News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


Ed_Morrissett

Forced Carries
« on: May 01, 2003, 05:40:56 PM »
Does anyone know what the guidelines are on the maximum distance of forced carries for high handicap men and women on par 3's where the teeing area is set and on par 4's and 5's where it is not?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2003, 06:37:45 PM »
Ed:

Don't know that there is an such thing as a maximum forced carry. Possibly Pine Valley, though, is a pretty good example. And even there I wouldn't think anything would be much more that about 175 or so yards for a real no-option forced carry.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Mark_Fine

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #2 on: May 01, 2003, 07:00:46 PM »
There are no set rules or even guidelines that I know about for forced carries.  However, I would think anything more than 90 or 100 yards for the golfers you are talking about is too much.  Remember, juniors and beginners often play from the forward tees so you need to think about them as well.  

I do volunteer work for a First Tee program and see a lot of kids starting out at the game.  We are working on the design of a nine hole course for them and I guarantee you there will be no forced carries if at all possible in the routing.  If we had to incorporate any, I'd be hard pressed to have one longer than 60 or 70 yards as we'd end up paying for a lot a lost golf balls (assuming they disappear into the abyss).  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul_Turner

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #3 on: May 01, 2003, 07:40:24 PM »
Colt wrote that 110 yds was the maximum he would typically ask of a player (on any hole).  Which is a bit ironic given the 5th at Pine Valley.  And just goes to show that the best architects don't stick strictly to these rules.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Ed_Morrissett

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2003, 05:30:56 AM »
Consistent with what has been said, I have read somewhere that a forced carry of either 80 or 100 yards is the most that should be asked of women.  I am interested in high handicap men because we have a par 3 over water and the shortest carry over water results in a contrived, artifical angle for the hole and thereby turns a straight forward hole over water into an unnaturally difficult one that is not appealling to the eye and not fun to play. Thanks for your help.


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Jonathan Cummings

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2003, 05:39:28 AM »
Ed!  Good to see you posting!  I do believe there is a general rule of thumb for forced carries.  Maybe the architects can chime in.  Tom Doak?  Forrest Richardson?

I think I once read that the max distance a woman should have to carry is 75yds.

JC
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ian

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #6 on: May 02, 2003, 05:48:59 AM »
We use 80yds. as a maximum for the forward tees, and the rest varies depending on circumstance. More often than not in creating a two tee system, the most forward tee is on the other side of the forced carry to make things more playable.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

cary lichtenstein

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #7 on: May 02, 2003, 06:08:32 AM »
I invite you to Admirals Cove to watch forced carries in action. More than 100 yards for the women is tough. We have 6 holes with forced carries on the 2nd shot. Great course. Come down on Laddies day with rubber boots. By the end of the day, their are about 500 balls for easy pickings.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
Live Jupiter, Fl, was  4 handicap, played top 100 US, top 75 World. Great memories, no longer play, 4 back surgeries. I don't miss a lot of things about golf, life is simpler with out it. I miss my 60 degree wedge shots, don't miss nasty weather, icing, back spasms. Last course I played was Augusta

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #8 on: May 02, 2003, 06:57:45 AM »
I use 70-yards as a good rule of thumb at sea level or slightly above. This is the distance, at a regulation-length course with a range of golfer types, that we would not exceed. If the course is frequented by seniors and juniors we would look for ways to provide tees to bypass or circumvent the carry altogether. Most always — with a 1 or 2 exceptions per round — to offer a detour around any forced carry. But this obviously does not always work. One thing I detest: A forced carry for tees and then a lone forward tee that completely bypasses the trouble as it is set way on the other size of the forced carry. This is, in essence, a separate golf hole. How does that make the golfer using those tee feel? Like a cheat! Or like they have been cheated, for certain.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

A_Clay_Man

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #9 on: May 02, 2003, 07:10:44 AM »
After havig seen all types of golfers on all types of venues I'd say that if someone is uncomfortable with a 60 yd. carry, they need to tee it up somewhere less sophisticated. As for getting cheated, as Forrest mentions, most non-smashers will gladly take the advantage and never think twice.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #10 on: May 02, 2003, 07:54:08 AM »
Then you need to spend time discussion forward tees with my wife! If I draw a forward tee that is (1) lower, (2) less breathtaking, (3) devoid of intrigue or (4) missing all trouble — well, I hear about it or I just don't get any attention...ahh, attention, you know.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #11 on: May 02, 2003, 07:59:22 AM »

Quote
Then you need to spend time discussion forward tees with my wife! If I draw a forward tee that is (1) lower, (2) less breathtaking, (3) devoid of intrigue or (4) missing all trouble — well, I hear about it or I just don't get any attention...ahh, attention, you know.

Finally, someone's talking about penal (sic?) hazards!
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

Tom_Doak

  • Karma: +1/-1
Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #12 on: May 02, 2003, 09:45:18 AM »
Forrest, I know what you're saying, but clearly you have never spent much time discussing the subject with Pete Dye's wife!  Alice believes the forward-most tee should skirt the water but never require any forced carry.  If there had to be a carry, our working maximum was 200 feet (67 yards).

Ed, for the white tees, my "maximum" varies depending on the type of course we're building and the client's preference (and what the options are).  The longest carry I can remember over water from the white tee of one of our courses is 140 yards, and I am a bit sheepish about that one.

To me it makes a lot of difference what you have to carry.  If it's a lost ball or unplayable (desert), I'm trying to be hedge down the carry as much as possible.  If it's sand -- even Pine Valley sand -- I think it's okay to make the carries a little longer, because if you don't make it you're not still on the tee.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ed_getka

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #13 on: May 02, 2003, 09:54:51 AM »
Tom,
 Do you recall what the carries are at Lost Dunes? It seems there are some that were more than 140yds, although I didn't note where the forward tees were on the holes with forced carries. It was my general impression that the course there is probably not one you want to spend your golden years puttering around on. Is the club there more interested in having mostly lower handicap members?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
"Perimeter-weighted fairways", The best euphemism for containment mounding I've ever heard.

Forrest Richardson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #14 on: May 02, 2003, 10:03:19 AM »
Tom D. -- I have heard Alice speak on this and she and Pete commented about it in the inteview with them captured in my routing book. I guess I disagree with the notion that there should never be a forced carry from the far forward tees — No. 17 at TPC Sawgrass is a good example. What fun would that be; i.e., to be a "second class" citizen, relagated to the far forwards which might not have to carry the peril of the swamp? I agree completely about the sand versus water versus desert versus whatever aspect. And, I do agree that in most instances a detour around is a good policy. But not always! In fact, nothing "always" is a good policy in golf, period.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »
— Forrest Richardson, Golf Course Architect/ASGCA
    www.golfgroupltd.com
    www.golframes.com

Ed_Morrissett

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #15 on: May 03, 2003, 07:53:47 AM »
Thanks for all the input.  I got all the info I needed.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2003, 05:34:11 AM »
Paul Turner said;

"Colt wrote that 110 yds was the maximum he would typically ask of a player (on any hole).  Which is a bit ironic given the 5th at Pine Valley.  And just goes to show that the best architects don't stick strictly to these rules."

There's a real simple reason for that at Pine Valley and I believe you can count on the validity of it. George Crump did not want the golf course to be for any and every golfer and said so in no uncertain terms. There're some absolute forced carries there that probably are in the neighborhood of 175+ yds.

So that should certainly explain no incongruity or irony whatsoever with Harry Colt's apparent dictate of 110 max. Or else Harry Colt did not have final say on what went on there in the context of forced carries or architecturally in general--which of course we do know to be true.   ;)
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Keith Durrant

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #17 on: May 04, 2003, 06:15:59 AM »
How about 120 yard+ forced carries on the 1st Tee - are these fair?!

In addition, additional spice can be thrown in by placing of the clubhouse bar window nearby, with PG Wodehouse's "oldest member" looking on  ;D

I seem to remember the Berkshire having a fearsome carry on the 1st?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul_Turner

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #18 on: May 04, 2003, 08:25:49 AM »

Quote
Paul Turner said;

"Colt wrote that 110 yds was the maximum he would typically ask of a player (on any hole).  Which is a bit ironic given the 5th at Pine Valley.  And just goes to show that the best architects don't stick strictly to these rules."

There's a real simple reason for that at Pine Valley and I believe you can count on the validity of it. George Crump did not want the golf course to be for any and every golfer and said so in no uncertain terms. There're some absolute forced carries there that probably are in the neighborhood of 175+ yds.

So that should certainly explain no incongruity or irony whatsoever with Harry Colt's apparent dictate of 110 max. Or else Harry Colt did not have final say on what went on there in the context of forced carries or architecturally in general--which of course we do know to be true.   ;)

Tom

You have to stop clutching at straws, the cat is out of the bag, Cump's days at PV's prime designer are numbered  :D

Here's what Colt wrote:

"From the ordinary tees, however, it will be found inadvisable to arrange many compulsory carries which greatly exceed 110 yards."

And where are/were the other 175+ yard carries at PV?  The only places I can think of, are the 7th and 18th after a very weak drive.  The rest are much shorter, particularly from the ordinary tees.

The fact is that Colt designed the longest carry at PV at the 5th, not Crump ;D


« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #19 on: May 04, 2003, 03:19:14 PM »
Paul:

There's not a lot of tee length added to PV over the years from how it was designed. Maybe one new tee on #6 (but maybe not) some additional ones early on #7, one for the Ryder on #12 and #16. Until about 5 years ago PV only used one set of tee markers but now they use two. When the course was originally designed from the full length forced carries of about 175 or plus yds existed on #1, 4, 5, maybe 150-160 on 8, 9, 17 and 18. And now from the new tee on 7, 12, 16 its probably about 175. A lot of departure from Harry Colt's 110 max.

Again, the orginally planned green on #5 was shorter and to the right. The problem Crump had with that was simply the green was too long a walk to the 6th tee which is where it is now. Crump hated anything but very short green to tee walks! Colt fixed that by placing the green where it is now which is very close to #6 tee but originally Crump thought that had to be too long a par 3 but came to really love #5 as it was recommended by Colt and built. It was basiclly a driver. One can see that they experimented with putting the 6th tee down and to the right where the old 5th green was originally placed by Crump. Obviously that would've been a far different tee shot for #6 as it would've been directly up hill and from no where near as good an angle as what they have now which is a magnificent hole. #6 could use some second shot length and that's what Crump always wanted to do there.

I think holes 1-6 are Crump, with the exception of the alteration to #5 Colt made. #7 is probably Crump. #8 is very inconclusive, maybe either one or in collaboration. #9 I think is probably Colt (a hole Crump planned to later make into a dogleg left somehow. I think #10 is Colt. #11-18 is probably all Crump (somewhat in collaboration with others later) or turned into what he wanted later with the possble exception of #16, which may have had some real Colt influence.

You don't seem to really appreciate how much work Crump did on PV for the 4-5 years following Colt's departure. One might even say that Jim Govan had as much or more to do with the way the course turned out than Harry Colt. He worked on that course's design and construction every single day with Crump after March of 1914 until the winter of 1918.  
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul_Turner

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #20 on: May 04, 2003, 05:19:00 PM »
Here we go again  ;D

Tom

How on earth can you conclude that 11-18 are Crump, when they are clearly routed by Colt, (other than 13 and 14 and relatively minor routing changes on 12 and 15 ) where's your evidence to the contrary?

We have already the been over the 1-6 argument.  I agree there are similarities in Tillie's report, but there are plenty of differences:

The 6th is described as a par 5, not a medium 4, how can you conclude that the 6th tee was placed in the correct place by Crump (where would the par 5 have ended)?  The documented, suggested changes to the 6th, like pushing the green back to a longer 4, were much later and were never implemented.  From the routing plan I see that Colt (in blue) had a tee to the right and level with the current 5th green.

Alpinization on 3rd !

We agree that the 5th is all Colt's.  Your desription sounds very similar to Finegan's, but he's assuming the 6th was routed prior to Colt's arrival just like you are.

The 7th described is completely different and suggests that the 6th is on the wrong place too.

I don't see any evidence that design of the first 14 holes were changed much (other than Alison's and Maxwell's greens) after they were opened in Feb 1914; certainly no routing changes in those holes.  I need you to prove this to me, before I take any of it as gospel.  

I suspect the 4-5 years was mostly concentrated on trying to get grass to grow.  Tillie mentions how they were struggling in some of the later reports.

The new tees are irrelevant.  Some of those carries were never as long as you suggest.  Comparing a yardage chart with the old aerials.  

The bunker on the 1st=140.  4th=150,  8th=130, the 18th is really pretty short given the elevation change.  The 16th always had an alternative left hand route.

Either way, it's common sense that Colt would have known what type of course he was commisioned to design i.e. a tough championship course.   He would have adapted like any of the top designers.  One thing we've learned from GCA is that the master architects were constantly breaking rules that they had earlier espoused.  Colt breaks his 110 rule of the thumb on plenty of holes.

Finegan and others seem to be of the bizarre impression that Colt wanted impractical wall to wall grass, with minimal forced a carry, on a hostile sand barren site (see that earlier photo I posted of the 6th).  The forced carries at Pine Valley would have been readily apparent from the virgin site.

Why would Travis, Jerome Travers (in "The 5th Estate" book) and Tillinghast (before Crump died) credit Colt as the designer?  Why would Colt credit himself-he was hardly a publicity whore and I can't imagine he would do this if he was only responsible for 3 holes as you state.  

Why would Carr write what he did?  Other than your (in my opinion dodgy) publicity argument.  If Crump wanted to promote the course and get publicity he would have used MacDonald.  Colt wasn't exactly famous in the US in 1913; in fact, when he sets sail for the US he is described as a "critic" not as an "architect" by Tillie.   Why didn't Crump use Tillie or another American architect?  I suspect because he met Colt in England and was mightily impressed with his work at Sunningdale and possibly Swinley Forest (under construction).

Why did Ben Sayers exclaim "it's Colt at Sunningdale" when first seeing PV, without having known Colt was involved?

Why when Crump died, did the club turn again to the firm of Colt and Alison?  Rather than the well known US architects?

Here's a photo of Sunningdale at the time that Colt was secretary.  That forced carry remind you of somewhere  :D (photo taken forward of the tee)






« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

TEPaul

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #21 on: May 05, 2003, 05:22:15 AM »
Paul:

One thing I'm not doing is concluding anything. I'm looking at what I see and making various assumptions first to try to see how accurate they may seem to be. If I find they're necessarily inaccurate or wholly unsupportable I'll give up the assumption and look elsewhere. And I'm trying to use contemporaneous documentation of all types to analyze the creation of Pine Valley and any and all holes to create reasonable and accurate timelines that really may turn out to be conclusive.

You can't do better than that if you're trying to conclude Colt was the designer of Pine Valley. What you're doing is concluding Colt designed the course because you see a series of blue lines on a topo, for instance. That to me isn't good enough unless you can prove that Crump did nothing or very little on that site in the way of routing or conceiving of holes before Colt arrived and of course you certainly can't prove that.

What you're saying, in essence, is if I can't prove that Crump did something or did it before Colt arrived then that proves Colt did it. That's just not good enough--and it's certainly not proof about anything to do with Colt there. Neither one of us can be sure even which architect's drawn lines went on those topos first or where any idea might have come from. But by analyzing handwriting and such and comparing the topos it might be very indicative.

However, if that apparently earlier stick routing is Crump and it can be proven that it was done before Colt arrived that certainly can prove a good deal of detail to me. And if Tillinghast's articles basically explaining and defining the first six holes (or that nine holes overall had been routed and cleared and they turn out to be the way the course was built) can be proven to be even a day before Colt arrived that proves a good deal to me.

If Crump bought that land in the fall of 1912 (and he did) one could probably logically assume he didn't exactly buy a pig in a poke. One might assume he'd been over it maybe even for a year or more before Colt arrived. What do you imagine he was doing out there--sitting under a tree smoking a cigar waiting until Harry Colt finally arrived before he could begin to conceive of his golf course? I doubt that.

Much may never be known about who actually came up with much of what Pine Valley is but much might be too when all the evidence in those archives is looked at correctly with a good eye to things like timelines and the detail of supporting collaboration and documentation.

Jim Finegan is a damned good researcher and he knows that course extremely well. He's also fair about his assumptions and I see no particular agenda on his part to make it look like Crump did something he didn't do. So what's bizarre is why you've assumed that his conclusions are bizarre. After all he's the one who had that entire archive in his possession at home for years. And he probably read all the magazine articles you refer to because Pine Valley has them. The only real notable error I can see that Jim apparently made was the date on that topo and what that meant.

The bunkering alone on the routing with the blue lines is also not much at all about the way the course turned out. One only needs to refer to the red lines (Crump's) to see that. The red lined bunkering is the way the course was built.

Hole #2, if a timeline could be put on it, could also be indicative of much of the way those two may have worked together out there. Let's assume for a moment that Colt was attempting to improve on a green placement Crump already had in his mind and possibly on a stick routing (the earlier topo) before Colt arrived. This would certainly be supportable if it turns out that Tillinghast's article about the first six holes really did precede Colt's arrival.

When Crump remarked "No good" obviously he must have had something else in mind that he felt was better--and what if indeed it was that earlier stick routing which shows the green site where it is now? If something like this turns out to be true it seems to me that Colt very well may have been going over what Crump had done to date when he arrived and was trying to improve on it or possibly solve routing or design problems that Crump may have had and continued to have.

It's odd to me that Crump would so willing give Colt credit for his interesting solution on #5 and not much more. What would the purpose of that be? And I've never heard the slightest evidence anywhere at any time that Crump was proprietary and not generous in giving others credit for what they contributed to the design of the golf course--perhaps even the story of Chick Evans's claim is the most interesting that way.

Even an architect such as Geo Thomas (or Robert Hunter) attributes certain hole designs to Colt and I have no doubt that's probably accurate since he was a founding member and an architect.

But probably the most interesting thing of all is how some did give a good deal of credit to Colt in 1914, including Carr, Crump's closest friend there and then ended up giving apparently far more to Crump around 1918 when he died.

To you all that suggests is they were suddenly glorifying Crump and his contribution to the design of the course because he died.

I don't buy that at all particularly since he really was there every single day for 4-5 years after Colt--and Colt never returned--and there is a ton of evidence about what Crump was doing. Just his continuous shot testing and designing with his everyday collaborator, foreman, pro, superintendent Jim Govan is evidence of that. Not to mention the fact that if what you think is true about simply glorifying Crump's roll without fact is true--that Tillinghast and a Catholic priest are making up a story to glorify Crump because he died that would be calling those men liars, don't you think? What would appear more logical to me is to look more closely at the fact that what was done and said in 1914 may have changed a good deal by 1918 since the course continued to be under construction with the daily participation of Crump until that time--a good 3 1/2 years later.

And to say something like it's your assumption or conclusion that Crump was out there hanging around everyday for 4-5 years while the course was continuously being constructed just to watch the grass grow on Harry Colt's design is one of the more perposterous things I've yet heard.

But to me that apparently earlier stick routing could prove a lot if it can be PROVEN to have preceded Colt's visit. And that together with supporting evidence of all kinds to form timelines on anything can certainly help.

That's not exactly provable now and if it never is then things as to who did what in detail will probably always be somewhat of a mystery--where it may never be known what exactly Crump did or Colt did. But nevertheless you have to know you really cant say that if I can't prove that Crump did something at this time it proves that Colt did it. All it proves is that one could still assume that it's possible that Colt could have done things.

In the interim, it only makes some commonsense to me that if a man spends practically six full years on the creation of a golf course as opposed to a week or two that the man who spent a week or two probably shouldn't be credited with the design of the course as you seem to be trying to do with Colt. Particularly since there's so much evidence around of what actually did go on for the 5-6 years that Crump worked on that project.

And lastly, although I certainly can't prove it at all it isn't preposterous to me that George Crump may have wanted that course to appear as if Colt had a great deal to do with it certainly in and around 1914. If that Ardrossan project I had ever got completed like that composite routing and design I have I'd surely not want to minimize in any way Bill Coore's contribution. I'd probably want to and try to highlight that in every way possible for obvious reasons.

About the above photo or Sunningdale;

"Here's a photo of Sunningdale at the time that Colt was secretary.  That forced carry remind you of somewhere   (photo taken forward of the tee)."

Sure it does but aren't you forgetting that Crump and Baker spent a good deal of time at Sunningdale in 1910, that he ordered survey maps of New Jersey in a letter home from England at that time and that George Crump could see Sunningdale for himself and that he might have had a mind of his own? Afterall, he, like Hugh Wilson, went to Europe for the express purpose of studying golf architecture.

It also seems apparent from what his friends have written about him that Crump had a pretty clear idea about what type of golf course he wanted to create possibly before he even found and settled on the site in Clementon NJ.

« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:05 PM by -1 »

Paul_Turner

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #22 on: May 05, 2003, 04:38:29 PM »
Quote
Paul:

One thing I'm not doing is concluding anything. I'm looking at what I see and making various assumptions first to try to see how accurate they may seem to be. If I find they're necessarily inaccurate or wholly unsupportable I'll give up the assumption and look elsewhere. And I'm trying to use contemporaneous documentation of all types to analyze the creation of Pine Valley and any and all holes to create reasonable and accurate timelines that really may turn out to be conclusive.

Tom

I agree and I don't believe I have made any assumptions so far.


Quote
You can't do better than that if you're trying to conclude Colt was the designer of Pine Valley. What you're doing is concluding Colt designed the course because you see a series of blue lines on a topo, for instance. That to me isn't good enough unless you can prove that Crump did nothing or very little on that site in the way of routing or conceiving of holes before Colt arrived and of course you certainly can't prove that.

What you're saying, in essence, is if I can't prove that Crump did something or did it before Colt arrived then that proves Colt did it. That's just not good enough--and it's certainly not proof about anything to do with Colt there. Neither one of us can be sure even which architect's drawn lines went on those topos first or where any idea might have come from. But by analyzing handwriting and such and comparing the topos it might be very indicative.

Colt's hand went on the routing plan first.  The blue pen is underneath the red pen.  The blue pen is clearly Colt's hand: compare the 17th on the routing plan with that shown in Finegan's book, it's identical.

Sure Crump could have had plenty of ideas prior to Colt's arrival, but yes unless you can identify and prove what these were, it's just speculation.   We know that the stick diagram cannot be earlier than March 1913, and it's hardly a fully fledged routing, like the one we can definitely attribute to Colt.

Quote
However, if that apparently earlier stick routing is Crump and it can be proven that it was done before Colt arrived that certainly can prove a good deal of detail to me. And if Tillinghast's articles basically explaining and defining the first six holes (or that nine holes overall had been routed and cleared and they turn out to be the way the course was built) can be proven to be even a day before Colt arrived that proves a good deal to me.

You should note that Tillie never wrote, contemporaneously, that the first 9 holes were cleared by March 1913.  He actually only described the first 6 in April 1913; and you have to admit that there are significant differences when compared to the final holes.  

Quote
If Crump bought that land in the fall of 1912 (and he did) one could probably logically assume he didn't exactly buy a pig in a poke. One might assume he'd been over it maybe even for a year or more before Colt arrived. What do you imagine he was doing out there--sitting under a tree smoking a cigar waiting until Harry Colt finally arrived before he could begin to conceive of his golf course? I doubt that.

Much may never be known about who actually came up with much of what Pine Valley is but much might be too when all the evidence in those archives is looked at correctly with a good eye to things like timelines and the detail of supporting collaboration and documentation.

Quote
Jim Finegan is a damned good researcher and he knows that course extremely well. He's also fair about his assumptions and I see no particular agenda on his part to make it look like Crump did something he didn't do. So what's bizarre is why you've assumed that his conclusions are bizarre. After all he's the one who had that entire archive in his possession at home for years. And he probably read all the magazine articles you refer to because Pine Valley has them. The only real notable error I can see that Jim apparently made was the date on that topo and what that meant.

The bunkering alone on the routing with the blue lines is also not much at all about the way the course turned out. One only needs to refer to the red lines (Crump's) to see that. The red lined bunkering is the way the course was built.

Well why did Finegan ignore the Carr article and not mention the Tillie reports either, in his book?

I think I interpret the style of the blue bunkers differently from you and Finegan, because I am familiar with his work in the heaths. The bunkers Colt draws are enormous, he uses words like "tear ridge" and I believe he intended to blend these into the natural sandy waste.  Much like how the huge bunkers are torn out of the ridge on the 8th at St George's Hill.  Many of Colt's bunkers are obscured by the later red pen, particularly on the green complexes.  You can see the blue bunkers under the red on holes like 3,6,16,17.

Sure there are bunkers on Colt's plan that were not built.  But not so fast with the red line assertion, I agree with some of your claim, but some of the red lines are simply drawing the rough waste areas like on the 16th. And there are plenty of red bunkers features that weren't built-on the 15th being the most obvious; some look very different like on the right hand side of the 1st.  How about the all subdivisions shown in many bunkers, for example on the right of the 6th??

Quote
Hole #2, if a timeline could be put on it, could also be indicative of much of the way those two may have worked together out there. Let's assume for a moment that Colt was attempting to improve on a green placement Crump already had in his mind and possibly on a stick routing (the earlier topo) before Colt arrived. This would certainly be supportable if it turns out that Tillinghast's article about the first six holes really did precede Colt's arrival.

When Crump remarked "No good" obviously he must have had something else in mind that he felt was better--and what if indeed it was that earlier stick routing which shows the green site where it is now? If something like this turns out to be true it seems to me that Colt very well may have been going over what Crump had done to date when he arrived and was trying to improve on it or possibly solve routing or design problems that Crump may have had and continued to have.


I agree, and Tillie's report on 1-6 was before Colt's arrival. But you can't ignore the differences, they are significant.




« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Paul_Turner

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #23 on: May 05, 2003, 04:39:31 PM »
continued:

Quote
It's odd to me that Crump would so willing give Colt credit for his interesting solution on #5 and not much more. What would the purpose of that be? And I've never heard the slightest evidence anywhere at any time that Crump was proprietary and not generous in giving others credit for what they contributed to the design of the golf course--perhaps even the story of Chick Evans's claim is the most interesting that way.

Why do you keep repeating this statement?  Where did Crump ever state this?  And you can't reconcile the above paragraph, with your theory that Crump wanted to give Colt credit for the whole course for publicity reasons.  You can't have it both ways!

Quote
Even an architect such as Geo Thomas (or Robert Hunter) attributes certain hole designs to Colt and I have no doubt that's probably accurate since he was a founding member and an architect.

George Thomas gives equal credit on all holes-do you still have no doubt it's accurate?  Hunter splits the credit for individual holes.

Quote
But probably the most interesting thing of all is how some did give a good deal of credit to Colt in 1914, including Carr, Crump's closest friend there and then ended up giving apparently far more to Crump around 1918 when he died.

To you all that suggests is they were suddenly glorifying Crump and his contribution to the design of the course because he died.

I don't buy that at all particularly since he really was there every single day for 4-5 years after Colt--and Colt never returned--and there is a ton of evidence about what Crump was doing. Just his continuous shot testing and designing with his everyday collaborator, foreman, pro, superintendent Jim Govan is evidence of that. Not to mention the fact that if what you think is true about simply glorifying Crump's roll without fact is true--that Tillinghast and a Catholic priest are making up a story to glorify Crump because he died that would be calling those men liars, don't you think? What would appear more logical to me is to look more closely at the fact that what was done and said in 1914 may have changed a good deal by 1918 since the course continued to be under construction with the daily participation of Crump until that time--a good 3 1/2 years later.

And to say something like it's your assumption or conclusion that Crump was out there hanging around everyday for 4-5 years while the course was continuously being constructed just to watch the grass grow on Harry Colt's design is one of the more perposterous things I've yet heard.

I have construction photos and very early photos of tee and approach shots for all of holes 1-11, 16-18 at PV (I sent you  some, but not all of them).  I believe they are probably no later than 1915.  They are very much like the final holes, the differences are minimal, and the most significant are a result of Alison's and Maxwell's work.  So you have to be more specific about what Crump was doing in the later years, didn't the members want to play some golf?  It's not good enough to state: "(Crump did...) continuous shot testing and designing with his everyday collaborator, foreman, pro, superintendent Jim Govan is evidence of that"-we need specifics, it could be trying to solve the 12-15 stretch (and even then 12 and 15 aren't vastly different from Colt's plan)
 
I'm not calling them liars (Not sure the catholic priest bit has any significance!  If he was an atheist then maybe;)) .  Are you calling Carr a liar for his Jan 1915 article?!  

Do you think Colt (mind you he wasn't a catholic, but his wife was!) a liar for his own personal claims?  He's very specific in his design input for each course in his advertisements (note the code assigment I described) and I have never found any that are inconsistent with reality, if anything he underplays his credit.

It seems to me pretty obvious that the club doesn't want the course to be credited, in any way, to Colt-not even co-credit.  You're hiding your head in the sand if you don't think this is true.  Pam Emory, for one, wrote an interesting article on PV that states exactly this.

It's well known that PV had a hell of a time growing grass.  I don't think that it's preposterous that this preoccupied Crump's time, after the first 14 hole were built, as well as working on the 12-15 stretch.  

Quote
But to me that apparently earlier stick routing could prove a lot if it can be PROVEN to have preceded Colt's visit. And that together with supporting evidence of all kinds to form timelines on anything can certainly help.

That's not exactly provable now and if it never is then things as to who did what in detail will probably always be somewhat of a mystery--where it may never be known what exactly Crump did or Colt did. But nevertheless you have to know you really cant say that if I can't prove that Crump did something at this time it proves that Colt did it. All it proves is that one could still assume that it's possible that Colt could have done things.

If the stick diagram is before Colt's arrival then it strongly suggest that the routing was a long way from fully being defined when he arrived in May.  I agree that it shows 1,2,3,4 maybe 6, in positions close to the final holes.  But the rest is completely different and very strange, in my opinion.  The date on the contour map is March 1913, so it can't have been drawn earlier than that, no matter how long Crump walked the property before Colt arrived.

Quote
In the interim, it only makes some commonsense to me that if a man spends practically six full years on the creation of a golf course as opposed to a week or two that the man who spent a week or two probably shouldn't be credited with the design of the course as you seem to be trying to do with Colt. Particularly since there's so much evidence around of what actually did go on for the 5-6 years that Crump worked on that project.

Again, refer to the actual photo evidence.   I see none that suggests that holes 1-11,16-18 were changed much, after construction, by Crump. Where's the actual evidence you mention?

Quote
And lastly, although I certainly can't prove it at all it isn't preposterous to me that George Crump may have wanted that course to appear as if Colt had a great deal to do with it certainly in and around 1914. If that Ardrossan project I had ever got completed like that composite routing and design I have I'd surely not want to minimize in any way Bill Coore's contribution. I'd probably want to and try to highlight that in every way possible for obvious reasons.

I'd be interested to know what other GCAers think of this speculative theory.  Those that read the Carr article.

Quote
About the above photo or Sunningdale;

"Here's a photo of Sunningdale at the time that Colt was secretary.  That forced carry remind you of somewhere   (photo taken forward of the tee)."

Sure it does but aren't you forgetting that Crump and Baker spent a good deal of time at Sunningdale in 1910, that he ordered survey maps of New Jersey in a letter home from England at that time and that George Crump could see Sunningdale for himself and that he might have had a mind of his own? Afterall, he, like Hugh Wilson, went to Europe for the express purpose of studying golf architecture.

It also seems apparent from what his friends have written about him that Crump had a pretty clear idea about what type of golf course he wanted to create possibly before he even found and settled on the site in Clementon NJ.

I'm not forgetting that Crump and Baker visited Sunningdale.  I was just enforcing a point about forced carries.  

Oh yeah- Baker, another close friend of Crump's that gives design credit to Colt  :D

Sure, Crump may well have had strong ideas about the course he wanted.  Although the mention of Alpinization and Mid-Surrey mounds makes me wonder; surely a design feature that is unsuitable to a great, undulating site like PV (Mid-Surrey is dead flat, which is why Taylor used them).   Lets not forget that Crump was a novice, which was why he consulted so many experts and most obviously Colt.



« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

ForkaB

Re: Forced Carries
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2003, 10:07:03 AM »
Paul

Hang in there.  You've got Tom Paul (and Jim Finnegan, et. al......) by the balls.  Even though I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn Express recently, and my academic career as a History major only lasted one quarter, the Carr article seems to make it irrefutable that Colt should get (at the very least) co-design credit with Crump.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by 1056376800 »

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back