[JESII]

Bryan,

Any idea of the date of that first picture?

Also, Tom posted a part of Baker's story in post 17 of this thread...I assumed it was everything Bake said on the matter.

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

No,

I would not agree that the top photo is pre-clearing and pre construction. 

I was pretty sure you wouldn't agree, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

Your caveat, "on this part of the property" needs to be clearly defined.

The part in the foreground, the island, the part along the RR track embankment.  All this around where the 14 green got built.

Tillinghast told you that the general area from which the photo was taken was densely forested with underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye.

But, we know that his story was a complete bogus myth, so who would rely on that description.  Of course, all 184 acres must have been uniformly densely forested.  How silly of me to think otherwise based on a picture.

Like the photo from the ridge on # 6, obviously the land has been cleared.

Not obvious to me.  The underbrush in the foreground looks virgin.  The island and the area along the tracks looks untouched.  Why would they have cleared this section?  They didn't figure out the routing over this end for years.  Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.

In addition, the swamp had been dammed and converted to a lake in both photos, which would seem to indicate that that area had also been cleared.

But, this isn't where the swamp was marked on the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article.  If it was swamp before it formed the pond in the picture, then I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of clearing needed.

I seem to recall that These photos were previously posted on another thread some time ago

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

Any idea of the date of that first picture?

Also, Tom posted a part of Baker's story in post 17 of this thread...I assumed it was everything Bake said on the matter.

The picture was undated.  It was obviously before the 14th was built and likely after the 17th was built.  I think I see the 17th on the rolling hill in the background, but you would know better.  I can't remember the date associated with that.

Thanks for post 17.  How soon I forget.  I was looking further back. 

[JESII]

No sweat...Tom's probably not thrilled with the fact that I know what he says and when he says it...


In one of the previos threads Tillinghast wrote about the discovery of the 13th hole and how the greensite alone had been hidden from the mortal eye. I think that was in the January 1915 timeframe. It's worth putting it together because the same article indicates #14 was going to have to become a par 3 as a result of moving the green to the left (North). In an article dated a month or two before that one Simon Carr is quoted as saying the 14th was a par 4. It's clear the 14th greensite hadn't been cleared for golf as of the date of this picture.

[JESII]

American Golfer, Dec. 1914;

As an illustration of the magnitude
of the work, let me tell you that in one
place, nearly twenty acres of bog will
be made into a lake and it requires but
small imaginative power to picture its
attractiveness in the days to come.
To give an idea of the demands of
Pine Valley, let me quote from the recent
report of the club secretary, Dr.
Simon Carr:
The total length of Pine Valley course is
about 6,700 yards. It is not a sluggers
course in any sense, except in the opinion
of those who fix their standards by parlor
golf played only with a mashie and putter.
The following is an analysis of the shots
up to the green, based on the supposition
of good driving from each tee:
3 brassey approach shots, at holes 4, 16,
18.
4 cleek approach shots, at holes 1, 6, 9,
13.
4 midiron approach shots, at holes 2, 11,
12, 17.
4 mashie approach shots, at holes 7, 8,
14, 15.
The one-shot holes are: No. 10 for a
short iron, No. 3 for a long iron, No. 5,
full shot with a wooden club.
This arrangement give a full, well-balanced
variety of approach shots as anyone
could wish, and they are skilfully distributed
over the round.


January 10th, 1915, Philadelphia Record




March 1915, American Golfer

At Pine Valley the new
holes will be completed as
rapidly as possible. The
original plans have been
changed slightly for Mr.
Crump uncovered a magnificent
hole when he cut
the timber from the ridge
which is encountered when
the 12th green is quitted.
The drive is across a deep
depression and unless the
shot is a long one the green
will not be in sight. Along
the left of the fairway extends
a pronounced throw
which will take a hooked
ball and send it far from the "straight
and narrow." This new 13th certainly
is one of the best of any on the new
course.

[DMoriarty]

I am not sure what you guys see in those photos, or how you can pretend to know what was there before it was cleared and dammed.

Bryan, do you have a larger version of the first photo?  It appears in both books (cropped in second) but it is very dark in the Brown book.   What is your source?  

It is hard to tell for sure, but it looks like clearing has occurred on the left side of the photo and possibly the right side.  The little island in the middle may not have been cleared, but then the same taller trees appear in the supposed post-clearing photo as well --only the smaller trees and underbrush are missing.  

Wasn't the 14th green built largely on fill added to the right of the island in that photo?  

Bryan, there are golfers in the second photo.  How tall do you suppose those trees were to the right of the golfers? Certainly well taller than 30 ft, wouldn't you say?

___________________________

Jim, the articles you posted don't seem to match your lead-in from the previous post.  Are there more articles coming?  

[DMoriarty]

Here is a paragraph from the Baker recollection, from TomM's post.  

Once home Crump paid a visit to Brown Mills, where he thought of building a golf course. Then with the same object in view he went to Absecon, where the present country club is located. In Absecon he found the mosquitos so many and vicious that he decided it would not do. He came back to Merchantville and started to buy the ground at Sumner station, which was later changed to Pine Valley. He paid $50.00 for most of it, and for some ground paid $100 per acre. He secured the right-of-way from the Ireland property for a road one hundred feet wide for about ninety-nine years and in the old days that is the way we came to Pine Valley - by way of Watsontown.

People will make of it what they will, but while Baker describes Crump going to check out the other two sites, there is no mention of Crump searching for the PV site, or going to inspect the site, or of him having discovered the site during this time period.  Just that he "came back to Merchantville and started to buy up the ground at Sumner station."  It is almost as if Baker thought of Sumner station as part of Merchantville, as if Crump went and looked at two sites elsewhere,  and when they didn't work out he came home and went with the local, familiar spot.

Obviously nothing dispositive, but it sure doesn't seem to be written as if the PV spot was totally foreign to him and he he had just discovered it.  But of course because it is not dispositive you guys don't even want to hear it, I am sure.

[JESII]

Nobody is suggesting it was foreign to him in the summer of 1912.

If the train story is correct then he would have known of the spot for a couple years at least. Remember, the idea was to play on the coast because of weather. Clementon is extremely close to Philadelphia. They knew first hand that the course at Atlantic City performed very well in the winter but that's 50 miles or so closer to the ocean. I've never understood how this trips up Tom, and now you. Knowing it was interesting but thinking it was in the wrong place wouldn't put it on the top of the list in my opinion.

Why is it that my position of simply wanting agreement that something was possible is more rigid than your position of proving it was impossible?



Let's talk golf!

My posting of the articles Mike strung together a few months ago is intended to further the discussion of the date of the picture(s) Bryan posted. As of December 1914 it seems unlikely the area would have been cleared because it wasn't in play for a golf hole but soon after (based on the January article) it was in play. Tom debated that the 14th hole changed its "par" multiple times and so the reference to it changing from a 4 to a 3 after finding the 13th green meant nothing. He said it was initially a 3, then a 4 then a 3 again. Based on that I asked how many times it changed from a 4 to a 3 and he didn't answer. I think the discovery of the 13th green led to the creation of the 14th green/15th tee although TEP thinks Crump may have never seen the 14th hole as it was built, which doesn't match up great with my timeline of deciding on the hole in winter/spring 1915...

[DMoriarty]

When was the 14th hole built?

Was it ever playable in Crump's lifetime?   

[JESII]

I don't know. TEP doesn't think so.

[JESII]

David,

A few posts ago you said my posts were "attenuated" and when I went to look up the definition my computer siezed up...was that your doing? What exactly did you mean?

[DMoriarty]

Weakened, frail, sickly, lacking force, stretched thin, stretched to (or past) the breaking point.  Blaming me for your computer's seizure would require attenuated logic. 

[JESII]

I think you must be certifiable.

[DMoriarty]

I think you must be certifiable.

In comparison, that is less attenuated.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Will you agree that the following picture is before construction and before clearing on this part of the property?




This is what it looked like after construction.




Looks pretty open before construction.  I can see the the RR track up on the embankment.

Why wouldn't you, much of the land was already cleared

In addition, the lake had been dammed and operational, with any trees cleared from the swamp to accomodate the lake.

What's the date of the top photo 1914 or later.
Also, could you post the caption that accompanied the photos.

I believe the bottom photo is 1922.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

No,

I would not agree that the top photo is pre-clearing and pre construction.  

I was pretty sure you wouldn't agree, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

You KNOW it wasn't a pre-clearing photo.
That's obvious from looking at the photo, and, I believe the caption that accompanies the picture does NOT mention pre-clearing,  but rather pre-construction in that area.  Would you post the caption.  In addition, in your reply, you admit that clearing is evidenced in the photo on # 17, yet you state that the photo is pre-clearing.

What you fail to recollect is that I stated that the only one of two locations from which AWT might have sighted the property without obstructing terrain was by the 17th tee, but, that view, as the Eastbound train emerged from behind the large white landform that blocks any views south, would have been of the swamp.

Secondly, as I look at the photo it seems to me that it's NOT taken from the ridge on # 13 or the tee on # 14, but, from a point well below those elevations.

Thirdly, you know the land's been cleared in the top photo in the foreground because there's a white path running across the picture, and there are no trees.

I know, Mike Cirba would claim that the white path was the railroad tracks, but, we already know he was wrong on that call on the 6th hole.

The second photo looks like 1922

Your caveat, "on this part of the property" needs to be clearly defined.

The part in the foreground, the island, the part along the RR track embankment.  All this around where the 14 green got built.

I'd certainly agree that the island is pre-construction.

Tillinghast told you that the general area from which the photo was taken was densely forested with underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye.

But, we know that his story was a complete bogus myth, so who would rely on that description.  Of course, all 184 acres must have been uniformly densely forested.  How silly of me to think otherwise based on a picture.

Except that AWT's story is corroborated by Carr and many others.
If you look at aerial photos from 1922 and 1925 you can see that all non-golf areas are uniformly, densely forested, as they also appear in aerial photos from 1931, 1938 and subsequently.
You have an agenda and believe what your agenda tells you that you have to believe.

Like the photo from the ridge on # 6, obviously the land has been cleared.

Not obvious to me.  The underbrush in the foreground looks virgin.  The island and the area along the tracks looks untouched.  Why would they have cleared this section?  They didn't figure out the routing over this end for years.  Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.

That's NOT true.
Why would you make that up about the routing ?
Just go back and look at the original stick routing and the red/blue topo.
The stick routing is dated March 1913 and I believe the red/blue topo around May of 1913, I believe a full year earlier than the photo you posted
They always had holes designated for this area.
To refresh your memory, here's the red/blue topo.
How can you state that they hadn't figured out the routing, it's on the red/blue topo, along with the lake.



Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.[/size]

So you now contradict yourself again, and admit that it's NOT a pre-clearing photo as your caption above the photo states.
why wouldn't they have cleared 17 all the way back to the 17th tee and over to 16 green and perhaps over behind # 14 green ?
how else would they get to # 14 green if not from behind it, from the west ?

In addition, the swamp had been dammed and converted to a lake in both photos, which would seem to indicate that that area had also been cleared.

But, this isn't where the swamp was marked on the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article.  If it was swamp before it formed the pond in the picture, then I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of clearing needed.

Oh, now the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article is your bible.  How convenient.
Do you mean the map that had the trees running through the middle of the fairways, tees and greens ?
How about the red/blue topo.
How about the fact that the lake as pictured is the low lying area of the property, (read swamp)

Being from Canada I doubt you have a clue as to what swamps in New Jersey look like.
Trees are in abundance in them.
To be enlightened, Google "the great swamp nj" or go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Swamp_National_Wildlife_Refuge

The more you post about Pine Valley, the more I'm convinced you really know less and less about it and just want to take the opposite side of the debate, which is fine, but, get your facts right before you make declaritive statements.
Remind us again, how many times over how many years have you been on site ?


I seem to recall that These photos were previously posted on another thread some time ago

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

Apparently there isn't anything that you can't twist, pervert, and misstate in furtherance of your agenda.  


I did no such thing.

I merely QUOTED YOU.... VERBATIM.

You posted two statements that directly contradicted one another and I pointed it out vis a vis direct citation.
You stated that there were no roads in the area in 1912 and went on to say that the Pike wasn't conplete to Berlin until 1922, yet, earlier you told us that Virginia Sumner was driving a Stutz in Pine Valley as early as 1908.

I can understand your embarrassment and anger since your conflicting statements, based upon which side of the argurment you conveniently chose to take at the time, made you look foolish, especially when both quotes were posted simultaneously..

It is really a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you.

You seem to say that ONLY when I disagree with you.

I'll ask you again, at what location on the tracks was Crump when he "first" spotted, from an eastbound train speeding at 60+ mph, the rolling hills, valleys and pasture land ?  And, could you point out those rolling hills, valleys and pasture land he spotted ?

Be very specific and don't duck the question as you have time and time again.

Thanks

[Bryan Izatt]

I am not sure what you guys see in those photos, or how you can pretend to know what was there before it was cleared and dammed.

Bryan, do you have a larger version of the first photo?  It appears in both books (cropped in second) but it is very dark in the Brown book.   What is your source?    It's from the Brown book.  The native size is 1200 pixels wide, but the quality is no better.  It loses something going through Photoshop and Photobucket.

It is hard to tell for sure, but it looks like clearing has occurred on the left side of the photo and possibly the right side.  The little island in the middle may not have been cleared, but then the same taller trees appear in the supposed post-clearing photo as well --only the smaller trees and underbrush are missing.  

What I think I see in the first picture is: clearing on the left side for the 15th FW; a row of trees, between 15 and 16, on the left extending two trees into the pond on the small peninsula;  the clearing behind the row of trees on the left that is the 16th fairway; and, the clearing up the hill on the left middle of the picture for the 17th fairway.  I also see what I think is uncleared land across the foreground from left to right with a path; an untouched island; and an area from there along the track that appears untouched to me. Your phot interpretation will vary, I'm sure.   

Wasn't the 14th green built largely on fill added to the right of the island in that photo?

Sounds reasonable to me.  They appear to have done a fair bit of earth moving on the course.  Again, in my opinion. 

Bryan, there are golfers in the second photo.  How tall do you suppose those trees were to the right of the golfers? Certainly well taller than 30 ft, wouldn't you say?   Somewhere around 30 to 40 feet, I'd guess.  See, it's not so hard to  agree on something.

___________________________

Jim, the articles you posted don't seem to match your lead-in from the previous post.  Are there more articles coming?  

[Bryan Izatt]

Here is a paragraph from the Baker recollection, from TomM's post.  

Once home Crump paid a visit to Brown Mills, where he thought of building a golf course. Then with the same object in view he went to Absecon, where the present country club is located. In Absecon he found the mosquitos so many and vicious that he decided it would not do. He came back to Merchantville and started to buy the ground at Sumner station, which was later changed to Pine Valley. He paid $50.00 for most of it, and for some ground paid $100 per acre. He secured the right-of-way from the Ireland property for a road one hundred feet wide for about ninety-nine years and in the old days that is the way we came to Pine Valley - by way of Watsontown.

People will make of it what they will, but while Baker describes Crump going to check out the other two sites, there is no mention of Crump searching for the PV site, or going to inspect the site, or of him having discovered the site during this time period.  Just that he "came back to Merchantville and started to buy up the ground at Sumner station."  It is almost as if Baker thought of Sumner station as part of Merchantville, as if Crump went and looked at two sites elsewhere,  and when they didn't work out he came home and went with the local, familiar spot.

Obviously nothing dispositive, but it sure doesn't seem to be written as if the PV spot was totally foreign to him and he he had just discovered it.  But of course because it is not dispositive you guys don't even want to hear it, I am sure.

Same as Jim responded. 

In addition, what do you make of Baker mentioning Brown Mills and Absecon while the Philadelphia Inquirer of January 4, 1914 mentions locations (plural) as far away as Northfield and Somers Point, as sites looked at by Crump. Is Baker right?  Or is the Philadelphia Inquirer?  Or are they both right and they just saw or heard of different parts of the same elephant.  As another side thought, why would he look at Brown Mills - it isn't near the ocean, being as far inland as Pine Valley?

[Bryan Izatt]

Patrick,

Will you agree that the following picture is before construction and before clearing on this part of the property?




This is what it looked like after construction.




Looks pretty open before construction.  I can see the the RR track up on the embankment.

Why wouldn't you, much of the land was already cleared  See my post above of where I think the cleared areas are.

In addition, the lake had been dammed and operational, with any trees cleared from the swamp to accomodate the lake.  What kind of trees grow in NJ swamps?

What's the date of the top photo 1914 or later.  Don't know.  The photo isn't dated.  Jim is trying to figure out when it was from based on the discovery of the 13th hole.

Also, could you post the caption that accompanied the photos.

Sure, there was one caption between the two pictures:

"Imagination at work!  The picturesque 14th green was developed by changing an island to a peninsula.  The lower alternate tee has since been abandoned."

I believe the bottom photo is 1922.  What's your source?

Let me add the third picture in the sequence:



Certainly looks like their tree planting program was a roaring success.  And all before you got there.  And, tell us again how similar it is today with how it was in the beginning.  The current towering pines vs the original stunted oaks and dwarf pines (or was it the other way around).  At least there were some 30 to 40 foot pines back in the day.

Why are you so emotionally invested in the impenetrable forest dogma?  Is it not possible in your world for people to have different interpretations of things and events?

[Bryan Izatt]

Bryan,

No,

I would not agree that the top photo is pre-clearing and pre construction. 

I was pretty sure you wouldn't agree, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

You KNOW it wasn't a pre-clearing photo.
That's obvious from looking at the photo, and, I believe the caption that accompanies the picture does NOT mention pre-clearing,  but rather pre-construction in that area.  Would you post the caption.  In addition, in your reply, you admit that clearing is evidenced in the photo on # 17, yet you state that the photo is pre-clearing.

Sure, there is clearing in some parts as I described above.  In other areas I've identified I think it wasn't cleared.  Why are you so gung-ho on playing gotcha?

What you fail to recollect is that I stated that the only one of two locations from which AWT might have sighted the property without obstructing terrain was by the 17th tee, but, that view, as the Eastbound train emerged from behind the large white landform that blocks any views south, would have been of the swamp.  So, Crump could see across the swamp in your opinion?  And, looking across the swamp obliquely, he could look up the hill to where 17 would end up?

Secondly, as I look at the photo it seems to me that it's NOT taken from the ridge on # 13 or the tee on # 14, but, from a point well below those elevations.

Who said it was taken from the ridge on 13 or the 14th tee?  Seems fairly obvious to me that it was taken from somewhere behind the current forward tee.  Maybe just back from the sandy path that is there today.

Thirdly, you know the land's been cleared in the top photo in the foreground because there's a white path running across the picture, and there are no trees.

Hmm, a path equates to clearing.  That path looks like it still exists today.  This is weak, even for you. 

Now, that's nice convoluted logic - there are no trees, therefore it has been cleared.  That's even weaker.  There are no trees on the Old Course.  I guess it was cleared. 

I know, Mike Cirba would claim that the white path was the railroad tracks, but, we already know he was wrong on that call on the 6th hole.

The second photo looks like 1922  So you've said.  What's your source.

Your caveat, "on this part of the property" needs to be clearly defined.

The part in the foreground, the island, the part along the RR track embankment.  All this around where the 14 green got built.

I'd certainly agree that the island is pre-construction.  Wow, something we agree on!

Tillinghast told you that the general area from which the photo was taken was densely forested with underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye.

But, we know that his story was a complete bogus myth, so who would rely on that description.  Of course, all 184 acres must have been uniformly densely forested.  How silly of me to think otherwise based on a picture.

Except that AWT's story is corroborated by Carr and many others.

If you look at aerial photos from 1922 and 1925 you can see that all non-golf areas are uniformly, densely forested, as they also appear in aerial photos from 1931, 1938 and subsequently.

You have an agenda and believe what your agenda tells you that you have to believe.

Like the photo from the ridge on # 6, obviously the land has been cleared.

Not obvious to me.  The underbrush in the foreground looks virgin.  The island and the area along the tracks looks untouched.  Why would they have cleared this section?  They didn't figure out the routing over this end for years.  Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.

That's NOT true.
Why would you make that up about the routing ?
Just go back and look at the original stick routing and the red/blue topo.
The stick routing is dated March 1913 and I believe the red/blue topo around May of 1913, I believe a full year earlier than the photo you posted
They always had holes designated for this area.
To refresh your memory, here's the red/blue topo.
How can you state that they hadn't figured out the routing, it's on the red/blue topo, along with the lake.



Well, actually I was thinking of the Colt plan.  As you might notice, there are no holes down in the southern end of the property where the 14th eventually ended up.



Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.[/size]

So you now contradict yourself again, and admit that it's NOT a pre-clearing photo as your caption above the photo states.
why wouldn't they have cleared 17 all the way back to the 17th tee and over to 16 green and perhaps over behind # 14 green ?
how else would they get to # 14 green if not from behind it, from the west ?

Oh, Patrick, get over yourself.  I've described the areas that I think are cleared and those that I believe are not.  Why are you trying to play this gotcha game.  How does this in any way advance the yardsticks?  What have you added to our collective understanding since you started the topo thread?

In addition, the swamp had been dammed and converted to a lake in both photos, which would seem to indicate that that area had also been cleared.

How do you suppose they got the horses and steam winches into the swamp to pull the tree stumps?

But, this isn't where the swamp was marked on the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article.  If it was swamp before it formed the pond in the picture, then I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of clearing needed.

Oh, now the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article is your bible.  How convenient. 
Do you mean the map that had the trees running through the middle of the fairways, tees and greens ?  How do you decide what is garbage and what is gospel truth?
How about the red/blue topo.
How about the fact that the lake as pictured is the low lying area of the property, (read swamp)

Being from Canada I doubt you have a clue as to what swamps in New Jersey look like.
Trees are in abundance in them.
To be enlightened, Google "the great swamp nj" or go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Swamp_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Nice to see you're actually doing some research.  Did you have some momentary doubt you needed to check out.  You do recall that when I pointed out articles about the history of fires and logging in the Pine Barrens many months ago, that you laughed them off as not applicable to PV.  Let me just play that back to you. 

The more you post about Pine Valley, the more I'm convinced you really know less and less about it and just want to take the opposite side of the debate, which is fine, but, get your facts right before you make declaritive statements.  I have no idea why you are so emotionally attached to such a insignificant point.
Remind us again, how many times over how many years have you been on site ?  Remind us again, how many times you were on the site between 1910 and 1914.


I seem to recall that These photos were previously posted on another thread some time ago  So?

[JESII]

Pat,

The March and May dates refer to when the map was produced, not when Crump finished drawing on it. As I'm sure David and Tom will tell you, they were not planning holes in this area initially.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Certainly looks like their tree planting program was a roaring success.  And all before you got there.  

And, tell us again how similar it is today with how it was in the beginning.  

I'd be happy to.
Note the dense forest behind the green on # 3.


Note the dense forest on the north side of the railroad tracks.
Notice the height of the trees.  No dwarf pines or oak are there.
You relied on one quote, probably repeated elsewhere, describing the site erroneously.
The photos show how very tall those trees were.

Picture yourself riding on the train and looking north.
You couldn't see a thing through that dense forest.
Looking south, what you still don't understand, is the massive intervening landform that blocks your view for a very long stretch.
There are perhaps only two locations where a passenger wouldn't have his view south blocked by the higher landform to the south.
 

Take a look at the dense forest, comprised of tall, mature pines and oaks.

The current towering pines vs the original stunted oaks and dwarf pines (or was it the other way around). 

The early pictures posted don't reveal any dwarf pines or stunted oaks.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to Pine Valley,
but, then again, that's to be expected as you've never seen the property.

At least there were some 30 to 40 foot pines back in the day.

Why are you so emotionally invested in the impenetrable forest dogma?

Let's just chalk it up to photo graphic evidence combined with contemporaneous eyewitness accounts by AWT, Carr and others.
Does the forest below look "thin"


What's amazing to me is that YOU the one emotionally invested in claiming that there were open, views, unobstructed by landforms, trees or underbrush, when you've never been to Pine Valley and have no understanding of the terrain, especially as it relates to views from the railroad tracks. 

Is it not possible in your world for people to have different interpretations of things and events?

If TEPaul or Jim Sullivan or Archie Struthers had a different interpretation I'd be more prone to give their interpretations more weight as they're familiar with the topography and vegetation.  But you have absolutely NO personal experience.  You don't have a clue as to how the land south of the RR tracks looks from the RR tracks, especially as you're heading east.  Your understanding of the land form is minimal at best.

[/quote]

[DMoriarty]

Bryan,

I don't think you can draw any definite conclusions about whether clearing has yet taken place by those photos.  It looks like many portions of the land (except for the small island) may have been cleared of large trees to me, and the road running across the foreground suggests something had already been ongoing.  

Thirty or forty feet tall for those trees?  I'd have guessed a bit higher, but maybe they were short golfers.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bryan,

No,

I would not agree that the top photo is pre-clearing and pre construction. 

I was pretty sure you wouldn't agree, but I thought I'd ask anyway.

You KNOW it wasn't a pre-clearing photo.
That's obvious from looking at the photo, and, I believe the caption that accompanies the picture does NOT mention pre-clearing,  but rather pre-construction in that area.  Would you post the caption.  In addition, in your reply, you admit that clearing is evidenced in the photo on # 17, yet you state that the photo is pre-clearing.

Sure, there is clearing in some parts as I described above.  In other areas I've identified I think it wasn't cleared.  Why are you so gung-ho on playing gotcha?

Bryan, do you expect me to allow you to make incorrect, false or conflicting statements and not bring them to everyone's attention.
You're amongst the first to jump on everyone else for errors, intentional or innocent.
Why do you want differential or special treatment ?

What you fail to recollect is that I stated that the only one of two locations from which AWT might have sighted the property without obstructing terrain was by the 17th tee, but, that view, as the Eastbound train emerged from behind the large white landform that blocks any views south, would have been of the swamp. 

 So, Crump could see across the swamp in your opinion?  And, looking across the swamp obliquely, he could look up the hill to where 17 would end up?


Absolutely NOT.
This is where you total lack of familiarity with the land causes you to make false claims.
You are BLINDLY invested in trying to prove that Crump had an unencumbered view of rolling hills, valleys and pasture lands.
I've asked you, dozens of times, to point out Crump's location when he made his alleged sighting, and after dozens of requests, you still can't identify the location nor the rolling hills, valleys and pasture land he allegedly spotted while sitting in an eastbound train doing 60+mph.


Secondly, as I look at the photo it seems to me that it's NOT taken from the ridge on # 13 or the tee on # 14, but, from a point well below those elevations.

Who said it was taken from the ridge on 13 or the 14th tee?  Seems fairly obvious to me that it was taken from somewhere behind the current forward tee.  Maybe just back from the sandy path that is there today.

There is no sandy path running across the hole, there today.

Thirdly, you know the land's been cleared in the top photo in the foreground because there's a white path running across the picture, and there are no trees.

Hmm, a path equates to clearing.  That path looks like it still exists today.  This is weak, even for you. 

You just don't understand the landform or the configuration of the course, yet you persist in making declarations, declarations that are incorrect.

Now, that's nice convoluted logic - there are no trees, therefore it has been cleared.  That's even weaker.  There are no trees on the Old Course.  I guess it was cleared. 

In desperation, now you're comparing the site at TOC with the site at PV.
Face it, you're lost and don't know what you're talking about.

I know, Mike Cirba would claim that the white path was the railroad tracks, but, we already know he was wrong on that call on the 6th hole.

The second photo looks like 1922  So you've said.  What's your source.

Pine Valley.

Your caveat, "on this part of the property" needs to be clearly defined.

The part in the foreground, the island, the part along the RR track embankment.  All this around where the 14 green got built.

I'd certainly agree that the island is pre-construction.  Wow, something we agree on!

Tillinghast told you that the general area from which the photo was taken was densely forested with underbrush so thick that the land was hidden to the mortal eye.

But, we know that his story was a complete bogus myth, so who would rely on that description.  Of course, all 184 acres must have been uniformly densely forested.  How silly of me to think otherwise based on a picture.

Except that AWT's story is corroborated by Carr and many others.

If you look at aerial photos from 1922 and 1925 you can see that all non-golf areas are uniformly, densely forested, as they also appear in aerial photos from 1931, 1938 and subsequently.

You have an agenda and believe what your agenda tells you that you have to believe.

Like the photo from the ridge on # 6, obviously the land has been cleared.

Not obvious to me.  The underbrush in the foreground looks virgin.  The island and the area along the tracks looks untouched.  Why would they have cleared this section?  They didn't figure out the routing over this end for years.  Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.

That's NOT true.
Why would you make that up about the routing ?
Just go back and look at the original stick routing and the red/blue topo.
The stick routing is dated March 1913 and I believe the red/blue topo around May of 1913, I believe a full year earlier than the photo you posted
They always had holes designated for this area.
To refresh your memory, here's the red/blue topo.
How can you state that they hadn't figured out the routing, it's on the red/blue topo, along with the lake.



Well, actually I was thinking of the Colt plan.  As you might notice, there are no holes down in the southern end of the property where the 14th eventually ended up.

Your question was to the effect, "why would they have cleared there"  The answer is because they were going to put holes there.
Then you respond, out of context, by leaping backward in time.
The top picture referenced was taken AFTER the lake was created.
You may remember we discussed that event and date.

You may also remember that AWT stated that Crump discovered the 13th hole, based upon the view.
I maintained that the "view" was the view of the lake.
Once Crump had his "light bulb" moment, the die was cast, and # 13 and 14 became a reality.
In the top photo it appears as though they were at various stages in clearing # 15, 16 and 17, and perhaps behind # 14 green.



Clearly the background up the rolling hill to the 17th has been cleared.

So you now contradict yourself again, and admit that it's NOT a pre-clearing photo as your caption above the photo states.
why wouldn't they have cleared 17 all the way back to the 17th tee and over to 16 green and perhaps over behind # 14 green ?
how else would they get to # 14 green if not from behind it, from the west ?

Oh, Patrick, get over yourself.  I've described the areas that I think are cleared and those that I believe are not. 

NO YOU DIDN"T.
In the caption to your top photo YOU STATED that it was pre-construction and PRE-CLEARING.
It was only AFTER I brought it to your attention that you changed your description.


Why are you trying to play this gotcha game.  How does this in any way advance the yardsticks?  What have you added to our collective understanding since you started the topo thread?

It's very simple, I'm preventing you from MISREPRESENTING the facts.
You can't make irresponsible, erroneous statements and expect them to go unchallenged.

Do you want to present the truth, or what best serves your agenda ?

The answer seems obvious to me.

In addition, the swamp had been dammed and converted to a lake in both photos, which would seem to indicate that that area had also been cleared.

How do you suppose they got the horses and steam winches into the swamp to pull the tree stumps?

Very carefully and probably from access and an access road running parallel to the railroad tracks.
Even today that path/road is in use.
Both photos YOU presented seem to indicate it was put into use early on.

But, this isn't where the swamp was marked on the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article.  If it was swamp before it formed the pond in the picture, then I wouldn't expect there to be a lot of clearing needed.

Oh, now the map in the Philadelphia Inquirer article is your bible.  How convenient. 
Do you mean the map that had the trees running through the middle of the fairways, tees and greens ? 

How do you decide what is garbage and what is gospel truth?

Mostly the same way I decide when confronting a medical problem, with FACT based EVIDENCE.
You were the one who conveniently gave credence to an obviously flawed schematic that appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer.

I don't need to know how you decide, since it's obvious.
You decide based upon whether or not it fits your predetermined agenda.

How about the red/blue topo.
How about the fact that the lake as pictured is the low lying area of the property, (read swamp)

Being from Canada I doubt you have a clue as to what swamps in New Jersey look like.
Trees are in abundance in them.
To be enlightened, Google "the great swamp nj" or go to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Swamp_National_Wildlife_Refuge

Nice to see you're actually doing some research.  Did you have some momentary doubt you needed to check out.  You do recall that when I pointed out articles about the history of fires and logging in the Pine Barrens many months ago, that you laughed them off as not applicable to PV.  Let me just play that back to you. 

You're so desperate that you're trying to apply a general occurance to a specific site.
If Pine Valley had been ravaged by fires, why would Tillinghast and Carr, two contemporaneous eyewitness accounts, describe the site as dense forest with jungle like undergrowth, dense forest and thick undergrowth so visually impeding that the land was not visible to the mortal eye.

You've been proven wrong, over and over again, and in desperation, keep throwing nonsensical arguments/issues into the fray in order to cling to your championing of the myth.  Over and over again you've tried to deflect facts with conjecture.  It won't work.  You're lost, you've never studied the terrain and vegetation at Pine Valley, yet hold yourself out as an expert, making erroneous claim after erroneous claim.  

The more you post about Pine Valley, the more I'm convinced you really know less and less about it and just want to take the opposite side of the debate, which is fine, but, get your facts right before you make declaritive statements. 

I have no idea why you are so emotionally attached to such a insignificant point.

If it's so insignificant why are you, Cirba, Brauer and other misguided individuals so emotionally attached to claiming that Crump "First" saw Pine Valley from an eastbound train, speeding at 60+mph.  That from that train, from that chance glimpse, he saw, rolling hills, valleys and pasture land ?

OK, if that's your claim, where was he located when he had his "chance glimpse" and saw those features ?

And, where are those features ?

You're the expert, those should be easy questions for you to answer,
UNLESS, in your heart of heart, you realize that there are NO rolling hills visible from the RR tracks.
There are no valleys visible from the RR tracks and there is no pasture land visible from the RR tracks.
Especially, on a "chance glimpse" from a speeding eastbound train doing 60+ mph.
That's an awful lot to take in on a "chance glimpse", especially when the terrain blocks much if not most of the land south of the tracks and the trees and underbrush block the rest, with the possible exception of the swamp, which most wouldn't call ideal land for golf.

Remind us again, how many times over how many years have you been on site ?  Remind us again, how many times you were on the site between 1910 and 1914.

The same number of times that you've ever been there.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()