[TEPaul]

Chick:

Don't fret--I'm not really giviing you the shaft. Maybe on here I sort of have been but to the people who really matter I tell them in no uncertain terms it was you who designed Pine Valley. The fact that you didn't show up there until a good deal of it was built really isn't of much consequence--at least to you.

Just another interesting example of what a kind and generous man George Crump really was!

[Chick_Evans]

TE Paul
Seriously do you have any idea who drew the red lines?

[TEPaul]

"Your inability (or unwillingness) to answer the question (in terms of how anybody can identify a "Ross" course (or any other architect's course) or not) proves to me that the answer is "not.""

Another bit of fascinating a priori reasoning from the convoluted mind of one Richard Goodale--American expatriate architectural analyst bizarre.

[ForkaB]

Chick

I'm a near numpty vis a vis GCA, but those frilly knickers sort of bunkers on CPC #4 just scream out MAC!!! to me.  I don't get that sort of rush of near total consciousness on any Ross course I have ever played.  Am I missing sometihng?

Rich

[Chick_Evans]

Rich Goodale
So you concede some architects' do have a signature style vis a vis Mack's frilly knickers sort of bunkers? I guess you just answered your original question. No?

Why are the frilly knickers on #4 and #5 total Mackness and the rest of the holes and their frilly knickers Mackless?

[BCrosby]

TEP is right. This is getting all balled up.

Rich -

Are you saying that because I don't (or won't) give a list of distinctive Ross features, that anyone who recognizes a Ross course is misguided? That his courses aren't, a priori, distinguishable for that reason?

You may not be able to spot a Ross course. I'm not sure that ought to be generalized. Lots of other people can. Are they fooling themselves if they can't produce a checklist?

On a bet I couldn't describe to you my son such that you could pick him out of a crowd. But I recognize him every time I see him. Is that knowledge suspect?

(For what it's worth, there are lots of discussions of typical Ross features. See for example Brad Klein's book. See Ran's discussions in his course summaries. See Ross's own little book. I'm just too lazy to do the work of listing them again.)

But my point is that you don't have to be able to recite that list to claim (correctly) that you can distinguish Ross's courses. And the same is true for Poussin, Caravaggio, Titian, etc.

Bob

[TEPaul]

"TE Paul
Seriously do you have any idea who drew the red lines?"

Chick Evans:

Yes sir, Your Super-Starness, I sure do have an idea.

[Chick_Evans]

TE Paul
Do we have any evidence to support our idea of who drew the red lines or is it an educated guess?

[TEPaul]

Chick;

I have some extremely sophisticated but very classified evidence of who drew those red lines but I don't know whether WE have that info. I could tell you but if I happen to find you Super-Star I might have to kill you either before I tell you or afterwards depending on how you act.

[Chick_Evans]

TE Paul
An educated guess it is.....by the way I'm already dead.

Chick

[TEPaul]

"TE Paul
An educated guess it is.....by the way I'm already dead.
Chick"

Oh, right, so you are. In that case I won't have to kill you so the educated guess would be a man known as G. Arthur Crump.

[Paul_Turner]

But when it comes to bunkers and greens and such and how they appear on that topo routing map in blue lines vs the way the course was built and still is you really aren't even close, in my opinion. Basically the red bunker lines of Crump are essentially the way that course was built and still is. So many of the smaller Colt blue pencil bunkers just were never done or done the way he drew them.

Do you see 10 bunkers surrounding the 10th green in any photos, 20 down the right of the 6th? How are you interpreting those red lines-all those subdivisions in the bunkers?  How about the small clusters of bunkers by the green on the 17th?  How about all those red bunker clusters drawn on the 15th that were obviously never built?  How about that huge cluster of small bunkers down the right of the 1st; nothing like these were built.  

So when you definitively state that the red lines show how the bunkers turned out, I think that's wrong.  

As for the green shapes, I repeat, that on many of the greens the red lines are simply over the top of blue; can you see this?  Do you see any blue peeking out from behind the red?

You seemed to be under the impression that Crump and any collaborators he may have had there spent the remaining years on the course with Colt's hole drawings or blue-lined topo drawings building the course to that and clearly that just wasn't the case at Pine Valley. Crump was out there doing whatever he thought worked well and whatever the hell he felt like doing that way. It's called "working in the field" as a basic modus operandi. There's so much available evidence of that it's overwhelming. Just go back and read the "remembrances" of Carr and Smith if you really want the full overall flavor of that and the way things were obviously done out there. But Crump did seem to put what he wanted or did on that topo routing map to some degree.

None of your evidence is "overwhelming".  You haven't provided any!  I can see that the first holes (1-11,16,17,18) that were built were pretty much set by 1914.  The course in the main, follows Colt's blue lines.  So yes they did follow his blue lines and to a large degree.  Some of Colt's bunkers weren't built, and sure Crump and others added some different bunkers, but I don't see that as being a big deal as you appear to. And neither did Simon Carr apparently!  I have conceded many times, so far, that the plans deviated from Colt's routing on 13,14 part of 12 and 7.

Reading that Wilson/Carr report, the most radical changes were never acted upon.  Crump certainly had plans to possibly change the holes, but this does not prove that those first 14 holes were in a constant state of flux.  Do you think they changed much between construction and Crump's death?  I don't see any evidence.   This is relevant to Colt, because you have suggested that those holes were significantly altered after Carr's detailed report.  I see little evidence of such.    

And speculating that Crump may have had a fully fledged routing plan prior to Colt's arrival, is poor.  Why bother with asking Colt to turn up at all?  Why bother paying him, for doing nothing of much consequence?  Why didn't Crump produce a full routing plan of his own?  Why did Carr credit Colt?  Would Colt have claimed the course, if the routing was complete, of course he wouldn't!  And he knew how the course turned out because he owned that photo book and his partner was Alison. (NB Colt took his name off certain courses in his career)

The alpinization idea on #3? That idea seems to me to have gone out of architecture as quickly as it came in. Merion experimented with that on #9 early and removed it. So if you're trying to prove that Colt talked Crump out of that proving that Crump deferred to Colt I just don't buy it.

You've changed your tune.  On an earlier thread (on Taylor...), when I quoted Colt's opinion on Alpinization (1912), you accepted that Colt probably talked Crump out of this design style.   Merion, is irrelevant (unless Colt visited there too ), and I think it's daft to ignore the only design style, mentioned by Tillie, before Colt's arrival.  

Do you see any resemblance between those St George's Hill bunkers at the 8th, and those built at Pine Valley? (I have to stress that those bunkers were unique in style and scale at that time on inland courses, nothing like the earlier heath bunkers Walton Heath...) Can you see how the "tear out ridge" annotations by Colt apply to both these bunkers and many of those constructed at Pine Valley (look at those early pics I sent you)?  How about the scale of the bunkers?  I think this is a strong indication of the style influence that Colt brought to Pine Valley.  When you get to see that booklet, please keep those bunkers at SGH in mind.

Does anyone here on GCA seriously doubt that Colt doesn't deserve a co-credit for Pine Valley? Perhaps one day, they'll include his name on the card and yardage chart, but then again  


 

[TEPaul]

Paul asked;

“Do you see 10 bunkers surrounding the 10th green in any photos, 20 down the right of the 6th? How are you interpreting those red lines-all those subdivisions in the bunkers?  How about the small clusters of bunkers by the green on the 17th?  How about all those red bunker clusters drawn on the 15th that were obviously never built?  How about that huge cluster of small bunkers down the right of the 1st; nothing like these were built."

What I see on #10 is both red and blue line bunkering that's fairly representative of the way the hole was built. And "fairly representative" is probably about as accurate a description as need be of an "in the field" modus operandi that PV was under George Crump. #10 is a hole that's been credited to Colt (as to it's conception) by a number of architects back then and I accept that as a very logical assumption.

On #6 I see some red line bunkering that was built and on the hole drawing that I believe to be Crump's I see bunkering “placement” that's more complete as to the way the hole was built.

The way I interpret most of those larger red line bunker placements and drawings (that look vaguely like bloodshot eyes) is basically what some have called undulating waste areas that basically turned into semi-vegetated and undulating sandy areas with what might be called vague demarcations of bunkering. HHA on #7 would be a good example as would the right side of #6, and probably #2 green fronting area just before it swept up to the green front (until that part collapsed) etc.

Not sure what you're referring to on #17 around the green. That green was altered by Alison in 1921-2 as were the green-end bunkers.

Many of the red bunker clusters were not built on #15--neither those on the routing map nor Crump's hole plans. The reason being Crump died before #15 was built and if you'd refer to Carr's "remembrances" on that hole you'd clearly see this was the hole Crump seemed so unsure of which was the last thing he said to Carr before he died. If that's not a great example of what Crump did and how he did it at Pine Valley and proof that his entire construction "modus operandi" was to do exactly what he thought best on that course which could hardly be farther from your suggestion or implication he was in any way following some bunker scheme laid out by Colt then I just can't imagine what could be clearer and more obvious!

I don't know what you're referring to bunker-wise on the right side of #1 but I can assure you that area was of real concern to Crump on that hole. Again, to prove that just refer to the "remembrances" of Carr's on that hole--it talks about those bunkers specifically and Crump's concern about them and exactly what they meant to the strategy and difficulty of the hole as far as HE was concerned.

Actually, Paul, that very #1 hole "remembrance" of Carr's is just about as good a representation of the way Pine Valley was built by Crump in the ensuing years following its construction start in 1913 as can be found. Since very few have ever seen those interesting "remembrances" which are so representative of PV’s creation and construction I'll provide a little sampling of them from the exact hole your questioning--from Carr's #1 hole "remembrance".

"At holes Nos. 1, 9, 13 and 16 HE planned long second shots to the greens. At No. 1 HIS plan was to compel the player to keep his tee shot WELL TO THE LEFT, hence HE brought out the bunker on the right."

Can you see what that says and the clear drift of it all? Those "remembrances" which still to date are the best example and representation that can be found of what Crump did there say what HE wanted to do, what HE planned. Crump unfortunately didn't really write about what he did and wished to do--he just did it. And those "remembrances" are just chocked full of the same thing over and over again--ie, "He wanted this and that, HE planned this and that, HIS intention was to do this and that......" etc. And a great deal of that he did do before he died but he unfortunately didn't quite finish and so the "remembrances" became the real blueprint to the completion of the course.

Who is "HE" Paul that's referred to over and over again? It's George Crump--it's not Harry Colt.

You can continually ask me to supply you with more evidence but it's right there staring you in the face, and I have provided it, and I am providing it, and you either can't or don't choose to see it, or else, which is more likely, you just aren’t looking at it properly in its overall which is the way it needs to be looked at.

This was not a course that was constructed in the same manner as say a William Flynn course where bunkering and such was constructed to an exact drawn plan that used individual hole drawings to exact scale with "construction instructions" on the side of each individual hole drawing with exact dimensions of how to create and construct any bunker (ex. 'make face 3' 6" high etc, etc). Flynn did that so his foreman and work crews could follow his plan exactly.

Crump didn't do it at all that way. He didn't have to! He was there all the time acting as his own foreman (with James Govan). He lived there and was there practically every single day for the five years he remained alive. In a way that's a bit bizarre but his friends came to look at him as sort of a friendly and lovable hermit. Pine Valley obviously completely possessed him and was his entire life's work in those final five years. (And to be completely honest with you it’s beginning to upset me that you have the gall to write that he was just watching he grass grow—even if you added a smiley face to that remark!).

Perhaps you need to get a grip on this a bit more. If you don't I don't believe you'll ever really understand what went on there and how that course came to be built. It was pretty much unique in the way Crump went about it.

None of this minimizes what Colt did early on, in my opinion. Colt was a great designer and nobody is implying otherwise. I'm not, Carr wasn't, Crump wasn't, Finegan, Shelly, J.Arthur Brown didn't--nobody did. Crump was a novice when he began but he clearly wasn't in the end! That's why the world of architecture came down there to watch how the course progressed and ultimately why the world of architecture was shocked when he died suddenly, particularly Tillinghast. Basically they all wondered what was going to happen then--how were they going to complete without him and basically things were put on hold for a year or two until the final organized push under the specific plan of the 1921 Advisory Committee.

That wasn't glorifying Crump to minimize Colt and you should stop implying that--it was just giving Crump his due that they all could see and understood in 1918. I don't really have to provide you or anyone else with any more detailed information to prove anything as far as I'm concerned.

What you need to do is look at all this again with a more objective eye to what really did go on. Stop fixating on things like Carr's article in 1914 and look at the ensuing years all the way to the final recommendations and work of the 1921 Advisory Committee and what all of them believed to be Crump’s roll in the creation of Pine Valley, and what that really was.

[T_MacWood]

"Pine Valley was inspired by Mr. George Crump, and its framework was planned by Mr. H.S. Colt."
- Hugh Alison 1950

"His [Crump] was, I believe, the original conception and his design was modified by the advice of Mr. Colt and his partner, Mr. Alison."
- Bernard Darwin 1922

[TEPaul]

"His [Crump] was, I believe, the original conception and his design was modified by the advice of Mr. Colt and his partner, Mr. Alison."
- Bernard Darwin 1922"

Tom MacW:

That's an interesting remark by Bernard Darwin. I wonder if Darwin went down there and also analyzed all the material we have and are now analyzing. If he had done that I think he would've more accurately said;

"His (Crump's) was, I believe, the original conception and his design was modified by the advice of Mr. Colt in May of 1913 until Crump modified it back in the ensuing five years to what he wanted, and his partner Mr Alison who recommended alterations to the course to the 1921 Advisory Committee after Crump's death fundamentally following the framework of two hole by hole "remembrance" reports of Crump's closest friends outlining the known plans and wishes of George Crump".

Have you seen that 13 page Alison recommendation report Tom? Have you seen the hole by hole Carr/Smith "remembrances" of what they knew Crump wanted? Have you seen the 1921 Advisory committee's individually listed decisions to every single incremental recommendation that Alison made in his 13 page hole by hole report (with his drawings)?

And most importantly have you seen the text of the report of the 1921 Advisory Committee itself following that individual recommendation decison list and essentially how and why they chose to list every single recommendation as either "to be done at once", "at some time later", "undecided", "disapproved".

Basically it was done that way to work within the spirit of what they knew Crump's ideas and wishes to be. A paragraph from the Chariman of the committee says;

"We have discussed the report with Dr. Carr, a former member of the committee and the one person who probably knew George Crump's plans better than any one else. In general, he approves the report and endorses our plan of action."

I can't imagine that anything else could have possibly been a greater dedication than that to finishing something in the spirit of the creator of Pine Valley after he was gone.

[T_MacWood]

TE
Darwin visited PV in 1922. I would think the activities of the Advisory committee would have been fresh in everyone's mind in 1922.

Yes I have read Alison's report and the Carr/Smith report.

[ForkaB]

Thanks, shivas, for understanding what I was trying to say and perhaps even agreeing with me!  Now let's get out of T Paul and Paul T's way (what a great pair of bookends!).........

[TEPaul]

Tom MacW;

Well then what's your take on them in the context of what's been reported on here? In a general sense my take is that it's great to depend on certain quotations of reporters and such for direction in a general sense but if one has material emanating right out of those that were actually there all the time and were involved in the construcition of a course it's a good thing to take a close look at that material and not just depend on what something like 'framework' or 'original conception' might mean in quotations.

I think a closer look needs to be taken at those remembrances, particularly Carr's as his was the article in 1914 that some are pointing to with an eye to giving Colt attribution as the architect of Pine Valley.

Take another look at the middle of my post #63 and the paragraphs regarding what Carr said about "He" wanting this and that on particularly #1 but obviously on every other hole as well. Is that really a man sitting there watching the grass grow on a golf course? Hardly. And if it is what's the point of those detailed "remembrances" at all? Why wouldn't they simply day HE wanted the grass to grow?

That's what I call the "designing up" phase of routed golf holes but even in a routing sense how can someone like Paul say it's obvious that Colt routed the number of holes he says he did? What's he basing that on? All I can see is the fact he thinks Colt's blue lines may have gone on the routing map first in a sort of hole structure sense as distinct from just a stick routing.

What's not to say he was working off of Crump's own ideas particularly since it sure is possible that the earlier stick routing may have been Crump's. Not only that but it's quite obvious that Crump had been on that site constantly analyzing everything about it for maybe six months or more.

Even the holes that were unclear in the middle of the back nine--why does he assume they have to be Colt's ideas? He seems to assume that because he feels Crump was a novice then--that's all. Wilson was a novice too, so probably were the Fownes or Leeds or even Macdonald at NGLA--what had he done but a fairly rudimentary course in Chicago previously?

The routing phase may never be that clear or ever really known completely as to who came up with what and when but the phase of designing the bunkering and other hole features on the course in the ensuing years is a lot clearer to me with what exists on both paper and in fact.  

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Those early Tillinghast articles of Pine Valley. I can't seem to find my copy. You said you have them. Could you email, fax or send them to me. I asked the Tillinghast Society for them but they don't seem to be responding. Maybe they're pissed at what I said about all the time Burbeck spent at Bethpage Black.  

Thanks

[T_MacWood]

TE
I have a few questions.

What is the story with the stick routing....did Ian post it on GCA? I would sure like to see it.

When was the current 14th hole designed and built? It is the one hole that appears totally different from the Colt and Crump ideas - at least on the topo map.

Does the club's archives contain any of Crump's correspondances?

It appears to me that Colt created the basic framework. Once he saw the site Colt was obviously excited at the prospect of laying out the golf course (as noted in the articles at the time). Based on Crump's original idea for Alpinizing the third hole (like his Philly brothers at the time) his architectural ideas were different in some ways to Colt's. Colt would have been against anything that artificial especially on such naturally blessed site. It is likely Colt promoted the naturalistic approach that was ultimately adopted.

 It is clear to me that the general philosphy of what the course should be as a test of golf was Crump's. He wanted a very brutal unforgiving golf course. I'm sure Colt would have promoted a more forgiving less penal philosophy and there is evidence the original Colt layout was a little easier although not easy (and Alison brought a similar less penal approach). However Crump's philosphy won out and PV today reflects his concept.

They both deserve a lot of credit. That is why I posted the quotes from Darwin and Alison. Darwin because he was there in 1922 when all the actors were around to speak with and Alison because he obviously would have been intimately familar with the entire story. In their articles both Darwin and Alison go out of their way to credit both Crump and Colt's contributions, not trying to minimize either man.

If Crump had lived I wonder how the club would have represented Colt's contribution - I suspect a different story would be told.

[TEPaul]

Shivas:

I think what exactly went on at PV back then in those 5-6 years of it's creation under Crump and Colt and Crump's other frequently welcomed collaborators really is fascinating to reanalyze full-boat at this point.

There's quite unbelievably a considerable amount of misinformation on that great course apparently that's been perpetuated over the years. It was probably inevitable, though, given that the apparent collaboration Crump inspired, encouraged and directed was perhaps the single largest active collaboration of any course in architecture's history and maybe by a mile. And afterall, how cool is that? And just look how that turned out in both how it was looked at back then and now. Basically it went to the top of the world back then and has stayed there!

Paul Turner is a wonderful architectural researcher, as Tom MacWood is. I know them both and they're great guys. I admire the things they find although sometimes we may disagree to some degree on how they go about analyzing it. I think they're actually thinking of writing a book together and if it turns out to be on the Heathland architecture and it architects I'm going to have a cocked eye I'll tell you    on what all they may presently be advocating on Colt as the designer of Pine Valley!

But face it, I think Paul has a bias towards Colt and the Heathland architecture and its architects (both of which I believe to be some of the very best, if not the best in the world and perhaps the best in the history of golf architecture, in many interesting contexts, particularly evolutionarily).

And Paul thinks I'm an advocate with a bias towards Crump and Pine Valley with the creation of that course.

But so what really? That's probably the way it should be in a discussion, debate or point/counter point. I think both of us realize there's still a lot out there to be reanalyzed, as strange as that may seem at this point with a course as famous as PV has always been. But the interesting thing is so much of Pine Valley's material isn't lost in the flow of time--it's really all still there--just that the creation in its "modus operandi" was so unique that putting it all together never would have been easy in the first place. But to ever attempt to do that I know we both expect to be as objective as we possibly can.

As to an article on all this? I don't know. I'd like to see it done but I'm not wholly sure if Pine Valley would. They do have a certain sense of privacy about certain things which I can understand and I completely respect. But ironically, that sense or aura of privacy that some feel is not what many or most think it is. PV is a private golf club but if anyone really loves and understands golf architecture and the enduring spirit of that place they will quickly come to find that PVGC is all for you and can be most accomodating to you.

But I will be very honest--if something turns up to prove that Colt had far more to do with the routing phase (or "designing up" phase) of Pine Valley than I sense he did given Crump's presence and position there that'd be just fine with me. I respect Harry Colt as much as anyone as an architect and PV does too.

But if it turned out that the extraordinary amount of time and effort (and money) that Crump put into that course (which many don't seem to understand or fully appreciate) comes to prove that he really was the true designer of it that I think he was (the "editor" he was without question) it would make me even happier, and by a lot.

And here's why. PVGC really does glorify Crump whether they have a detailed right to in every fact of the creation of the place or not. And I really like that they do that because I believe it has always and continues to make them respect the course and concentrate more on preserving it in Crump's image and vision than they other-wise might if they did not have that respect for Crump.

The flip side of that type of respect might be ANGC and what they've done for other reasons with the vision and architectural spirit of their orginal architects. Or even a guy at my club who when he heard we planned to restore our Ross course said; "Donald Ross, who the hell cares about him, that was 85 years ago, this is today!?" Can you imagine!? He said it to me a bunch of times actually. He also belongs to PV and eventually I told him to go down there and say to them; "Who the hell was George Crump, that was 90 years ago, this is today!?" He stopped saying that about Ross after I told him that!

I know some disagree with all the trees at PV and that it may have gotten a bit clogged over the decades but they are actively counteracting that now and it's great. I know some think maybe the bunkers may gotten a bit more clean than they used to be or should be but they're still a tough feature to deal with. And I sort of hesitate to say this but some bemoan the fact that PV consults TF because they don't see him as the ideal preservationist or restoration architect that a club like that should have. But I'll tell you this and take is as fact that TF, at least down there, where he's both a member and board member could be one of the most unwilling consultants you ever saw. He's such a nice man of course he'll consult with them if they ask, and they do, but some down there get the distinct feeling he'd prefer it more if they didn't ask at all. As anyone can see from the way he went about settling into the "short course" project it's a huge amount or pressure to be doing things there that aren't preservationist.

And so, if PV being what it is glorifies their creator a bit too much, so what? If they really do push the "preservationist" button more and more in the name of their creator that's just fine by me--more than fine actually.

Because as everyone interested in architecture knows when a club and course like Pine Valley takes a stand and does something people tend to sit up and take notice far more than most any other club in the world.

And frankly, the entire subject of the so-called "amateur" architect is one that should be revisited, particularly those extraordinary four out of the six from the original "Philadelphia School of Architecture"--Wilson, Crump, Fownes and Thomas; none of them ever took a dime for anything they ever did in architecture which of course includes Merion, PVGC, Oakmont and Riviera--(not too shabby). Those four and others of the "amateur" set tended to be innovators, adventurous and had the capacity to let it all hang out without some client telling them what to do and not to do!

So bring it on and in the process if I tend to have a slight bias towards Crump and his continued glorification, so what?

[ForkaB]

T Paul, Paul T, anybody

Can you please take a couple of minutes from this great discussion to explain what "Alpinization" is to numpties like me?

Thanks

Rihc

[TEPaul]

"If Crump had lived I wonder how the club would have represented Colt's contribution - I suspect a different story would be told."

Tom MacW:

That's a great question and certainly is the $64,000 question. The stories that sometimes get told about various golf courses and their architecture and the underlying facts can sometimes diverge, and sometimes a lot, as we all know. There're a ton of reasons for that of course.

But I think most of us here are interested in the details of the underlying fact of a great course's architecture (probably far, far more than most members of most clubs we sometimes discuss). Some of us here sometimes get a little queasy about getting into some clubs business and history because we're not the members, we're not the ones responsible, who play those courses everyday, and we aren't the ones paying the freight! (I know you don't exactly share that sentiment Tom  

But the question of--if Crump had lived what would he have ultimately done with Pine Valley is a amazing question to conjecture on.

Those who knew him best, and those now who know best what he was about have no doubt at all he would have kept going--that the course was his life's work in the end. The question was actually asked of him about when he planned to finish Pine Valley because he really was taking time and his answer was; "NEVER!"

But I have already asked a bunch of people who have to do with Pine Valley that if they were absolutely sure of what Crump would have wanted to do--and in some ways the "remembrances" indicate it all, would they or should they now, at this point today, with even the absolute best of architects, finish what he wanted to do there?

To a man they all say--never! And their answers why are all the same--that the golf course as Crump left it when he died unexpectedly and the 1921 Advisory Committee's work left it has earned it's right now to be preserved forever.

Of course the irony is Crump really did view some of what is still there now as temporary--and he planned to go back and fix it with probably a virtual laundry list of things and ideas.

Maybe it's just as well and I agree with that, I guess, although some of his ideas are fascinating. But I'd certainly like to see the club put back some things to the way they were around that earlier time. Perhaps even to some of the things from the 1920s that where things he did do that've become somewhat obsoleted over time. That would be both restorative and preservationist in my book--and it seems to me that very slowly, as may be their way, they're even doing some of that now. One simple but excellent barometer, I'd think, that'd be practical and just excellent would be to get every single original Crump bunker on the course back into view and into play.

But again, had he lived longer would Colt's contribution have been minimized by the club?

I don't think so. Once ultimately as much as can be becomes known I doubt Colt's contribution would be minimized--it might even be increased somewhat.

The reason, in my mind, is because what I call the "designing up" phase of the routing of Pine Valley is more Crump than some such as you and Paul understand, I think, and that would've only increased obviously had he lived longer.

But on the other hand, the all important "routing" phase that I believe was most of whatever Colt did at PV (obviously #5 is the single greatest exception to that) will never change, it never would have from around 1918--it really never could've once it finally got set the way it is now. And that routing that just snuck under the wire right around Crump's death is so good and when things someday become clearer in that routing vein (although who did what exactly will likely never be totally known in that phase--it really can't at this point since neither actually recorded who did what at that time and phase) I'd expect maybe the perception of Colt's contribution to rise from what it's been.

[TEPaul]

Numpty:

I'm all done explaining things to you until you learn to or agree to start reading.

Paul and TomW will explain exactly what "alpinization" was but basically it was a very fascinating architectureal idea that JH Taylor takes credit fom creating and inventing. He had all kinds of interesting ideas about what it could accomplish regarding a sort of loose principle of a progressive fairness/penalty equation regarding various shots (particularly progressively off line ones) and how that might better meld the basic idea of fairness across the spectrum of playing levels.

But alas, it sure wasn't very natural looking in an architectural sense and some of those Heathland architects were getting heavily and solidly into creating a natural look in most everything they did in architecture.

So "alpinization" basically went out about as fast as it came in. Basically it was the architectural use of mounding--and sometimes very dramatically!

[Nigel_Walton]

Mea Culpa Gentlemen.

I foolishly assumed that the thread titled Forced Carries was about Forced Carries.

This is marvelous stuff. Well done, all.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()