What's missing in this photograph? Why?

[TEPaul]

I just checked out the photo of the B/R line topo on post #113 and nope one cannot make out any of the surveyor's topo contour lines even though you can pick up some of the ones Colt highlighted in his blue pencil----particularly prominent in the mid-left of the site between say #12 and #13 and #15.

[Patrick_Mucci]

It's possible that Crump had the concept in his head, but, when he initially crafted the golf course the DA was not included in the construction."

Pat:

I don't see how you or anyone can credibly or conclusively make that statement.

My statement is irrefutable.
We know that the D.A.  bunker wasn't there when the course was built.
What we don't know is whether Crump originally conceptualized the idea or was oblivious to the idea.
We don't know if the idea was someone else's, and if so, whether they relayed the concept to Crump.

What we know as irrefutable fact is that the hole was originally built without the D.A. bunker.

Remember too that the 10th hole was in the ground long before the entire 18 were crafted and ready for play.

If that little round red circle on the "blue/red line" topo map in the position the DA came to be in represents what would be that bunker or was that bunker during Crump's time at Pine Valley then it can be assumed the concept was Crump's.

Not necessarily.
If you look at the red circle, it's more of a flanking bunker than a fronting bunker, and as such, it's a stretch on anyone's part to claim that Crump wanted a fronting bunker, but, didn't know where the front of the green was in the schematic/blue/red line topo.

The red-line drawings are Crump's, at least a very good assumption can be made that they are for all kinds of factual and historic reasons.


It doesn't matter, the location of the red circle is nowhere near where the original or evolved DA bunker resided.

The problem for us at the moment is there does not seem to be any photographic evidence of the area of that bunker between about late 1913 or early 1914 and the first photo of the bunker in app. 1923. But the fact that there is no photographic evidence of that area in that time span does not necessarily mean that bunker was not there in that time span.

IF the DA bunker wasn't there in 1920, or 1921 or 1922, then it's a good bet that it wasn't there earlier.

You're making a totally unreasonable quantum leap and it seems as if you're trying to force attribution of the bunker to Crump irrespective of the time it first manifests itself photographically.  At least that's the way I've read your reply.

By my calculation and study of the creation of PV during Crump's lifetime pretty much everything in red drawn on that map had been constructed before Crump died on Jan. 24, 1918. I don't see why that little round red circle in the position of the DA should necessarily be considered an exception to that fact.

I think that's wishful thinking on your part.
The "red circle" is a flanking, not a fronting feature, and, it's into the green whereas we know the original version appears detached from the green.

Please review the original photo JMorgan posted.  Look at that fronting bank and then look at page 60 in Geoff Shackelford's book which shows the bunker fronting and detached from the green, then look at the schematic where the red circle is flanking and into the green.

I'm not saying it isn't possible that Crump envisioned the DA in it's original and evolved positions, but, it does seem highly unlikely.

Why wouldn't he have included the DA bunker in the original construction if he in fact drew it as an integral part of the 10th green ?
And, why would he have left it out or detached it if he intended to incorporate it in the 10th green ?
 

[JESII]

Pat,

That red circle is not flanking the as built green...maybe on the drawing, which included the long stem, but not the actual green.

Do we really not have pictures between 1914 and 1923?

[TEPaul]

"Do we really not have pictures between 1914 and 1923?"

We do. The first photo on Post #3 is probably from late 1914 or 1915 (see the fill for #17 green behind #10). The only problem with that photo if the DA had been built is the bank between the tee and the green hides the area the DA may be in and would be in. That bank is what Alison suggested removing in his 1921 plan so the bunkers in front of the green could be seen.

Patrick, however, is apparently under the impression a bunker can not exist until there is a photograph of it that he can see. 

[Marty Bonnar]

Ehm,
sorry, maybe I'm just being a bit dim, but what do people think the feature I've outlined might be? Look at the shadow of the right side tree which DISAPPEARS into a deep chasm before returning to the previous level. The left shadow continues unaffected.



I'd also suggest that this photo - and the one in GAIA - are taken from somewhere on the right side of the hole, rather than from the tee which may be throwing the DAA's apparent position slightly off...? (The sandy track is running left to right-ish rather than towards the hole from the tee, if you see what I mean).

cheers,
FBD.

[Sean_A]

What I find interesting is that the sand on the left appears to be in the process of being formed into a bunker.  The bottom area looks to have been built up to contain the sand.  Furthermore, it looks as if that formed ridge melds into the platform which which holds the DA in place.  The question is, was that done originally or was it done after some time?  If original (which one can't tell without clearly visable and dated pix) I think there is a chance that it may have been possible that the planning for the DA was in place.  Of course, it also looks as though that entire area might have turned to sand (linking the two waste areas) just by folks walking up that area.  It looks steep and with a lot of use, difficult to maintain that walkway.  Honestly, I could see a "bunker" forming there either by plan or chance or a little of both.  That said, its shape must be totally manufactured.    


That said, its shape must be totally manufactured to end up looking like this.    


Ciao

[JESII]

Marty,

I think you can see in Sean's second picture that the bunker you've outlined is still there and flanks the right edge of the green. The DA is in front of the right portion of the green.

[Marty Bonnar]

Jim,
thanks, I see the rear portion of that bunker now!!
Having been an unfortunate 'visitor' to the DA, you'd think I would have better recognised it!

cheers,
MB.

[JESII]

Certain objects look hole-ly different from the inside I guess...



I still think the single best hole ever played has to be Tommy N aiming for the DA, hitting it, and getting out in one shot...do I have that right? Did he make the putt?

[TEPaul]

Marty Bonnar:

The area you outlined is the front of the right bunker. It's along the right side of the green and along the right side of the right bank up to the green where the DA is. Sorry, Sully; I just read yours that says the same thing.

[TEPaul]

"What I find interesting is that the sand on the left appears to be in the process of being formed into a bunker.  The bottom area looks to have been built up to contain the sand.  Furthermore, it looks as if that formed ridge melds into the platform which which holds the DA in place.  The question is, was that done originally or was it done after some time?  If original (which one can't tell without clearly visable and dated pix) I think there is a chance that it may have been possible that the planning for the DA was in place.  Of course, it also looks as though that entire area might have turned to sand (linking the two waste areas) just by folks walking up that area.  It looks steep and with a lot of use, difficult to maintain that walkway.  Honestly, I could see a "bunker" forming there either by plan or chance or a little of both.  That said, its shape must be totally manufactured."


Sean Arble:

On your thoughts and questions there would be one foolproof way to tell and answer some of your questions and that would be if that "blue/red line" topo map or Crump's first topo map (another one but a copy of from the same surveyor) shows the contour lines on and around that green site because those topo maps were drawn before anything was built there. I also stress that Colt's instructions for and around that green (May/June 1913 before anything was built at that green) do say to cut down 2' deep on the right and 5'7" deep on the left. I do stress that would be a foolproof answer but just a potential one because as I said on another thread some of the contour lines on those topographical survey maps are very faint even if you are standing within inches of the originals. They really don't show up on photographs of those maps other than very faintly on some parts of the site.  

Most interestingly, you can see some contour lines even on photos but they are only the contour lines that Colt highlighted with his light blue pencil right over the top of the surveyor's contour lines. He seems to have only highlighted something like one in every fourth or fifth contour line on the surveyor's map for some reason, particularly in some of the high topographical areas.

It is also pretty apparent that in the beginning at least Crump seemingly did not know how to identify various areas on the ground very well to where they were on his topographical survey maps in relation to its contour lines. I'll explain how we can know that later.

[TEPaul]

Frankly, what I'm beginning to appreciate more and more with the entire evolution of the DA is not just the question of its basic shape and position over time but how and why it got as deep as it did with such a small conical base. Its sides are so vertical that it actually has wooden steps sort of jammed into one bank just to get in and out of it. Part of the answer may be that the effective sand base of the bottom of the bunker where any ball getting into it will come to rest probably doesn't have a circumference much larger than a man's armspan if he makes a circle with his arms. And then one needs to add to that its walls are grassed down pretty far. It very well be one of the smallest bunkers in the world in actual sand square footage. Or looked at another way it can be pretty hard for anyone to take a normal backswing and follow through in it. That's part of the reason it can be such a problem to get out of, and why so many golfers tend to just play stroke and distance back to the tee if they get in it.

Sully:

I don't think TommyN got up and down after going into the DA on purpose but he did get his ball on the green in one shot. He did get up and down, though, from the base of the 4th hole at LuLu which is almost as impressive. I know that because I was playing with him.

Another interesting item to notice in comparing the two photos on Post #180 is the color photo (many decades after the B/W above it) is it seems a good deal of the left back greenspace is gone or reduced from that B/W which is the earliest photo of the 10th (probably late 1913-to late 1914). That could be due to the collapse in the beginning of those original high sand flashed faces around the green as evidenced by the visible front left bunker.

Essentially there's a ton of evolutionary history of all kinds of things one can pick up on this stagger of photos over time if you scrutinize them all carefully enough. Basically they could be considered an historical/evolutionary architecture analysts' classroom.

[JESII]

Not seeing what you are on the back left there...the B&W is just not clear enough for me to see much difference.

I'll tell you what, the hole location in the color photo is absolutely one of the most difficult on that course...and if you go 4 or 5 feet left it's probably the most difficult.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

That red circle is not flanking the as built green...maybe on the drawing, which included the long stem, but not the actual green.

Jim,

Please reread the sentence you posted above.

On THE DRAWING, the red circle FLANKS the green.

As to the "as built" there is NO D.A. BUNKER !

Do we really not have pictures between 1914 and 1923?

Hopefully, some will turn up, but, I'm also interested in photos that depict the migration of the bunker.

[TEPaul]

"Not seeing what you are on the back left there...the B&W is just not clear enough for me to see much difference."


Sully:

It looks to me like the back left of that green (starteing from about ten steps on) had more space to it essentially creating more width across the back. I'll check some later photos to see what they show on that.

On of the most interesting aspects of the earliest photo (the one without the DA) is it may show the natural grade behind the back tee on #18 before Crump built the 17th green.

There has been at least one old photo on here of Crump's 17th hole and green before Alison changed it in 1921. There was no waste area 100 yards and in to the green as there is now----Crump's was all fairway and his green created one helluva beautiful pure SKY-line affect from the approach. It seems like on his original green you couldn't even see the rise of the 18th tee behind the green as you can now.

[TEPaul]

"Hopefully, some will turn up, but, I'm also interested in photos that depict the migration of the bunker."


Patrick:

Something tells me when you start talking about the "migration" of the DA you might be implying that the bunker has been moving or moved on its own throughout time or that someone is suggesting such a thing. And looking at the various photos over an extended period of time of that hole and bunker that very well might be the case, but not or probably not if you're somehow suggesting that bunker is moving all by itself which I find truly hilarious. Have you ever considered it very well may've been rebuilt or even repositioned over time, maybe even a number of times, for various reasons such as it was getting torn up by time and tide such as sheet flow? Knowing the way you think you probably think it magically moved on its own somehow. There's a good reason for everything if you look carefully enough even though you don't seem to be very good at figuring out why or how.
 

Have you figured out yet why what you think was the front of that green on the "blue/red line" topo (and on Colt's drawing which you've never seen) very likely wasn't?   
 
 
 

[Joe Bausch]

Perhaps a comparison of the photo that started this thread as well as a shot I think from a very similar spot and angle:



This from October, 2009:

[Mike Cirba]

Joe,

That's a very interesting angle, but I don't see you casting the same type of shadow as the original photographer in the 1913/14 pic....hmmmm.....

In fact, I wonder if that is a shadow at all....let me pull out my Ted Turner American movie classic colorization technology and see if we can't shed a little light on that object in the immediate foreground...


AHAH!!  I KNEW IT!!!  

[TEPaul]

Joe:

If it helps for timelining, dating and clarity I would, again, just mention that the first photo (without the DA) is pretty conclusively from a point in time as early as the spring of 1914 as at that time eleven holes (1 through 9, 10, 18) had been unofficially put into play. That would mean the construction of that hole was logically done by the late summer or early fall of 1913 and seeded for at least a 6-7 month grow-in.

Again, it is also important to note on that first early photo just how high and veritcally the sand was flashed to the green surface and the left long bunker was even flashed right to the 18th tee. I don't believe that situation would last long at all on this hole and it became necessary to begin to eventually grass down the faces of the bunkers of this kind of verticality until eventually they became grassed all the way down to fairly flat to gently concave floors as we see in the color photo above.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

I believe I've JUST PROVEN with UMISTAKEABLE CLARITY WHO DESIGNED THE FEATURE IN QUESTION!!!

If you weren't both BLIND and DAFT you'd have seen it by now instead of focusing on STEEPNESS OF BUNKERS.

Did you ever wear a sign that said "I'm WITH STUPID", with an upwards POINTING ARROW!?!  

Carry on...  

[Anthony Gray]

  The true answer to what is missing from those pics is me and Eric Smith.

   ARG

[TEPaul]

Mike:

While I admit I don't know what you're talking about I did notice from the green print and such it appears Patrick Mucci is unfortunately apparently beginning to rub off on you. One might even label it the "Internet Patty Hearst Hostage Affect."

[Steve Curry]

Of some interest may be the fact that the flash of sand has old stacks of sod behind it and behind the sod are timbers.  I was told when working there that the whole green is framed up with treated timbers.

[Mac Plumart]

Crump died in 1913, right?

Four holes were built out by Wilson after that, right?

And in 1921 the course was fully open, right?

You guys have narrowed down the changes were made between 1913 and 1920, right?

Wouldn't it seem that Wilson would have done the work as he built out the remaining holes.?

[TEPaul]

Mike et al:

Even with Patrick on here gumming things up discussion-wise and otherwise I do think this particular thread is one of the best for a really good historical, investigation/analysis of some amazing details of a significant old golf hole and feature I've ever seen on this website. I have and IM or email to Ran to that effect.

And I would also suggest and remind as I have a few other times on this website, to not much response----can you imagine how important and interesting and edifying it really would be if we could somehow manage to identify those old surveyor contour lines on those PRE-construction topographical contour maps Crump worked on in his time with Pine Valley and really track them in detail. They wouldn't tell us when the DA was done or whose idea it was but it sure could tell us anything and everything we'd need to know about what holes looked like naturally and exactly what they did or didn't do to them.

Can you imagine how cool that would be if we ever found the same thing Wilson and his committee were working on with Merion East in 1911 (their PRE-construction topo contour survey maps)?

A virtual GCA Rosetta Stone, I would say.

With Patrick it seems he can only imagine or contemplate things in photographs----and unfortunately to such a total reliance on them that he probably assumes something may not be able to even exist before a photograph is taken of it.  It's probably the influence of Tom MacWood who on here mentioned a few times that there could be no way Crump could ever have wanted trees isolating his holes at PV unless and until something could first be found where he actually wrote that down HIMSELF!