It's hard to believe

[Patrick_Mucci]

that Crump designed "A" if not "THE" course for the ages by himself.

Recently I had the opportunity to ride and walk through the woods at Pine Valley.

I've always marveled how these ODG's, without the benefit of satellite imagery, lasers and other high tech devices were able to locate and design great holes out of the wilderness.

What's even more puzzling is how a complete novice was able to craft a collection of 18 of the best holes in golf, 100 years ago.

So I walked through the woods, up and down steep hills, trying to figure out how anyone could "see" a golf hole, let alone 18 connected golf holes in those dense woods.  The woods didn't allow for views beyond 75 or so yards.

Then I wondered, how did Fazio find similar terrain that would enable him to replicate eight holes from the big course ?
And again, not just find the terrain for one hole, but for eight connected replica holes*
Fazio, of course, had the benefit of modern technology, which Crump didn't have.

So, for me, it seemed to boil down to two things:
1.   Crump's ability to read a topo and the quality of the topo, something which created an extended thread a while ago.
2.   "help" in the form of professionals, either surveyors and/or other architects

But, Crump wasn't a surveyor and it's my understanding that reading a topo and using one to design a golf course in 1912, when golf was in it's infancy in the U.S., would be two entirely separate disciplines, especially for a novice.

Could Fazio's design of the "Short" course shed light on how Crump came to design Pine Valley ?

(to be continued and edited)

[Niall Hay]

Didn't Crump have the help of Tilly, Wilson, Colt and others?

[Niall Hay]

"“Tillinghast revered Crump,” says Hannigan. “He said he often walked the Pine Valley property with his friend before the construction job. Tillinghast properly labels Pine Valley as Crump’s design, but he claimed he had helped sell the ‘concepts’ of the seventh (another of the perennial all-American holes) and the thirteenth (a majestic par-4 hole) to his friend.”"

[David_Elvins]

Pat,

I believe the answer is "time". 

I am not sure how long Crump spent on the property - 5 years? - but it was a significant advantage over most other course architects, IMO.

[Peter Pallotta]

He had TIME. He TOOK the time.

Anyone who has ever tried to create anything good and worthwhile knows what that means, and what it requires, and what it allows:

Dedication, without ego; patience, with oneself and with others; and trial and error, and a hundred decisions and indecisions.

He wasn't a god; he wasn't a genius; he was a passionate and talented lover (i.e. amateur) of golf architecture, who took the time he needed to turn a vision, a dream, into a reality.

Peter

(David - great minds, huh?And we took hardly any time at all!!)
 

  

[Randy Thompson]

I wonder how much the course evolved over that 100 years. Being in the right hands over the years way back then, seems to me, had to be a significant part of the equation. I find it incredible the courses that recieve gold stars today are mature products that are at somewhere around 99% of their total potential, thanks to technology and sometimes, massive budgets. If this is not the case then not only was Crump exceptionally talented, then he had a hell of a piece of property to work with!

[David_Elvins]

David - great minds, huh?

Your eloquence has me covered, Peter.

[RJ_Daley]

Let's take a reasonably intelligent person, with a passion for golf, and patience and commitment to learn as much as is known about the subject of design and construction, in context of what was known of the craft at that time, and with the time Peter and David speak of... so why is it so hard to imagine?  There were not the numerous obstacles to design and construction environmentally or zoning wise then.  They were free to make mistakes as they went about their efforts, and correct them as they proceeded.  I think many of us who get wrapped up in this subject here on GCA, with the time and resources, and few if any obstacles in the way of permits and the like, could produce a darn fine golf course on the proper land fit for purpose as MHM used to say. 

Now, if you find that so hard to believe, you must be really baffled at the Ancient cultures of Egyptians, Greek, Romans, Chinese and all the rest that built the real wonders of the world.  Take the Coliseum and all the engineering and ingenuity along with physical efforts to construct and operate 2200-1800 years ago.  Now that is more unimaginable than some passionate golfer laying out a golf course in some pine-sand barrens!  It's just grass and strategy after all.... 

[Garland Bayley]

That's because he didn't.

[Patrick_Mucci]

He had TIME. He TOOK the time.

That's not true.

He began clearing and laying out the holes almost immediately after obtaining the property.
Holes 1-4 and # 18 were of the "instant" variety.

Anyone who has ever tried to create anything good and worthwhile knows what that means, and what it requires, and what it allows:

Dedication, without ego; patience, with oneself and with others; and trial and error, and a hundred decisions and indecisions.

He wasn't a god; he wasn't a genius; he was a passionate and talented lover (i.e. amateur) of golf architecture, who took the time he needed to turn a vision, a dream, into a reality.

Again Peter, that's not true.
The timeline of events contradict your statement.

Crump bought the first 184 or so acres in the winter of 1912, October, I believe.
He began clearing almost immediately, in February of 1913, and by July 1913 Colt had already provided his routing plan.
By March, I believe that Crump had developed a site plan.  A plan which resembles today's course.

Hence, taking his time was not his modus operandi.

By February 1914, one year from the date that clearing 10,000 trees had begun, eleven holes had already been completed.

Taking his time was NOT an element critical to the routing/designing of the course.

Colt's plan, which was altered for #'s 12, 13 and 14 had all the other holes pretty much as they are today.

So, we have the purchase of the property in the Winter (October) of 1912, tree clearing begins in February, with site plans crafted between March and July of 1913 and eleven holes ready for play by February 1914.  That's pretty quick progress for 100 years ago.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"“Tillinghast revered Crump,” says Hannigan. “He said he often walked the Pine Valley property with his friend before the construction job. Tillinghast properly labels Pine Valley as Crump’s design, but he claimed he had helped sell the ‘concepts’ of the seventh (another of the perennial all-American holes) and the thirteenth (a majestic par-4 hole) to his friend.”"

Niall,

If that's correct it would mean that AWT was involved from the very begining.
The question is, what was the degree of his involvement.

But, if he was substantively involved, why bring in Colt and/or others ?

In 1912/1913 AWT's sole work was Shawnee in 1907/1908.
By 1912/1913, Colt had been involved with GCA for 26 years.

In January 1913 issue of "The American Cricketeer", AWT wrote that work on the new course was to begin shortly.
His actual writing had to preceed the January 1913 issue date, hence, it's likely that he was privy to information about the project in 1912.  

Did AWT suggest retaining Colt ?

Had the parties all met previously ?

[JESII]

that Crump designed "A" if not "THE" course for the ages by himself.

Nobody ever said he did.

[JESII]

Could Fazio's design of the "Short" course shed light on how Crump came to design Pine Valley ?

Can't imagine how. Would a copy of anything reveal the challenges overcome to crerate the original?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Could Fazio's design of the "Short" course shed light on how Crump came to design Pine Valley ?

Can't imagine how.

That's why you need me around to help you out with the difficult questions 

Would a copy of anything reveal the challenges overcome to crerate the original?

Absolutely, especially on that site and how Fazio found that particular stretch of land that was ideally suited for his replicas.

The short course is a "wonder" of sorts, especially considering the holes he duplicated.

[George Freeman]

Wasn't the course mostly open, sandy scrub 100 years ago when the course was built?  Old pictures I've seen look very different than the dense forest that currently covers the ground.  That would answer the "you can't see more than 75 yards due to trees" puzzle.

That said, I'm not implying that routing a golf course on open ground is an easy feat...

[Patrick_Mucci]

Wasn't the course mostly open, sandy scrub 100 years ago when the course was built? 

No, it wasn't.
It was mostly dense oak and pine trees with thick, jungle like undergrowth.


Old pictures I've seen look very different than the dense forest that currently covers the ground. 

"Old Pictures" of the golf course or of the woods prior to the introduction of the golf course.

That would answer the "you can't see more than 75 yards due to trees" puzzle.

AWT described the site as having trees and underbrush so dense that you couldn't see the ground with the naked eye.

That said, I'm not implying that routing a golf course on open ground is an easy feat...

Understood, especially with what's probably the perennial # 1 course in the world, with 18 incredibly unique holes.

[George Freeman]

I stand corrected!

[Josh Tarble]

In the same line as Crump and PV - Pebble Beach and Jack Neville are pretty amazing in the fact that he took the chances on what would have been extremely difficult and outstanding holes.

Would Dr. Mac have created 15-17 at CPC if Pebble Beach had not been designed previously?