[JESII]

Pat,

The sandy path in that first picture is still there today...it's just a few yards behind the drop area I used last time I played there...

Also, it would be abvious to anyone paying attention that Bryan was referring to the 14th hole portion of that picture being pre-clearing and pre-construction so let's move on to that specific subject. The early plans make it clear that Crump was steering well clear of the swamp. Look at his Stick routing, the Colt plan and the Blue/Red Plan. All of the early iterations avoid the swamp.

In that context, there's no reason to believe this area would be cleared and then let go.

For the moment let's leave our disagreement about exactly what Crump wanted to look at when clearing the trees on the ridge that became the 13th approach and green. Let's look at the timeline of developing the lake with a dam and the 13th green and 14th hole final iterations.

In January 1915 AWT write of how the 13th hole was discovered so it happened sometime (anytime) before that. The same article indicates that the repositioning of the 13th green will require a change to the 14th hole from a 4 to a 3. This is evident if you look at the Blue/Red Plan showing where the 13th green was in Blue. By moving it substantially Northeast you cut off alot of land.
In December 1914 an article quotes from "a recent report from Simon Carr" on the approach clubs to holes and lists 14 as a par 4. This same article says "20 acres of bog will be converted to a lake".

What can we derive from this rough timeline?

When I debated this several months ago with Tom MacWood he estimated how long each publication could potentially take to print a story. He would know better than me.

There was another article discussing damming up a creek...why would we think that was only about the 5th/18th hole creek? It referenced 3 dams.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

The sandy path in that first picture is still there today...it's just a few yards behind the drop area I used last time I played there...

It's not the SAME path.
Also, the angle that the first picture is taken from is different from the angle in which the second picture is taken from.

Also, it would be abvious to anyone paying attention that Bryan was referring to the 14th hole portion of that picture being pre-clearing and pre-construction so let's move on to that specific subject.

It is NOT obvious because Bryan asked the following question, directly above the top photo:

Will you agree that the following picture is before construction and before clearing on this part of the property?


The early plans make it clear that Crump was steering well clear of the swamp. Look at his Stick routing, the Colt plan and the Blue/Red Plan.
All of the early iterations avoid the swamp.

They do NOT.
Please, go back and re-analyze the blue/red topo more carefully and you'll see the interaction of the holes with the swamp area.

In that context, there's no reason to believe this area would be cleared and then let go.

You're wrong again, go back and re-examine the blue/red topo.

For the moment let's leave our disagreement about exactly what Crump wanted to look at when clearing the trees on the ridge that became the 13th approach and green. Let's look at the timeline of developing the lake with a dam and the 13th green and 14th hole final iterations.

In January 1915 AWT write of how the 13th hole was discovered so it happened sometime (anytime) before that. The same article indicates that the repositioning of the 13th green will require a change to the 14th hole from a 4 to a 3. This is evident if you look at the Blue/Red Plan showing where the 13th green was in Blue. By moving it substantially Northeast you cut off alot of land.
In December 1914 an article quotes from "a recent report from Simon Carr" on the approach clubs to holes and lists 14 as a par 4. This same article says "20 acres of bog will be converted to a lake".

Perhaps there's a better way of determining the chain of events.
Isn't the linch pin Colt's visit in April/May of 1913, which is when the Blue/Red topo was crafted.
In both blue and red you can see evidence of the re-drafting of the configuration of the current 13th and 14th holes.
Hence, it would appear, that as early as April/May of 1913, the idea to convert the swamp to lake/golf, had been floated.

What can we derive from this rough timeline?

That as early as April/May of 1913 the idea to convert the swamp came to mind

When I debated this several months ago with Tom MacWood he estimated how long each publication could potentially take to print a story. He would know better than me.

Certainly there was a lag, but, who knows the lag time for each article, they had to differ based on individual circumstances.

There was another article discussing damming up a creek...why would we think that was only about the 5th/18th hole creek? It referenced 3 dams.

I seem to recall that all three were in the clubhouse/18th hole area with one being at the driveway leading to the clubhouse paralleling the 5th hole and the other two to the right of the 18th fairway, one near where the driveway turns to go in front of the 18th green and the other about 100 yards to the east of that, next to the 18th mid-fairway.

[Bryan Izatt]

Certainly looks like their tree planting program was a roaring success.  And all before you got there. 

And, tell us again how similar it is today with how it was in the beginning. 

I'd be happy to.
Note the dense forest behind the green on # 3.


You know, because you've tramped all the ground there, that that is at the opposite end of the property from the 14th.

Here is a zoom of the 14th area from the 1931 aerial.  You'll notice in the red ellipsis at the bottom, the tall dark pines between 15 and 16.  Those were visible in the ground level picture. In the middle two ellipses are smaller, most likely new plantings of pines on either side of the 13th fairway.  In the red ellipsis in the upper right are tall dark pines.  They look tall even though they are further in the distance.

In the green ellipses are what look to me like smaller deciduous plants.  Smaller than even the new plantings alongside the 13th fairway.  I think they are brush or very stunted oaks.  In any event, not tall compared to the pines circled in red.   I think that that is just brush, similar to what was in the foreground of the ground level picture.  Certainly no tall pines in any of that area. 

Cue for Patrick to deny, deny, deny.







Note the dense forest on the north side of the railroad tracks.
Notice the height of the trees.  No dwarf pines or oak are there.
You relied on one quote, probably repeated elsewhere, describing the site erroneously.  If you weren't in brain cramp mode you'd recall that I presented three or four quotes that were similar re stunted and dwarf from different sources. 
The photos show how very tall those trees were.

Picture yourself riding on the train and looking north.
You couldn't see a thing through that dense forest.
Looking south, what you still don't understand, is the massive intervening landform that blocks your view for a very long stretch. 

And, that landform that blocks the view goes up and down just like rolling hills would.  The rolling hills are parallel to the tracks as well as perpendicular.

There are perhaps only two locations where a passenger wouldn't have his view south blocked by the higher landform to the south.

Wow, this is progress!  At least there are two places where a view into the property at some angle is possible.

 



Take a look at the dense forest, comprised of tall, mature pines and oaks.  You know you're looking at another area.
[/b][/size][/color]

The current towering pines vs the original stunted oaks and dwarf pines (or was it the other way aound).

The early pictures posted don't reveal any dwarf pines or stunted oaks.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Pine Valley,
but, then again, that's to be expected as you've never seen the property.

Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?

At least there were some 30 to 40 foot pines back in the day.

Why are you so emotionally invested in the impenetrable forest dogma?

Let's just chalk it up to photo graphic evidence combined with contemporaneous eyewitness accounts by AWT, Carr and others.
Does the forest below look "thin"


What's amazing to me is that YOU the one emotionally invested in claiming that there were open, views, unobstructed by landforms, trees or underbrush, when you've never been to Pine Valley and have no understanding of the terrain, especially as it relates to views from the railroad tracks. 

Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?

Is it not possible in your world for people to have different interpretations of things and events?

If TEPaul or Jim Sullivan or Archie Struthers had a different interpretation I'd be more prone to give their interpretations more weight as they're familiar with the topography and vegetation. 

As far as I can tell, Jim doesn't seem to agree with you.  Archie seems wise enough to not even engage with you.  Maybe TEP will be enticed back to debate the point with you, but I'd guess not.  Besides, even he wasn't at PV in the 10's.

But you have absolutely NO personal experience.  You don't have a clue as to how the land south of the RR tracks looks from the RR tracks, especially as you're heading east.  Your understanding of the land form is minimal at best.

Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?

[/quote]

[Patrick_Mucci]

Certainly looks like their tree planting program was a roaring success.  And all before you got there.  

And, tell us again how similar it is today with how it was in the beginning.  

I'd be happy to.
Note the dense forest behind the green on # 3.


You know, because you've tramped all the ground there, that that is at the opposite end of the property from the 14th.[/size]
Now you're telling us that there was an enormous difference in the dense forest and thick underbrush depending upon where you were on the property.

That conflicts with Carr's account and other accounts.
But, if you want to go to the Southeast end, Tillinghast himself described it as dense forest and underbrush so thick that the land was hidden from the mortal eye.  Why are you denying Carr's and AWT's contemporaneous eyewitness descriptions ?   Answer that question. [/size][/b]

Here is a zoom of the 14th area from the 1931 aerial.  You'll notice in the red ellipsis at the bottom, the tall dark pines between 15 and 16.  Those were visible in the ground level picture. In the middle two ellipses are smaller, most likely new plantings of pines on either side of the 13th fairway.  In the red ellipsis in the upper right are tall dark pines.  They look tall even though they are further in the distance.[/size]

You have to learn to differentiate Cedars from Pines.
Look at the land at the end of the bridge.  That's the area in question isn't it.
It's dense forest.
Why circle land far removed from PV in the upper right, as you've done, presenting it as if it's land and vegetation similar to what was found at Pine Valley.  That's being intellectually dishonest.

In the green ellipses are what look to me like smaller deciduous plants.  Smaller than even the new plantings alongside the 13th fairway.  I think they are brush or very stunted oaks.  In any event, not tall compared to the pines circled in red.[/size]

They look and are tall because they stand alone, not amongst hundreds or thousands of other trees IN the forest.  

I think that that is just brush, similar to what was in the foreground of the ground level picture.  Certainly no tall pines in any of that area. [/size]

You think it was "JUST BRUSH".
Despite contemporaneous eyewitness descriptions from AWT, Carr and others.
You have to think it's "just brush" to justify your idiotic position.

Your contention that there were no Pine trees at Pine valley, only deciduous trees with some randomly planted new pines, is bizzare to say the least.
I wonder why they didn't call it "Oak Valley" ?  Or "Brush Valley"
Contemporaneous descriptions state that it was pineland, yet you, who has never set foot on PV declare that there were no Pines, except for a few newly planted ones.

How do you account for the fact that Shelly, who first played the course in 1925 and became a member in 1928, stated that "The course was laid out in the sandy PINE Country" ?  Surely Shelly knew the difference between pines and deciduous trees didn't he, or are you claiming that AWT, Carr, Shelly

How do you account for the fact that in excess of 22,000 trees were removed, just for the first 11 holes ?

A description of the site was reported two days after his death.
"And out of the MASS of underbrush, scrub oak and PINE...he visualized and built what promises to be the best golf course in this country"

An early photo, taken from the 5th tee toward the 5th green shows a landscape dominated by tall pines.  
Were they just brought in for the photo shoot ?

How do you account for the fact that in 1964 when I first played there, the course had pine trees everywhere.
Did someone sneak in the week before and plant tall, mature pine trees ?
Remind us again, how many times have you been on site or within a mile of the course.

Cue for Patrick to deny, deny, deny. [/size][/color]

No position you take on the course and ground at Pine Valley is rooted in personal observation.
TEPaul even admonished you for jumping to false conclusions due to your lack of familiarity with the site.  







Note the dense forest on the north side of the railroad tracks.
Notice the height of the trees.  No dwarf pines or oak are there.
You relied on one quote, probably repeated elsewhere, describing the site erroneously.  

If you weren't in brain cramp mode you'd recall that I presented three or four quotes that were similar re stunted and dwarf from different sources.  

We know from the NGLA thread that many of those "different sources" were merely unsubstantiated repitition of previous quotes.
The photos clearly show tall dense pines, but, your agenda just won't let you see them.

The photos show how very tall those trees were.

Picture yourself riding on the train and looking north.
You couldn't see a thing through that dense forest.
Looking south, what you still don't understand, is the massive intervening landform that blocks your view for a very long stretch.  

And, that landform that blocks the view goes up and down just like rolling hills would.  
The rolling hills are parallel to the tracks as well as perpendicular.

Is that statement based on your personal, first hand, observations and experience at Pine Valley.
Some of the landform that blocks the view south does NOT go up and down as you allege.
How did you come to that conclusion ?
How much of the blocked view was created by the tracks being built below grade ?
When it comes to understanding the landform at PV, you're a fraud.
You've never seen it, you've never walked the tracks and looked south.
You don't understand the blocking nature of the landform and the vegetation, yet you argue on, out of ignorance.

There are perhaps only two locations where a passenger wouldn't have his view south blocked by the higher landform to the south.

Wow, this is progress!  At least there are two places where a view into the property at some angle is possible.
It's not progress, I've stated that from the very begining.
Try improving your reading comprehension before you make false and/or incorrect statements.

 

[/size][/color]

Take a look at the dense forest, comprised of tall, mature pines and oaks.  

You know you're looking at another area.

I'm looking at Pine Valley, that's the course we're discussing/debating isn't it.
How convenient for you to state that I'm looking at another area ON THE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY when you brazenly circle in red areas FAR REMOVED FROM THE GOLF COURSE PROPERTY
[/b][/size][/color]

The current towering pines vs the original stunted oaks and dwarf pines (or was it the other way aound).

The early pictures posted don't reveal any dwarf pines or stunted oaks.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Pine Valley,
but, then again, that's to be expected as you've never seen the property.

Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?
Oh, so now it's your contention, that prior to 1960, it wasn't densely grown in ?  ?  ?
Then why did AWT and Carr and others, in 1912 and thereafter describe it as dense forest with thick jungle like underbrush ?
Dense forest and underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye ?
You are a FRAUD.
You continue to make wild, grossly incorrect allegations absent a shred of evidence.
And worse, you hold yourself out as an expert on the property despite NEVER having seen it in person, let alone walked or played it.

At least there were some 30 to 40 foot pines back in the day.

Why are you so emotionally invested in the impenetrable forest dogma?

Let's just chalk it up to photo graphic evidence combined with contemporaneous eyewitness accounts by AWT, Carr and others.
Does the forest below look "thin"


What's amazing to me is that YOU the one emotionally invested in claiming that there were open, views, unobstructed by landforms, trees or underbrush, when you've never been to Pine Valley and have no understanding of the terrain, especially as it relates to views from the railroad tracks.  

Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?
I thought that you were more intelligent than that.
How quickly you forget the lesson in reforestation that I provided you.
For you to state, that Pine Valley wasn't densely grown in is so incredibly disingenuous, so stupid that it defies imagination.
Were Carr, Tillinghast, Shelly and others lying about their descriptions of the property.

Might I suggest that you switch to discussing topics where you have an inkling as to what you're talking about.

Is it not possible in your world for people to have different interpretations of things and events?

If TEPaul or Jim Sullivan or Archie Struthers had a different interpretation I'd be more prone to give their interpretations more weight as they're familiar with the topography and vegetation.  

As far as I can tell, Jim doesn't seem to agree with you.  Archie seems wise enough to not even engage with you.  Maybe TEP will be enticed back to debate the point with you, but I'd guess not.  Besides, even he wasn't at PV in the 10's.
Desperate men do desperate things and you're desperate.
Jim has been proven wrong on a number of issues regarding PV.
For you to speak for Archie is the height of arrogance.
As to TEPaul, he's free to do whatever he likes.
But, none of that has any influence on your lack of knowledge on this subject.
You're like a scorned woman, looking for anything to strike back on.

But you have absolutely NO personal experience.  You don't have a clue as to how the land south of the RR tracks looks from the RR tracks, especially as you're heading east.  Your understanding of the land form is minimal at best.

Unlike you who never saw it before the '60's when it was already densely grown in?
Your ignorance knows no bounds.  Keep repeating that PV was only densely grown in by the time I played it, it makes you look like a fool

[/quote]

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

No,

I would not agree that the top photo is pre-clearing and pre construction.  

I was pretty sure you wouldn't agree, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

You KNOW it wasn't a pre-clearing photo.
That's obvious from looking at the photo, and, I believe the caption that accompanies the picture does NOT mention pre-clearing,  but rather pre-construction in that area.  Would you post the caption.  In addition, in your reply, you admit that clearing is evidenced in the photo on # 17, yet you state that the photo is pre-clearing.

Sure, there is clearing in some parts as I described above.  In other areas I've identified I think it wasn't cleared.  Why are you so gung-ho on playing gotcha?

Bryan, do you expect me to allow you to make incorrect, false or conflicting statements and not bring them to everyone's attention.
You're amongst the first to jump on everyone else for errors, intentional or innocent.
Why do you want differential or special treatment ?

I thought that you would understand that I was talking about the foreground around the 14th hole.  How silly of me to think that you would understand.

What you fail to recollect is that I stated that the only one of two locations from which AWT might have sighted the property without obstructing terrain was by the 17th tee, but, that view, as the Eastbound train emerged from behind the large white landform that blocks any views south, would have been of the swamp.

 So, Crump could see across the swamp in your opinion?  And, looking across the swamp obliquely, he could look up the hill to where 17 would end up?


Absolutely NOT.
This is where you total lack of familiarity with the land causes you to make false claims.
You are BLINDLY invested in trying to prove that Crump had an unencumbered view of rolling hills, valleys and pasture lands.
I've asked you, dozens of times, to point out Crump's location when he made his alleged sighting, and after dozens of requests, you still can't identify the location nor the rolling hills, valleys and pasture land he allegedly spotted while sitting in an eastbound train doing 60+mph.


YOU were the one who said that there were "one of two locations from which AWT might have sighted the property without obstructing terrain".  If one was the swamp, what would he see past the swamp or to the north of the swamp?  Who ever said "unecumbered view" - that seems to be a straw man argument that you, not me, put up.  My only argument with you is that there was NO place where Crump could have seen into the property and that he couldn't have notice the rolling nature of the parallel land form.  

Secondly, as I look at the photo it seems to me that it's NOT taken from the ridge on # 13 or the tee on # 14, but, from a point well below those elevations.

Who said it was taken from the ridge on 13 or the 14th tee?  Seems fairly obvious to me that it was taken from somewhere behind the current forward tee.  Maybe just back from the sandy path that is there today.

There is no sandy path running across the hole, there today.

Thirdly, you know the land's been cleared in the top photo in the foreground because there's a white path running across the picture, and there are no trees.

Hmm, a path equates to clearing.  That path looks like it still exists today.  This is weak, even for you.  

You just don't understand the landform or the configuration of the course, yet you persist in making declarations, declarations that are incorrect.

There is a path there today - it's on the aerial.  Jim has seen it in person.  Why do you deny it?


Now, that's nice convoluted logic - there are no trees, therefore it has been cleared.  That's even weaker.  There are no trees on the Old Course.  I guess it was cleared.  

In desperation, now you're comparing the site at TOC with the site at PV.
Face it, you're lost and don't know what you're talking about.

I know, Mike Cirba would claim that the white path was the railroad tracks, but, we already know he was wrong on that call on the 6th hole.

The second photo looks like 1922  So you've said.  What's your source.

Pine Valley.

That's really helpful.  

Your caveat, "on this part of the property" needs to be clearly defined.

The part in the foreground, the island, the part along the RR track embankment.  All this around where the 14 green got built.

I'd certainly agree that the island is pre-construction.  Wow, something we agree on!

Tillinghast told you that the general area from which the photo was taken was densely forested with underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye.

But, we know that his story was a complete bogus myth, so who would rely on that description.  Of course, all 184 acres must have been uniformly densely forested.  How silly of me to think otherwise based on a picture.

Except that AWT's story is corroborated by Carr and many others.

If you look at aerial photos from 1922 and 1925 you can see that all non-golf areas are uniformly, densely forested, as they also appear in aerial photos from 1931, 1938 and subsequently.

You have an agenda and believe what your agenda tells you that you have to believe.

Like the photo from the ridge on # 6, obviously the land has been cleared.

Not obvious to me.  The underbrush in the foreground looks virgin.  The island and the area along the tracks looks untouched.  Why would they have cleared this section?  They didn't figure out the routing over this end for years.  Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.

That's NOT true.
Why would you make that up about the routing ?
Just go back and look at the original stick routing and the red/blue topo.
The stick routing is dated March 1913 and I believe the red/blue topo around May of 1913, I believe a full year earlier than the photo you posted
They always had holes designated for this area.
To refresh your memory, here's the red/blue topo.
How can you state that they hadn't figured out the routing, it's on the red/blue topo, along with the lake.



Well, actually I was thinking of the Colt plan.  As you might notice, there are no holes down in the southern end of the property where the 14th eventually ended up.

Your question was to the effect, "why would they have cleared there"  The answer is because they were going to put holes there.
Then you respond, out of context, by leaping backward in time.
The top picture referenced was taken AFTER the lake was created.
You may remember we discussed that event and date.

You may also remember that AWT stated that Crump discovered the 13th hole, based upon the view.
I maintained that the "view" was the view of the lake.
Once Crump had his "light bulb" moment, the die was cast, and # 13 and 14 became a reality.
In the top photo it appears as though they were at various stages in clearing # 15, 16 and 17, and perhaps behind # 14 green.

Jim has been trying to pin down the "light bulb" idea for the 13th.  Do you agree with his timeline?



Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.

So you now contradict yourself again, and admit that it's NOT a pre-clearing photo as your caption above the photo states.
why wouldn't they have cleared 17 all the way back to the 17th tee and over to 16 green and perhaps over behind # 14 green ?
how else would they get to # 14 green if not from behind it, from the west ?

Oh, Patrick, get over yourself.  I've described the areas that I think are cleared and those that I believe are not.  

NO YOU DIDN"T.
In the caption to your top photo YOU STATED that it was pre-construction and PRE-CLEARING.
It was only AFTER I brought it to your attention that you changed your description.

It didn't occur to me that you would fixate on the post-clearing areas in the picture.  I gave you more credit than that.  


Why are you trying to play this gotcha game.  How does this in any way advance the yardsticks?  What have you added to our collective understanding since you started the topo thread?

It's very simple, I'm preventing you from MISREPRESENTING the facts.
You can't make irresponsible, erroneous statements and expect them to go unchallenged.

Do you want to present the truth, or what best serves your agenda ?

The answer seems obvious to me.

OK, my first statement was not clear enough for you.  Amend it in your brain to include "some areas in the foreground and the right where the 14th green would end up are pre-construction and pre-clearing.  One point for you.  I suspect anybody else who read it understood the point, but, I hope it is now clear to you.

In addition, the swamp had been dammed and converted to a lake in both photos, which would seem to indicate that that area had also been cleared.

How do you suppose they got the horses and steam winches into the swamp to pull the tree stumps?

Very carefully and probably from access and an access road running parallel to the railroad tracks.
Even today that path/road is in use.
Both photos YOU presented seem to indicate it was put into use early on.

Are you being obtuse or don't you understand this either?  I meant into the middle of the swamp - to pull the trees that you think were there.  Wouldn't they sink under their own weight?  Or was it a shallow swamp?  Or, maybe trees just pop out of the muck.

But, this isn't where the swamp was marked on the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article.  If it was swamp before it formed the pond in the picture, then I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of clearing needed.

Oh, now the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article is your bible.  How convenient.  
Do you mean the map that had the trees running through the middle of the fairways, tees and greens ?  

How do you decide what is garbage and what is gospel truth?

Mostly the same way I decide when confronting a medical problem, with FACT based EVIDENCE.
You were the one who conveniently gave credence to an obviously flawed schematic that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I don't need to know how you decide, since it's obvious.
You decide based upon whether or not it fits your predetermined agenda.

OK, another piece to throw on the erroneous scrap heap.

How about the red/blue topo.
How about the fact that the lake as pictured is the low lying area of the property, (read swamp)

Being from Canada I doubt you have a clue as to what swamps in New Jersey look like.
Trees are in abundance in them.
To be enlightened, Google "the great swamp nj" or go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Swamp_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Nice to see you're actually doing some research.  Did you have some momentary doubt you needed to check out.  You do recall that when I pointed out articles about the history of fires and logging in the Pine Barrens many months ago, that you laughed them off as not applicable to PV.  Let me just play that back to you.  

You're so desperate that you're trying to apply a general occurance to a specific site.
If Pine Valley had been ravaged by fires, why would Tillinghast and Carr, two contemporaneous eyewitness accounts, describe the site as dense forest with jungle like undergrowth, dense forest and thick undergrowth so visually impeding that the land was not visible to the mortal eye.

Again, you misunderstand the point.  I gave you a general "fire" site.  You give me a general "swamp" site.  Either may or may not apply to PV.

You've been proven wrong, over and over again, and in desperation, keep throwing nonsensical arguments/issues into the fray in order to cling to your championing of the myth.  Over and over again you've tried to deflect facts with conjecture.  It won't work.  You're lost, you've never studied the terrain and vegetation at Pine Valley, yet hold yourself out as an expert, making erroneous claim after erroneous claim.  

Granted, you make only one dogmatic conjecture.

The more you post about Pine Valley, the more I'm convinced you really know less and less about it and just want to take the opposite side of the debate, which is fine, but, get your facts right before you make declaritive statements.  

I have no idea why you are so emotionally attached to such a insignificant point.

If it's so insignificant why are you, Cirba, Brauer and other misguided individuals so emotionally attached to claiming that Crump "First" saw Pine Valley from an eastbound train, speeding at 60+mph.    That from that train, from that chance glimpse, he saw, rolling hills, valleys and pasture land ?

I don't recall anybody except you saying "First" recently.  Why are you still fighting that battle?  Several of us have tried to show you evidence that Crump could have seen rolling hills.  You have dogmatically rejected it all.  The only one who said Crump saw "pasture" was Brown.  I guess we can throw that on the erroneous scrap heap too.

OK, if that's your claim, where was he located when he had his "chance glimpse" and saw those features ?

And, where are those features ?

You're the expert, those should be easy questions for you to answer,
UNLESS, in your heart of heart, you realize that there are NO rolling hills visible from the RR tracks.
There are no valleys visible from the RR tracks and there is no pasture land visible from the RR tracks.
Especially, on a "chance glimpse" from a speeding eastbound train doing 60+ mph.
That's an awful lot to take in on a "chance glimpse", especially when the terrain blocks much if not most of the land south of the tracks and the trees and underbrush block the rest, with the possible exception of the swamp, which most wouldn't call ideal land for golf.

We've already answered that.  Look back.  

What would he have seen through that small crack over the swamp if not a hill?

Remind us again, how many times over how many years have you been on site ?  Remind us again, how many times you were on the site between 1910 and 1914.

The same number of times that you've ever been there.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

To clarify a couple of points before ending:

Now you're telling us that there was an enormous difference in the dense forest and thick underbrush depending upon where you were on the property.

I didn't say enormous.  Yes, I think there is a difference between the north end and the south end.  The north looks like more dense pine and the south looks like more dense brush to me.  I know you don't agree.  I agree to disagree. 

The early plans make it clear that Crump was steering well clear of the swamp. Look at his Stick routing, the Colt plan and the Blue/Red Plan.
All of the early iterations avoid the swamp.

They do NOT.
Please, go back and re-analyze the blue/red topo more carefully and you'll see the interaction of the holes with the swamp area.

None of them have the 14th in the final configuration.

The following are questions.  No agenda.  Who drew the blue topo?  When?  Who drew the red topo?  When?  Was the Colt plan before, at the same time as, or after the red and the blue?  Did Colt draw the Colt plan?

How do you account for the fact that in 1964 when I first played there, the course had pine trees everywhere.

They were reported to have planted 10,000 (or more) trees - pines presumably. Based on the 1950's picture of the 14th hole it looks like it was quite a successful pine growing program a decade before you got there.


_________________________________________________


Time to draw a close to this silliness.  You willfully misunderstand many of my points.  Clearly you won't stop doing that. You've called me erroneous, a moron, disingenuous, a liar, a fraud, arrogant, desperate, ignorant and on and on.  Enough is enough.

You allow that there are two spots where Crump may have been able to glimpse into the property.  That's good enough for me.



 

[Bryan Izatt]

Back to a more productive topic, I hope.

The following two early (undated) pictures of the 5th hole could give us some sense of the earth moving that was undertaken in the construction of the course.  The first picture show a close-up of the green.  The large bunker along the upper side appears to have been gouged/scraped out of the side of the ridge.  The sand removed appears to have been used to create the green.  

The 1913 topo suggests that this area was originally a relatively uniform slope down to the stream/pond.  The second picture shows a green benched into the side of the hill.  It must have take quite a volume of fill to level the natural grad off to create the relatively level green.   To me it looks like more fill was likely required to level the green than would have been immediately available for gouging out the bunkers.  Perhaps they brought it in from other parts of the property.

The tie-ins certainly aren't as elegant as some of the preferred designers around here would come up with today.

Interesting knob in the front bunker.  Did that survive?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Bryan,

What's the old joke about mud wrestling a pig?  Sooner or later you realize the pig kind of likes it?  Hopefully, this thread will wrap up, and I am sorry it turned into the typical gca.com trainwreck for you.  Not sure how Patrick's recent insults go down with Ran's plea for a more civil discourse, or even Pat's own off line call for more civil discourse?

Like you, I have seen more than a few contemporary photos, with some uncleared areas that still allow views of the tracks, nearby houses, etc.  As usual, Pat pounds a literal interpretation of some of Tillie's words rather than looking with his own, sadly, diminished eyesight.  We know what we can see with our own eyes, so its a complete time waster to listen to Patrick's take.  About half the 12 pages were wasted on that, I think,

Thanks for posting those new (to me) pictures of the fifth.  While its a lot of fill by those old standards, it doesn't look like a lot more than say a typical CBM green from NGLA, eh?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

To clarify a couple of points before ending:

Now you're telling us that there was an enormous difference in the dense forest and thick underbrush depending upon where you were on the property.

I didn't say enormous.  Yes, I think there is a difference between the north end and the south end.  The north looks like more dense pine and the south looks like more dense brush to me.  I know you don't agree.  I agree to disagree. 

It's not that I disagree with you, which I do, but Tillinghast disagreed with you about the south end (probably more east vs west than North vs south).
It was Tillinghast, based on his contemporaneous eyewitness account that declared the forest to be so dense and the undergrowth so thick that the land was hidden from the mortal eye.  And, that was years after 1910-1912.  I know you won't accept my word for it, but, why won't you accept Tillinghast's

The early plans make it clear that Crump was steering well clear of the swamp. Look at his Stick routing, the Colt plan and the Blue/Red Plan.
All of the early iterations avoid the swamp.

That's ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE.
WHERE DO YOU THINK THE 16TH GREEN WAS SITED ?

They do NOT.
Please, go back and re-analyze the blue/red topo more carefully and you'll see the interaction of the holes with the swamp area.

None of them have the 14th in the final configuration.

The 14th wasn't the sole area of the swamp.
Look at the 16th green and the fairway leading to the 16th green.
It's immediately adjacent to the swamp/lake

The following are questions.  No agenda.  Who drew the blue topo?  When?  Who drew the red topo?  When?  Was the Colt plan before, at the same time as, or after the red and the blue?  Did Colt draw the Colt plan?

You know the questions that can be answered and the questions that can't be answered, so why play more games ?

How do you account for the fact that in 1964 when I first played there, the course had pine trees everywhere.

They were reported to have planted 10,000 (or more) trees - pines presumably. Based on the 1950's picture of the 14th hole it looks like it was quite a successful pine growing program a decade before you got there.

And, why do you think they planted all of those trees ?
Could it be because they cleared well in excess of 22,000 trees just on the first 11 holes they crafted.


_________________________________________________


Time to draw a close to this silliness.  You willfully misunderstand many of my points. 

I didn't misunderstand any of your points, willfully or unintentionally.
I know how to read and my comprehension skills are more than adequate.

Clearly you won't stop doing that. You've called me erroneous, a moron, disingenuous, a liar, a fraud, arrogant, desperate, ignorant and on and on.  Enough is enough.

You allow that there are two spots where Crump may have been able to glimpse into the property.  That's good enough for me.

One location may have allowed for the view of a worthless swamp.
Hardly the ideal land for golf.

The other, only because of the respective elevations, but, at that spot, one has to account for the dense forest and jungle like underbrush described by Carr.   At 88+ feet per second, it's counter intuitive that a clear view of "rolling hills, valleys and pasture lands" would be visible to anyone.

What's been comical about this discussion is the position you've taken on what can and can't be seen from the tracks when you've never been on site.

Imagine if I was to tell you what you could and couldn't see on your home course, when I never set foot on the property.
I wouldn't begin to present a visual analysis.  Yet, you've rendered your opinions on the visuals, rather emphatically, without ever having been on or near the property.

We both know how grossly flawed that type of non-fact based analysis can be.

I thought that you originally agreed with Mike Cirba when he declared the white path/road was the RR tracks.

I think that undermined, if not destroyed, your credibility on the subject of the terrain at PV.

I'm sure that we'll agree and disagree on a number of subjects in the future.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff Brauer,

After the emails that you sent, for you to have the nerve to criticize anyone for a lack of civility is a joke.

You engage in the very behavior you chastize.

That's as phoney as you can get.

Stop whining and stop criticizing behavior that you routinely engage in.

As to those two pictures, I know my eyesight is poor, but all of those trees look like....... Pine Trees.
I can't see any/many deciduous trees.
Do you think they moved them for the photo op ?

Those Pine Trees in that second picture sure look tall, very mature, certainly not recently planted.

Maybe they touched up the photo

[JESII]

Pat,

Do you think the sandy path itself is evidence that some portion of the 14th hole has been cleared as of the taking of that first picture?

[MCirba]

Wow, how did I miss this Train Ride?  

Nice to see that the status quo on GCA was still static during my long absence.    

Hey, speaking of trains, any train buffs out there who know what they called those particular cars that George Crump and his friends are stepping out of?  

[Jeff_Brauer]

The last car of typical passenger trains was usually the observation car, with a rounded end or perhaps just a platform.

I think this was on an interurban line, and they would probably not have anything like that.  They probably had a bar car, sometimes in the middle of the train so all patrons could access it.

[MCirba]

Jeff,

Do I see a window in the back of that train?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation_car

Not that they wouldn't have availed themselves of the Bar Car. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Mike,

Google interurban rail cars.  That is what it really seems to look like, and I do think the line was an interurban, and the engineer would have been sitting on the other side of that door on the right, if they got out of the front of the train, and both ends usually had a engineers seat, because they didn't turn the trains and the engineer needed to be at the front going back.

From memory, there were three lines from Camden to AC, and I guess since this was a winter golf trip, we don't know which rail line they were on, standard or interurban.

http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=interurban+rail+cars&qpvt=interurban+rail+cars&qpvt=interurban+rail+cars&FORM=IGRE

[MCirba]

Jeff,

You're definitely the train expert, thanks.   The train they are on in the picture shows them disembarking in Atlantic City in 1909, so this was likely the type of train they would have regularly taken.

I think it's likely that they would have had more than a side view in such a car, but also would be able to look out the back to see the land they had just traversed.   Would you agree?

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think they would have had their eyes focused solely on their smart phones......I hesitate to say more in this crowd.

[MCirba]

I think they would have had their eyes focused solely on their smart phones......I hesitate to say more in this crowd.

Ha! 

Are you sure it's a train at all Jeff? 

[Dan Herrmann]

I agree.  An interurban

[Jeff_Brauer]

I think they would have had their eyes focused solely on their smart phones......I hesitate to say more in this crowd.

Ha! 

Are you sure it's a train at all Jeff? 

Yes, pretty sure. I actually have spent more time on various railroad history than golf architecture.....

BTW, if you think it gets mean here, go on a railroad forum and start a thread on exactly what shade was the "real" boxcar red.  (Hint, there are many different answers, depending on railroad, paint shop, and how long the car had been out in the weather, but that doesn't stop them from arguing just how much the Kodachrome may have altered the color in a photo.....

[MCirba]

Jeff,

And here I thought golf course architectural history was the only thing worth going to cyber war over.    That does not bode well for the future of mankind.

[Gib_Papazian]

I vaguely recall a photo in the archives of Macdonald and Crump, with a map of the property - showing a lake and grove of trees the background.

Early records suggest the original boundary lines offered for purchase included Clementon Lake, now the home of Splash World amusement park.  

Not sure what that means or how conclusive - given the fact Harry Colt traveled through Ardmore on his way to Clementon, prior to construction of Merion.

It would seem that had Crump's acquisition of the original property been accepted, the intended location of the clubhouse would have been along the shores of Lake Clementon.

[DMoriarty]

Not sure what that means or how conclusive - given the fact Harry Colt traveled through Ardmore on his way to Clementon, prior to construction of Merion.

I think Colt is normally thought to have first visited Pine Valley in the spring of 1913, whereas Merion East was constructed in the spring and summer of 1911 (and seeded in September 1911.)  Perhaps you are thinking of the west course which was constructed in the Spring of 1913.

[MCirba]

Gib,

Yes, Harry Colt first visited Pine Valley in May of 1913, towards the middle of the month if memory serves.

While Merion East had opened in fall of 1912, the course was anything but a finished product and Colt may have advised on how best to incorporate some of the ideas from abroad that were Merion was hoping would be implemented over time.   He likely would have visited the West course as well, which was under construction at the time.   If memory serves I think Hugh Wilson brought him to see Seaview too, which was also under construction.  I believe Colt returned to England around the end of the first week in June.

[DMoriarty]

. . . Colt may have advised on how best to incorporate some of the ideas from abroad that were Merion was hoping would be implemented over time.  

I always find it entertaining when Mike just makes shit up. He seems to give Colt more credit at Merion than he does CBM, which is more than a little ironic.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()