[Peter Pallotta]

Mike - thanks, that's a very interesting post. A really good post. I hadn't thought about almost any of the points/ideas you raised - so I will now. It just struck me that what I think of as the 'end point' --  a golf course routed over existing terrain so as to maximize the interest and playability and beauty of that terrain -- seemed to be viewed as just a 'starting point' by  many of the old architects.

Peter

My thanks too, Joe

[TEPaul]

Peter Pallotta said:

"Thanks for this discussion, gents.


From Tom Paul:
""That in and of itself (the unraveling of a basic routing glitch), I believe is a truly significant story and it tells a great deal to people who really don't understand the intracacies and interconnections of routing golf holes and certainly routing golf courses on intricate, interesting and complex topography like Pine Valley's.""

TE - I can't add anything to this discussion, but this reference to routing reminded me of what for me is the basic 'historical' question about not only Pine Valley but many of the great early courses, i.e. how ultimate design credit is granted.  I can't get past the belief that routing a course - envisioning all 18 holes, their lengths and shapes and basic shot-making demands, and how those holes drape over the landscape and connect to one another -- is the main criteria. And yet, I'm not sure the designers/architects themselves -- including the famous amateur-sportsmen -- would agree with me.

That is, time and again I read about how those designers/architects for months and years worked on (and revised) the bunkers and other hazards. In short, they seemed to feel that the overall quality and even greatness of their courses had quite a lot to do with the quality of the hazards -- or at least more to do with it than I do now, looking back.

Anyway - not much of a point or a point for discussion I guess, just a thought and an observation (that may or may not be accurate)."



Peter;

Personally, I think you (and others) need to really understand the difference between the routing of a golf course and what I call the "designing up" of a routing! I think they are or most certainly can be two remarkably different and distinct phases of design and architecture.

I've said it before, and I will again; I believe one can take a specific routing on any golf course or any site and basically make it into numerous and distinct courses.

To me a routing is the layout of a course's holes in length and direction before anything is done to the site.

From there one can only imagine the different iterations that are possible. Routing is immensely important and can also be complex (particularly on complex property) but what I referred to as the "designing up" phase of a specific routing really can produce an immense array of golf courses and shot values and looks and styles on the very same ROUTING!

And in the context of this particular thread about Pine Valley as well as in the context of Colt's part and Crump's part in the routing on the one hand, and the "designing up" phase" on the other hand, that is really important to understand and appreciate---in my opinion

[Sean_A]

And yet, I'm not sure the designers/architects themselves -- including the famous amateur-sportsmen -- would agree with me. That is, time and again I read about how those designers/architects for months and years worked on (and revised) the bunkers and other hazards. In short, they seemed to feel that the overall quality and even greatness of their courses had quite a lot to do with the quality of the hazards -- or at least more to do with it than I do now, looking back.

Peter,

I think that's quite the insightful and valid observation.

When Merion was first opened in the fall of 1912, a number of writers including Tillinghast, Alex Findlay, and "Far and Sure" all seemingly believed that it was much too early to really fairly and effectively analyze or review the course because so few of the bunkers or "artificial hazards" had been established.

A number of writers of the time clearly felt that the only really effective way to place bunkering on a new course was to watch play for some time after the course opened, and then act accordingly.

Findlay even went so far as to call them "Mental hazards", which clearly inferred the strategic and intellectual aspects of the game, and also argued that their placement should await further visual examination of how the course actually played.

What's interesting is that this thinking absolutely flew directly into the face of the thinking that modelled holes against great ones overseas, to a large extent.    If you consider the famous template holes, almost all of them were defined by their bunkering patterns, yet here these guys were arguing that instead of placing a row of bunkers diagonally down the middle as in a bottle hole, or at the left front flank and foreshortened as in the redan, or in the direct front and front left as in the Eden, or in the length of the diagonal back and with a deep circular pit right in the central bowels as in a road hole, or along the lengths of each side as in a Biarritz, etc., etc., these men seemed to suddenly be arguing that this type of rote placement really didn't make much sense except in broad, conceptual terms...not in on the ground routine placement.   

Instead, I believe these men had some revolutionary ideas of their own which argued that each course and golf hole should have its own identity, and should leverage the unique landforms and variables of its own uniqueness, and that any work of man should first and foremost take into account the particulars of that individual piece of real estate without preconditions and preconceptions.

Mike

I wonder how much of this is true if the archies of the day were so willing to add the number of artificial hazards they did.  Personally, I think many of the artificial hazards (bunkers) had more to do with creating very challenging if not championship standard golf courses than adhering to any sense of the land.  If anything, the sense of individuality of holes is compromised except where the land shines.  If you look at the best courses from this era, many are considered the best because they seriously challenge the best players in the world either officially or not.  Alright, a place like Pine Valley probably wouldn't make the top players shake in their boots as is, but I bet the club could make it extremely tough if they chose to.  I spose my point is that in an attempt to create championship courses (this being an important goal for many of these famous early courses) the risk of placing rote bunkers was very much real.  Ironically, I think why the Mac/Raynor style stands up to scrutiny today is because of its (now) unusual bunker style of placement and shape. 

I would argue that the great template holes are defined at least as much by the land as by the artificial hazards - especially if we consider what essentially has to be considered as part of the land.  For instance, the railway sheds on the Road Hole were for all intents and purposes natural hazards because they weren't placed for the sake of golf.  The same can be said of the road.  Sure, some bunkering helps on the Redan, but that is a great piece of land in a way could be said to be just as good if only the left bunker were installed.  The one hole where the bunkering makes a huge difference is the Eden and all that required was one hazard (I know there are two, but the left bunker is not essential to the strength of the hole) to go along with the contours. That is what makes the hole superb, minimal intervention with maximum impact.

Ciao

[Tony_Muldoon]

Joe Bausch,

I really want to thank you for the tremendous efforts you've put forward over the past year or two in unearthing all of this wonderful historical material that has given us such greater insight into what exactly transpired in these early days of golf in and around Philadelphia.

To sit here and read this stuff written as it happened that probably hasn't been looked at in almost 100 years is just absolutely tremendous.

What he said.  Thanks Joe.

[Paul_Turner]

Joe

Thanks  for all that work!

I think the entire collection of Tilly on PV is at (starting 1912-1914):

http://www.tillinghast.net/cms/taxonomy/term/34?page=1


Over the years on the is DG, the comments of Ben Sayers, and others  (regarding how the style of PVGC was influenced by Colt and the London heaths) have basically been dismissed by Tom Paul.

I think it's ironic  that Tom has been dismissive of this but now is willing to speculate that Colt influenced Wilson in the bunker design style of Merion; a course Colt had very little to do with!   

[Mike_Cirba]

Mike

I wonder how much of this is true if the archies of the day were so willing to add the number of artificial hazards they did.  Personally, I think many of the artificial hazards (bunkers) had more to do with creating very challenging if not championship standard golf courses than adhering to any sense of the land.  If anything, the sense of individuality of holes is compromised except where the land shines.  If you look at the best courses from this era, many are considered the best because they seriously challenge the best players in the world either officially or not.  Alright, a place like Pine Valley probably wouldn't make the top players shake in their boots as is, but I bet the club could make it extremely tough if they chose to.  I spose my point is that in an attempt to create championship courses (this being an important goal for many of these famous early courses) the risk of placing rote bunkers was very much real.  Ironically, I think why the Mac/Raynor style stands up to scrutiny today is because of its (now) unusual bunker style of placement and shape. 

I would argue that the great template holes are defined at least as much by the land as by the artificial hazards - especially if we consider what essentially has to be considered as part of the land.  For instance, the railway sheds on the Road Hole were for all intents and purposes natural hazards because they weren't placed for the sake of golf.  The same can be said of the road.  Sure, some bunkering helps on the Redan, but that is a great piece of land in a way could be said to be just as good if only the left bunker were installed.  The one hole where the bunkering makes a huge difference is the Eden and all that required was one hazard (I know there are two, but the left bunker is not essential to the strength of the hole) to go along with the contours. That is what makes the hole superb, minimal intervention with maximum impact.

Ciao

Sean,

I think we mostly agree here.   The intent of the "mental hazards" were indeed to make the course more challenging, and I think it's inherent in the definition that to a degree bunkers were sighted where marginal shots would end up.

However, it's also clear that others were sighted to protect optimum landing areas.

[TEPaul]

"Over the years on the is DG, the comments of Ben Sayers, and others  (regarding how the style of PVGC was influenced by Colt and the London heaths) have basically been dismissed by Tom Paul."

Paul:

I've never said anything of the kind on here or anywhere, not even close. I've never dismissed any Heathlands connection to Pine Valley. Matter of fact, for years I've been aware of some of the particulars of Crump's trip there in 1910. I've said numerous times that as an influence on really good INLAND architecture to come the healthlands was probably more important than the linksland, and PV may be the best inland representation of it over here. I've always felt Pine Valley is remarkably reminiscient of the look and style of the heathlands and I think that Evans article explaining how dedicatedly Crump and his friends sat in his cabin pouring over the plans and schemes of Herbert Fowler is complete confirmation of that fact.

All I've ever really disagreed with you on about Pine Valley is your contention and implication that Colt did more there than he ever actually did and that consequently Crump did less there than he actually did do.

[Peter Pallotta]

"Routing is immensely important and can also be complex (particularly on complex property) but what I referred to as the "designing up" phase of a specific routing really can produce an immense array of golf courses and shot values and looks and styles on the very same ROUTING!"

TE -

I remember some of your past posts on this, and I think I understand it, at least a little. I didn't think about or factor in the "designing up phase" in the context of what the old architects, especially the amateur-sportsmen, deemed important; but what I was suggesting is that the notion of routing (e.g. its primary importance; its role as a measuring stick of talent and skill) that's come down to us today doesn't seem to have been shared by the old guys themselves. And if that's indeed the case, I was wondering why that is.

Peter 

[Joe Bausch]

Joe

Thanks  for all that work!

I think the entire collection of Tilly on PV is at (starting 1912-1914):

http://www.tillinghast.net/cms/taxonomy/term/34?page=1

Paul, did you not mean to say that the entire collection of Tilly on PV from the American Golfer is on the web site above?  I posted what is what I believe is the entire collection of Tilly on PV from the newspaper the Philadelphia Record from 1913 until mid-1916.  I believe there is plenty of overlap between the two sources, but I don't think the material is identical.  It does appear the American Golfer material is much more extensive.

[TEPaul]

".....but what I was suggesting is that the notion of routing (e.g. its primary importance; its role as a measuring stick of talent and skill) that's come down to us today doesn't seem to have been shared by the old guys themselves. And if that's indeed the case, I was wondering why that is."


Peter:

Oh I don't know about that. I doubt I would say that, at least from whatever I do know about how some of them may've looked at routing.

First of all, it seems like way fewer of them back then referred to it as "routing" as we do today. It's hard to say what Wilson and his committee thought about routing Merion East because it's so little mentioned anywhere back then except for Macdonald mentioning that one of MCC's "Plans" had the best last seven holes on an inland course in the world. That was the "Plan" that was approved and built, by the way.

But I can tell you that everything Crump's friends said about what he was thinking and trying to do all those years had a ton to do with some real particulars in routing.

The reason I say that is Crump was trying to get some very specific "shot tests" (club and shot requirements basically) on all his holes in a particular "balance" and "variety" context and that surely ain't easy if one is dealing with complex topography as Pine Valley is. That kind of comprehensive balance and variety shot requirements around the course is actually listed in a few of those early articles!

Here's a perfect example: Crump's two close friends at Pine Valley both wrote apparently independent of one another that Crump had said he wanted to redesign the 11th hole to get the green up on the ridge near the windmill to basically duplicate the type of high approach shot on #2 but he wanted to make it even longer and harder on #11. The reason they gave is that's the kind of shot he wanted as the approach to the second hole on each nine.

My point is if one tries to fit that kind of precise balance and variety and shot demand on particular holes all around a course it is just going to be really hard to do for a whole lot of natural and physical reasons to do with the land, particularly if the land is complex including topographically.

So yes, to Crump at least, routing was really important for a lot of reasons including really tight green to tee and the fact no two holes could go in the same direction or even be visible from other holes. To really make those shot demands tougher sure he experimented all the time with bunker placement and schemes (for years actually). Crump and his foreman, Jim Govan, (a really good player) hit shots and shot tested all the time and for years trying to get things the way they wanted them exactly.

That kind of almost daily and years-long type of effort and time input on site is not what one does if he's simply constructing a golf course to the plan of a man who was only there for one week in the beginning, left his plan at that time, and never changed it himself and never came back. Why the obviousness of that seems to continue to escape some people on here who might be classified as the Pine Valley Colt design proponents, is just beyond me and always has been.

It's not as if Colt did nothing at Pine Valley; he did quite a lot and what he did do even if not that comprehensive in the broad scheme of an entire course's routing and design was pretty important nonetheless for some pretty interesting reasons that I alluded to in that post above---eg how much the fix on #5 allowed much of the rest of the routing to begin to fall into place. But even with that it still took Crump another four and a half years to get all the holes sorted out and when he died he still wasn't satisfied (as Simon Carr reported about what Crump told him about #15 the very last time they spoke to one another).

[Paul_Turner]

"Over the years on the is DG, the comments of Ben Sayers, and others  (regarding how the style of PVGC was influenced by Colt and the London heaths) have basically been dismissed by Tom Paul."

Paul:

I've never said anything of the kind on here or anywhere, not even close. I've never dismissed any Heathlands connection to Pine Valley. Matter of fact, for years I've been aware of some of the particulars of Crump's trip there in 1910. I've said numerous times that as an influence on really good INLAND architecture to come the healthlands was probably more important than the linksland, and PV may be the best inland representation of it over here. I've always felt Pine Valley is remarkably reminiscient of the look and style of the heathlands and I think that Evans article explaining how dedicatedly Crump and his friends sat in his cabin pouring over the plans and schemes of Herbert Fowler is complete confirmation of that fact.

All I've ever really disagreed with you on about Pine Valley is your contention and implication that Colt did more there than he ever actually did and that consequently Crump did less there than he actually did do.

I know you post a lot, but your memory is like swiss cheese.

Everytime I've suggested that Colt had a big part in the style of PVGC you've completely shut it down.

[TEPaul]

No sir, my memory particularly about Pine Valley is just fine. As for the look and style of Pine Valley I've been aware for years, certainly longer than I've known you, that Crump (and Baker) spent time abroad in the heathlands studying architecture, and I think the recent find of the Evans article explaining in some detail Crump and his friends fixation on the work and plans of Fowler just additionally confirms that they admired that heathland look and style.

As far as Wilson and Colt, perhaps you've never realized it but it appears practically certain that Wilson stayed with Colt at his home in England when Wilson was there in the spring of 1912. Perhaps you think they just talked about insurance or British/American relations or whatever but I would say the subject of architecture was utmost and with that probably the look and style of inland bunkers and heathland style inland bunkers of the sand flashed variety.

With the content and tenor of your last post, it's really a shame, Paul, but you and your posts are sounding and looking more and more like Tom MacWood's all the time, and that is too bad if an intelligent discussion on the history of Pine Valley's architecture is to be had!   

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Well you weren't willing to admit to that a year ago:

Me:
" A  big reason why Pine Valley's bunkers looks so raw and natural is because of Colt's input."

Paul:

That might very well be the case but no one could possibly prove that. On some of his hole drawings Colt did write in such instructions as "tear out sod or vegetation to form bunker" but how do you know what Pine Valley's bunkers would look like if Colt had never been there? Do you happen to know if Crump had some other idea for what they should look like. Of course you don't. Neither do I.

You were skeptical of Colt's influence at PV, but now you're willing to speculate on Colt and Merion's bunker style??

[TEPaul]

Paul:

My remark you quoted from apparently some time ago is just as appropriate today as it was back then, perhaps even more so.

As far as Colt's influence on Wilson and Merion's bunker style, it is just a thought on my part, but I will remind you again obviously Wilson sought out Colt in England in 1912 because he stayed with him. There must have been a reason for it!   

I've never implied Colt designed Merion or anything like that, only that Wilson and Colt may've collaborated on the philosophy and subject of architecture in both England and Philadelphia. It would appear from Colt's letter to Wilson that he also wanted to collaborate on agronomic issues as he asked Wilson for a copy of the agronomy bulletins that had been compiled.



"You were skeptical of Colt's influence at PV, but now you're willing to speculate on Colt and Merion's bunker style??"


Paul:

I was never skeptical of Colt's influence at PV. All I ever tried to do is track precisely what he did there and what Crump and others did there over the years and I believe I've done that.

[Mike_Cirba]

Paul/Tom,

From reading Tillinghast's accounts it seems that by March 1913 there was already a rough plan in place that fully described today's holes 1-4, a foreshortened #5, a 6 that was a three-shotter, and today's 18th.   It also seems to me that probably more than that was roughly sketched as he talked about the idea of avoiding parallel holes.

The old story goes that Colt suggested today's 5th, which solved a routing glitch and allowed much of the rest of it to fall into place.  It also strongly suggests that a routing plan was already previously created.

While I am also sure that Crump leveraged and valued Colt's opinion on all matters during his visit, and certainly helped with the design, it does also seem to me that Crump had much underway before Colt's arrival and also revised much after Colt left, so I'm not sure how it could be called anything but a Crump/Colt design,with perhaps a 60/40 or at most a 50/50 attribution?

[TEPaul]

Mike:

First of all, I don't think Pine Valley has any problem at all with calling the course a Crump/Colt design but it seems to me to be fairly worthless to try to call it 60/40 or 50/50 or any other precentage breakdown between the two.

What is worthwhile, in my opinion, is to simply go through the entire creation of Pine Valley from the beginning of 1913 until probably 1921 and explain in detail who did what and when.

That I believe I can do quite accurately with all the material now available that has all been analyzed together.

[Joe Bausch]

There are a few other Tilly mentions of PV in The Record.  Here they are in chronological order, continuing on from the post earlier in the thread:

August, 29, 1915:



October 18, 1916:




November 26, 1916:



August 5, 1917:



December 9, 1917:



January 27, 1918:



October 27, 1918:



December 15, 1918:



December 29, 1918:

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()