Pine Valley history Book...

« **Reply #100 on:** December 05, 2006, 09:35:44 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 05, 2006, 08:28:10 AM

"I also think Colt had a strong influence on the hazard style. The natural, ragged, "tear out ridge", sand splashed style that he'd been building on the heath at St George's Hill. Big scale too, many of them 50-100 yards in size. I don't think any other architects were building hazards on that scale so early on (1913)? "

Paul:

There isn't a bunker on either of Colt's plans (hole by hole or the whole course map) that comes remotely close to being 100 yards in size. What are you looking at anyway----the course as Crump did it?

The massive areas of sand at Pine Valley is completely unique for that time and Crump must be given credit for it (and the idea). His unique and original idea of having basically unconnected fairway landing areas separated by huge expanses of sand is entirely different from what Colt suggested for that course. It's time you stopped trying to fit square pegs into round holes vis-a-vis Colt and Pine Valley.

Only two holes at Pine Valley match Colt's bunkering scheme. #9 is almost an exact match as it was built and is now and to a large extent #10.

Perhaps not 100 yards, but there are several bunkers at around 75 yards: tee bunker on 6th, greenside bunker on 17th, greenside bunker on 3rd, tee shot on 18th. There are lots at about 50 yards in size. Use a ruler and the scale.

The 6th has the main bunkers correct in Colt's plan. He doesn't have smaller bunkers down the left.

I think some of the sand waste was inherent to the site. Much like the old heathland...which is why all the comparisons were made.

« **Reply #101 on:** December 05, 2006, 09:43:56 AM »

TE
I think it could be argued Colt was considered the best architect in 1913, but I also think it could also be argued that his reputation grew considerably from that point on - in no small part because of his involvement in important projects like PV, Hamilton, the Eden course, Muirfield, Hoylake, Sunningdale-New, etc. And architecture and architects in general became more well-known in the eyes of the general public in the twenties and thirties.

« **Reply #102 on:** December 05, 2006, 09:54:50 AM »

"But without knowing who did what & when as far as the stick map is concerned...calling it the Crump plan is speculative."

Tom MacWood:

Unfortunatley Crump did not keep a daily diary and even if he had I'm quite sure you'd find some way of calling it speculative.

It seems pretty clear that the first topo map was the one Crump used before Colt arrived. And it seems pretty clear that the "blue/red" line topo map was the one used when Colt arrived.

It also seems clear that the first topo map was probably not used again while Colt was there or after Colt---for the simple reason there doesn't seem to be anything on it from what we absolutely know Colt recommended during that week in May/June 1913 he was there for the only time, not to mention that the "blue/red" like topo (second topo map) is the only one with Colt's hand on it (eg the blue lines). There's none of that on the first penciled routing.

And it also seems clear that Crump continued to use the "blue/red" line topo for years after Colt left for the simple reason there are many things on it (red lines) that we know did not happen until after Colt left.

Combine that with the chronological articles of Tillinghast describing the course in detail at various points and you have a pretty accurate timeline, and most certainly a timeline of events and holes "before Colt" as well as a timeline from events and holes and design elements "after Colt" that do not conform to what Colt did while there or left there.

Once again, you seem to be overlooking the fact that it was only Crump who was down there virtually everyday, or at least that's what everyone who knew him have always said. But maybe you think they're all speculating or lying too for some reason.

Are you aware of anyone else who was there everyday in 1913?

« **Reply #103 on:** December 05, 2006, 10:07:23 AM »

"TE
I think it could be argued Colt was considered the best architect in 1913, but I also think it could also be argued that his reputation grew considerably from that point on - in no small part because of his involvement in important projects like PV,"

Tom MacWood:

I don't deny that either side of any point can be argued. I just question what the value of arguing various sides of various points is in the face of truly reliable evidence. Anyone can argue anything and play the devil's advocate but in this case it seems to be less than useful.

Constant questions are fine but only to a point, and in my opinion that point arrives with truly valuable evidence that undeniably produces factual answers.

None of this has ever been to imply that Colt did nothing there, or even something as limited as the 5th hole as clearly some thought recently due to an innocence mistake in the analysis of a date on a map---- it's only to determine exactly what he did do and what others and obviously Crump did before he came and after he left.

If one tried to deny what so many others said around the time Crump died (close to four years after Colt left for good) and afterwards, one would then be assuming that all those people were lying for some reason.

Are you really back to trying to imply something like that again? And if so, why are you doing that?

In my opinion, Colt is finally getting the credit for precisely what he deserves with Pine Valley.

There was a time when many felt that Colt routed that entire golf course but apparently you don't understand why that was. That's basically proven to me by the fact that many of the oldest members believed that.

And then there came a time fairly recently when Colt's contribution was minimized basically due to a mistaken assumption of the significance of a date on a topo map.

But clearly evidence that's been accurately reanalyzed tells a different story and I believe a highly accurate one as to who exactly did what and when.

Essentially, if Colt had visited PV fairly regularly over the years all this would probably be impossible to ever determine, but the fact that he was only there once early on makes it very possible to determine what was done before he was ever there and also what was done after he left that does not conform to what he recommended.

That type of simple cut and dried before and after timeline is not hard to work with all the available evidence of what happened along the way and who was there constantly and responsible for it.

« **Reply #104 on:** December 05, 2006, 10:51:47 AM »

Tom

Which green sites do you think involved a lot of fill at PVGC?

Obviously the 5th needed its entire right side built up. Is the 10th on a natural mound or is it built up to a degree?

« **Reply #105 on:** December 05, 2006, 11:22:26 AM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 05, 2006, 09:54:50 AM

"But without knowing who did what & when as far as the stick map is concerned...calling it the Crump plan is speculative."

Tom MacWood:

Unfortunatley Crump did not keep a daily diary and even if he had I'm quite sure you'd find some way of calling it speculative.

It seems pretty clear that the first topo map was the one Crump used before Colt arrived. And it seems pretty clear that the "blue/red" line topo map was the one used when Colt arrived.

Interesting speculation. The "first topo map" looks to be a rough field map to me. Its impossible to say precisely when it was made...could be pre-Colt, could be post-Colt. Nobody knows...it shares certain similarities with Tilly's description pre-Colt and it shares certain similarities with Colt's plan....it also differs from both in certain ways. Its unclear who did it and when.

It also seems clear that the first topo map was probably not used again while Colt was there or after Colt---for the simple reason there doesn't seem to be anything on it from what we absolutely know Colt recommended during that week in May/June 1913 he was there for the only time, not to mention that the "blue/red" like topo (second topo map) is the only one with Colt's hand on it (eg the blue lines). There's none of that on the first penciled routing.

Its difficult to say because of the rough nature of the plan....for all we know the stick map was the first go round by Colt & Crump. Its my impression architects often come up with more than one routing.

And it also seems clear that Crump continued to use the "blue/red" line topo for years after Colt left for the simple reason there are many things on it (red lines) that we know did not happen until after Colt left.

Its look that way to me too.

Combine that with the chronological articles of Tillinghast describing the course in detail at various points and you have a pretty accurate timeline, and most certainly a timeline of events and holes "before Colt" as well as a timeline from events and holes and design elements "after Colt" that do not conform to what Colt did while there or left there.

Tilly's timeline doesn't answer who is responsible for the stick map.

Once again, you seem to be overlooking the fact that it was only Crump who was down there virtually everyday, or at least that's what everyone who knew him have always said. But maybe you think they're all speculating or lying too for some reason.

Thats the legend...its very difficult to say with any certainity how often Crump was there prior to Colt and with whom.

Are you aware of anyone else who was there everyday in 1913?

I'm not sure he was there everyday in 1913. If I'm not mistaken his bungalow was complete in January 1914, at least that is when it was reported.

« **Reply #106 on:** December 05, 2006, 11:49:39 AM »

"Interesting speculation. The "first topo map" looks to be a rough field map to me. Its impossible to say precisely when it was made...could be pre-Colt, could be post-Colt. Nobody knows...it shares certain similarities with Tilly's description pre-Colt and it shares certain similarities with Colt's plan....it also differs from both in certain ways. Its unclear who did it and when."

Tom MacWood:

It's not speculative at all, and from your above description it's not hard to tell you don't know much about Pine Valley and what happened there, when or by whom. But that doesn't really matter as few do who aren't familiar with the available material or how to specifically analyze it. Firstly, the "first topo map" as you call it is an identical survey layout to the second topo map sometimes refered to as the "blue/red" line topo map and extremely similar to the Colt map we bought that is the same surveyor layout sans topo contour lines. I'm sure no one knows what you mean by calling any of them "field maps".

The first order of business to understanding the creation of the golf course is to be thoroughly familiar with the course as it is and has been and what it looks like topographically and otherwise and I believe this is just another golf course you've never seen.

It shows from your remarks on here. But why would any of it concern you from where you sit out there in Ohio? Have you even been to Philadelphia? I think it's a good question since you seem to have so many opinions of the courses here you've never seen and obviously aren't very familiar with.

« **Reply #107 on:** December 05, 2006, 12:01:19 PM »

"Its difficult to say because of the rough nature of the plan....for all we know the stick map was the first go round by Colt & Crump. Its my impression architects often come up with more than one routing."

It's not difficult to say at all and that pretty much overlooks Crump's notation on the first map that you were not aware of, as well as Tillinghast's descriptions of the holes that were previous to Colt's arrival. But if you don't know the golf course there's no way you'd even understand Tillinghast's descriptions of the holes.

"Its look that way to me too."

Well, that would make some sense since I explained that to you in detail some years ago.

"Tilly's timeline doesn't answer who is responsible for the stick map."

Did you notice that Tillinghast mentioned anyone other than George Crump in those early articles describing the golf course?

As far as who did that early routing iteration, once again, you were obviously not aware of what Crump wrote on it that included his initials. Again, "Am not sure the greens are marked on the map as I marked them on the ground". What does that sound like to you? Does it sound like he's saying that someone else marked the greens on the ground?

"Thats the legend...its very difficult to say with any certainity how often Crump was there prior to Colt and with whom."

It's clearly difficult for you to say because you're not very familiar with it. Crump essentially moved down there. He lived there from the beginning, but perhaps you didn't know that.

"I'm not sure he was there everyday in 1913. If I'm not mistaken his bungalow was complete in January 1914, at least that is when it was reported."

That's about right. Crump used a tent down there before his bungalow but perhaps that's hard for you to understand. The man was one helluva hunter and hunter's tend to do things like that.

When Colt was there they were using tents. I guess you think that's speculative too or just another lie all his friends made up just to create a good story.

« **Reply #108 on:** December 05, 2006, 12:38:06 PM »

TE
I've read the articles in question...those written before Colt and those written after Colt. There were only a few written before Colt and the one in which Tilly describes 1 thru 7 does not mention Crump. November 1913 reports work being done by Wendell. Perrin's name comes up, as does Smith and others, but certainly Crump was the man. Ironically both Perrin and AH Smith would claim they both helped to design the course....lending support to the eighteen men/eighteen holes idea.

No matter who Tilly mentions or doesn't mention we have no clear answer to who is responsible for that stick plan. It could be Crump, it could Colt, it could be a comination of the two or others.

It might be a worthwhile excercise to differentiate between what is fact, what is legend and what is speculation...it seems those lines are often blurred when discussing PVGC.

« **Reply #109 on:** December 05, 2006, 12:47:01 PM »

There is no question at all who's responsible for that stick plan as you call it and there's no way at all it could've been Colt.

Frankly, if the initials on that notation on that map were HSC, instead of GAC, there is no way at all you'd say it could've been anyone other than Colt.

You can keep on belaboring the point until the cows come home but the fact is you don't know what you're talking about.

"It might be a worthwhile excercise to differentiate between what is fact, what is legend and what is speculation...:

It would've been a good idea if you'd taken your own advice there when you wrote that five part "essay"

entitled "Arts and Crafts Golf". Talk about out of control speculation! Frankly, speculation isn't even the word for it. Fabrication would be more accurate and appropriate.

« **Reply #110 on:** December 05, 2006, 01:01:29 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 05, 2006, 12:47:01 PM

There is no question at all who's responsible for that stick plan as you call it and there's no way at all it could've been Colt.

Why is that? There are plenty of questions, including two very important questions, when was it made and who did it.

« **Reply #111 on:** December 05, 2006, 01:12:47 PM »

Tom, Tom & everyone else, please bear with me as a thought has occurred to me as I sit here reading through the entire thread once again. I believe that there are some questions and understandings not being asked and missed that MAY shed some light on what exactly happened at PV. I FREELY admit that this is just a thought and wonder if it might have any bearing in this discussion.

Recently I have been spending a great deal of time researching the 'person' of several architects in the 1900-1920 years. What I mean by this is that I've been trying to understand why and what motivated some to believe that they could design a golf course before they began doing so.

For example, someone who was a professional golfer in the late 1890's often could be found designing golf courses in the next twenty years as a natural progression of his life. What though was it about Crump that led him to desire and believe that he could design, not just a golf course, but be determined to produce one that he believed would set the standard for all others to follow?

We all rip into Donald Trump for claiming to now be a course designer, yet wasn't that the position that Crump the person was in around 1905-10? A good businessman with a passion for the game. A fine amateur player; yet amateur is the point and not a professional.

So, the question then is why would this 'golf nut' believe that he could design a golf course at that time? Especially if we accept Tom Paul's assertion as to his humility (this being the reason he gives for insisting that Colt be given design credit); to set out to build the greatest golf course in the world is not usually the act of a humble man. Unless...

Unless we consider what was happening in his life in those years in relation to his passion and the friends he shared them with.

We know that many within his 'group' had as large a passion for playing the game as he had, but it is also quite apparent that most were also deeplyn interested in golf course design if for no other reason than they became designers themselves. These were not just a bunch of guys sharing a beer after a round and throwing the BS around the table. They really did know what they were talking about.

And so in late 1909, one of Crump's close friends takes the plunge. A.W. Tillinghast agrees to design Shawnee and in the spring of 1911 the course is opened to much acclaim and praise. In 1912 it hosts the first Shawnee Open and by the next year, in the summer of 1913, it was so well though of already that Edward Ray, Alrx Smith, Harry Vardon and Johnny McDermott (among other notables) were there to compete and praise the course as well.

It is during his friend's success that Crump saw the land, conceived the idea, bought the property and began building Pine Valley.

So I ask, could the success of his friend Tillinghast insoired this humble man to take the plunge? And, more importantly, convince him that he actually could create the world's greatest course?

I could be way wrong, but I just can't help thinking that a 'humble man' sometimes needs extraneous circumstances to help him overcome this quality in order to proceed...

« **Reply #112 on:** December 05, 2006, 03:13:10 PM »

Quote from: Philip Young on December 05, 2006, 01:12:47 PM

For example, someone who was a professional golfer in the late 1890's often could be found designing golf courses in the next twenty years as a natural progression of his life. What though was it about Crump that led him to desire and believe that he could design, not just a golf course, but be determined to produce one that he believed would set the standard for all others to follow?

I BELEIVE, PHILIP, THAT CRUMP DESIGNED THE COURSE TO SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGE THE BETTER PLAYER. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THAT WAS HIS INTENT ALL ALONG BECAUSE HE RECOGNIZED THAT THE PHILADELPHIA AREA WAS LACKING IN THAT REGARD, A REAL CHALLENGING TEST FOR THE TOP PLAYERS IN THE AREA.

We all rip into Donald Trump for claiming to now be a course designer, yet wasn't that the position that Crump the person was in around 1905-10? A good businessman with a passion for the game. A fine amateur player; yet amateur is the point and not a professional.

WHILE THAT'S TRUE TO A POINT, CRUMP WAS A MUCH MORE ACCOMPLISHED PLAYER THAN TRUMP HAS EVER BEEN. HE WAS RUNNER UP IN THE 1912 PHIL. AM AND RUNNER UP IN THE 1915 U.S. AM. I BELEIVE HIS IDEAS OF WHAT MAKES A GREAT COURSE WOULD CARRY MORE WEIGHT THAN TRUMPS EVER WOULD. WHILE BOTH AMATEURS, THEY ARE NOT ONE IN THE SAME. REMEMBER TOO THAT AMATEURS AT THAT TIME WERE STILL CONSIDERED TO BE AT LEAST AS GOOD AS THE PROS' AND THEIR REASONS FOR PLAYING WERE MORE "NOBLE". BEING A PRO AT THE TIME DIDN'T MEAN THAT YOU NECESSARILY KNEW BETTER, UNLIKE TODAY.

So, the question then is why would this 'golf nut' believe that he could design a golf course at that time? Especially if we accept Tom Paul's assertion as to his humility (this being the reason he gives for insisting that Colt be given design credit); to set out to build the greatest golf course in the world is not usually the act of a humble man. Unless...

I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT CRUMP'S PERSONA TO COMMENT ABOUT TOM'S ASSERTION, BUT I THINK WE WOULD ALL AGREE THAT AT LEAST PART OF THE REASON CRUMP WANTED COLT TO RECIEVE CREDIT WAS FOR FINANCIAL REASONS. COLT'S NAME LENT A CERTAIN CACHE TO THE PERSPECTIVE MEMBERS THAT WERE NOT CLOSE TO CRUMP AND THEREFORE DIDN'T APPRECIATE HIS PASSION AND VISION. MUCH LIKE TODAY'S PRO'S LENDING THEIR NAME TO PROJECTS.

Unless we consider what was happening in his life in those years in relation to his passion and the friends he shared them with.

We know that many within his 'group' had as large a passion for playing the game as he had, but it is also quite apparent that most were also deeplyn interested in golf course design if for no other reason than they became designers themselves. These were not just a bunch of guys sharing a beer after a round and throwing the BS around the table. They really did know what they were talking about.

AGREED.

And so in late 1909, one of Crump's close friends takes the plunge. A.W. Tillinghast agrees to design Shawnee and in the spring of 1911 the course is opened to much acclaim and praise. In 1912 it hosts the first Shawnee Open and by the next year, in the summer of 1913, it was so well though of already that Edward Ray, Alrx Smith, Harry Vardon and Johnny McDermott (among other notables) were there to compete and praise the course as well.

REMEMBER THAT AWT, AS YOU WELL KNOW, WAS AN ACCOMPLISHED AMATEUR PLAYER. SINCE THEY BOTH WERE GOOD PLAYERS, I BELIEVE THAT IF THIS DID INSPIRE HIM, AWT BEING AN ACCOMPLISHED PLAYER, MUCH LIKE HIMSELF, THAT THAT WOULD HAVE MADE THE DECISION TO TACKLE PV MORE FEASIBLE. "IF HE CAN DO IT, MAYBE I CAN TOO". SO I THINK YOU BRING UP A VERY VALID POINT.

« **Reply #113 on:** December 05, 2006, 03:43:58 PM »

David,

I appreciate your seeing at least a possible validity to my somewhat rambling free think...

A couple of thoughts on your response...

Crump certainly did want to challenge the better player and he did recognize the dearth of Philadelphia area courses. This was a cause celebre' of Tilly's as he wrote extensively about it and on occasion highly criticized those who appeared to be preventing the building of any courses in the Philadelphia area, private or public.

Still, Crump wanted his course to do more than challenge the accomplished player, he wanted the course itself to stand head and shoulders above any and all courses on its own merits.

My comparison to Trump was meant only in the sense of the lifestyles that appear in common. They were/are both wealthy and successful businessmen who enjoy(ed) the game greatly and became enamored of golf course construction. Whereas Trump has bought "his designs" Crump was an actual and obviously talented designer who might have done other wonderful courses if given the chance.

Actually a better comparison, now that I think of it, would be to Mark Parsinen who has now decided to devote his life to building great courses. Similar to Crump, Mark remains on site and personally oversees much of the building process and final design, to the extent of purchasing a home to live in nearby. He did this for Kingsbarns and is now living on a farm in the Inverness area of Scotland where he is working on his newest project.

Here's hoping there are some good dentists up his way.

« **Reply #114 on:** December 05, 2006, 04:37:27 PM »

Philip, perhaps what had happened to him personally, w/ his wife dying, compelled him to fill the void and make it a labour of love. Tragedies sometimes can motivate people in unusual ways. Perhaps PV was a result of a broken heart as well as what you mentioned above. This was a new found love and he wanted to express it.

« **Reply #115 on:** December 05, 2006, 05:52:15 PM »

"Why is that? There are plenty of questions, including two very important questions, when was it made and who did it."

Tom MacWood:

Perhaps it would be a good idea if you read what I wrote above and if you did try a bit harder to understand the obvious. There really is no question of who did it for the reasons I gave above. As to when it was done, read what I wrote again. There is none of what Colt came up with on that first topo for starters. Does that mean anything to you? So far apparently not. I suppose I can somewhat understand some of your confusion since you really never have seen what Colt did for Pine Valley anyway. You've never seen his hole by hole booklet and I guess you've never seen the whole course map that's labled "Scheme of Pine Valley as suggested by H.S. Colt".

It would probably be a good idea if you'd stop with the 20 questions routine too until you become more familiar with this subject. I really don't have the time to keep answering your incessant questions particularly when you seem so obtuse regarding the answers I've given. If you want to call everything speculation then be my guest---it matters not to me or the report on the creation of Pine Valley.

« **Reply #116 on:** December 05, 2006, 06:09:41 PM »

Philip:

With all due respect to your comparison of Crump and Trump, it seems to me they are about as different as could be.

Crump was obviously completely obssessed with the project of Pine Valley, so much so as to become a virtual hermit down there.

I really don't see a fellow like Donald Trump pitiching a tent in the woods and following that by spending the last five years of his life in a bungalow in the woods.

Furthermore, George Crump by every single account about him I've ever seen from all those who knew him was a remarkably retiring man, with apparently very little ego or propriety about his project. In a word he seems to be the opposite of a self-promoter, the very thing Donald Trump might be one of the best in the world at.

As to the amateur architect aspect, you must remember that kind of thing was far more common in certain circles back then than even professional architects, and certainly far more than is possible today. Just look at all the notable amateur architects from that time---Leeds, Macdonald, Fownes, Thomas, Behr, Wilson and Crump. Name me a single one in modern times. And just consider the quality of the golf courses those men did in that era of the amateur architect. It's not really to imply that they had far more talent, just that they spent years, in some cases decades, on their few projects.

George Crump definitely was not in golf architecture for any kind of remuneration and I doubt anyone can say that Trump ever considers anything that's not for some kind of remuneration or self promotion.

« **Reply #117 on:** December 05, 2006, 06:22:08 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 05, 2006, 05:52:15 PM

"Why is that? There are plenty of questions, including two very important questions, when was it made and who did it."

Tom MacWood:

Perhaps it would be a good idea if you read what I wrote above and if you did try a bit harder to understand the obvious. There really is no question of who did it for the reasons I gave above.

I understand what you are saying...I'm simply saying its your speculation.

As to when it was done, read what I wrote again. There is none of what Colt came up with on that first topo for starters. Does that mean anything to you?

There is none of what Colt came up with? What do you speculate Colt came up with? The stick map shares similarites with the blue ink drawing. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 17th and 18th of the blue ink drawing can be found (in one form or another) on that stick map.

No one knows who made the stick drawing or when it was made....without knowing those answers we are forced to speculate.

So far apparently not. I suppose I can somewhat understand some of your confusion since you really never have seen what Colt did for Pine Valley anyway. You've never seen his hole by hole booklet and I guess you've never seen the whole course map that's labled "Scheme of Pine Valley as suggested by H.S. Colt".

I've seen it. I have a good source here locally.

It would probably be a good idea if you'd stop with the 20 questions routine too until you become more familiar with this subject. I really don't have the time to keep answering your incessant questions particularly when you seem so obtuse regarding the answers I've given. If you want to call everything speculation then be my guest---it matters not to me or the report on the creation of Pine Valley.

« **Reply #118 on:** December 05, 2006, 06:30:36 PM »

"As to when it was done, read what I wrote again. There is none of what Colt came up with on that first topo for starters. Does that mean anything to you?

There is none of what Colt came up with? What do you speculate Colt came up with? The stick map shares similarites with the blue ink drawing. The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 17th and 18th of the blue ink drawing can be found (in one form or another) on that stick map."

Yes Tom, the stick routing shares more than just similarities with the Blue/red line topo map for the simple reason the holes you just named above are the ones that Crump routed before Colt arrived, minus the 5th of course.

That you'd put the 5th in there shows just how little you understnd the creation of Pine Valley. Don't you yet know that the 5th hole was perhaps the single most signficant change Colt made to Crump's initial routing?

My God, man, this is a waste of time discussing this with you---you have no idea of what went on down there. Didn't you read above what I said---eg that the 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th and 11th are fairly undeniably Colt routed holes?? Regarding the latter four there is really nothing on the initial Crump routing that is anything like those holes or even anything in the same place.

Just wait for my report and then if you want to call the whole thing speculation, so be it---it really doesn't matter.

« **Reply #119 on:** December 05, 2006, 06:38:44 PM »

"No one knows who made the stick drawing or when it was made....without knowing those answers we are forced to speculate."

One more time, skebo, I know precisely who was responsible for that initial stick routing and I know it was done before Harry Colt arrived for the first and last time. Again, you speculate all you want about anything you like, it really doesn't matter.

And again, if you want to have some basis for understanding the creation of Pine Valley, you will need to go see the golf course for the first time in your life and probably spend a good deal of time on it. This two hour walk through type of thing you do if you see a course at all is just not going to cut it with PVGC.

I'll never stop hammering away at that fact and that lack of understanding with golf courses with you Tom MacWood. If you are even going to PRETEND you understand a golf course, its architecture and particularly the creation of it you simply can't NOT SEE IT IN PERSON. That just doesn't work and it's becoming increasingly obvious with you on this website as time goes on.

I'm really not sure why you seem to think you can get away with that when clearly no one else in the world can.

I think the gig is up, Tom MacWood. If you want to appear knowledgeable about any golf course, on here or anywhere else, you're pretty much going to have to go to it first.

There is just no way around that fact, and I want the contributors and viewers of this website, at least, to be clear on that!

« **Reply #120 on:** December 05, 2006, 06:52:07 PM »

Tom,

You completely misunderstood what I meant when comparing Crump & Trump. All I was saying was that Crump was a successful businessman who had a passion for the game. That also is descriptive of Trump.

I refined what I meant when I responded to David that, "My comparison to Trump was meant only in the sense of the lifestyles that appear in common. They were/are both wealthy and successful businessmen who enjoy(ed) the game greatly and became enamored of golf course construction. Whereas Trump has bought "his designs" Crump was an actual and obviously talented designer who might have done other wonderful courses if given the chance.

"Actually a better comparison, now that I think of it, would be to Mark Parsinen who has now decided to devote his life to building great courses. Similar to Crump, Mark remains on site and personally oversees much of the building process and final design, to the extent of purchasing a home to live in nearby. He did this for Kingsbarns and is now living on a farm in the Inverness area of Scotland where he is working on his newest project."

Actually Mark Parsinen is quite similar in his atitude toward what he is trying to accomplish in building world-class golf courses.

The reason for what I wrote is to simply ask the question of what was in Crump's mind at the time... what was it that made him take that step from being outstanding amateur player to attempt to build the greatest cours ever.

You have described him several times a s a humble man and I trust that this is a correct assessment based upon your knowledge of the man and PV. So what would push a "humble man" to try and build Pine Valley?

Could it have been the example of seeing his friend Tilly succeed and his looking at it and saying to himself that "I too can do it, and maybe even better."

I'm looking for his motivation as that, at least I believe, will provide the answer to some of the questions regarding Colt, especially the one of why he and others would credit Colt and to do so at his suggestion (your conclusion).

« **Reply #121 on:** December 05, 2006, 06:58:11 PM »

Phil:

Sorry I misunderstood you.

However, and even despite the difference in eras, I see almost nothing similar in the lifestyles of George Crump and Donald Trump. In my opinion, they could hardly be more dissimilar. Crump perhaps had some wealth, like Trump, but so did millions of others in American history.

But you're right, Mark Parsinen who I both know and admire probably does have some similarities with his approach to architecture and his understanding of it with Crump.

« **Reply #122 on:** December 05, 2006, 07:06:29 PM »

Tom,

I'm glad we got that out of the way. I am also wondering what you think of the idea that Tillinghast's success in designing Shawnee and how it was accepted could have given Crump the 'encouragement' to attempt Pine valley?

It certainly would shed light onto Crump's personality and reasons for designing and building the course in the manner that he did; slow and deliberate, constantly searching for the proper hole in the proper location.

I'd really like to know, or maybe it could even be part of the architectural history you are preparing for PV, more about Crump the man. I'm a big believer that personality becomes part of the creation and am certain that is true with Crump and PV.

« **Reply #123 on:** December 05, 2006, 07:22:04 PM »

Quote from: TEPaul on December 05, 2006, 06:38:44 PM

"No one knows who made the stick drawing or when it was made....without knowing those answers we are forced to speculate."

One more time, skebo, I know precisely who was responsible for that initial stick routing and I know it was done before Harry Colt arrived for the first and last time. Again, you speculate all you want about anything you like, it really doesn't matter.

To my knowledge there is no date on the stick routing (other than the date the survey was made)...we have no idea if it was made in March, April or May...in other words before Colt or while Colt was on site. Because we don't have the information we are forced to speculate when it was made and by who or whom. You know speculation need not be a dirty word, IMO there is a place for well-reasoned speculation, but lets call it what it is.

And again, if you want to have some basis for understanding the creation of Pine Valley, you will need to go see the golf course for the first time in your life and probably spend a good deal of time on it. This two hour walk through type of thing you do if you see a course at all is just not going to cut it with PVGC.

I'll never stop hammering away at that fact and that lack of understanding with golf courses with you Tom MacWood. If you are even going to PRETEND you understand a golf course, its architecture and particularly the creation of it you simply can't NOT SEE IT IN PERSON. That just doesn't work and it's becoming increasingly obvious with you on this website as time goes on.

I'm really not sure why you seem to think you can get away with that when clearly no one else in the world can.

I think the gig is up, Tom MacWood. If you want to appear knowledgeable about any golf course, on here or anywhere else, you're pretty much going to have to go to it first.

There is just no way around that fact, and I want the contributors and viewers of this website, at least, to be clear on that!

Now, now, no need to get personal or stray from the topic at hand. Please stick with the facts and avoid the personal attacks. My spending two hours at PV or not has no bearing on what are facts and what is speculation.

« **Reply #124 on:** December 05, 2006, 08:08:13 PM »

March 1913 is written below "Property of George Crump".
I always assumed that was the date of the stick plan.

There is a note at the top, but no date.

News:

Paul_Turner

T_MacWood

TEPaul

TEPaul

Paul_Turner

T_MacWood

TEPaul

TEPaul

T_MacWood

TEPaul

T_MacWood

Phil_the_Author

David Stamm

Phil_the_Author

David Stamm

TEPaul

TEPaul

T_MacWood

TEPaul

TEPaul

Phil_the_Author

TEPaul

Phil_the_Author

T_MacWood

Ian Andrew