[DMoriarty]

I am not sure why Mike Cirba thinks he has to speak for Joe Bausch. He isn't doing a very good job of it, and Joe would definitely be better off speaking for yourself.   All Mike has done is proven once again that he is unable to follow the conversation.   

There have been no attempts to discredit Joe Bausch.  As I said above I have little doubt that any of the sleaziness is attributable to Mike Cirba, not Joe Bausch.

[Tom MacWood]

Mike
Why not post these articles from Tilly?

An article from May 1914:

"When Sayers arrived at Pine Valley the first hole that he saw was the fifth and immediately exclaimed, 'Its Colt and Sunningdale!', and although he had not been told that Colt was the architect of the course, his keen perception had detected at once the handiwork of the Sunningdale constructor."

And this one from December 1914:

"Much has been written concerning this marvelous course, discovered by Mr. George A. Crump and designed by that celebrated golf architect, Mr. HS Colt, but for the most part...."

[Mike Cirba]

David,

Joe is smart enough to avoid attempting to discuss these matters with you guys, proving he's much more intelligent than I am.

Tom,

HS Colt did design the course and much of it was used, with the 5th being his great idea among them, but some of his design was already designed by Crump and his Committee prior to Colt coming (holes 1, 2, 3, 4, 18) and incorporated into Colt's plan, and other parts of Colt's design was changed after he left in the field, such as 13, 14, 15 tee, and locations of the 2nd green, 7th green,...and Crump largely changed and designed the hole internals and bunkering schemes, which is at the heart of the design and drama.

More about that later...

[JESII]

You guys sure do cover alot of ground without actually making any progress don' you?


David,

If you're going to change my questions to whatever you want to answer, fine. Just do us all a favor and give up on the self-righteos cries of being misinterpreted, it's weak. If you want to continue the Merion discussion and actually answer what I asked I'm  happy to do it off-line or in another thread because this one seems to be back on Pine Valley.


Regarding the discovery of the 13th hole and itstiming relative to damming the bog to make the lake...how is it debateable? The December 1914 article says the bog is going to be dammed AND that the 14th is a mashie approach because it's a short par 4. The January 1915 article says they've disovered the 13th which will neccesitate a change to the 14th. What's the debate?

Isn't there a January 1914 article which discusses damming a creek to form a pond?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If Colt arrived early April in 1913, then why didn't he make it to PV until  the end of May, if that was indeed his priority?
Probably because he had other commitments during his visit to the U.S..

I don't see the significance of Colt visiting PV on April 15, April 28, May 8 or any other dates.

And, who claimed that PV was Colt's primary priority ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

If he was here in 1911 and saw the property it would have been.

That's really wild speculation on your part.

If GAC invited him to look at a parcel of land that he was considering for a golf course in 1911, why would Colt turn his world upside down if Crump's plans were just in the formative stage ?

It's akin to Roger Hansen inviting Bill Coore to look at his property prior to any involvement on C&C's part, after Roger had purchased it to see if it had the potential to be a good golf course.

If ever someone rushed to judgement and speculated on these issues it's you.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I keep producing facts.  You guys keep producing...er...nothing, actually.

Do you mean producing facts like your claim that Crump shot himself in the woods with a shotgun and then the people involved at PV transported his body to Merchantville ?  ?  ?

Is that what you deem, "producing facts" ?

You can't be serious with your assessment of what you produce versus what others have produced.

[JESII]

Pat,

Do you agree that the idea to form the lake was independent from the disovery of #13? It seems the discovery of #13 necessitated figuring out new holes at 14 and 15, but well after the lake idea was conceived.

[DMoriarty]

Jim,

I tried to answer your questions as best I could.  But I am not a mind reader, so if you feel I misunderstood your questions or misrepresented them, you'll have to explain it to me.  What haven't I answered?  

Feel free to answer here, offline, or in another thread, or not at all, if you like.   I am a bit confused why you expect answers of me but don't answer my questions, but that is another issue.  
___________________________________________________

Mike Cirba,

If Joe doesn't want to engage in these discussions, then let him have his peace.  Don't pretend to speak for him, or pretend to represent him, or pretend to be acting on his behalf.  And don't project my scorn for you onto him.  My questions to Joe were pretty straight forward.  He can choose to address them or not.  And if Joe thinks I have maligned him he can contact me, or not.   You are doing him no favors by pretending to speak for him.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Paul Turner,

What do you make of the newspaper article Joe Bausch produced which indicated that GAC already owned 300 acres of land, upon which the original 184 were sited ?

What do the transactional records at the Clementon Town Hall reflect, circa Oct/Nov 1912 ?

Would you also conclude that it's safe to say that the revision of # 13 resulting in the current hole occured around Dec 1914/Jan 1915 ?

As to the revision to # 13 and the revision to # 14, it would seem that converting the swamp to a lake was the linchpin to those revisions.  Although, there's no guarantee that the revision to the 13th didn't trigger the idea to dam the swamp, also resulting in the revision to the 14th.  It seems to be a "chicken or the egg" debate until the true genesis is uncovered.  But, the two seem inextricably entwined from a design perspective.  The coincidental dates would seem to support that premise.

Tom MacWood,

I would agree that the yellow highlighted portion of Bob Huntley's posting of TEPaul's email to him is speculation, not fact.

I've always been concerned about the "selective" posting of Newspaper articles.
Those posted only seem to further Mike's agenda, stated or unstated.
Rarely, if ever, has he posted an article that undermines or refutes his position.
Coincidence ?

Mike Cirba,

You continue to claim that my agenda is to discredit Crump or elevate Colt.
Would you cite where I stated or alluded to either.

While there are four histories of PV that I've been made aware of, with three in my possession, I don't think any of the previous histories employed anywhere near the investigative powers as those assembled on this site,  past and present.
What I don't understand about your position is that it seems to be focused on preserving the status quo to the exclusion of discovery and/or revelation.

What are you afraid of ?  The truth ?

I would think that delving into how the greatest course in the world was created would be of great interest to you.

Since you and Jeff Brauer insist that contemporaneous newspaper accounts and/or newspaper accounts not far removed from an event are to be considered infallable, what if the report that Crump previously owned over 300 acres of the land where PV was sited, is true ?  

Would that be a worthwhile revelation ?  A discovery that alters recorded history ?  A different perspective on how the course evolved ?

And, what if Colt did visit in 1911, would that alter perspectives, including yours ?

Don't be so quick to cut off the discovery process and don't be so quick to accept the words of those that claim to speak for PV, as The Gospel.

Let the process of discovery continue, without bias.
Let those that wish to exercise due diligence, do so.

Neither David Moriarty or Tom MacWood, You or TEPaul or anyone else is going to pull the wool over the collective eyes of those that view this site.

Don't impede the discovery process, enhance and expedite it.

Thanks

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Do you agree that the idea to form the lake was independent from the disovery of #13?


NO, at this time I cannot state, unequivically, that one had nothing to do with the other.

It seems the discovery of #13 necessitated figuring out new holes at 14 and 15, but well after the lake idea was conceived.

Not really, # 15 was essentially there, the revision to # 14 led to the extension of the 15th tee back next to the 14th green.

I don't know how many "jam" or "brain storming" sessions you've participated in, but, sometimes, one revelation leads to others.
There's sometimes a connection.

So, I don't know if the extension of # 13 was discovered, then, the idea of converting the swamp to a lake, which resulted in transitioning down to # 14 green, and then back over to the already planned 15th fairway.

Or, did someone say, hey, let's do the reverse of what we did at # 5, where we bridged the land form with an uphill par 3, let's bridge this landform with a downhill par 3.

Or, if we convert the swamp to a lake, then we could move the 15th tee back to its current site, and make a par 3 that would connect # 15 tee to # 13 green.

One of the fascinating things about the creation of a law is the reading of the committee meetings that led up to the formation of that law.
And, that's what's missing here, the equivalent of committee minutes detailing the objectives, thought processes, competing ideas, combined ideas, etc., etc..

So, I don't know the details of how the pieces of the puzzle represented by # 13, 14 and # 15 evolved, nor do I know the order of the evolution of those holes.  I think that's an area of great interest.  But, I do think that the creation of the lake is the linchpin to the formation of that sector of the golf course represented by # 13, # 14 and # 15. 

[Jeff_Brauer]

Patrick,

While going on and on about how we misrepresent you, you misrepresent plenty yourself.  I didn't say contemporaneous accounts are infallible, I said they are our best source.  Some may be proven wrong, but many of your posts presume they are wrong on far more occaisions than is really the truth. 

While I can accept that Tillie took a wee bit of literary license in the train story (or not, really don't know) I truly doubt anyone would go to the extreme of writing up a detailed routing synopsis as it existed.  And a lot of it seems to be borne out.

My reading is that the 13th was the thing that came first in the re-routes of 13-17, not the pond. Just MHO

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Those lake and 13th hole articles run back to back in consecutive months in different publications, Dec. 1914, and Jan 1915.  In December Tilly writes that they intend to create a lake...in January he tells us about the discovery of the 13th and the need to create the new 14th.   It's tough to tell when the creation of the 13th happened, but I suspect the lake idea came after.

Pat,

When this thread started, I posted anything I had related to the idea of trains, topos, and the questions you were asking.   I produced the train story as printed in the Philly record by Tilly and which also included mention of future topographical mapping.  I  also posted what he wrote in American Golfer.   I also posted the 1928 article by JE Ford which mentioned some relevant facts from Howard Perrin's perspective, who had walked the site with Crump prior to purchase.

You responded by calling Tillinghast a liar, as did MacWood.

At that time there was no discussion of attribution, or Colt's role. so those articles mentioning Colt were not relevant to the discussion.

If you're truly interested in them, Joe posted a boatload here a few years ago...they are very searchable if you actually want facts instead of speculation and they run through 1918.

What actual factual material have either you, David, or Tom brought to this discussion?   Bryan found the 1898 topo map.   Paul Turner brought his perspective of years of study of Colt and the topos in question.

The first thing I've seen is David's mention of Colt's travel schedule yesterday.  

So don't tell me about searching for the truth....I've brought contemporaneous materials from Joe's articles to the discussion, and 90% of the factual material on this thread.

As far as the recent article Joe just posted mentioning 300 some acres, it was from the late 1920s, and contains what appear to be a number of errors that are inconsistent with contemporaneous accounts.   I'm not sure where the author got his information, but it's likely as accurate as the Barker Merion article, which is obviously a misinterpretation of the November 15th, 1910 Merion report presented to the Board of Governors.


David,

I KNOW for a fact that Joe is not going to engage with the argumentative nonsense on these threads.   He's told me that many times.  

But I primarily responded because you completely misrepresented that Joe was feeding me articles to post for him.   Yet, when I correct the record, you don't offer Joe an apology for your baseless charges but instead continue in your behavior.  

Joe is a scientist, and although he loves to investigate theories, he also loves to point out the folly of theories masquerading as fact.

I'm sure he's laughing right now.

[JESII]

Mike,

Read them more closely.

In December he writes of the plan to turn 20 acres of bog into a lake AND the 14th is a par 4.

In January he writes of Crump finding the 13th and how it would necessitate changing the plan for 14 to a one-shotter.

I understand it's a quick turnaround, but it's pretty clear.

[DMoriarty]

Mike, What is your problem?   Why can't you leave him in peace?  Joe is capable of speaking, or not speaking for himself.  

I didn't misrepresent anything.  I asked Joe some questions.  He doesn't have to answer, but even that is none of your business. You really should stop embarrassing yourself by getting involved.  

If Joe likes to point out the folly of theories masquerading as fact, then he has got his hands full with you.  

[Mike Cirba]

Jim,

Very good...I see your point.

David,

No, you made completely baseless charges that Joe was supplying me with information and like any good friend, I defended him against those unfounded, mean-spirited attacks.

But I'm quite sure you wouldn't understand that.

Why don't YOU leave him in peace?

Paul Turner,

Is there any record of Colt visiting any courses in 1911 besides Detroit and Toronto?

[JESII]

Just out of curiosity, why is it easier to build a green and a tee at the edge of a lake than at the edge of a bog?

[Mike Cirba]

One of the things that's important to understand is the motivations of the men involved in the projects at Merion and Pine Valley.

Prior to then, Philadelphia had no courses that were deemed as truly testing championship courses, and much of the blame for the city's lackluster competitive record was believed to be based on that fact.   Philly Cricket had hosted a few US Opens, but the course was much too short and antiquated by 1910.   Huntingdon Valley, through a lot of internal work adding bunkering by Ab Smith (one of the founding members of PV and the first Philly Amateur champion) was probably the toughest course, but it too had its problems.

So, of the men involved in these matters, particularly Crump, the idea was to build a course for only the very best players in the city and region, where they could further hone their competitive skills.

The following Feburary, 1914 Philadelphia Inquirer article points out that the PV men greatly admired the philosophies of Herbert Fowler who argued for more stringent shot-making on golf courses, and while they also greatly respected Colt, there was likely some disagreement on how tough to make the course at Pine Valley.   I would suggest that Crump won out.



To give you an idea of how penal some of the bunkering was that Ab Smith created at Huntingdon Valley, this March 1912 photo is illustrative.   I wonder if AB came up with the DA?  




Jim,

I'm guessing the answer is drainage but perhaps an architect could answer definitively here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

When this thread started, I posted anything I had related to the idea of trains, topos, and the questions you were asking.  
I produced the train story as printed in the Philly record by Tilly and which also included mention of future topographical mapping.  
I  also posted what he wrote in American Golfer.  
I also posted the 1928 article by JE Ford which mentioned some relevant facts from Howard Perrin's perspective, who had walked the site with Crump prior to purchase.

You responded by calling Tillinghast a liar, as did MacWood.

That's a blatant lie and you know it.
You''ve deliberately misrepresented the facts and the order of occurance.
Something you do on a continual basis.

I stated that AWT had to know that GAC took his own life, and that his failure to report the truth, contemporaneuously or subsequently was an indication that AWT's reporting wasn't to be viewed as infallible.  In addition, many of AWT's articles are fluff or promotional pieces more than simply reporting the facts.

It was Jeff Brauer who introduced the term "liar"

At that time there was no discussion of attribution, or Colt's role. so those articles mentioning Colt were not relevant to the discussion.

If you're truly interested in them, Joe posted a boatload here a few years ago...they are very searchable if you actually want facts instead of speculation and they run through 1918.

What actual factual material have either you, David, or Tom brought to this discussion?

It doesn't surprise me that you've forgotten that I produced Shelly's official history of Pine Valley which debunked the train story.
And, the 1927 article Joe Bausch produced seems to reinforce the debunking.  

Bryan found the 1898 topo map.

Only after I indicated that there had to be topos pre 1910.  

Paul Turner brought his perspective of years of study of Colt and the topos in question.

Paul's contribution to this thread is appreciated.

Now, what have you brought to this thread ?
ONLY attempts to perpetuate the status quo and wild inaccurate claims, such as, Crump shot himself in the woods with a shotgun and then the folks at PV illegally moved his body to Merchantville.

Please don't hold yourself out as the pillar of virtue and the presenter of unbiased facts.

The first thing I've seen is David's mention of Colt's travel schedule yesterday.  

So what ?
Is everything supposed to be revealed at once ?
I guess that's a position taken by one trying desperately to maintain the status quo and stifle any and all due diligence, discussions and disclosure

So don't tell me about searching for the truth....I've brought contemporaneous materials from Joe's articles to the discussion, and 90% of the factual material on this thread.

You've ONLY presented one side, the preservation of the status quo.
That's your sole agenda.
YOU have NO interest in the discovery process.

As far as the recent article Joe just posted mentioning 300 some acres, it was from the late 1920s, and contains what appear to be a number of errors that are inconsistent with contemporaneous accounts.  

That's funny, in a few paragraphs above you relate how you posted a 1928 article by JE Ford, but somehow, this article, from a year earlier, 1927, is deemed to be too far removed to be accurate.  Surely you see the hypocrisy in your position.  You accept a 1928 article as contemporary and/or accurate, but reject a 1927 article as far removed from actual events and inaccurate.

You bias is mind boggling.

Your selective use of data reveals that you don't want to search for the truth, that you want to preserve the status quo at all costs.

I'm not sure where the author got his information, but it's likely as accurate as the Barker Merion article, which is obviously a misinterpretation of the November 15th, 1910 Merion report presented to the Board of Governors.

That's wishful thinking on your part, which is consistent with trying to maintain the status quo.

Instead of rejecting the article, why not investigate it to see if it contains factual, relevant information, or if it's flawed, like many of the newspaper articles you've posted and presented as factual.


David,

I KNOW for a fact that Joe is not going to engage with the argumentative nonsense on these threads.   He's told me that many times.  

But I primarily responded because you completely misrepresented that Joe was feeding me articles to post for him.   Yet, when I correct the record, you don't offer Joe an apology for your baseless charges but instead continue in your behavior.  

Joe is a scientist, and although he loves to investigate theories, he also loves to point out the folly of theories masquerading as fact.

I'm sure he's laughing right now.

Mike, I have every confidence that Joe can speak for himself, on this site and thru IM's and emails and phone calls.

In the past, TEPaul, Lord Voldermort and you have postured that you spoke, officially, on behalf of others, be those others, entities or individuals.
And, that posturing was false.  

Joe can remain silent or respond through whichever medium he chooses, but, please, don't posture that you speak on his behalf, you don't.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just out of curiosity, why is it easier to build a green and a tee at the edge of a lake than at the edge of a bog?

You can easily row and transport material and labor across a lake, it's very difficult to get through a bog/swamp with material and labor.

[Mike Cirba]

The wisdom of Joe Bausch grows with each post here.

[JESII]

Just out of curiosity, why is it easier to build a green and a tee at the edge of a lake than at the edge of a bog?

You can easily row and transport material and labor across a lake, it's very difficult to get through a bog/swamp with material and labor.

Are you serious?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Just out of curiosity, why is it easier to build a green and a tee at the edge of a lake than at the edge of a bog?

You can easily row and transport material and labor across a lake, it's very difficult to get through a bog/swamp with material and labor.

Are you serious?

Yes, unless you consider access to be a non-issue.

[JESII]

Pat,

I spent 5 years caddying there and have played the course another 30 or 40 times and have yet to see someone rowing "material or labor" across that pond. By the way, what is "labor"? Is it people? You've got to be kidding about this.


Pat,

Please address the real issue I'm curious about from you. The January 1914, December 1914 and January 1915 articles posted on this thread make it abundantly clear that they had planned to dam the bog to form the lake prior to finding the 13th hole. Finding the 13th hole was the impetus for changing the 14th from a par 4 to the current par 3.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Please address the real issue I'm curious about from you.

The January 1914, December 1914 and January 1915 articles posted on this thread make it abundantly clear that they had planned to dam the bog to form the lake prior to finding the 13th hole.

Could you cite, with specificity, the date the idea to convert the swamp to lake occured.
                                           the date the idea to convert the 13th hole to it's present configuration occured.

Finding the 13th hole was the impetus for changing the 14th from a par 4 to the current par 3.

That part we know, but, we don't know which came first, the IDEA to create a lake or the IDEA to extend the 13th hole.

There's a clear "cause and effect" relationship, we just don't know which came first.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()