Is it really necessary to take potshots at others...

[George Pazin]

Wayne -

Unfortunately that illustrates one of the real shortcomings of this site and the internet at large - I probably read more negativity into the comment than you intended. And it wasn't so much that single comment as the fact that it seems as though every third thread on this site has devolved into bickering when someone makes a comment pulling in stuff from another thread that caused that comment to strike me wrong. As I said to Tom, you are one of my favorite posters and indeed pretty much always conduct yourself admirably.

Maybe I was just falling prey to Dick Daley's theory of GCA introspection and self flagellation.

[Paul_Turner]

Outside observer:  "oh look there's an alternate fairway on the 17th designed by CH Alison"

Official face of PVGC: "you never saw it"

What am I suppose to think, eh?

[T_MacWood]

TE
If you recall I said to you Crump deserves enormous credit. Unfortunately IMO Colt has been religated to a bit player--they throw him the bone of the 5th. Because we say Colt (and Alison) historically has never been given an honest appraisal doesn't mean we feel Crump's roll should be diminished. Its not a zero sum game.

[Paul_Turner]

Do the chiefs at PVGC want to know the truth about how their course was designed?  Or would they be happier having Crump as sole designer and live in ignorance?

[TEPaul]

"TE
If you recall I said to you Crump deserves enormous credit. Unfortunately IMO Colt has been religated to a bit player--they throw him the bone of the 5th. Because we say Colt historically has never been given an honest appraisal doesn't mean we feel Crump's roll should be diminished. Its not a zero sum game."

Tom:

You seem to change your course faster than a tacking sailboat. What I distinctly recall you telling me is Crump's part was purposely glorified by PVGC and starting right at his death because the club did not want Colt's part to be known as you and Paul Turner think it should be. Paul's put that on this website a number of times.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

I don't buy that (neither did Pam Emory).

If the club always thought that Colt did course, why didn't it ever come out!

[wsmorrison]

No Tom, I am not kidding you.  I never called you paranoid, afflicted with any kind of syndrome, a liar or anything else.  I said your ability to analyze is questionable.  You have done good work--your essays in the In My Opinion section and ability to gather information, your proximity to Mike Hurdzan's materials being a great factor. I'm sure I've mentioned these things before.  I don't recall personalizing anything having to do with you.  I have criticized your conclusions and for this you lump me into a Philadelphia Syndrome.  That is about as nonsensical as your analysis gets at times.

And please, give up this weak matter of discrediting you and your source.  Your source is a public official.  We attempted to contact him before we knew you had.  We followed up with that after your pronouncement of proof--should we have just taken you on your word?  As you are surely aware, peer review and corroboration are part of the research process.  This should apply to you just like everyone else.  By the way, the same source now says he did die in Merchantville but that he was unaware of that when he spoke to us previously and to you.  I don't know what to make of it and frankly I'm starting not to care....that isn't paranoia it is MacWood induced ennui.

George,

Thank you, I appreciate your response.  

Paul,

Now what makes you think PVGC doesn't want to know the truth?  That is nonsense.  What makes you say they or anyone else thinks or wishes to think that Crump is the sole designer and wish to be ignorant?  This is an odd evaluation.

[Paul_Turner]

It isn't nonsense.   I'll put it another way.  Does the club want to know the truth and have it made public?

[Paul_Turner]

If anyone goes to PVGC the strong impression left is that Crump is the sole designer:  just look at the scorecard for starters.

[TEPaul]

"It isn't nonsense.  I'll put it another way.  Does the club want to know the truth and have it made public?"

Paul:

I'm glad you did put it that way. Have you ever spoken with anyone down there about that? Or have you too just relied on some old articles and assumed as much, like Tom MacWood?

Well....the answer is I think they'll be more than happy to get the truth as best as it can be known today and I also have a strong hunch it's not going to be coming from Tom MacWood.

Will they make it public? I don't know, that's their choice. Do you think every private golf club in American including Pine Valley should feel a responsibilty to make the story of their creation public? If you do then perhaps PVGC is one of them!  

[Paul_Turner]

As the #1 course in the world, then yes, I think they should make it public.

Or I'll do it for them!

[wsmorrison]

The scorecard at Sewell's Point has Donald Ross as the architect.  He never touched that property; he built a second golf course that is NLE.  The existing one is and always was Flynn.  There are a lot of misrepresentations in attribution.

Of course, Sewell's Point is not nearly on the same level as Pine Valley.  None of the scorecards I have from PVGC have anybody's name on it.  I guess there are new ones now with some of the changes, but I cannot locate mine.  If there was one architect on the scorecard, who should it be Crump or Colt?  If there are two names on the scorecard, surely it should be Crump and Colt.  But aren't you then minimizing the efforts of Alison, Tillinghast, Maxwell, Wilsons and Flynn?

Crump's vision, money, network of friends, time and energy exceeds all of the above by a huge magnitude.  His design efforts eclipse all of the above, probably put together.  What's wrong with having just his name, if that is the case?

I just saw that the course guide does say "Designed by George Arthur Crump."  Aren't there bigger windmills to tilt than this?

[TEPaul]

" just look at the scorecard for starters."

I realize you think they should put Colt on their scorecard. Do you think they should put Govan, Tillinghast, Travis, Thomas, Flynn, Wilson, Alison, Maxwell, Fazio on that scorecard too and if not why not? Wayne just found out yesterday that Max Behr apparently belonged in 1916 too! Why don't they just throw him on the scorecard too?

[Paul_Turner]

I don't mind how many are credited on the scorecard (if they actually designed something).

Crump's design input does not eclipse Colt's and Alison's.

[TEPaul]

"Crump's design input does not eclipse Colt's and Alison's."

Paul Turner, I am really amazed at you. Anyone out there reading these threads---that is simply a preposterous statement to make and not even remotely close to the truth, certainly regarding Alison.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Read it as Colt&Alison.

Might have only visited the club twice (one to play), but I think I have a good, reasonably detailed picture of the course in my mind.

[Paul_Turner]

Regarding the greens.

I agree probably the detail is Crump or Crump+others.  

I am pretty certain Colt would have staked out the greens;  it was how he worked.

[George Pazin]

I'm happy to see this thread hijacked.

Re: Pine Valley -

I think the most prudent way to proceed would be for each side to say what would convince him that the other side is correct. If you think Crump deserves credit, explain what it would take to convince you Colt deserves equal billing. And vice versa.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Without those greens you can't be saying things like even Colt together with Alison did more. You can just guess that but what's that?

Colt always staked out greens and that's why you think the greens may be Colt? Paul, you really do have to get a bit more into the detail of PVGC's itself as a very unique creation and not go around making assumptions like that at PV. May be Colt did stake out greens at courses he designed and built but the obvious fact you're forgetting and not considering is Harry Colt surely never had a client even remotely like George Crump and what he did on that golf course.

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

The greens are important, but given the land at PV, the routing is the most important element.

It's a reasonable assumption that Colt staked out the general shape and size of the greens.  He wrote of his method prior to 1913 and staking out greens was part of this.  I certainly don't believe he just drew the plans and left nothing in the ground!

I am not asserting that Colt defined the detailed interior contours, although I'm certain he would have discussed this with Crump.

The general size and shapes and how these fitted with the natural terrain.

[Paul_Turner]

It is almost impossible to be certain about what was collaboration and what isn't apart from what was done prior to Colt's arrival.  And even then we are relying on Tillie's few paragraphs...not detailed plans.

From the plans only. I'm pretty sure that Colt did 15 (minus island tee), 16 and 17.  Of course there could be collaboration on all of these holes.  But I suspect Colt was the main hand here, since Crump's plan for the back 9 was very different and frankly not good.  We know of Colt's ability in 1913, we don't know much about Crump's.

At some point you have to make some assumptions and educated guesses as to who did what.   But just make it clear that this is what they are.  

[TEPaul]

"At some point you have to make some assumptions and educated guesses as to who did what.  But just make it clear that this is what they are."

Paul:

Absolutely we do and I think you and I should. As far as Tom MacWood's concerned why don't you talk to him, I'm not that interested in that at this point. I think you're about six steps ahead and around the corner from him on that now! Matter of fact why don't you just ask him if you can write that paper on PV he wants to write--I think it would be a lot more accurate and surely a lot easier to do.

"We know of Colt's ability in 1913, we don't know much about Crump's."

Paul:

You know as well as I do one simply can't look at the long term creation of PV that way. It's just a non-specific sort of pat statement that means little particularly since we have all this information now and we know that Crump spend years out there. You two just don't seem to understand the significance of that and maybe you never will. Geoff does I believe because he did it himself!  We'll never have all the details documented and in those areas we'll probably just have to say we'll never really know and that it could be either of them or both of them together.
 

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

If we don't know what's collaboration then we have to go with what people wrote at the time.  Those that were closest to the project.  We shouldn't just assume everything is collaboration during May/June 1913.  Carr and others certainly state it wasn't.

I think the stick routing of the back 9 by Crump is very revealing.  I do not see a master router at work there, I see an amateur.   The quantum leap to Colt's blue routing plan is striking.

[T_MacWood]

TE
You've got a vivid imagination.  

The $10,000 figure came from Jos. Baker, not Bole. Interesting you mention Seaview, that site at Absecon was one Crump considered.  

[TEPaul]

That's right Tom, it was his buddy Baker not Bole who reported that 10 grand in his eighties! My typing mistake. Interesting there about Abescom. I sure never knew that! Do you think maybe he should have picked that one up instead of Sumner? What do you know about Crump and Baker?