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

[JESII]

Pat,

At what greenspeed would that hump/bump/pimple work?

Also, how much elevation change is there from the front right corner of the 18th green to the left / back left edge? Do you think it is more or less than 6 feet?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul.
The mound appears too high for today's green speeds, but, these photos give you an indication of Crump's original design.
I'm sure that a pronounced feature could be introduced that would accomplish Crump's intent."


Pat:

Thanks for telling me that mound appears too high but that is only what I've been telling you both on and off this website for years now. It's not just too high for today's greenspeeds, it was too high when it was built in 1913 and even back then the reason it was too high is because it's base is far too small. This was written in the teens, I've told you Crump knew that and that is why he looked at it as a temporary feature that was going to be changed. And that is why the 1921 Advisory Committee all agreed it should be removed which it finally was in the mid-1920s. His two friends mentioned that he felt the alteration should be an elongated ridgeline to the right which I have also been telling you for years now.

I know what the written record says Crump's intentions were and I explained that to you as well years ago so you do not need to be informing me of it or acting like you just figured this out now. 

[TEPaul]

John Mayhugh:

It is interesting that the photo you posted was from a Michell Seed Co ad. There was another Carters Tested Seed Co ad that appeared earlier in golf magazines, although apparently earlier, that featured that early 18th green and that extraordinary mound in it.

It seems Crump was a client of Carters but perhaps after some agronomic failures the club turned to another seed supplier. By the way, from those so-called "Agronomy Letters" between the Wilson Bros and Piper and Oakley one can tell that Hugh Wilson of Merion was pretty high on the Michell Seed Co. Wilson also became the Green Chairman of Pine Valley after Crump's death.

[Mike_Cirba]

That looks more like a boil than a pimple. 

[Sean Leary]

Trying to figure out where in the green the pimple was. Was it right in the middle?

[TEPaul]

It was mid-right. It was built as a temporary experimental feature Crump described to Carr and Smith 'to penalize sliced approach shots across the green.'

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

At what greenspeed would that hump/bump/pimple work?

Jim, the answer to that question depends upon the configuration of the mound.
As you know, some fairly flat, but canted greens at PV can't handle higher speeds, # 5 being one of them.

Remember, you're not cupping the mound, but, the rollout off the mound has influence over cupping areas surrounding the mound.

There are two USGA "suggestions" that you have to keep in mind with respect to cupping.
The no "appriaciable change in slope within three feet and the distance from the edge of a green that a cup should be placed.

When you analyze a feature such as a mound, or even this mound, you have to consider height and slopes and their influence on approaches, recoveries and putts.

Put another way, you wouldn't want a ball at rest at the top of the mound to roll 20 feet from the base of the mound. Somewhere there has to be a relationship to the configuration of the mound, physics and how it influences the roll of the ball in terms of the play of the hole.

So, your question is a good one, but, it also demonstrates the modern day dilema of the conflict between green speeds and pronounced contouring and slope.

I'd prefer reasonably fast green speeds and more contouring.

I believe that putting highly contoured greens is an art form in and of itself.

I don't believe that you've played NGLA, but, you really should.
The 1st, 3rd, 6th, 10th, 11th 12th and 15th greens have pronounced slope and/or contour.

Increased green speeds inherently result in flatter putting surfaces, depriving greens and golfers of the intrinsic character golf was meant to have.

Putting on a perfectly flat green that stimps at 20 isn't my idea of how the game should be conducted.

Give me contouring.
Which greens do you remember, those with character and unique qualities or bland, flat greens ?

Also, how much elevation change is there from the front right corner of the 18th green to the left / back left edge? Do you think it is more or less than 6 feet?

That's why I asked for someone to produce a current schematic/as built/topo, so that we could discuss this feature, the green, and the possible introduction of a mound/spine/contouring

[Patrick_Mucci]

"TEPaul.
The mound appears too high for today's green speeds, but, these photos give you an indication of Crump's original design.
I'm sure that a pronounced feature could be introduced that would accomplish Crump's intent."


Pat:

Thanks for telling me that mound appears too high but that is only what I've been telling you both on and off this website for years now.

No it's not.

The mound is ONLY too high when green speeds get crazy.

In 1918 the mound was probably well thought out and configured.

You can't take a 1918 putting surface feature and context it in 2009 green speeds.

I NEVER suggested restoring the 1918 feature to its precise dimensions.
I DID suggest that the green needs an internal feature, be it a mound or spine that would FUNCTION well in today's environment.

It's not just too high for today's greenspeeds, it was too high when it was built in 1913 and even back then the reason it was too high is because it's base is far too small. This was written in the teens, I've told you Crump knew that and that is why he looked at it as a temporary feature that was going to be changed.

I don't buy your explanation.
You would have us believe that Crump deliberately designed and built a feature that he KNEW couldn't function properly.  That's absurd.  A more logical explanation is that he designed and built the feature and after play commensed, he realized it was too severe, and therefore suggested a replacement feature, a ridge/spine.  A replacement feature that PV never introduced, despite Crump's clear intent.

And that is why the 1921 Advisory Committee all agreed it should be removed which it finally was in the mid-1920s. His two friends mentioned that he felt the alteration should be an elongated ridgeline to the right which I have also been telling you for years now.

I'm well aware of that, but, that's not the issue.
The issue is why PV hasn't been true to Crump's intent ?
Why haven't they reintroduced a mound/ridge into # 18 green.
It desperately NEEDS that feature.
Without it, it's a bland, boring, unchallenging green, on the approach, recovery and putts.
Crump stated so.

With all the talent at PV's disposure they could accomplish this within a year.
But, it would take a strong leader to accomplish the task.

I know what the written record says Crump's intentions were and I explained that to you as well years ago so you do not need to be informing me of it or acting like you just figured this out now. 

The fact that you and I get it is irrelevant, PV has to get it

A feature within the putting surface of # 18 green is part of their architectural history and it should be restored in one form or another....... while we're still alive and able to see and enjoy it.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[TEPaul]

"No it's not.

The mound is ONLY too high when green speeds get crazy.

In 1918 the mound was probably well thought out and configured.

You can't take a 1918 putting surface feature and context it in 2009 green speeds.

I NEVER suggested restoring the 1918 feature to its precise dimensions.
I DID suggest that the green needs an internal feature, be it a mound or spine that would FUNCTION well in today's environment."





Patrick:

Thank you; you just fell into the trap. What you just said there is total bullshit, plain and simple----all of it!

You don't have the vaguest idea whether that mound wasn't too radical for 1918 greenspeeds and you have precisely zero on which to base your remark that it was probably well thought out in 1913 or 1918----particularly since Crump's best friends wrote for PV that he told them he considered that feature temporary.

Sure, you, like some of the other preposterous suggestors on here who've said some things from the old days should be restored have absolutely no idea at all what that thing was like or what Crump felt about it. How could you?!? 

Have you said on this website that mound should be restored? You certainly have; a number of times and I should find those posts for you from the back pages. If I find them and there is a "Modify" time and date on any of those posts later than right now----well then all anyone could consider you to be is slimmy, double-dealing, weasel-faced troglodyte.

I think this kind of suggestion on your part needs a separate thread because it's dangerous----really dangerous. I'm even going to defer to you and let you start it to give you some opportunity for redemption from terminal architectural irresponsibilty and stupidity! 

The theme of the thread should be---"How uninformed restoration suggestions without proper research can be disastrous."

[TEPaul]

"I don't buy your explanation.
You would have us believe that Crump deliberately designed and built a feature that he KNEW couldn't function properly.  That's absurd.  A more logical explanation is that he designed and built the feature and after play commensed, he realized it was too severe, and therefore suggested a replacement feature, a ridge/spine.  A replacement feature that PV never introduced, despite Crump's clear intent."


Patrick:

That statement of yours absolutely proves to me you not only have no idea at all about the creation of Pine Valley, you have no idea about the life and career of George Crump at Pine Valley, and furthermore, you have no idea about the interesting evolution of golf course architecture in this country with one of the most remarkable courses to have ever been produced here.

The long and short of it is you have very little idea about the HISTORY of American golf course architecture. And the reason is really obvious, now---you don't care about real historical research, you've never done it, you pay absolutely no attention to it, you don't seem to care about it, and it shows. All you're capable of doing is shooting your mouth off about what you THINK it was and what you THINK those people said or intended to do. The fact is you have no idea!

I'm sick and tired of providing you with this detailed research over the years from way back then and having you treat it this way.

[Patrick_Mucci]

"No it's not.

The mound is ONLY too high when green speeds get crazy.
In 1918 the mound was probably well thought out and configured.
You can't take a 1918 putting surface feature and context it in 2009 green speeds.
I NEVER suggested restoring the 1918 feature to its precise dimensions.
I DID suggest that the green needs an internal feature, be it a mound or spine that would FUNCTION well in today's environment."

Patrick:

Thank you; you just fell into the trap. What you just said there is total bullshit, plain and simple----all of it!

No it's not.
But, I'll prove that to you below

You don't have the vaguest idea whether that mound wasn't too radical for 1918 greenspeeds and you have precisely zero on which to base your remark that it was probably well thought out in 1913 or 1918--


Take a trip down memory lane and go to the USGA turf site circa 1990.  1990, not 1950 or 1940 or 1930, but, 1990.

There you will see a table of Green speeds published by the USGA.
These speeds were gleened from 1,500 greens at different courses.
Here they are for your review.  The numbers are stimpmeter readings
Fast                 8.5
Medium fast     7.5
Medium            6.5
Medium slow    5.5
Slow                 4.5

So, now you're going to tell me that I don't know what was fast in 1918, right.
Well it wasn't 8.5, it was a lot slower
When you consider that 8.5 was fast, and, 4.5 was a slow reading in 1990, it doesn't take much interpolative power to conclude that green speeds in 1918 were much slower in general.
Having played PV for the last 45 years, dating back to 1964, I can tell you that the greens haven't gotten slower over those intervening years, and that the greens weren't anywhere near speeds you see today.

--particularly since Crump's best friends wrote for PV that he told them he considered that feature temporary.

This is where you have your disconnect, you just can't get it into your head that Crump couldn't live with the concept that the green presented NO challenge, on the approach, recovery and putts, and that the green NEEDED an INTERNAL feature.  The hump/mound was only temporary in it's existing FORM, not its CONCEPT and FUNCTION.  If you don't understand that, have someone explain it to you.

Crump realized, as I do, that the green needs an internal feature, a feature meant to place demands on the approach, recovery and putts.  You've become so fixated on the dimensions of the feature that you can't understand the genesis, concept and intended function of the feature

Sure, you, like some of the other preposterous suggestors on here who've said some things from the old days should be restored have absolutely no idea at all what that thing was like or what Crump felt about it. How could you?!? 

I understand, so much better than you, what Crump wanted.
You can't seem to grasp the concept and function of what he wanted, choosing to fixate instead on the finite dimensions of the 1918 mound.

Have you said on this website that mound should be restored? You certainly have; a number of times and I should find those posts for you from the back pages. If I find them and there is a "Modify" time and date on any of those posts later than right now----well then all anyone could consider you to be is slimmy, double-dealing, weasel-faced troglodyte.

I'll repeat what I've said and what I believe, which are congruent in every fashion.
A FEATURE needs to be introduced to that green, be it a mound or a spine, to accomplish what Crump intended.

The configuration and dimension and location of the feature can be reasonably determined, ONCE your grasp the concept of why Crump intended for that green to have a pronounced feature that would serve as an impediment or challenge to the golfer.

I think this kind of suggestion on your part needs a separate thread because it's dangerous----really dangerous. I'm even going to defer to you and let you start it to give you some opportunity for redemption from terminal architectural irresponsibilty and stupidity! 

To call me stupid is to call Crump stupid.
Crump and I are in PERFECT HARMONY on this issue.
It is you who are out in left field, unfortunately, you're so out in left field that you're in the wrong stadium.

The theme of the thread should be---"How uninformed restoration suggestions without proper research can be disastrous."

The sponsor of this thread should be, the Philadelphia School for the Reading Comprehension Challenged.

I'll even pay your tuition.

[TEPaul]

"To call me stupid is to call Crump stupid.
Crump and I are in PERFECT HARMONY on this issue."

Patrick Mucci:

First of all greenspeed has nothing to do with that mound on #18. It was always hugely unpopular as long as it lasted, and it didn't last past 1925. That is the comprehensive record of those who knew Pine Valley then. So it was written, and you actually expect anyone to believe you that it was otherwise?   

That remark of yours above pretty much takes the cake. Let the Internet world, including Pine Valley, read it on here and take it for what it really is.

YOU, are not going to get any more material information on the history and evolution of Pine Valley from me. It's not worth it anymore with the way these PV threads of yours have gone.

It completely proves the total foolishness of anyone walking into a club, looking at an 84 year old photograph on the wall and making a suggestion that that is the blueprint for something without knowing anything else about the golf course. It's no wonder you've said you WOULD HAVE TO GO DOWN THERE with me and look at the course hole by hole to have an informed opinion on anything. You should have gone down there and done that with that in mind years ago, as I did, if you think you are capable of making the statements and suggestions about that golf course you have on here.

These PV threads of yours are worth another good thread about the real dangers of people like you making the kinds of recommendations about the architecture of a golf course, even on this website, that you have about Pine Valley with such limited historical information.

YOU and Crump are in PERFECT HARMONY?!?

Best joke this website has seen in many years!

[Patrick_Mucci]

"To call me stupid is to call Crump stupid.
Crump and I are in PERFECT HARMONY on this issue."

Patrick Mucci:

First of all greenspeed has nothing to do with that mound on #18. It was always hugely unpopular as long as it lasted, and it didn't last past 1925. That is the comprehensive record of those who knew Pine Valley then. So it was written, and you actually expect anyone to believe you that it was otherwise?   

Now I understand, the shelf life of hole design and architectural features is determined by their popularity.

Far too many clubs have disfigured their courses due to "unpopularity".
That's probably the WORST reason for eliminating a feature.

That remark of yours above pretty much takes the cake. Let the Internet world, including Pine Valley, read it on here and take it for what it really is.

Which one ?
You can't engage me in a passionate discussion, deride my opinions and not expect me to respond candidly.

The fact is, Crump knew the 18th green desperately needed an internal feature, be it a mound or spine.
He designed and built a mound into the green.
He indicated that a spine might be the better feature.
The mound was designed, built and in play until 1925 when it was removed without introducing the spine that Crump had intended.
My point was simple.  Crump clearly stated his intention.  You keep on harping on the need to be true to Crump's "intentions" therefore, you can't have it both ways, if you insist on being true to Crump's intentions, then you have to restore a feature, be it a mound or a spine, within the 18th green.
Surely, even you understand that, don't you ?

YOU, are not going to get any more material information on the history and evolution of Pine Valley from me. It's not worth it anymore with the way these PV threads of yours have gone.

Are my intentions not honorable ?
Are they not harmonious with Crump's intentions ?
Then, what's the problem, inertia ?
Crump wanted an internal feature within the 18th green.
He designed and built a mound in that green.
He stated that perhaps a ridge or spine would be better suited.
I am merely mirroring, repeating, endorsing and supporting his intentions.
Why aren't you and PV ?

It completely proves the total foolishness of anyone walking into a club, looking at an 84 year old photograph on the wall and making a suggestion that that is the blueprint for something without knowing anything else about the golf course.

Foolishness ? 
Was Crump foolish to design and build the 18th green with a pronounced feature in it ?

I can assure you that I know more about the golf course other than that which is revealed in an 84 year old photo.

It's no wonder you've said you WOULD HAVE TO GO DOWN THERE with me and look at the course hole by hole to have an informed opinion on anything.

That's NOT what I said.
When you and Jim asked me which trees I would remove I stated that rather than recollect which trees I'd remove, I'd rather do a hole by hole evaluation while ON SITE.  Please, quote me correctly.

You should have gone down there and done that with that in mind years ago, as I did, if you think you are capable of making the statements and suggestions about that golf course you have on here.

I do it every time I visit.  However, with everything else going on in my life, I can't recall with irrefutable precision, which bush or which tree should be removed.  That exercise is best done while ON SITE, not while typing on a keyboard.

These PV threads of yours are worth another good thread about the real dangers of people like you making the kinds of recommendations about the architecture of a golf course, even on this website, that you have about Pine Valley with such limited historical information.

We disagree.
I believe that my recommendations have merit and are in PV's best interest, architecturally and from a playability perspective.
My recommendation regarding # 18 green is in complete agreement with Crump's intentions, so we know that can't be wrong.
My recommendation regarding tree removal has tremendous merit.
One look at the 1931 aerial that Jamie posted should have told you that.

You even agreed with me that the shrubs/trees/undergrowth have become invasive, hampering play and views, now suddenly, you're in denial.  Someone must have called or contacted you on this issue, otherwise you wouldn't have done a 180.

YOU and Crump are in PERFECT HARMONY?!?

Best joke this website has seen in many years!

If it is, you're the only one who gets it, or, with respect to # 18, you're the only one who DOESN'T get it.

Crump ALWAYS intended for that green to have an internal feature.
Why are you denying Crump's intention ?
Why are you denying that Crump and I are in perfect harmony on this issue ?

[TEPaul]

"Crump ALWAYS intended for that green to have an internal feature.
Why are you denying Crump's intention ?
Why are you denying that Crump and I are in perfect harmony on this issue ?"


Patrick:

What I don't get at all about that kind of response from you which seems to be rerun on here all the time is who the hell told you about the history of that green, that mound and what Crump's intention was to do about it?

I'm the one who told you about it! This is from documentary material you have never seen and probably never will so why the hell are you asking me why I'm denying Crump's intentions when I'm the one who TOLD YOU what the history of that green and Crump's intentions with it were in the first place??? 

It's this kind of incessant "ring-around-the-rosie" discussion you keep getting into that wastes so damn much time on here.

For Christ's Sake, if I call you up and tell you some documentary history of the place within about a week you act like you came up with it yourself and told me about it!   

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You did NOT tell me about the hump in the 18th green.

I learned about it from other sources.

Now, will you admit that Crump and I are in perfect harmony regarding the 18th green ?

Go ahead, admit it, it will only hurt for a little while ...... and every time I remind you about it.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I didn't say I told you about the hump in that 18th green. What I told you is the documentary history of the reason why Crump put it on that green in the first place, and that he considered it to be a temporary feature and that he planned to change it to some kind of ridge-like feature to essentially accomplish the same purpose as he put it there in the first place.

Believe me Patrick, you definitely did not know that before I told it to you unless you are going to claim that somehow you got into Pine Valley's archives and I most certainly know you've never done that and I'm pretty confident noone told you that either because I've probably known a couple of hundreds members over the decades and I've never found a single one who knew about those so-called "Remembrances" and what they said about Carr and Smith's recollections from Crump about the golf course, including John Ott who lived there for over 35 years. All you ever did is look at one of the aerials of the course from the old days that's been hanging in the clubhouse for years and which probably thousands of people have looked at over the years.

Patrick, I realize coming up with old architectural information is a bit of a currency on here and the fact is like some others you are one of the most merciless and gratuitous purloiners of information others have provided you with in some attempt to make it look like you found it yourself. 

[JESII]

Pat,

The purpose of my question some time ago about the amount of elevation change on the 18th green was to highlight the fact that there is something close to 6 feet of it...I don't really need a schematic to tell me if it's 5'9" or 6'6"...the point is that the green may not stand out on that golf course as extremely eventful but it is far from bland or mundane especially when it is really firm. It takes a very good approach shot to leave the ball in a good position to putt from.

The pimple/boil was out of place, and any ridge would need to be very carefully considered to avoid the same result.

My only recommended change to the hole would be the 10 feet or so of rough to the right of the green...I think letting the green run all the way over to that cactus bunker, or bring the cactus bunker to the green would tighten up the right side a bit.

[TEPaul]

"My only recommended change to the hole would be the 10 feet or so of rough to the right of the green...I think letting the green run all the way over to that cactus bunker, or bring the cactus bunker to the green would tighten up the right side a bit."

Sully:

That's a thoughtful recommendation; not to mention it would be a greenspace restoration if the green was taken back to the bunker on the right. I think the green has lost some greenspace on the front too over the years. It's the third biggest green on the course right now at a bit over 11,000sf. Your suggestion and a greenspace restoration on the right to what it once was over on the right would probably take it over 12,000 and make it the biggest on the course.

You should probably expect that in less than a week Pat Mucci will take this suggestion as something he thought of and came up with as a recommendation. 

I don't think it would be hard to create a low running green ridge that took the area of where the old mound was as grade (but started at about one foot instead of the three or so feet height of the old mound) and just flowed it a bit left and then all the way right to the edge of the green. That would seem to accomplish what Carr and Smith reported Crump wanted to do there. Something like that might get a bit complicated with sheet flow unless the water could get around the left side of the whole thing and down off the front or left front of the green.

[JESII]

If it means he'll not hit me with the bold green ink anymore he can have that idea...

I've often marveled at his argument about this green being bland...is it as dramatic as many of the others there? Probably not, but to begin with the assumption that the 18th green "deserves", or "should have" certain qualities simply because it's the 18th has never quite fit with my thought process.

Now, the fact that people began getting their drives way down to the end of the fairway and hitting 9 irons into the green certainly comprimised the challenge presented by the side slope of the fairway and the front-to-back slope in the first third of the green...but I think we'll all agree that adding a tee 50 yards back and at lower elevation is a better solution for that segment of players than returning one of the ugliest golf course features I have ever see in print...

[TEPaul]

Restoring that mound would never be an option. Anyone who recommends something like that has simply not done any homework about the creation and evolution of that course and what Crump planned to do with that mound. He considered it to be temporary and it's pretty clear what he was thinking to do to replace it whether someone like Pat Mucci agrees or not. He can say whatever he wants to about Crump's intention but the fact is he has no idea and he wasn't even aware of those "Remembrances" of Carr and Smith and what they said about the 18th green and that mound until I told him about them.

This is not an isolated problem with some people interested in old architecture----eg they see something that once existed and just automatically assume it should be put back. It would be a whole lot more intelligent and benefical if they did the research to understand why it was removed in the first place. There is no point in restoring something, particularly on that course, which didn't work in the first place and that mound on #18 is certainly not the only thing that wasn't working well on that course and was later changed (others include the 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 11th and 17th greens and numerous bunkers and mounds around the course). The point is had Crump lived long enough he likely would have made those changes himself that happened in the 1920s.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jim,

If you ran the green all the way to the right, to the cactus bunker, and the hole was cut over there, how much of a deviation would it take on that approach to hit golfers on the 1st tee ?

To say that that expansive green isn't bland is contradictory to Crump's evaluation.

That green is in excess of 11,000 sq/ft, and fairly bowl shaped, feeding perimeter shots toward the center.

When you describe a 6 foot elevation change, while that may be technically correct, it's not practically correct.

Ask yourself, what's the elevation change in CUPPABLE areas on that green, not from the extreme edge, but from where hole locations can be cut ?  I think you'll find that it's far less than 6'.

What you and TEPaul don't get is that # 18 was one of Crump's two favorite holes at Pine Valley.
For that reason alone his architectural intent should be honored, and that architectural intent involved an internal feature on that massive, bland green.

TEPaul,

I'll address your attempts at posting tonight.

[JESII]

Pat,

Is that to suggest that a false front should never be considered in the context of elevation change on a green?

Also, the green only feeds from the front and the left...other than off of the mound that is still in the back (and slightly left of center) of the green, I have never seen a ball feed backwards from there and the ball that ends up there typically has a very delicate putt or chip back to the hole. The right side of the green feed right.

I am not saying Crump's intent should not be adhered, but you'll have to admit this is a pretty tough situation to think an exact (or even real close) resemblence of his INTENT could be created.

[TEPaul]

Patrick:

I would most certainly endorse what Crump was reportedly considering on that green----eg a low running ridge to the right. That's what I've mentioned for years----that's what I informed you about some time ago since there was no conceivable way you could have known such a thing. When the subject of the 18th green first came up it was your recommendation that that mound should be restored. There's no point in you denying that because those posts of yours are in the back pages. You said if Crump once built that mound it should be restored. Apparently you did not know or appreciate at that time that he considered it to be temporary. And if you find any of those old posts of yours and try to change them I will see the date of the change of those posts and I will be all over you like a field of ticks in August. That would be the absolute height of evasion and disingenuousness on your part!  

[TEPaul]

Sully:

I don't think it would be that hard to create something that would pretty much conform to what his intention was on that green. After-all he was simply trying to come up with something that would complicate a recovery for what he called 'balls sliced across the green on the approach' and a form of a ridge was what was mentioned apparently by him.

Don't forget about half to a third of the green changes made on that course were ideas worked off of what his two friends reported he intended to do later and the other half or so were ideas from primarily two other architects from the 1920s---Hugh Alison and Perry Maxwell.

I'm considering putting on here what Crump's two friends Carr and Smith actually did say about what Crump told them he wanted to do with that green and why but I'm not going to do that until Patrick first stipulates ON HERE that he does not now know what they actually said and that he has never known what they actually said!     I have grown tired of his slimy, weasel-like, troglodytish shennanigans that he has done any historical or evolutionary research to do with that course that he has clearly never done. Over the last dozen years or so just about everything he knows about architecture I taught him but for some reason he seems incapable of acknowledging or admitting that.   

PS; I just read them again and remarkably I just noticed something that was said that in fact very much would address sheet drainage very well!