Combining visuals with playability and tempation - The 12th at PV

[TEPaul]

"Now let's get back to PV.
What were the exact words Carr used and what were the dates he used them.
You're the self proclaimed historical expert on PV, surely, you know the answer to both questions."


Pat:

Of course I know the answers to both questions---eg the exact words Carr and Smith used and the dates Smith put on some of his hole by hole remembrances (the hole remembrances THAT WERE DATED were all before Crump died).

But as of about yesterday and your recent posts I doubt I will ever quote that material on here certainly not without a green light from Pine Valley or Merion or any other club from which I might have their private information which has never been put into the public domain. I'm even beginning to regret just DESCRIBING what my own feelings are about what I've read from it over the last decade or so!

First we had MacWood and Moriarty telling us we were being unfair and defensive and trying to hide something (MacWood's preposterous and constant mention of his label, this "Philadelphia Syndrome" bullshit) and now you telling me I'm childish or defensive or both I and the club must have something to hide??

And then all three of you have the arrogance or lack of common sense to demand that you deserve to have US put it on here anyway, and particularly after the uninformed, nonsensical revisionism you all put on here about YOUR OPINIONS of the way things were at these clubs and courses and with these architects? 

I just don't get it and either did Wayne. We had hoped that most on here would understand our positions and the clubs' positions, and hopefully most did but you three certainly don't seem to.

You will now though after the posts you've put on here in the last day or so. If you want that actual information from Pine Valley or if MacWood or Moriarty want it from Merion and MCC, you all can just express your purpose to those clubs and ask them if they would let you see it as we did with them and they did with us. They do read the things you say on here though, as we do, and as far as them agreeing to have much to do with any of you, well, let me put it this way, I'm sure not going to hold my breath and I would suggest neither of you three do either.

For me, I'm not even going to discuss the history and architectural evolution of these clubs with you anymore, and I probably shouldn't have even bothered to do it in the first place.

It's over.

[TEPaul]

Mike Cirba:

I agree a lot of good stuff did come out of those Merion threads or even that essay as far as us continuing to do additional research on things we had never focused on before (Flynn was our interest and not necessarily the move of Merion from Haverford to Ardmore).

But a lot more stuff came out of all that too that was very negative, and I can tell you from personal experience those clubs were not exactly happy about it. The primary thing was the total arrogance that some on here exhibit that any and all information should basically be automatically be provided to ANYONE simply because they claim they are so interested in golf course architecture!

There's a bit more to these clubs, to life and reality than just that I'm afraid! 

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You cited a source to support your position.
I asked you what exactly that source said, that caused you to formulate your position, and
the date of the source's remarks.
You respond by claiming that you'll never reveal that information.

Concealing that information could lead a prudent person to believe that perhaps the alleged words and their timing don't reinforce your position, but rather, enhance mine.

I believe that I've made a fact based, logical presentation with respect to restoring the mound in the 18th green, or a similar functional feature, meant to fulfill Crump's intent.

Your presentation is based on your interpretation of unknown third party hearsay.

You've yet to identify an error in my facts or a flaw in my logic, choosing instead to ramble on about Moriarty, MacWood and Merion, in what amounts to nothing more than a diversionary tactic.

Absent proof to the contrary, Crump and I remain in perfect harmony on the 18th green.

I can't understand why you, PV or anyone would be upset by a meeting of architectural minds.

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike Cirba:

I agree a lot of good stuff did come out of those Merion threads or even that essay as far as us continuing to do additional research on things we had never focused on before (Flynn was our interest and not necessarily the move of Merion from Haverford to Ardmore).

But a lot more stuff came out of all that too that was very negative, and I can tell you from personal experience those clubs were not exactly happy about it. The primary thing was the total arrogance that some on here exhibit that any and all information should basically be automatically be provided to ANYONE simply because they claim they are so interested in golf course architecture!

There's a bit more to these clubs, to life and reality than just that I'm afraid! 

Tom,

Understood, and agreed.

I wish both situations had been handled much differently, with benefit of hindsight.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[TEPaul]

Pat:

I just can't imagine there is some relevent additional point to that last post you just made of the 18th green of PV with that old mound that was removed. And so, you and I need to talk and probably not on this DG at first. I IMed you tonight. Answer it please sooner rather than later.

Thanks

[Kirk Gill]

As President Regan said, "Trust, but, verify."

That was also a favorite quote of Felix Dzerzhinsky, who created the Soviet secret police.


Patrick, please forgive my late intrusion into this subject, but in reading over the last couple of pages, I have a question or three. if I completely grant as true everything you say regarding the 18th at PV, that the "pimple" feature was a result of Crump's design intent and he never wavered in that intent, why would you then say that the green was changed, and remains in its changed state to this day (forgive me if you've already asserted this and I missed it)? Do you feel, then, that the club members had no regard for Crump, or his architectural intent? Do you believe that the club hasn't seen these pictures, or doesn't know what changes were made?

And if the club members like the green the way it is, is the sole compelling reason to change it back simply that Crump wanted it that way? Is there no possibility that Crump was equivocal on this feature? And if he was, how does one decide which opinion of Crump's is the One To Be Followed?  Is the 18th green the sole place on this course where Crump's intent is not realized on the ground, in your opinion (other than the tree removal)? And if you were in possession of a private golf club's documents not subject to any legal privilege and which you had not been granted permission to disseminate, how quick would you be to distribute their contents without that permission, regardless of the contents? Who should make that decision: the person or entity to whom the documents pertain, whoever happens to have obtained the documents, or any other party who expresses an interest?

[Patrick_Mucci]

if I completely grant as true everything you say regarding the 18th at PV, that the "pimple" feature was a result of Crump's design intent and he never wavered in that intent, why would you then say that the green was changed, and remains in its changed state to this day (forgive me if you've already asserted this and I missed it)?

You missed it.

Do you feel, then, that the club members had no regard for Crump, or his architectural intent?

Do you know who John Arthur Brown was ?
Are you aware that consensus management was never a form of governance at PV ?

Do you believe that the club hasn't seen these pictures, or doesn't know what changes were made?


When you say the "club" do you mean the entire membership or a few members ?

And if the club members like the green the way it is, is the sole compelling reason to change it back simply that Crump wanted it that way?

If the club members weren't aware of the green's former configuration wouldn't they think the current rendition is Crump's original version ?

Is there no possibility that Crump was equivocal on this feature?

He always intended for the green to have a pronounced internal feature.

And if he was, how does one decide which opinion of Crump's is the One To Be Followed? 

One could take either position, but, what's abundantly clear is that Crump didn't want a bland featureless green, hence, the introduction of a ridge or mound would be true to Crump's intent.
We do know that Crump designed, constructed and completed the mound in the 18th green and that that mound remained in its original form during Crump's entire lifetime.  And, that it survived him by an additional 8 years until it was removed.

Is the 18th green the sole place on this course where Crump's intent is not realized on the ground, in your opinion (other than the tree removal)?

The double fairway on # 17 is another.

And if you were in possession of a private golf club's documents not subject to any legal privilege and which you had not been granted permission to disseminate, how quick would you be to distribute their contents without that permission, regardless of the contents?

It would depend upon the terms by which the documents/information were presented to me.
But, the question is irrelevant.
The party in question already disseminated material, and, the material in question is hardly earth shattering, embarrasing or harmful.  Asking the date of the notes is a benign request, especially in light of information previously provided.

Who should make that decision: the person or entity to whom the documents pertain, whoever happens to have obtained the documents, or any other party who expresses an interest?

It would depend upon the nature by which the documents were revealed to the third party, and to the public, ie Pine Valley's published book on the club.
If there were no restrictions or caveats as a condition of the revelation or access to the info, then one could prudently conclude that the info is part of the public domain.

In addition, we're talking about architectural events that occured 83 to 89 years ago, not current finances, policies or practices.