Pine Valley and Topos

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

You can keep repeating that all you want but you've provided no evidence stating that he didn't play golf during the winter of 1909/10.

The absence of evidence is not itself evidence.

We also don't know when the body of that article was written as Crump had asked Tillinghast to hold on the story for what seems to have been quite a bit of time before it was finally published in January 1913, so "nearly 3 years ago" could have been even as early as the spring of 1909.

No one except Patrick (because it doesn't fit his "Topo Theory", which we're still trying to understand) seems to believe you've provided anything here but another transparent attempt to get in a dig at Philadelphia,  and especially at Tillinghast, whose contemporaneous chronicling of Merion, Pine Valley, Shawnee, and others flies in the face of your attempts to revise history to what seems "logical" to you.

This is so reminiscent of your mistaken conclusions in the past where you kept repeating that Seth Raynor couldn't possibly have been commissioned to design North Shore, as he didn't do any designs until 1917, as you misinterpreted in CBM's book.   It's also reminiscent of you continually telling us Tillinghast couldn't possibly have designed Shawnee, because his friend CC Worthington had already created a crude course on his own property until again you were proven wrong.

Patrick,

Could you tell us specifically what the caption in the Brown book says next to the picture?  It seems very odd to me that Brown would have written his book with one description, yet then along comes Shelly and describes the same picture in a different way?   Please give us some facts here...thanks.

Also, if the third green was in the middle of the photo from the 6th fairway, this is what the photo should roughly look like, yes?

I don't see any comparison, but judge for yourself.   I think Bryan is correct that the photo was of the area further to the right.

Besides, why would he take a picture where the middle of the frame is the leftmost boundary of the course, essentially taking a picture of mostly wilderness he didn't intend to develop?

Or, are you telling us that Shelly's account is FLAWED??  

[Mike Cirba]

The old picture was a bit dark, so I lightened it up a bit, which reveals a bit more detail.



I still think this angle is more representative, which looks across the 4th to the 2nd green, as captioned by Shelly.    It also shows the third tee to the left of the second green in the left top side of the photo.

What exactly did John Arthur Brown say in the caption next to the picture, Pat?

Better yet, can you post it here with inscription for our mutual benefit?   Thanks!

[Mike Cirba]

For those of you unfamiliar with Pine Valley, this elevated perspective shows the features in question.

In the foreground is the sixth fairway, whose high points is considerably above the other holes in question, and from which provides a lovely vantage point out over the holes that preceeded it.

I've marked the locations of the 2nd tee and green, the 3rd tee and green, and the 4th hole.

From this elevation, one can clearly also see the path of the railroad tracks, which is also why they are viewable on the right side of the picture in the Brown and Shelly books from the elevated sixth fairway.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Could you tell us specifically what the caption in the Brown book says next to the picture?  It seems very odd to me that Brown would have written his book with one description, yet then along comes Shelly and describes the same picture in a different way?   Please give us some facts here...thanks.

Mike,

I gave you the facts, you just didn't read them or don't want to accept them.

Please reread reply # 1144

JAB's words are cyrstal clear.

Also, if the third green was in the middle of the photo from the 6th fairway, this is what the photo should roughly look like, yes?

Don't you read anything correctly ?  ?  ?

Who mentioned anything about the 3rd green ?  Not me.  Perhaps you're confusing Jim Sullivan's confusion with your own.

I don't see any comparison, but judge for yourself.   I think Bryan is correct that the photo was of the area further to the right.
Bryan is totally INCORRECT and you know it.
You don't target the 2nd green and 3rd tee and tell me that the intended view is 100, 200 or 300 yards to the right.

Besides, why would he take a picture where the middle of the frame is the leftmost boundary of the course, essentially taking a picture of mostly wilderness he didn't intend to develop?

For the simple reason that he was taking a picture of the intended features, the 2nd green and 3rd tee from a high point on the 6th fairway..
In your agenda driven logic you would have us believe he took a picture, not of the features, but of  thewilderness, focusing on phantom RR tracks.

What you also fail to understand is that the white road/path is close to the edge of the cleared land, not hundreds of yards removed from it.
The angle of the white road/path conflicts with the angle of the tracks as does the color of the road/path.
Since when are RR tracks white ?

I'm sure that you also see messages in the shape of clouds sent to us by aliens.

Or, are you telling us that Shelly's account is FLAWED??  

Shelly's account is correct, it's merely abbreviated.
Shelly never envisioned that 30 years later, cretins and morons would attempt to distort the context, contents, angle and location of the photo to suit their own agenda.

[Patrick_Mucci]

For those of you unfamiliar with Pine Valley, this elevated perspective shows the features in question.

But, Mike has deliberately shown them in the WRONG perspective.
He's taken the view from above and to the left of the location of the camera and has aimed the perspective far, far to the right.

In the foreground is the sixth fairway, whose high points is considerably above the other holes in question, and from which provides a lovely vantage point out over the holes that preceeded it.

The 6th fairway is at 47 M, the 3rd tee is at 47 M, the 2nd green is at 45 M.

I've marked the locations of the 2nd tee and green, the 3rd tee and green, and the 4th hole.

From this elevation, one can clearly also see the path of the railroad tracks, which is also why they are viewable on the right side of the picture in the Brown and Shelly books from the elevated sixth fairway.

That elevation is far, far above the 6th fairway.
If you go higher, you can probably see New York City.
Your representation is a fraud, a deliberate MISREPRESENTATION OF THE VIEW FROM THE 6TH FAIRWAY.

And, if the photo was taken from where you indicate, you should know that the 6th fairway and right rough rise up, they don't fall away.
In addition, the area to the right is a massive steep sloped pit, one void of the slope that appears in the photo.
The old photo was taken from a point 130 to 230 yards to the right, and NOT in front of the 6th green.

I guess, most of all, I resent your deliberate misrepresentation.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you'll do anything to distort the truth if it furthers your agenda, your desire to protect a myth.
I find that to be intellectually dishonest and very distasteful in terms of having a meaningful discussion.

But, going back to the original photo I posted, showing the UNCLEARED area, would you say that seeing anything through that dense forest and jungle like undergrowth was impossible ?

[JESII]

Pat,

Are you saying this caption also mentions the 3rd tee? Is that a period or a comma after "2nd green"?

EDIT: Did Shelly and JAB have the exact same picture in their books but with dfferent captions?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Why don't you show us where you KNOW the camera was?

Brown called it "...from the high ridge of the 6th hole, facing the now 4th fairway, second green, and 3rd tee".

Shelly said the photo was taken "Looking from the height of the present 6th fairway across the 4th to the second green."

Please show us on the aerial photo I just posted where you think the camera was.

Better yet, can you post the picture from the Brown book?

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

I've gone all the way back down to the start of the 6th fairway, well before it even turns, such that from this angle, the start of the 4th fairway, the 2nd green, and the 3rd tee are almost lined up behind each other.

Still, the tracks are probably even more visible in the right distance from your preferred angle.   Are you seriously telling us that this isn't the train tracks clearly visible in the distance??

Nevertheless, I still think the photo was taken from at least 75 yards left of this, as one would want to get to the highest point and still have clear sight lines, presumably.   Also, the photo in the Shelly book doesn't show as much of the left side as I do, which is strange.

Is the photo in the Shelly book truncated at all from what appears in Brown's book, Patrick?






Here's a larger photo of the last picture.   Please use the scroll bar below to scan left and right.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike,

Why don't you exhibit an honest presentation.

Shelly told you the view was ACROSS the 4th fairway TO THE 2nd GREEN.

Why don't you try locating the camera at that spot and show what today's view would be like.

As I've said to you dozens of times, the camera would be at the begining of the 6th fairway, near the tee end, looking across # 4 fairway to the 2nd green.

It's very easy to draw a line from the 2nd green, ACROSS the 4th fairway to a point on the begining of the 6th fairway.

Why don't you do that as it will give the view a more accurate and honest view.

I can understand your reluctance to avoid that exercise

For all who are interested, just go to Google Earth and draw the line from the middle of the green, across the 4th fairway to the 6th fairway.

You'll notice that it's impossible to see the RR Tracks from that angle even if there were no trees.
Look at where the white road/path is in the picture, relative to the cleared area and look on Google Earth to see where the RR tracks would be from that angle.

You'll see that Mike has resorted to deceipt and deception in his visual interpretations and presentations.

Mike, you're back to your disengenuous ways again 

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Are you saying this caption also mentions the 3rd tee?

YES


Is that a period or a comma after "2nd green"?

NEITHER.

The word "AND" APPEARS AFTER "2ND GREEN", AS IN "AND 3RD TEE."

EDIT: Did Shelly and JAB have the exact same picture in their books but with dfferent captions?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Why don't you show us where you KNOW the camera was?

Brown called it "...from the high ridge of the 6th hole, facing the now 4th fairway, second green, and 3rd tee".

Shelly said the photo was taken "Looking from the height of the present 6th fairway across the 4th to the second green."

Please show us on the aerial photo I just posted where you think the camera was.

Mike, you KNOW where the camera was, it was at the begining of the 6th fairway, looking ACROSS the 4th fairway to the 2nd green and 3rd tee.

WHY don't you show the view from that position and that angle ?

Better yet, can you post the picture from the Brown book?

[Patrick_Mucci]

P.S.

The elevation at the top of the 4th fairway is 45 M, and as the 4th fairway heads toward the 4th green, the elevation drops off precipitously.

The 4th green is about 32-33 meters and the RR tracks 27 meters, a full 54 feet below the top of the 4th fairway.

Mike is on another wild goose chase to try to substantiate the myth he clings to.

The funny part is that the picture he offers as Exhibit "A" was taken AFTER the tree clearing, not prior to the tree clearing.

[Mike Cirba]

Pat,

Where do you want me to go back to, the sixth tee!!

I'm already at the very beginning of the 6th fairway as can be seen by the delineation of rough and fairway in the foreground.

Besides, which of the authors said those features in the photo were all lined up in single file?  None of them, correct?

All they said was that the photo was across the fourth hole towards the third tee and second green.

I've given your theory every advantage here and yet those darn tracks are still in view.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Pat,

Where do you want me to go back to, the sixth tee!!

I've said it a dozen times, the begining of the 6th fairway toward the 6th tee.

I'm already at the very beginning of the 6th fairway as can be seen by the delineation of rough and fairway in the foreground.

No, you're not, you're not even close to the begining of the 6th fairway FROM the tee.

Besides, which of the authors said those features in the photo were all lined up in single file?  None of them, correct?

WRONG, they BOTH stated it.  Shelly stated, ACROSS THE 4TH TO THE 2ND GREEN.
That's pretty direct.  From the 6th fairway, ACROSS the 4th, TO the 2nd green.

JAB went even further to the left, "facing the 4th fairway , 2nd green AND 3rd tee."

They couldn't be clearer.  Shelly gives us a direct line shot and JAB targets the 2nd green and 3rd tee.
Only you would alter the location of the camera and angle and target of the photo to suit your agenda

All they said was that the photo was across the fourth hole towards the third tee and second green.

They sure as hell didn't.  Shelly was precise, "Across the 4th fairwayTOthe 2nd green.

JAB described the shot as facing the 4th fairway,2nd green and 3rd tee.

It doesn't get clearer than that.
Your sole reason in denying their very words is that their words destroy your misguided theory, and in so doing, destroy an element of the myth.  Strangely, that element is moot because the land had already been cleared in these photos.

In addition, you never answered my question.
WHY is the path/road, which you claim is RR tracks, WHITE ?
The RR bed is black stone.  And, the RR bed in that area is flush to the ground, not elevated in any manner. [/b][/size]

I've given your theory every advantage here and yet those darn tracks are still in view.

You know that's not even remotely true for many reasons.
One of which is that the white road/path is the same distance from the camera as the top of the path to the left and as we know, the tracks were a good 500 yards behind that area, not adjacent to it.

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

hey sure as hell didn't.  Shelly was precise, "Across the 4th fairway TO the 2nd green.

JAB described the shot as facing the 4th fairway, 2nd green and 3rd tee

Could you check the captions again.  Do they really say 4th fairway?  The caption on the picture above just says 4th, not 4th fairway.  A simple "I was wrong" in this quote will suffice.   

Re the picture below, could we agree on some things (anything would be nice)?  Would you agree that:

A are felled tree trunks?

B is a ravine?

C are trees in the ravine?

D is the clearance for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th?

E are trees and bush on the horizon and the horizon is relatively flat?




In the following picture I have put three lines.  One from the 18th fairway across the green end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  A second line from the 6th tee area across the tee end of the 4th "fairway" to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  And a third line from the 6th fairway across the 4th (waste area in front of the tee) to the 3rd tee / 2nd green.  I assume that the 18th fairway one is a non-starter. The one across the tee end of the 4th fairway doesn't really hit the 6th fairway at all.  Can we agree that :across the 4th" didn't mean the 4th fairway, but rather was what is now the 4th waste area? If you agree, then my third line is just as likely as the one you'd prefer starting at the beginning of the 6th fairway and crossing the 4th waste area.

Could you tell me what you think is further out NW along the line you prefer?  It looks like the short course to me.  Could you tell me the highest elevation of the short course.  To me, based on the topo or Google Earth, it looks to be 200 feet and forming a nose that comes down to the 150 line that ends in the 4th fairway. If you were looking along your preferred line I'd expect to see a 100 foot ridge coming down from the middle of the picture to the right edge.  Remember the field of view of the picture is about 45*.  Yet I don't see any ridge in the picture.  The horizon is flat.  That is more consistent with my preferred line.

[Bryan Izatt]

Mike,

Re this picture, you keep asking what I see.  I see a clearing and then forest/bush with a few taller pines poking through.  As to estimating size, again I'll say that there is no reference point that we can use to estimate size.  If the picture was purportedly taken in a corridor that had been cleared for a fairway, and you knew that the camera position was in the middle of, say, an 80 yard wide corridor, and therefore 40 yards from the bush, you could guesstimate the height.  But you (nor anyone else), know how far this camera position is away from the tree/bush line.  Or, do you?

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

Again, very nice exercise.  

Although, I'd be remiss to mention that NOWHERE in those brief captions does it mention that all three areas were lined up in some single file.   In fact, photographing those areas that way would essentially make the latter two virtually invisible as the highest point of the 4th fairway would block them out.

What both captions DO mention is that the photo was taken FROM THE HEIGHT of the present 6th fairway....not the 6th tee...nor anywhere else.

Brown said it was from the "high ridge of the 6th hole".   

Patrick just doesn't want to accept reality because it goes right to the heart of his theory that the rolling land of the course was somehow invisible from the railroad tracks.

Regarding the second photo, let's just put that aside for now as I agree there isn't enough detail or reference points to make much more than a guesstimate.  

Thanks.

Oh, by the way, I do agree with your reference points as outlined.

Would you agree that the railroad tracks are also clearly visible in the right background where the land drops off forming the ravine?

Pat tells us about the high points of the 3rd tee, 4th fairway heights, and yes, those do block the rail, but over on the right where the land falls off quickly I think they are easily viewable from the height of the 6th fairway. in the photo.

[Mike Cirba]

Patrick,

Is the photograph the same size in both books or was it truncated in Shelly's book?

Also, please show us where Shelly wrote that the photo was taken across the 4th "FAIRWAY"?

[Tom MacWood]

Tom,

You can keep repeating that all you want but you've provided no evidence stating that he didn't play golf during the winter of 1909/10.

The absence of evidence is not itself evidence.

We also don't know when the body of that article was written as Crump had asked Tillinghast to hold on the story for what seems to have been quite a bit of time before it was finally published in January 1913, so "nearly 3 years ago" could have been even as early as the spring of 1909.

No one except Patrick (because it doesn't fit his "Topo Theory", which we're still trying to understand) seems to believe you've provided anything here but another transparent attempt to get in a dig at Philadelphia,  and especially at Tillinghast, whose contemporaneous chronicling of Merion, Pine Valley, Shawnee, and others flies in the face of your attempts to revise history to what seems "logical" to you.

This is so reminiscent of your mistaken conclusions in the past where you kept repeating that Seth Raynor couldn't possibly have been commissioned to design North Shore, as he didn't do any designs until 1917, as you misinterpreted in CBM's book.   It's also reminiscent of you continually telling us Tillinghast couldn't possibly have designed Shawnee, because his friend CC Worthington had already created a crude course on his own property until again you were proven wrong.

Mike
We've been down this road with you before. You want to believe this myth so badly you ignore all the evidence. There were two separate reports that said Crump was away from the game in 1910. There is not a single report of him playing the game that year prior to leaving the country, and the man was prolific golfer who was constantly in the papers (years before and after). He was preoccupied with business concerns, and there are plenty reports to that effect. His supposed train companion was preoccupied too and played very little golf that year. Every other account from Wilson, Carr, Travers, Giles, Uzell, Ford, and Shelley said he found the site while hunting. The story is bogus.

You and your buddies are a paranoid bunch....I'm out to get you, and everybody is out to get you. The golfing world does not revolve around Philadelphia, and I have state many times as myths go this is a minor one and if you guys want to believe it feel free. I could care less. As far as history goes, however, I think you are a disgrace, you will drag anyone under the bus to protect your precious stories, from CBM to Whigham to Barker to Colt to now Fowler, that is when I have problem.

By the way, when all the evidence finally came in, my original supposition about North Shore was found to be true. That was another example of evidence not being treated in the most honest way to preserve a preferred version of a story. It was Macdonald/Raynor collaboration (corroborating CBM's statement about Raynor not going solo until 1917) with a lot of help from White which explained why the course was not like any other Raynor course and why in subsequent years the course was considered one of White's masterpieces. Golf history can be quite interesting if just let your favorite legends go and allow the truth to take you where it will

[Tom MacWood]

And as far as Shawnee is concerned lets not distort what I said. I suggested Worthington may have assisted Tilly; I never said Tilly was not involved. And based on everything brought forward to date I think it is still unclear exactly who did what. And it is clear Worthington's overall contribution to the project and to golf has been understated from a historical point of view.

You have a tendency to exaggerate and distort...why is that?

[Mike Cirba]

Tom,

Once again we see all these supposed people who said he found the site hunting, but not a single quote or context or timeline provided.

I prefer the accounts of those who were there with him at the time, thank you.

And your two accounts mention 1) Crump hasn't played in local tournaments this season reported Nov 1910, and 2) Business has kept him away for awhile, reported in Feb 1911.   From those two statements you somehow miraculously garner that he never played golf with his friends in Atlantic City during the winter of 1909/10 as had been his habit since the beginning of the century.

As far as North Shore, did NS pay Raynor, or did CBM?   My understanding is that North Shore paid Raynor $400 in 11/1914 for him to act in an advisory capacity.   In January, 1915, Raynor was approved to build the new course and Raynor was to submit plans for the Greens Committee's approval, which were later approved, as well as paying Raynor $1,800 for his plan, calling him an "expert".   Did CBM advise?   Yes, he did, but you try to make it sound like a CBM designed course and there again is no evidence for your claim.

And, if you ever actually saw the course in person, you would have to chuckle that you called it a Robert White course.   I've played many of his, and really enjoy his work, but if that ain't Raynor, I'd eat my hat.   You would never call it "unlike any Raynor course" if you actually were there in person, Tom.   There is an original redan, Biarritz, Eden, and a terrific Road hole, as well as Double Plateau greens, and other of the template features, and they are bold.

Once again, you take a statement and paraphrase it in a way never intended.   For instance, please provide us the exact CBM quote where he said Raynor didn't go solo until 1917?   You can't because he never said that, just like the bunch of men above you told us said Crump found the site while hunting either (A) Never really said that, (B) Weren't there at the time, (C) were quoting from someone else years later who also wasn't with Crump, or (D) mentioned hunting in general terms, which could have happened ANY time after Crump originally found the site, or E) bungled so many known facts years later that their credibility is undermined, like the Camden News guy in 1927 who said that Crump owned 300 acres on the land that he had used for hunting.   Oh, and then there is the childhood hunting story.   Which is more the myth??

It's funny...you are the one who keeps bringing up Philadelphia and myths...I just keep providing the facts.   Who exactly is paranoid again?

[Mike Cirba]

Bryan,

I was thinking a bit more about the question you asked earlier on the other picture, where Patrick tells us that the trees in the background are untouched, which seems true.

Here's what I think might be relevant.

The picture is supposedly taken from the third green, in the lower left.   The elevation change between the third green and the 6th fairway is, what approximately 30-35 feet?

In the background in the upper right is the 6th fairway.   I understand that we cannot be precise here, but given those parameters, about how tall would you say the majority of those trees are?

Do they look to be towering Scotch pines, or do they look to be, in Tilinghast's description, scrub pine trees and stunted oak?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

Again, very nice exercise.  

Although, I'd be remiss to mention that NOWHERE in those brief captions does it mention that all three areas were lined up in some single file.  



Again, that's not true, Shelly couldn't be clearer, "Across the 4th TO the 2nd green.  That's a straight line shot.

In fact, photographing those areas that way would essentially make the latter two virtually invisible as the highest point of the 4th fairway would block them out.

Also NOT TRUE.  The 3rd tee is at 47 meters, the 2nd green at 45 Meters as is the high point of the 4th fairway which is sligltly PAST the 2nd green.


What both captions DO mention is that the photo was taken FROM THE HEIGHTS of the 6th fairway....not the 6th tee...nor anywhere else.

NO ONE ever claimed the photo was taken from the 6th tee, why would you make that up ?
And, your quote is inaccurate, JAB uses the term, "high ridge of the 6th hole".  So, did that include the tee, which is high up on that ridge ?

Patrick just doesn't want to accept reality because it goes right to the heart of his theory that the rolling land of the course was somehow invisible from the railroad tracks.

The reality is that the white road/path isn't the railroad tracks, that the RR tracks are down well below the elevation of the white road/path, at 27 meters, not 45, 40 or 35 meters.  And, the RR tracks, aren't in the frame when looking from the 6th fairway to the 2nd green and 3rd tee.

The ridgeline on # 4, which extends far to the right would block any view of anything below 45 meters.

We also know that the ridge, which forms the foundation for the 6th tee would block any view north, as the 6th tee sits at 46 Meters.

Oh, by the way, I do agree with your reference points as outlined.

I think the reference points are incorrect, I think the reference point is just below and left of the middle line, ON the begining of the 6th fairway.

Would you agree that the railroad tracks are also clearly visible in the right background where the land drops off forming the ravine?

If you were Clark Kent, maybe.
But, for mortal eyes, the RR tracks are invisible.

Pat tells us about the high points of the 3rd tee, 4th fairway heights, and yes, those do block the rail, but over on the right where the land falls off quickly I think they are easily viewable from the height of the 6th fairway. in the photo.

Mike, you KNOW that the land does NOT fall off to the right of the 2nd green,
It continues at 45 meters all the way across the 4th fairway on that ridge.
Why do you continue to misrepresent the physical properties of the land ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Is the photograph the same size in both books or was it truncated in Shelly's book?

NO, the top is cut off slightly, showing less sky, so you can't see the messages in the clouds in the sky and the bottom is cut off slightly, showing a little less debris on the ground. 

Their widths are almost identical with JAB's being slightly wider. 

That's the one where he says, "Facing the 4th FAIRWAY, 2nd green and 3rd Tee."

Also, please show us where Shelly wrote that the photo was taken across the 4th "FAIRWAY"?

That's what John Arthur Brown stated, Shelly stated, "Across the 4th TO the 2nd green"

Those two descriptions tell you where the photo was taken from and in which direction.

And, it's clear, standing on the 6th fairway, looking across the 4th to the 2nd green and 3rd tee, you can NOT see RR tracks, again, unless you were Clark Kent.

Why haven't you addressed the other questions I posed.

Why would the RR tracks be white ?

Why would they be at the same elevation ?

Why would they be at that angle ?

Why would they be so close to the camera, 3rd tee, 2nd green and 4th fairway ?

You haven't answered because you know those aren't the RR tracks.

[Mike Cirba]

So Patrick,

Can we reasonably deduce from what you just said that the descriptions in the two books differ by the amount of truncation on the left side of the picture in the Shelly book, which we can also now reasonably deduce is the location of the third tee??

Frankly, that knowledge should allow us to get fairly precise in determining the position of the camera, and it also makes clear that the features mentioned were NOT lined up in some single-file placement, but instead, taken from the high ridge of the 6th hole, which is also NOT the tee, and which presented all three of those features, from left to right being the 3rd tee, the 2nd green, and the 4th hole.

And yes, the photo does "face(ing) the 4th fairway"...one is almost looking down the length of it from a right-front corner orientation.

Based on this information I would think the location of the photographer would be pretty close to where I have the "6F" fairway marked on this photo.




Here's the look from that area, which I think matches up in orientation pretty well to the old photo.

Actually, I think the photo may even be from closer to the 6th green, standing on the edge of the abyss/drop off on that side, but I don't want Patrick to go all apoplectic here.