[Patrick_Mucci]

I don't claim to know what it looked like in 1910 -1915. 

I'm reflecting what people who were there had to say. 

Then why did you choose to ignore Simon Carr's description ?
Why did you choose to ignore Tillinghast's description ?
Why do you choose to ignore the vast photographic evidence ?

For one reason and one reason only, you just want to argue with me, which I usually enjoy, but, on this issue, you're so misguided, so in the dark, that your position is baseless.

As are you.  You choose to believe certain accounts and throw away others as incorrect. 
Not true.
Travis wasn't there when AWT and Carr were there, he came afterwards, when the course had already been cleared.
You are the one choosing to ignore individuals who were there at the inception, choosing instead to rely on accounts reported subsequent to 1912.

Feel free to do that.  I'm just trying to understand which accounts you feel are irrelevant or incorrect.

It's simple, it's the eye witness descriptions of both Carr and AWT, that are corroborated by the photos circa 1912 and not a subsequent account based on 1915 perspectives subsequent to the clearing of the land. 

So  far, it seems you have thrown at least Tillie and Travis in the trash basket.

Not really, I've just put their comments in proper perspective

With all due respect, what you see today, or in 1964, isn't all that relevant to what was there in 1910-15. 
The trees did not stand still for 100 years.

1915 to 1964 is 49 years, not 100 years.
And, photos circa 1912 refute your position.

PV has some really, really, really neat old photos of the course, hanging in the rooms of the new lodge. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Here's an early photo of Pine Valley showing the land that was cleared for the golf course with the land that wasn't cleared for golf in the back round.



Look at the back round.

Does that look like a dense forest to you, or, just some dwarf trees and a few bushes.

Carr described it as "jungle like" , Tillinghast stated that the land wasn't visible to the mortal eye due to dense forest and undergrowth.

So, tell me, after looking at the photo, was the land as Carr and Tillinghast described it, or as you, Cirba and others would like it to be ?

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

Here's a slightly bigger view of the two pictures in Shelly's book.

Unlike you, I won't politic for my position and people can make up their own minds about what might have been intriguing or not sitting about 10 feet up in a train with the undergrowth dormant in the dead of winter.  (although obviously these pics were not taken from the train).


People,

Please use the blue bar along the bottom to scroll along the photos...thanks.

Now that Patrick's not listening, let me give you a clue, but let's keep it between us for now.   Shhhhhhhhh..    

You can SEE the train tracks in the second picture!  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Here's a slightly bigger view of the two pictures in Shelly's book.

Actually, the photos are from John Arthur Brown's book and reproduced in Shelly's book.
The photos in JAB's book are clearer.


Unlike you, I won't politic for my position and people can make up their own minds about what might have been intriguing or not sitting about 10 feet up in a train with the undergrowth dormant in the dead of winter.  (although obviously these pics were not taken from the train).
Your words below contradict the above statement.

People,

Please use the blue bar along the bottom to scroll along the photos...thanks.

Now that Patrick's not listening, let me give you a clue..     You can SEE the train tracks in the second picture!  

It doesn't surprise me that Mike would make that claim.
Interestingly enough, the photo is taken from the high ridge on the 6th hole, FACING the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee, COMPLETELY AWAY FROM THE TRAIN TRACKS.

You'll also notice a road/s through the CLEARED area in the second photo.

Mike likes to confuse or substitute photos of the cleared areas, claiming that's what the land looked like in it's native state.

Mike likes to forget that they cleared over 22,000 trees.   22,000+ TREES not counting the vast number of bushes.

[Tom MacWood]

A cross hazard is not a penal feature because you have the option of playing short. The cross-hazard is a completely sound strategic feature, especially if it is used in conjunction with a variety of other strategic options. A lake from tee to fairway is penal if there are no other options. Variety is the spice of life.

Heavy sigh Tommy Mac.  

GCA 101: Penal design is based on the principal of limiting choices.  Cross hazards must be crossed (for sure, I spose one could choose not to finish the hole if he wants to exercise his right to continuously play short of a cross hazard, but then that wouldn't be cricket) - hence the name of the hazard.  One can only choose when he will cross, not if he will cross.  This categorizes all cross hazards as penal in nature because they inherently limit options.  For sure, I spose one clould choose not to finish the hole if he wants to exercise his right to continuously play short of a cross hazard, but then that wouldn't be cricket.  Of course a diagonal cross hazard can offer more options about the best place to cross, but the over-riding principle is that it must be crossed.  

GCA 102: Strategic design is based on the principle of offering options - hence allowing players to avoid hazards and choose the type of shot they would like to hit.  

GCA 103: All design is on a spectrum from very penal to very strategic and the vast majority of courses fall somewhere in the middle.  Even the most famously penal courses such as Oakland Hills can arguably be considered mainly strategic because much of the design is strategic. In any case, it is nowhere near the end of the spectrum, yet most call Oakland Hills a penal design.

GCA 104: Fowler was Simpson's long time mentor.

I am waiting to hear about the penal course Braid designed.  When you discover the name of this smoking gun, please let me know.  

If you need more lessons in basic gca from me, we can discuss financial terms off-line.

Ciao

If you want to talk about Braid start another thread...I'll be glad to answer you over there.

Limiting options? Penal designs eliminates options. You have options with a cross hazard or diagonal hazard, and you have options with a stream or a ditch. That is why every golf architect associated with strategic design utilized them, and Darwin and Hutchinson recommended they be reintroduced after falling out of favor. An interesting strategic golf course gives a variety of hazards, including cross hazards, diagonal hazards, creeks and ditches. Variety is the spice of life. Why are you having difficulty comprehending this?

In addition to the Architectural Side of Golf I'd also recommend HG Hutchinson's Golf Greens and Greenkeeping, and in particular the chapters written on hazards by CK Hutchison and HH Hilton, and Horace Hutchinson's final analysis.

[Mike Cirba]

I can't see the topo maps Bryan produced here from this computer, but can someone take a look and let us know what the elevation change is from the 3rd tee to the 3rd green?

Equally fascinating would be the elevation change from the 6th fairway to the train tracks.

Thanks!

[Sean_A]

A cross hazard is not a penal feature because you have the option of playing short. The cross-hazard is a completely sound strategic feature, especially if it is used in conjunction with a variety of other strategic options. A lake from tee to fairway is penal if there are no other options. Variety is the spice of life.

Heavy sigh Tommy Mac.  

GCA 101: Penal design is based on the principal of limiting choices.  Cross hazards must be crossed (for sure, I spose one could choose not to finish the hole if he wants to exercise his right to continuously play short of a cross hazard, but then that wouldn't be cricket) - hence the name of the hazard.  One can only choose when he will cross, not if he will cross.  This categorizes all cross hazards as penal in nature because they inherently limit options.  For sure, I spose one clould choose not to finish the hole if he wants to exercise his right to continuously play short of a cross hazard, but then that wouldn't be cricket.  Of course a diagonal cross hazard can offer more options about the best place to cross, but the over-riding principle is that it must be crossed.  

GCA 102: Strategic design is based on the principle of offering options - hence allowing players to avoid hazards and choose the type of shot they would like to hit.  

GCA 103: All design is on a spectrum from very penal to very strategic and the vast majority of courses fall somewhere in the middle.  Even the most famously penal courses such as Oakland Hills can arguably be considered mainly strategic because much of the design is strategic. In any case, it is nowhere near the end of the spectrum, yet most call Oakland Hills a penal design.

GCA 104: Fowler was Simpson's long time mentor.

I am waiting to hear about the penal course Braid designed.  When you discover the name of this smoking gun, please let me know.  

If you need more lessons in basic gca from me, we can discuss financial terms off-line.

Ciao

If you want to talk about Braid start another thread...I'll be glad to answer you over there.

Limiting options? Penal designs eliminates options. You have options with a cross hazard or diagonal hazard, and you have options with a stream or a ditch. That is why every golf architect associated with strategic design utilized them, and Darwin and Hutchinson recommended they be reintroduced after falling out of favor. An interesting strategic golf course gives a variety of hazards, including cross hazards, diagonal hazards, creeks and ditches. Variety is the spice of life. Why are you having difficulty comprehending this?

In addition to the Architectural Side of Golf I'd also recommend HG Hutchinson's Golf Greens and Greenkeeping, and in particular the chapters written on hazards by CK Hutchison and HH Hilton, and Horace Hutchinson's final analysis.

Tommy Mac

You can't be as much a knucklehead as your posts suggest.  It may be best to set your books and magazines down and actually read what you write.

Ciao

[JESII]

What do you guys think can be seen in any of those old pictures? How do they advance the conversation?

Pat,

Is it your position that the entire golf course property was bocked by landforms immediately adjacent to the train tracks? This question includes the 300 yard section from the 17th tee to the 14th green...
Bryan's interest in giving Tillinghast the benefit of the doubt holds a greater chance of being true than the idea that the picture of Crump in the woods was actually taken within the bounds of the 184 acres he intially bought...by a wide margin...talk about a myth that doesn't make sense. What do you think the inscription said after the pictue was developed? Do you think it had latitude and longitude? Maybe it just said "future site of Pine Valley"...just in case...



Mike,

From Google Earth; the tracks are consistently within a foot of 90', the 6th fairway high point is 167 feet, and the 3rd hole drops from ~155' to 130'.

[Patrick_Mucci]

I can't see the topo maps Bryan produced here from this computer, but can someone take a look and let us know what the elevation change is from the 3rd tee to the 3rd green?

Equally fascinating would be the elevation change from the 6th fairway to the train tracks.

Mike,

The begining of the 6th fairway is at 47 M, the 3rd tee, 400 yards away is at 47 M, the train tracks, on that line, an additional 500 yards away are at 27 M.

Unless you're an idiot who believes you can bend light rays within a distance 500 yards without the benefit of an enormous magnetic force or black hole, you couldn't see the tracks.  Perhaps they had over the horizon radar or camera's in 1912.  I thought that technology was achieved by NORAD in the 60's.

In addtion, if you look at the angle the photo is taken from, the 6th fairway toward the 2nd green and 3rd tee, only someone who is spacially challenged, such as TEPaul, would suggest that the line you see is a train track next to the 18th green. 
And as you know, from receiving more of his inane emails, that's what he claims.
I guess it's possible if they were using a camera with 360 degree lens circa 1912.

[Patrick_Mucci]

What do you guys think can be seen in any of those old pictures? How do they advance the conversation?

The photos show dense forest and jungle like undergrowth immediately adjacent to the cleared areas.
A prudent person would conclude that the cleared areas were similar, prior to clearing.

Pat,

Is it your position that the entire golf course property was bocked by landforms immediately adjacent to the train tracks?

Jim,

Take the time to read or reread my position, I've stated it a dozen times.

This question includes the 300 yard section from the 17th tee to the 14th green...

I think your measurement is off, that distance is more like 200 yards, and I addressed that section in prior replies.
Please reread them.

Bryan's interest in giving Tillinghast the benefit of the doubt holds a greater chance of being true than the idea that the picture of Crump in the woods was actually taken within the bounds of the 184 acres he intially bought...by a wide margin...talk about a myth that doesn't make sense.

WHY ?

What do you think the inscription said after the pictue was developed?

In speaking to TEPaul a while ago, I asked him to assess Warner Shelly in terms of his intelligence, character, dedication to PV, etc. etc.
TEPaul had informed me that he had met and spoken with Shelly.
TEPaul's response would lead a prudent person to believe that Shelly would not fabricate a story.
TEPaul's response indicated that Shelly was a serious, thorough individual not prone to exageration or falsification, especially when he was crafting the official history of Pine Valley.  Hence, I have to believe that Shelly's reporting of the location is accurate.

We also know that Crump hunted on those grounds.

The newspaper article that was produced by Joe or Paul, which everyone wants to ignore, stated that Crump already owned 300 or so acres of the property that initially became the 184 acres that Crump incorporated into PV in 1912-13.

Do you think it had latitude and longitude? Maybe it just said "future site of Pine Valley"...just in case...

Your negative speculation doesn't advance the conversation, so why are you engaging in a practice you seem to frown upon ?

Mike,

From Google Earth; the tracks are consistently within a foot of 90', the 6th fairway high point is 167 feet, and the 3rd hole drops from ~155' to 130'.
You're wrong.
The 3rd tee does not drop.
The front of the 6th fairway is 47 M, the 3rd tee is 47 M and the 2nd green is 45 M and the crest of the 4th fairway is 45 M.
And, the train tracks are at 27 M.

[Bryan Izatt]

Pat,

There is no point of height reference in the picture, so I couldn't tell you whether the trees in the background are dwarfs or really tall.  But, then neither can you.

But, if you look at the horizon, it looks like the odd specimen pine poking out of the general bush. If they are specimen pines, then the rest of the growth may well be dwarf pines and stunted oaks.  But, without a reference point to estimate height we're both just guessing.

Bryan,

Here's an early photo of Pine Valley showing the land that was cleared for the golf course with the land that wasn't cleared for golf in the back round.



Look at the back round.

Does that look like a dense forest to you, or, just some dwarf trees and a few bushes.

Carr described it as "jungle like" , Tillinghast stated that the land wasn't visible to the mortal eye due to dense forest and undergrowth.

So, tell me, after looking at the photo, was the land as Carr and Tillinghast described it, or as you, Cirba and others would like it to be ?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Why have you gone metric in your elevations? 

Jim's is right that Google Earth has the 3rd tee at 155 feet and the 3rd green at 130 feet.  The topo overlay below from the New Jersey State Atlas has the tee at 150 feet and the green at somewhere between 130 and 140 feet. If you think they are level, then your sense of elevation change is a little skewed. 

What field of view do you think the camera had in the picture above from the 6th looking across 4 to the 2nd tee?  According to the topo below, there would be no landform obstruction to seeing the train tracks from the 6th fairway.  I've put a sample field of view for the camera shot.  Do you think it's too wide?  Too narrow?  Why?  The tracks most likely were in view of the camera.  The camera was somewhere around 160 feet, the tracks around 100 feet.  The 150 foot high ridge by the 3rd wouldn't have obscured the tracks in the right part of the picture.

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

My question about elevation changes related to trying to estimate the height of the trees.

For instance, in the one old photo the camera is on the 3rd tee, which is 20-25 feet above the 3rd green in the distance.


Do the trees behind there look to be higher or lower than the tee?

[Tom MacWood]

Tommy Mac

You can't be as much a knucklehead as your posts suggest.  It may be best to set your books and magazines down and actually read what you write.

Ciao

A not so surprising empty response. Colt, Fowler, Simpson, Mackenzie, Darwin, and Hutchinson all advocated the use of the cross-hazard. Some of the great strategic holes in golf involve cross-hazards of some sort including the 13th at Augusta, The Cardinal at Prestwick, Tilly's Sahara par-5s, 3rd at Linville, 9th and 17th at Muirfield, and on and on. There are actually too many to mention. You are off base portraying Fowler as penal or penal leaning architect.

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

So, if I drive into the rough on 7 at PV and am forced to chip the ball 90 yards short of HHA you'd call that more of a strategic than penalizing feature?

Similarly, if in 1910 I'm faced with a full carry of 160 yards over the "rushes" at Westward Ho!, with my hickory into a stiff sea breeze what exactly is my strategic decision?

[JESII]

Pat,

I believe Warner Shelley believed what he wrote. The question is the logical explanation of it. Crump is clearly in the woods, most likely hunting, and I'm sure it was 1909. How in the world would they have known it was on the exact tiny parcel (relative to the 100,000's acres of hunting grounds in the immediate surrounding area) that became the initial 184 acres?

You and Tom have argued that the 1909 - 1910 timeframe of the train story is bogus, in part, because Crump apparently still looked at Absecon and Browns Mills afterward.
Now you're suggesting the 1928 article, which stands alone in its claim, is true in which Crump owned the land all along. If he did, why Absecon and Browns Mills?
Truth is, I've never thought the Browns Mills speculated site had any basis in fact, but to suggest Crump owned the land all along would totally refute several of the reports from the exact same time (1912 - 1913) in favor of one nearly 20 years later...doesn't seem prudent.



Did you really just say that the 3rd hole does not drop? You used the words 3rd tee and I can only assume you meant 3rd hole because who would ever discuss, let alone argue, the changing elevation of a tee pad?

[JESII]

Curious to take a closer look at this description of the lake.

3 concrete dams?

Could this be the pond on #5 with it's single concrete dam right behind the clubhouse, its extenion across the front of 18 heading towards the train tracks then turning right to another dam and the large lake with concrete dam and waterworks behind the 16th green/17th tee?

If not, why not?

[Sean_A]

Tommy Mac

You can't be as much a knucklehead as your posts suggest.  It may be best to set your books and magazines down and actually read what you write.

Ciao

A not so surprising empty response. Colt, Fowler, Simpson, Mackenzie, Darwin, and Hutchinson all advocated the use of the cross-hazard. Some of the great strategic holes in golf involve cross-hazards of some sort including the 13th at Augusta, The Cardinal at Prestwick, Tilly's Sahara par-5s, 3rd at Linville, 9th and 17th at Muirfield, and on and on. There are actually too many to mention. You are off base portraying Fowler as penal or penal leaning architect.

Tommy Mac

Are you not surprised at receiving a sharp word when you act in an obtuse manner?
 
No wonder folks get frustrated dealing with you.  Where did I ever state that Fowler was a penal architect?  Its just made up nonsense on your part designed to hammer home some black or white truth which in reality didn't and doesn't exist.  Because Colt, Fowler, Simpson, Mackenzie, Darwin, and Hutchinson all advocated the use of the cross-hazard it is automatically considered strategic?  These folks were from a strategic schoool of thinking. That means they all believed in strategic design as a general framework, not that they designed exclusively strategic holes.

You obviously don't understand the concept that centreline hazards present more options than cross hazards and are thus more strategic in their nature and that any hazard designed to force a player to play a certain shot is more on the penal side of the spectrum.  Its not a judgement on the value of the architecture, merely a way to easily categorize architecture so we can more easily convey ideas.  This is basic stuff Tommy Mac.  Instead you go on about the depth of a bunker being penal?  "Penal" used in this way is interchangeable with "harsh", or "difficult".  It as nothing to do with penal (which isn't interchangeable with "difficult") architecture.  You are so caught up in the black VS white of this sort of stuff that you miss the big picture.  

Ciao    

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Why have you gone metric in your elevations? 

That's what my Google Earth reads out.

Jim's is right that Google Earth has the 3rd tee at 155 feet and the 3rd green at 130 feet.  The topo overlay below from the New Jersey State Atlas has the tee at 150 feet and the green at somewhere between 130 and 140 feet. If you think they are level, then your sense of elevation change is a little skewed. 

What's skewed is your reading comprehension.
I was clear, the 3rd TEE is at 47 M, not the green.

What field of view do you think the camera had in the picture above from the 6th looking across 4 to the 2nd tee?  According to the topo below, there would be no landform obstruction to seeing the train tracks from the 6th fairway.  I've put a sample field of view for the camera shot.  Do you think it's too wide?  Too narrow?  Why? 

It's too far right.
Unfortunately, neither you nor Jim have polished reading comprehension skills.
I understand Jim's shortcomings as caring for four kids has resulted in sleep deprevation which challenges his ability to stay awake and read at the same time.  But you ?

The photo Mike posted was originally in JAB's earlier book and JAB was clear in stating that the photo was facing the 4th fairway, 2nd green AND 3rd TEE.  The 3rd tee isn't even within your "V" of red line vision.

Secondly, the earlier photo in JAB's book is much clearer.
Only an idiot or seriously agenda'd indvidual/s would claim that the train track ran up to the 2nd green/3rd tee, as does that trail or path that TEPaul and Cirba claim is the railroad tracks

If you look carefully at the photo, you'll notice a road/path winding up the land on the left side of the photo.
you'll notice that the road/path forks to the right.  The white line Cirba and TEPaul claim is the railroad track is the continuance of that white path.
Remember, you're looking at the 2nd green and 3rd TEE.
Do the railroad tracks come up the 2nd fairway to the 2nd green and 3rd teel.
Look carefully at the distance where that white path is.
Only someone with an agenda, or a self proclaimed know it all, would be so absurd as to claim that the white path was the railroad tracks.

Please go to Google Earth and reexamine the juxtaposition of the 6th fairway looking across # 4 to the 2nd green and 3rd tee and you'll  immediately see that it was a path and nothing more.

One other issue.
Both of these photos, the one I presented and the one Cirba presented, were taken AFTER the land was cleared.
The reason I posted my photo was to show the sharp, the distinct difference between the raw/natural land and the cleared land.
You can clearly see in my photo, how incredibly dense the woods and underbrush was.
So dense that Carr described it as "Jungle like" and AWT declared that the timber and underbrush had hidden the land from the eyes of mortals.

The tracks most likely were in view of the camera. 

No, they weren't.

The camera was somewhere around 160 feet, the tracks around 100 feet.  The 150 foot high ridge by the 3rd wouldn't have obscured the tracks in the right part of the picture.

You're wrong.
Please, go to google earth, then look at the 2nd green and 3rd tee from across the 4th hole, from the 6th fairway.
Look at how far away the tracks are and how far to the right the tracks are.
The white road/path in the photo leads right up to the cleared area at # 2 green/# 3 tee.

The white road/path is nothing more than agenda driven wishful thinking on Cirba's and TEPaul's part

And again, these photos were taken AFTER the dense forest was cleared.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom,

So, if I drive into the rough on 7 at PV and am forced to chip the ball 90 yards short of HHA you'd call that more of a strategic than penalizing feature?

Wouldn't that depend upon WHY you were forced to chip out ?
Wouldn't the lie have a great deal to do with that decision ?
Or, the fact that you drove the ball short ?

The HHA is about 125 yards worth of carry.

Similarly, if in 1910 I'm faced with a full carry of 160 yards over the "rushes" at Westward Ho!, with my hickory into a stiff sea breeze what exactly is my strategic decision?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

I believe Warner Shelley believed what he wrote.

So do I.

The question is the logical explanation of it.
Crump is clearly in the woods, most likely hunting, and I'm sure it was 1909.

How in the world would they have known it was on the exact tiny parcel (relative to the 100,000's acres of hunting grounds in the immediate surrounding area) that became the initial 184 acres?

Shelly and others have indicated that Crump was familiar with the land because he had hunted there.
The 1927 Newspaper article stated that he owned 300 or so acres at that location.
But, putting that aside, I think there are a number of reference points or identifiers.
# 1  The railroad tracks.  One could certainly establish their bearings/location by using the RR tracks as beacon or point of reference.
# 2  The convenience of the site, vis a vis, the trolly to Clementon, the White Horse Pike to Clementon and the train to Clementon.

I would certainly like to see what's written on the reverse of that photo, and/or anything contemporaneous that was written about that photo.
And, I'd like to know what else was written on the postcard circa 1910 to his brother-in-law.


You and Tom have argued that the 1909 - 1910 timeframe of the train story is bogus, in part, because Crump apparently still looked at Absecon and Browns Mills afterward.

That was NEVER MY arguement, that was one of Tom MacWood's arguements.

Now you're suggesting the 1928 article, which stands alone in its claim, is true in which Crump owned the land all along.

Once again your reading comprehension skills are failing you.
I never claimed the 1928 article was true.
What I said was, that: "IF" it was true, it puts and entirely different light on the early development of PV.

If he did, why Absecon and Browns Mills?

You'd have to ask Crump or Tom MacWood.

Truth is, I've never thought the Browns Mills speculated site had any basis in fact, but to suggest Crump owned the land all along would totally refute several of the reports from the exact same time (1912 - 1913) in favor of one nearly 20 years later...doesn't seem prudent.

Not really.

"IF" he owned the 300 acres and used it for hunting, he may have wanted to PRESERVE those 300 acres for hunting and searched for land elsewhere for his golf course.

You can't think in exclusive terms.

Did you really just say that the 3rd hole does not drop?

NO, I didn't say that.
Please, either have your kids read to you or get a good night's sleep and reread it in the morning.

You used the words 3rd tee and I can only assume you meant 3rd hole because who would ever discuss, let alone argue, the changing elevation of a tee pad?

You know what happens when you ASS U ME.

It's NOT the changing elevation of the TEE PAD, it's the fact that the TEE PAD on # 3 and the begining of the 6th fairway are at the same elevation.  Ergo, anthing behind the 3rd TEE PAD, that's at a lower elevation, can NOT bee seen.

Please, have your kids tuck you in bed, say goodnight, give you a kiss and let you get a good night's sleep.
You need it, you're eyes and/or brain are failing you

[Patrick_Mucci]

Curious to take a closer look at this description of the lake.

"The LAKE" or "The LAKES" ?

There's no connection between the lakes at the clubhouse, 18th green and parallel to the RR tracks next to # 18 fairway and the lake between # 14, # 15 and # 16.

3 concrete dams?

Could this be the pond on #5 with it's single concrete dam right behind the clubhouse, its extenion across the front of 18 heading towards the train tracks then turning right to another dam and the large lake with concrete dam and waterworks behind the 16th green/17th tee?

One of the problems with Newspaper articles is that many seem to be a loose collection of information, bundled together.

The author speaks of a pond at # 5, and a single lake, not lakes.
Yet, he references three dams.
He also references an 18' swimming pool.  Not a swimming hole, but, a swimming pool.

I suspect that the reference is to the three bodies of water, behind the new lodge, fronting the 18th green, and next to the RR tracks by # 18 fairway.

One day, with boots on, I'd like to follow the flow of water that passes under the bridges at # 14 as you near the green and at # 15 as you go from tee to fairway.

I don't know where the one at # 14 comes from, but I suspect the one at # 15 might be spring fed.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Why hasn't the authenticity of the report that Crump purchased 300+ acres for a hunting preserve been pursued ?

From the 1927 edition of the Camden Evening Courier.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

It's photo interpretation time.

The picture I was woorking from doesn't mention the 3rd green.  How do you know the caption on your photo is right and this one is wrong?  I would interpret the line that I've marked with red arrows as the RR.  I don't think it is connected to the meandering road in the left side of the picture.  The trees I've marked in the right foreground appear to be in the stream ravine that became the lake bisecting the 5th hole.  The sides of the ravine are 100 - 120 feet.  You can clearly see over those trees so they must be less than 35 to 40 feet tall.




To humor you I have widened the camera angle to include the third green and the ravine to the right.  The field of view is about 45*, about right for a camera with a lens with a focal length of 35mm.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

No one has pursued the 1927 article because it contains glaring, obvious errors that fly in the face of all the contemporaneous accounts of men who were actually there and because no one has a clue who the author is and where he got his cockamamie story.

It's sort of like that article where HH Barker had been hired to design Merion in Lakewood, NJ.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()