture?

I don't think a photo will cut it without a tripod and proper lighting, and frankly I don't think it is worth the effort.  Feel free and get the book yourself and photograph it to your hearts content, though.  

Ironic that you guys expect me to jump through these hoops for you.  Of course neither of you will say a  damn thing if I do, then get skewered here and elsewhere for supposedly disrespecting Pine Valley by posting a photo from a published book.  

Sure, it could be a sand road to remove the felled lumber.  It could also be the RR.  Neither of us know for sure which it is.

Yet when Mike repeatedly claims - without any doubt and in complete certainty - that it is clearly and definitely the RR, you remain silent, letting such ridiculous pronouncements clog up the thread for another dozen pages or so.  

Likewise,  Now that Mike had decided to ignore all the reports that they had to clear the land of trees and pretend the land had already been cleared, will you say a peep?    Or will you silently let him take us on yet another tangent for a dozen or so pages?  

Actually, I see a fair amount of deciduous in the pictures too, but then Deciduous Valley doesn't have much of a ring to it.

 

I do too.  Perhaps "Oak Valley" was already cliche.  Whether Pine or Oak, the photos show that in 1931-32, place was wall to wall trees, do they not?

[Mike Cirba]

Guys,

Just as a reality check, because these things tend to drift and people forget who said what, here's again what Tillinghast wrote contemporaneously about the site, about the size of the trees, about what he could see, etc.

Now that Tillinghast has moved from lying pariah to the beatification of Saint Tilly, I thought another read may provide some clarity.

Notice he said it required "but a glance" from a critical golf eye to see the possibilities, and notice as well that he says that even with the usual scrub tree and underbrush growth of south Jersey, he'd "never seen land more ideal".

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

I've driven East Atlantic Avenue hundreds of times, and looked south across the tracks, not just with a glance, but with a focused stare.

The view through the woods is inpenetrable, just as Carr and AWT described it.

Remember, that train was heading east, along the exact same route as East Atlantic Avenue.

But, tell me, what could you see, through dense forest, from a speeding train, heading east, in a "chance glance" ?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Let me try to address your questions.   Unlike you and one or two others here, my post will be filled with facts we know and admissions of what we don't know, and it won't contain a single personal insult or scurrilous innuendo.  

First, you asked me about my comment that Crump made his initial purchase from the Lumberton Sand Co.   They owned the land, so I suggested that it was possible there had been prior mining or even lumbering activities on the site....we know there was an active train station there prior to Crump's purchase.   Why would they let people off in the middle of the woods??   So, it's an unknown, and I think one of the many failures of this thread is that we don't even have copies of the land acquisition papers, or know the dates and acreages

We also don't know at all what the land looked like in 1910 by 1930-something aerial photos.   From dealing with a bunch of aerial photos of Cobb's Creek through the decades and then knowing what's on the ground it's literally amazing how much trees can grow in 20 years.

And yes, both Tillinghast and Carr described sites with some dense undergrowth, but I also know from tromping around in golf course woods in winter that it's far more difficult in summer when that undergrowth is fully flourishing.   In the winter, not so much, and the sight lines are amazingly, but not surprisingly clearer as well.

I posted above again Tillinghast's contemporaneous account, and his description of the property is nowhere near as forbidding as you would have us believe.   You keep hanging on to his later description of the finding of the 13th hole, but once again, you seem to read what you want to read into it and disregard the rest.  

For the record, we don't know when Tillinghast wrote his first article as Crump had asked him to hold on reporting it for some unknown time, but we do know he published it in the winter of 1913, in January.

You also asked me if it was found that the 1927 article was correct and that Crump had already owned 300 acres by 1910 if I'd agree the Tillinghast train story was a myth.   The true answer is we still wouldn't know...the 1927 article mentions no specific timeframes, and perhaps like your friend who you earlier anecdotally mentioned that saw the land one day and bought it a few days later the same thing happened with Crump.   Again, we don't know because we're all working here with the newspaper accounts but don't have copies of the sales transactions associated with the property.

Now, I think I've answered your questions, and I haven't been able to draw up something yet for your request on where I'd place the 2nd green and 3rd tee and 4th fairway on the photo.   Unfortunately, I'm having some funky browser issue where I can't see a lot of the pictures that other folks post...only the ones I do primarily, so I haven't yet been able to see Brian's drawings or related Jim's comments to the locations where he's placed things on the photo.

From Jim's descriptions, however, I think were pretty much simpatico.   I think the 3rd tee is completely off the Shelly photo to the left of the picture where it's truncated from the one in Brown's account (amazingly, on this site, some degree of Luddite thinking must prevail as no one who has the Brown photo seems technically able or willing to produce it here for discussion.  ), I think the second green is in the first 1, 1.5 inches from the left on the horizon line and the 4th fairway is right of that.   It's tough to tell where the land slope breaks, so for now I'd agree with Jim that the sandy road ran up the middle of the 4th, with the caveat that I wouldn't be too surprised to learn it ran to either side of that road.

Now, I'd ask you again...you don't have to draw but perhaps you can tell us just like I did where you would locate those features on that picture.   I think it may be instructive to see where and why we disagree.

Thanks.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Here's my version of the view from the 6th fairway ridge with the 2nd green, 3rd tee and 4th fairway overlaid.

Bryan,  I think you've done a great job at overlaying your interpretation of the objects.

There's only one problem.  The land short of the 2nd green falls off precipitously, as does the land behind/left of the 4th fairway.

Your overlay is not at all representative of the actual terrain, but, it does look great.

I think the location of the white road is between the 2nd green and 4th fairway.  But, it's kind of irrelevant. 
It was probably a temporary road for the clearing process. 

What were they clearing ?

I think that what appears to be the end of the clearing is the top of the ridge coming across through the second green and fouth fairway. 

There was probably additional clearing beyond that, that we can't see.  The trees are beyond that, maybe even on the other side of the RR tracks.

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

You asked what the point of the exercise was of determining whether you could see the location of the 6th green from the train tracks and visa versa.

And, with years of experience at Pine Valley, you answered the question rather definitively saying from the green you could see the train tracks clear as a bell, or words to that effect.

The point of the exercise is very simple.   Since the first page Patrick has been arguing that it would have been impossible because of the dense foliage for Crump to see any of the site from the train, therefore Tilly must have lied and the story is a myth.

However, if one can see the location of the sixth green from the tracks today, what would have made that such a problem in 1910?

We know that there was a train station (Sumner) on that line, just about one hundred yards from the ravine that runs in front of the 18th green, along the road and tracks, up through the 5th hole, and then along the 6th nearly up to the green.   In fact, from the 18th green down through the 14th green south the tracks are elevated on a high rail bed about 10-15 feet.

We also know from your experience there that you've mentioned that the area behind the 14th green looking up into the ridge that holes 15 and 13 are built on would have been easily visible, as well.

I also think it's important to state exactly what Tilly said Crump found desirable and intriguing about the site.   He stated that unlike the rest of flat south Jersey, this site was "beautifully rolling and hilly".

So, to see that land configuration, and to get intrigued enough to motor out to the site several times, and all the rest that followed, why wouldn't Crump just have looked out the window and looked right up the steep ravine past today's 18th green, past the clubhouse, past the area of the 5th to the area of the future 6th green? 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

You asked what the point of the exercise was of determining whether you could see the location of the 6th green from the train tracks and visa versa.

And, with years of experience at Pine Valley, you answered the question rather definitively saying from the green you could see the train tracks clear as a bell, or words to that effect.

Despite your desire to leap onto Jim's statement, you can't see the RR tracks from the 6th green.
Jim is wrong on that issue.

As I stated previously, AFTER the land was cleared, you could see the tracks from the 14th tee, but, you couldn't see the 14th tee from the tracks.
The same general relationship exists between the tracks and the 6th green.
From an elevation, one can look down and observe what's below, understanding that there's no sight line impediment such as a forest of trees.
But, from down below, one can't see the features in the terrain elevated well above him, again, with the understanding that there's no sight line impediment such as a forest of trees.

If either you or Jim would like to bet me that you can see the train tracks when standing in the middle of the 6th green, I'd be happy to accomodate whatever amount you decide upon.  You can even syndicate your bet, I'll take as much as you can raise.

The point of the exercise is very simple.   Since the first page Patrick has been arguing that it would have been impossible because of the dense foliage for Crump to see any of the site from the train, therefore Tilly must have lied and the story is a myth.

Mike, not JUST because of the trees, but in ADDITION to the trees.
The intervening elevations between the tracks and the land south of the tracks obscures the travelers view.
How many times do I have to repeat that.
Then, when you add in the dense forest that Carr and AWT described, the task of viewing the property becomes impossible

However, if one can see the location of the sixth green from the tracks today, what would have made that such a problem in 1910?
TREES and underbrush so thick it was Jungle like.

Here's why I think you're being disengenuous and intellectually dishonest.
Here's the picture YOU posted.
As you approach the area behind the 2nd tee, look how thick an inpenetrable the woods are.
Tell me, 50 yards short(west) of the 2nd tee, what would a chance glance reveal ?

I know you try to avoid answering questions that undermine and destroy your premises and myths, but, I'll take your refusal to answer as an agreement that you couldn't see a thing.  That GAC was blind to the landform.

We know that there was a train station (Sumner) on that line, just about one hundred yards from the ravine that runs in front of the 18th green, along the road and tracks, up through the 5th hole, and then along the 6th nearly up to the green.   In fact, from the 18th green down through the 14th green south the tracks are elevated on a high rail bed about 10-15 feet.

That's an absolute LIE.
The RR tracks are well below the 17th fairway, 17th green, 18th tee and the land leading from the 18th tee down to the fairway.

WHY would you deliberately LIE about the configuration of the terrain ?

When you lie like this, when you deliberately misrepresent the facts, you undermine and eliminate any credibility you might have.

And Bryan, why didn't you call Mike on this glaring factual error.  Why are you remaining silent, allowing someone to completely misrepresent the terrain ?

Mike, you claim that I've insulted you, but, when you DELIBERATELY LIE AND FALSIFY FACTS, am I supposed to sit back and accept your lies ?
Should I not call you on it ?

We also know from your experience there that you've mentioned that the area behind the 14th green looking up into the ridge that holes 15 and 13 are built on would have been easily visible, as well.

If Jim Sullivan said that, then he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
The 15th and 13th holes are not visible from an east bound train, and I don't care if you're sitting on the roof.
AWT clearly stated that the 13th was so heavily wooded with timber and underbrush that the land was hidden from mortal eyes for over two years (three winters) after they bought and walked the land.  But, you make the outrageous claim that from 300 yards away and 50 feet below, the land where the 13th would be sited was clearly visible from a passing train.  Are you kidding me ?  Bryan and Jeff, why the silence ?   This is a blatant lie.

Jim, I'd like you to confirm or deny that you made that statement.

I also think it's important to state exactly what Tilly said Crump found desirable and intriguing about the site.   He stated that unlike the rest of flat south Jersey, this site was "beautifully rolling and hilly".

Sure, after GAC had hunted on the land for years, he was qualified to make that statement, but, not from a "chance glance" from a speeding train heading to AC.

So, to see that land configuration, and to get intrigued enough to motor out to the site several times, and all the rest that followed, why wouldn't Crump just have looked out the window and looked right up the steep ravine past today's 18th green, past the clubhouse, past the area of the 5th to the area of the future 6th green?  

Mike, you can't be that dumb AND/OR that devious, or can you ?

If he looked up your ravine, assuming that no trees were growing on the entire property, he wouldn't see the 6th hole green site because, from the tracks, he'd be looking well right of the 6th green.

But, we know, from Carr and AWT that the trees were incredibly dense, making any view impossible, especially a view to a site elevated well above the tracks.




To help you in your excercise, here's the photo you posted.



Look at the density of those woods as you approach PV from the west.
Carr and AWT stated that the entire property looked like that
Look at the trees south of 18, west of 9 & 10, East of 4, east of 5 and north of 6.
And tell us, on that "chance glance" which you now state was up the ravine, what could you see ?

You will resort to any exageration, any distortion, any misrepresentation and lie to perpetuate your myth theories and that's unfortunate as I hoped that any and all comments from participants choosing to post would be intellectually honest.

Your postings aren't mistakes or simple errors in interpretation, they are deliberate misrepresentations and flat out lies.

And as disappointing as that is, why are Bryan, Jeff and the others silent when you make these outrageous, knowingly false statements ?

Why are David and I left to be the bad guys ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()