Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Joe Bausch on November 25, 2008, 04:07:18 PM
-
It was in early 1925 that J.E. Ford of the North American newspaper did a rather long review of Pine Valley. I present this to GCA now as many people have hunkered down for the season and might like a really long, excellent article. There are many things of note in the article, particularly about how the land was discovered, which is in the first column about 2/3 of the way down.
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/golf/NA/PV_1200.jpg)
-
Just today I received a copy of "Pine Valley Golf Club. A Chronicle", from 1982, written by long time PV member Warner Shelly. Near the very beginning of the book there is a section called "The Beginning" which includes these three paragraphs:
Like most great achievements, Pine Valley is the result of a very simple idea, in this case: "Let us have a golf course within easy distance of Philadelphia where we will be able to play almost any month in the year." That called for soil, water and weather conditions similar to that of the Pine Barrens of southern New Jersey rather than the topographical and climate conditions on the other side of the Delaware River in Pennsylvania.
In the fall of 1912 a few enthusiastic golfing men of the Philadelphia district got together to discuss the building of just such a course. Fortunately, George Crump, of Merchantville, New Jersey, was one of that group. He accepted the assignment of finding a suitable site. It was not long after that he wrote to his friends: "I think I have landed on something pretty fine. It is 14 miles below Camden, at a stop called Sumner, on the Reading R.R. to Atlantic City – a sandy soil, with rolling ground, among the Pines."
Within a few days a committee was sent to inspect the site. At once, it approved Crump's selection enthusiastically. Some reporting by the press at the time mentioned Crump had seen the property from the train. But there is proof that in fact he knew the grounds by tramping through them with his gun and dogs while hunting for small game with which the property was well blessed. A photo of Crump resting amid the pines in 1909 is testimony of that fact. It could be that, in tramping through the grounds, he saw more of the trees and shrubs than the forest and perhaps only realized the rolling nature and the possibilities when he saw it at a greater distance from the train. In any case, he found a great location for the building of a golf course, no matter how.
-
Joe,
Both of these versions seem to indicate that Crump originally found the land hunting on horseback, which is also what "Joe Bunker" originally wrote in the Philly paper when the first 11 holes opened.
Yet, Tillinghast's version initial version of the story is that Crump saw the land via train ride to Atlantic City.
I've never seen these two accounts to be necessarily mutually exclusive...more likely it was a sequence of events where perhaps he saw the land hunting first and then realized the larger scope and possibilities stepping out of the forest and looking at the trees from the train, as the article suggested.
There is also no reason I can see that Tillinghast couldn't have reported both accounts at different times if they were both true.
-
Joe,
Awesome story with an even better title! ;)
-
Joe:
I'll go over that Ford article again but in my opinion that article is very likely off a really in-depth interview with Perrin by Ford (which was over seven years after Crump's death).
As to when Crump first discovered the site, I'm not sure how important that really is. What probably is important to us is when he first began to look at it with the idea of building a course there. From Tillinghast, one might conclude that Crump began looking at it for a course in early 1912 or even earlier because fairly early in 1913 Tillinghast reported that he had known about it (apparently for a potential golf course) for over a year but not until then (early 1913) did Crump tell him he could report it.
Crump apparently returned from abroad in Dec 1910 with every intention of building a golf course but he did look at some other sites other than Pine Valley's.
-
Tom,
It's been awhile since I looked at it but I don't recall Jim Finegan's PV book going into that level of detail about how the land was found. Does the Shelley book?
You're likely correct about Perrin...he seems to be a running theme through much of the origins of both Merion and Pine Valley, as well as the "press" accounts, as he played the "new" Merion course with "Far and Sure" during his inagural visit. Strangely, the pictures of what seemed to be Perrin and Hugh Willougby also seemed to show up in the American Cricketer article by Tillinghast! ;)
-
"Tom,
It's been awhile since I looked at it but I don't recall Jim Finegan's PV book going into that level of detail about how the land was found. Does the Shelley book?"
Mike Cirba:
Not even close. Neither of those books even attempts to go into any kind of comparative analysis of the various newspaper and periodical reports of when or how Crump found Pine Valley's site for a golf course. And if one really thinks about it, it probably isn't that important anyway. What it's about on here is just another investigative research game on this website. Crump hadn't even considered architecturally what to do with that site that became Pine Valley at that point anyway. What is important, or at least what's important, in my opinion, is what he did when he first began trying to plan a golf course on that site.
Another thing I think is extremely important to consider with Pine Valley and its site and Crump back then is that he initially bought about 185 acres but Sumner Ireland owned about a thousand acres there and Crump could have bought or swapped or added to it any way he wanted to. It's also instructive to know that in 1917 Crump bought an additional 400 acres of Sumner Ireland's land! ;) The reason he gave for buying that additional land would probably blow some people's minds. I've put that on here before but most seem to miss it! ;)
-
Tom,
I'm not sure I'd phrase it as an "investigative research game"; I think what we're trying to do is piece together a number of accounts to see how they interrelate and also see what stories coincide by what players of the time and see what conclusions might be drawn, if any.
I also think that a number of these stories add fleshy persona to dry facts.
For instance, I'd never heard or read prior that Crump and Perrin took a train ride over there, and then literally hacked their way up the hill to the present 8th tee, or how Crump examined his surroundings and then relayed to a somewhat skeptical Perrin that THIS WAS THE PLACE!
Not since Joseph Smith crossed over the Wasatch Mountain range and saw a flat high-desert plain with a big lake full of undrinkable saline water was such a seemingly incredulous statement so prophetic! ;D
btw...Joe had a much more understated title to this thread, but I didn't think anyone would read it based on his understated Hoosier presentation, so the screaming Citizen Kane, Yellow Journalism, New York Post-like title is my doing. ;)
-
MIke,
Get your fact straights...Joe Smith got killed back in Missouri. Brigham Young did the march to Salt Lake and announced this is the place!! ;D
-
Dammit, Kalen...I'm trying to tell an interesting story here...stop interjecting inconvenient facts! >:( ;)
-
"For instance, I'd never heard or read prior that Crump and Perrin took a train ride over there, and then literally hacked their way up the hill to the present 8th tee, or how Crump examined his surroundings and then relayed to a somewhat skeptical Perrin that THIS WAS THE PLACE!"
Mike:
That sort of detail is interesting but I think what is most important to keep in mind here with Pine Valley is even though Crump and his friends had been thinking of something like this for perhaps 3-4 years previous, it really was Crump who pretty much did all the legwork to prepare for this project and maybe for up to three or so years pretty much on his own before actually introducing his friends to what he had found with the site of Pine Valley which he alone had probably been looking at on his own (among a few others) very carefully for perhaps as much as a year or two. It's also important to remember that he was the one who bought it. The basic idea was a collective one but the actual searching, learning abroad and vetting was pretty much Crump alone, I believe, and maybe for a few years. He introduced the site to his friends who'd been party to this general idea for a few years but when he did introduce them to the site, probably in the late summer or early fall of 1912, he was sure, not necessarily "them", that this was it.
"I think I have found something pretty fine."
-
Tom,
I would agree completely.
This was Crump's vision, singularly, even if it was germinated in some collective fashion.
The cool thing about the article from my perspective is how vividly the narrative makes that exact point!
-
"The cool thing about the article from my perspective is how vividly the narrative makes that exact point!"
That is precisely why I believe Ford's article was a really indepth interview with Perrin. If it wasn't I really don't believe Perrin would have allowed it to be printed. A reporter would not produce that kind of verbatim account without a really indepth interview with, and permission from the subject----in this case Perrin.
-
Tom,
I'm wanting to throw a half-baked idea by you and wanted to hear your thoughts, but I've wondered in the case of Merion why a Robert Lesley or Howard Perrin were not part of the design committee.
Both of these men were connected at the highest levels of not only the Philadelphia golf world, but the US golf world. They certainly both had travelled abroad and almost certainly had visited the best courses abroad.
From a business and industry perspective, both men were at the top echelon of American Society.
Yet, despite their collective experience(s), they were not directly involved in the design and construction of the new golf course at their club, Merion.
I have to wonder given the social mores and protocols of the time, if their elevated positions didn't put them in a class where such work would be somehow slightly beneath their attained stature? I ask that mindful of the fact that industry-giants HG Lloyd and Rodman Griscom were also part of the golf committee with Wilson, Toulmin, and Francis, yet it also seems to me that perhaps neither had yet climbed to the preeminent social and/or golf-related status that Lesley and Perrin had already attained.
Could it be that much like a presidential administration, where the overall strategic direction is set at the top level, the detailed tactical work was handled just a notch below, so that the Merion Committee was actually made up of a team of potential heir apparents, but not the top accomplished royalty?
-
S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-E! S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-E! S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-E! S-P-E-C-U-L-A-T-E!
Now that I got that off of my chest....... ;)
Big Love,
Isn't it true that there are in fact sand dunes on the Idaho/Utah border?
Better take a train ride....
-
"I have to wonder given the social mores and protocols of the time, if their elevated positions didn't put them in a class where such work would be somehow slightly beneath their attained stature? I ask that mindful of the fact that industry-giants HG Lloyd and Rodman Griscom were also part of the golf committee with Wilson, Toulmin, and Francis, yet it also seems to me that perhaps neither had yet climbed to the preeminent social and/or golf-related status that Lesley and Perrin had already attained.
Could it be that much like a presidential administration, where the overall strategic direction is set at the top level, the detailed tactical work was handled just a notch below, so that the Merion Committee was actually made up of a team of potential heir apparents, but not the top accomplished royalty?"
Mike:
In my opinion, not at all; not in the slightest. Amongst those type of people back then I feel there was a remarkable amount of equalitarianism, certainly amongst themselves and within and through their clubs and its mentality. That in a sense was sort of the ethos of their culture---eg the idea of the gentleman and whatall that meant to them. If there were divisions of who performed various tasks I think the idea was that an entire group of them not sort of overload some important committee or whatever, if you get my drift. Lesley was the Golf Chairman at MCC when MCC moved their course to Ardmore, and this idea can be clearly seen in a few letters of both Hugh Wilson and Alan, his brother. They were both asked to serve on the same committees from time to time whether it was the USGA, the Green Committee of the USGA, Pine Valley, probably Merion and each always said it would not look right if two brothers overloaded the same committee and so they virtually never did serve on the same committee. I think that's the way it was in those club structures and their boards and committees et al. Lesley and Perrin did become powerful men in local and national golf administration but the likes of Lloyd and Griscom were incredibly powerful men in the board scheme of things. As such I think both served a particular purpose on the committees they served on and what they were responsible for on those committees. Lloyd was a truly powerful man in the world of finance and obviously he filled that bill for MCC in spades. Griscom was the best connection to his father's largese with MCC which is very well known.
Why did Hugh Wilson get tapped for that Committee he headed? He probably showed a willingness to do it and they understood that and obviously they felt he had the talent to do the job, despite what some today might think about what they call the fact he was a novice. Crump had to start somewhere too, so did Fownes and Leeds and others like them, and so they just did.
It may not be much different than why they told me or got me to do the Ardrossan project for GMGC----eg I showed the willingness to do it and apparently the president and the board felt I could do it as well as anyone in the club and so they were OK with that without feeling they had to join me in doing it in the way I did. But I had to report to them from time to time just as Wilson and his committee did through Lesley's MCC Golf Committee and to the board. It is also probably instructive that I had to work with our club's lawyer constantly as MCC, Lloyd and Wilson's committee did with MCC's T. DeWitt Cuyler.
Originally, I thought the way Merion went about their move to Ardmore and the structuring of the whole thing was pretty unique but as I look at other clubs like it I see the very same pattern in that particular day and age and ethos/culture.
-
Apologies in advance if this has been covered above, but was it common knowledge that Harry Colt visited Merion in 1912 (as per Joe's original article)? If so, did he meet with Wilson and the Construction Committee? Any idea what input Colt might have made to that work-in-progress design effort at that time?
thanks
Rich
-
One of my favorite PV articles is the one in Golf Illustrated, January 1915 by Simon Carr.
Has a photo of the 3rd, 5th, and 8th and some general descriptions of a few holes.
Just mention as it is an interesting holiday read.
The article mentions Colt's visit to Pine Valley in May 1913.
-
Tom,
Thanks...that makes sense to me.
Tommy,
Do you have an issue with speculation that is clearly marked as such? I believe I stated right up front that my thoughts and questions were "half-baked".
If so, I don't understand you sudden opposition to speculation here. If some of us, including yourself, didn't have intellectual curiosity and hadn't speculated about a lot of things related to golf architectural history I doubt we would have individually and collectively taken the time and energies to unearth the significant amount of important materials that we have in the past decade.
I also don't recall you previously objecting to a wholly speculative, historically revisionist paper published here that was based on some newly discovered facts by a certain public course golfer from your neighborhood. ;)
So while I don't mind you calling BS on me if I present supposition as fact, I would ask that you at least be more fair and balanced in your criticisms than Fox News. ;D
-
"If so, did he meet with Wilson and the Construction Committee? Any idea what input Colt might have made to that work-in-progress design effort at that time?"
Rich:
As far as I know noboby knows what the details may've been when Colt visited Merion (neither Wilson or anyone else mentioned it in those voluminous "agronomy letters"). If he did visit Merion (and it appears very likely he did) it would've been in 1913 (the same time he visited PV and Seaview). He also brought Mrs Colt with him and that had to be the time and place she got to know Mrs Wilson (remember in about a 1920 letter Colt asked Wilson to remember Mrs Colt to Mrs Wilson). I also believe Wilson stayed at Colt's place when he was in the heathlands in the spring of 1912 but I don't believe Mrs Wilson made that 1912 trip abroad with Hugh.
Some really experienced people in architecture have wondered where the basic bunker look and style of Merion came from. If you asked me I'd have to say if it came from someone other than Wilson it must've come from Colt a whole lot more than from a man like Macdonald.
Actually, I'm quite surprised that noboby picked up on my contention in that other thread that for various remarkably interesting reasons the real "Missing Face" behind not just Merion but apparently the entire Golden Age of Golf Course Architecture was none other than MRS Hugh Wilson!
-
"The article mentions Colt's visit to Pine Valley in May 1913."
JohnS:
I've mentioned this before on this website and it's never popular with the Colt fans on here but almost simultaneous to that Simon Carr article about Colt and Pine Valley a few other articles appeared in periodicals that were pretty similar to Carr's article about Pine Valley and Colt. I'm referring to both a Travis article and another from one of the pen name writers who was probably Tillinghast.
My supposition is Crump was behind the whole thing and probably engineered it, and why wouldn't he?
First of all, it sure isn't hard to tell that Crump was about the polar opposite of a man out to promote himself at every turn, and he sure did realize Colt was perhaps the world's most respected architect at that time for the type of thing Crump was trying to do. And I'm also pretty sure that Crump sure did understand, at that point, that he and his reputation sure hadn't come close to reaching a point like that (even if it did later for what he accomplished with Pine Valley).
It's also not lost on me that those very similar articles appearing in different periodicals were right around the time Pine Valley first opened for play.
One also needs to understand that Simon Carr was Crump's best friend down there when it came to building the course (along with his other close friend closely connected to the goings-on of the architecture, W.P. Smith). Travis was also getting closely connected with his proposed reverse routing scheme at that time and we all sure do know that Tillinghast was a very close friend of Crump's. It is just totally illogical to me that those writers would have written what they did about Pine Valley and Colt without the total permission of Crump if not actually doing it with him!
I can tell you right now when I had Bill Coore hanging around our Ardrossan project for GMGC in the beginning the way Colt did at PV that one time in 1913 I sure as shit did not hide that fact. Matter of fact I mercilessly promoted that fact and why wouldn't I? ;) I think the very same thing was true at that time with Crump and Colt and those very similar articles that all came out at about the same time and probably for the very same reason----eg to promote the opening for play of the golf course (even if only eleven holes were in play at that time). It would take basically another seven years before the entire 18 holes finally opened for play!
-
Mike Cirba:
Just give all the credit to the inspiration of Moriarty and MacWood for what you and Joe Bausch and some of the rest of us have done around here with additional research information and he will probably gladly accept it all as a marvelous research all around!
This research game is inherently and highly competitive with some. You understand that, don't you Mike? ;)
-
TomP,
I remember your thoughts and conclusion on the whole GI Jan 1915 article from a few years back.
It makes perfect sense, given all of Crump's extensive early work, long term commitment, and vision.
I still enjoy the article, the photos, seeing how much was completed by 1914, and then trying to grasp the difficluties and length of time before completion.
-
"The article mentions Colt's visit to Pine Valley in May 1913."
JohnS:
I've mentioned this before on this website and it's never popular with the Colt fans on here but almost simultaneous to that Simon Carr article about Colt and Pine Valley a few other articles appeared in periodicals that were pretty similar to Carr's article about Pine Valley and Colt. I'm referring to both a Travis article and another from one of the pen name writers who was probably Tillinghast.
My supposition is Crump was behind the whole thing and probably engineered it, and why wouldn't he?
First of all, it sure isn't hard to tell that Crump was about the polar opposite of a man out to promote himself at every turn, and he sure did realize Colt was perhaps the world's most respected architect at that time for the type of thing Crump was trying to do. And I'm also pretty sure that Crump sure did understand, at that point, that he and his reputation sure hadn't come close to reaching a point like that (even if it did later for what he accomplished with Pine Valley).
It's also not lost on me that those very similar articles appearing in different periodicals were right around the time Pine Valley first opened for play.
One also needs to understand that Simon Carr was Crump's best friend down there when it came to building the course (along with his other close friend closely connected to the goings-on of the architecture, W.P. Smith). Travis was also getting closely connected with his proposed reverse routing scheme at that time and we all sure do know that Tillinghast was a very close friend of Crump's. It is just totally illogical to me that those writers would have written what they did about Pine Valley and Colt without the total permission of Crump if not actually doing it with him!
I can tell you right now when I had Bill Coore hanging around our Ardrossan project for GMGC in the beginning the way Colt did at PV that one time in 1913 I sure as shit did not hide that fact. Matter of fact I mercilessly promoted that fact and why wouldn't I? ;) I think the very same thing was true at that time with Crump and Colt and those very similar articles that all came out at about the same time and probably for the very same reason----eg to promote the opening for play of the golf course (even if only eleven holes were in play at that time). It would take basically another seven years before the entire 18 holes finally opened for play!
Now that's speculation in a nut shell.
-
Paul,
Yes it is, and it's clearly marked as "supposition".
I don't think simply because something is speculative that it's necesarily untrue, wholly or in part.
I believe people can read evidence and judge for themselves, as long as we make clear where we are speculating, the evidence we're basing it on, any other basis of our beliefs, and go from there.
I believe that it's when blanket, positivist statements are portrayed as proven historical fact instead of hypothesized intellectual speculation that we begin to go off the tracks...
-
Joe:
An IMPORTANT and wonderful find. You've uncovered another gem. I can't wait to read it.
Anthony
-
Mike
Yes I agree. But if the same statements, even if marked as "supposition" keep getting repeated over and over and over and over, they can get mistaken for fact.
-
Paul:
Saw your quote from Nassim Taleb at the bottom of your posts and came across this:
Talen also believes that people are subject to the triplet of opacity, through which history is distilled even as current events are incomprehensible. The triplet of opacity consists of
1. an illusion of understanding of current events
2. a retrospective distortion of historical events
3. an overestimation of factual information, combined with an overvalue of the intellectual elite
Numbers two and three surly are apropos to this discussion and all three to many topics found here.
Anthony
-
"Now that's speculation in a nut shell."
Paul:
Sure it is. As Mike Cirba said, a lot of what we talk about on here is speculation. What we hope for is informed speculation. Can you honestly say what I wrote there seems even remotely illogical? I don't think so.
I grew tired years ago of some on here who'd tend to support the notion that if something wasn't actually written down somewhere by the person in question----in this case Crump, it should never even be considered as a logical possibility which of course is the meat of informed speculation.
I know you Paul, we're friends but we sure have been on opposite sides of this entire Pine Valley Colt/Crump equation. You've constantly been pretty touchy about anything at all you think tends to minimize the perception of what Colt did there.
At this point I believe the real story of what Colt did and what Crump did is in place and it's the historical truth. It's less from Colt than some Pine Valley people once thought (for a reason you may not be aware of) and it's less of Crump than what other Pine Valley people thought for a time (for reasons you may be aware of). My position is fortunate in this way because I've known so many people from Pine Valley over the years and I know what they thought in this vein (Colt/Crump) and it was basically all over the place for reasons that never were historically valid.
Unfortunately both you and Tom MacWood really don't know many or any Pine Valley people and so your assumption has always been that somehow the club has ALWAYS attempted to glorify Crump at the expense of Colt. That is simply not the case with all from that club but there could be no way for you to understand that. There were a pretty good number who always assumed that the entire routing and design was Colt (again for a reason that you've never understood).
But in the last 6-7 years for various reasons that has changed now and the true story and the details of it over Crump's years there are in place. The true story of the next few years following Crump's death are also in place and that was a part of Pine Valley's architectural history which practically noone understood in the modern era for reasons that very few are aware of.
-
Did Colt write about Pine Valley ?
Not sure I remember from past years what was said in that regard.
-
"Did Colt write about Pine Valley ?"
John:
I know he mentioned it but I don't know if he ever wrote about it in detail. I do know he mentioned it, though, in at least an article probably in England around 1914 or 1915 saying something like he was fortunate enough to design it.
On second thought, that is an excellent question of yours about whether he actually wrote about the course or in detail.
As far as I can tell Colt may've visited the course again briefly in 1914 but there isn't any actual evidence of that other than in an article by Tillinghast that said Colt MAY visit PV in 1914 and as far as I've ever been able to tell Colt never again returned to America after 1914. There is nothing I know of in the Pine Valley archives that indicates Colt returned in 1914. Crump died in 1918 while the course was still under construction and there were still four holes to be completed. 18 holes did not open for play until 1921.
So if Colt ever did try to write about how the course turned out when it was completed I can't imagine how he would've known much about the details of it unless he asked his partner Hugh Alison in detail or happened to read his master plan recommendations for the committee that I call the "1921 Advisory Committee." ;)
In my opinion, the most little known architectural fact about Pine Valley is what-all Alison recommended for the course at that time and what was done from his recommendations. His master plan is very detailed as is the committee's responses to his recommendations. Alison not only offered the master plan but he was actually on the committee. The club wanted him to implement the recommendations but unfortunately he wasn't around then or couldn't be so it was done by others, primarily including Jim Govan, Flynn, probably the Wilsons and maybe a visit or so from member George Thomas.
-
Did Colt write about Pine Valley ?
Not sure I remember from past years what was said in that regard.
John
Colt always regarded the course as one that he (and presumably Alison) designed. He included it in the company's ads through until the 1930s. In contrast, he did drop other courses that from his ads that he had worked on, where there was a potential conflict of interests: Alwoodley when Mackenzie left the firm and Addington when Abercromby joined Fowler and Simpson.
As Tom points out, Colt would have been familiar with how the course turned out even if he didn't return to the US after WW1. Alison knew the details and Colt also had a detailed photo book from Crump showing most of the holes.
The bulk of Pine Valley was built over a normal time frame i.e about 2years. ..11 holes were open within a year from the start of construction: Feb 1914.
One interesting question to ponder is: why did the Pine Valley committee turn to an English architect, Alison, in 1921 instead of all the local talent (including Fownes who was on that committee)?
To enhance the "signature" design and keep the members ;)
-
Paul:
I'm not sure what your remark about enhancing a "signature" design and keeping members is about but if there was any intent of enhancing some "signature" in 1921 via that "1921 Advisory Committee" it was definitely to maintain or enhance Crump's "signature". That was why the club asked Carr and Smith to compose their hole by hole recollections of what-all Crump had in mind (that I call "The Remembrances") and even asked them to do it independent of one another. This is no speculation on my part as the "1921 Advisory Committee" report stated that directly.
As far as keeping members that was certainly of no problem whatsoever in 1919 and would not be until well into the depression.
As to why they hired Alison in 1921 they did not say. It may've been so as not to have to choose between one of their many member architects as much as anything else.
It's also important to know that between Crump's death and the opening of all 18 holes in 1919 the Wilsons of Merion and Flynn completed the last four holes. Flynn went on Pine Valley's payroll during this time even though he was a member and Howard Toomey was on the Board of Directors.
In a general sense as to who did what and when between Colt and Crump I think this article above is a pretty good indicator as that article has to be a pretty in-depth interview with Howard Perrin who from the beginning up until just after 1926 was the president of the club. I suppose people like you or Tom MacWood could continue to maintain or imply that Perrin was either glorifying Crump, exaggerating or engaging in hyperbole with what he said in that article but I doubt anyone with a good working knowledge of the history of Pine Valley would buy your contention. It happens to be the same uninformed explanation and defensive response that was constantly used in the discussions of that revisionist essay about Macdonald, Wilson and Merion.
But that article tells the general story. The facts of the specific story about who did almost exactly what and when between Colt and Crump and others is all very much in place and in my opinion it is pretty much undeniable for a whole bunch of reasons, primarily including a well documented "timeline."
The real irony to me about Pine Valley is it seems pretty obvious that Crump himself never had any problem at all allowing all kinds of people to take credit for all kinds of things, even if he quietly over-rode them and continued to do his own thing with the goal of making the course the way he wanted it to be.
In that vein, those "Remembrances" really are important to understand in the architectural creation of Pine Valley and I also like Crump's remark when he was asked why he was taking so long and when he would complete the course. Apparently his response (as reported in Carr and Smith's documents) was his famous stentorian; "NEVER!"
In my opinion, there no longer is any mystery, including the details, as to who did what and when down there or between what Colt did and Crump did, or even with what Tillinghast, Travis, the Wilsons, Flynn and Alison did or proposed. A good timeline and documentation in many forms pretty much establishes it all now, and so in a sense Colt has finally gotten the due he deserves as has Crump and a few others certainly including Jim Govan, the Wilsons, Flynn (probably Thomas), Maxwell, and Fazio.
-
Tom Paul & Paul Turner,
I recall in the past that Tom wrote a pretty thorough essay here on some thread that indicated who he believes the evidence shows was responsible for what holes, and what changes on what holes at PV.
While I know you two have generally disagreed on who deserves more credit for PV generally, I don't recall there being much debate on the interpretation of the evidence on a hole by hole basis.
Did I miss something?
-
"Colt always regarded the course as one that he (and presumably Alison) designed. He included it in the company's ads through until the 1930s. In contrast, he did drop other courses that from his ads that he had worked on, where there was a potential conflict of interests:"
Paul:
If that is true, in my opinion Colt either did not understand very well what transpired with the course between 1914 (the date of that photo album Crump gave him) and 1919 (which would not be unusual as he never again returned to America after 1914) or else he understood that Crump had very much given him permission to say something like that early on (which really does fit in to my feeling that Crump purposefully tried to make the course appear to be a Colt design around the time eleven holes officially opened for play (late Nov. 1914 when all those articles were generated giving Colt so much credit)).
Despite what Colt thought in that vein the facts are the facts and they are documented and undeniable now.
-
"While I know you two have generally disagreed on who deserves more credit for PV generally, I don't recall there being much debate on the interpretation of the evidence on a hole by hole basis.
Did I miss something?"
Mike:
Yes, you probably did miss something. A lot of people probably did. But the real deal is the essential "timeline" of the creation of Pine Valley makes what happened hole by hole and who specifically did what and when pretty clear.
In that vein that timeline is sort of remarkable for a specific reason and that is we really do know (it's documented) what Crump did BEFORE Colt first arrived and it is also documented what Crump did that departed from anything Colt recommended or left as a plan AFTER Colt left and never returned. If that had not happened in that particular way (basically the fact that Colt only made a single site visit to PV) the timeline would inherently be much more complicated to decipher and assign attribution.
And it goes further. We have what Crump did before Colt arrived and we can compare that to the way the course turned out and we have what Colt left (as a plan) when he was there that single time and we can also compare that to the way the course turned out in the years after he left for the final time and we can consequently track all the differences between Colt's plan and the way the course turned out. Again, if Colt had come back for numerous site visits this entire timeline and what it says would be much more complicated.
I mean someone like Paul Turner can argue that the way the fairways and bunkers turned out at Pine Valley were on Colt's plan but I feel anyone can see they really aren't and there are many and general differences. And not just that but the vast difference between Colt's blue lines and Crump's red lines (basically bunkering) tell that story in specific detail. Also Colt never provided green designs in the plans he left except general outlines which don't really match some of the greens and there are no plans or directions or instructions for any kind of internal contouring at all which is a lot of the beauty and quality of PV's greens. Paul's answer to that in the past has been he doesn't think Colt did that with his plans on courses. Well, maybe he didn't but if he was only around for one week in 1913 and never returned I'm pretty sure the greens of Pine Valley including their beautiful internal slopes and contours) were not all designed and built in that single week! ;)
In my opinion, what Colt really did for Pine Valley is to pretty much unravel a basic routing glitch that Crump had gotten himself into before Colt arrived. That and the fact that the bunkering schemes on #9, basically #10 and #11 are very similar to Colt's hole plans that have always been in Pine Valley's archives.
That in and of itself (the unraveling of a basic routing glitch), I believe is a truly significant story and it tells a great deal to people who really don't understand the intracacies and interconnections of routing golf holes and certainly routing golf courses on intricate, interesting and complex topography like Pine Valley's.
What Colt did in that vein (unravel a basic routing glitch) some who don't undertand routing very well may think wasn't much but in the way a routing of holes can interconnect (particularly if one is looking for the kind of specific balance and variety Crump was, including his demand that green to next tee be about as tight as possible or as tight as any course extant (other than #11 to #12)), it really is a pretty significant contribution on Colt's part, in my opinion. In my opinion, essentially his recommendation on #5 (which is such a famous story with Colt at PV) got most of the rest of the routing to just fall into place like a jigsaw puzzle.
Again, that is a separate story and one that should be told. I think I've touched on it on this site in the past but it really is a complex story, not the least of which was how and why Crump got stuck with those last 4-6 holes and what he finally did to resolve it years after Colt had been there.
It is a complex creation particularly if one wants to analyze most of the details but they're all documented now and I don't think there is much or any mystery left in who did what and when.
I should also say, again, if it hadn't been for Tillinghast constant generally contemporaneous reporting over the years either as himself in various newspapers and periodicals or as "Hazard" or "Far and Sure" in AG this specific PV timeline would've been really hard to near impossible to put together. Tillie supplied some very important events and particularly their dates which in a basic sense put them either before Colt, during Colt's one visit or after Colt.
-
To get back to the specific subject of this thread----eg the Ford article from 1925 that Joe Bausch provided, it is an important article to be able to understand the creation of Pine Valley in a general sense.
The reason is it certainly seems to include a pretty in-depth interview with long time Pine Valley president Howard Perrin complete with direct quotations from him of what went on during those construction years.
If there are some on here as there have been in the past who try to dismiss it and Perrin's account as glorification or exaggeration or hyperbole as they have with other courses and other local architects and club members closely connected to these courses around here, including Merion and Pine Valley, I would hope the contributors on here this time would view their dismissals and rationalizations with a serious grain of salt.
-
"Colt always regarded the course as one that he (and presumably Alison) designed. He included it in the company's ads through until the 1930s. In contrast, he did drop other courses that from his ads that he had worked on, where there was a potential conflict of interests:"
Despite what Colt thought in that vein the facts are the facts and they are documented and undeniable now.
The facts as you interpret them. Nothing more. You choose to downplay the importance of other "facts" as reported by Carr etc in 1915.
Colt was surely more familiar than you are regarding the development of Pine Valley. And the sum total wasn't "unraveling a routing glitch" by moving the 5th green!
Additionally, you have assumed you have all the available information.
-
The stick routing that Ian Andrew uncovered hasn't been dated or properly analyzed..
The drawing style is not consistent for all holes. The greens are labelled with a G for most of the proposed holes on the back 9 whereas the holes 1-4 and 18 have no labels. The hole that ended up as the 7th is a prime example with two potential green sites which look to be drawn by different hands: the circle size is different, one is labelled G9 and the other either has a very small number or is not labelled. So that certainly hasn't been fully analyzed.
The bunker scheme for 6 is v similar in Colt's plan and 17 was basically as Colt drew, up until Crump's death. The cross bunker was turned into waste area after Crump died. The 5th is pretty similar too. I don't think the 3rd is very different either although I'm sure Tom thinks they're not alike.
The strategies for most of the holes, is very similar as is the hole shape and width.
-
Paul:
I don't disagree with most of that but that's not all that much in the broad scheme of things in the design of a course or the final design, and most certainly nowhere near enough for someone like Colt to put his name on an course alone as its architect. But that is really beside the point anyway because we really do know what-all Crump did and when there.
I'm not sure what you're implying about what I call Crump's stick routing. Ian didn't exactly find that as it's been hanging in the superintendent's office for many, many years. What Ian did is photograph it. It's just that as with a lot of the archival "assets" at Pine Valley noone really comprehensively analyzed some of them or all of them together to produce a specifically accurate over-all story or creation report of Pine Valley from around the very beginning of 1913 to 1919 or 1921. (And for some reason much of Alison's contribution in 1921 was heretofore mostly overlooked or underconsidered).
The question as to who actually put pen or pencil to paper on that Crump stick routing is an interesting one and probably a question that won't have an exact answer for us. I doubt it was Crump and certainly not Colt as it would appear in his week there in 1913 it was the next topo map (the so-called "Blue/Red" line one) that Colt primarily worked on or with (which fairly closely resembles his hole by hole booklet that so few have ever really analyzed carefully) and with which Crump obviously worked on himself in the years that followed (again, another good indication of the value of "timeling" ;) ).
I believe someone other than Crump probably put the markings on Crump's original stick routing (which I believe he used until Colt got there. By the way, in my opinion, Crump was not a very good golf arhitecture drawer. ;)) and that would most certainly explain the meaning of that very interesting and curious notation that Crump wrote on the top of that first and early stick routing (which certainly leads me to believe that Crump was working probably pretty much exclusively on the ground in the beginning and before Colt first arrived and also that Crump was not very good at deciphering the contour lines on a topo map and where they specifically were on the ground! ;) ).
"Am not sure if the greens are marked on the map as I marked them on the ground." GAC"
-
"The facts as you interpret them. Nothing more. You choose to downplay the importance of other "facts" as reported by Carr etc in 1915."
Paul:
I'm not downplaying those facts as reported by Carr in January of 1915 at all. What I am doing is offering a reason why he probably wrote the things he did about Colt in that article (almost exactly the same things that Travis and Tillinghast wrote at the same time in other articles almost in the same month after eleven holes first opened for play (Nov, 1914)). All of those people who wrote those articles were very good friends of Crump's so for you to think and imply Crump did not have a very direct hand in those articles is really illogical to me.
But where you really miss the boat on the creation story of Pine Valley is you almost always point to that Carr article that explains things up to the end of 1914. What you are not understanding or are completely overlooking is all that Crump did there with the course in the next three years. You apparently don't think it was much but I do think it was a lot, and it was a lot, not necessarily in a routing sense (although there sure are some significant hole differences in Colt's plan and the way those holes turned out in the end routing-wise) but certainly with the details of the holes including bunkering, fairway configuration and green designs and contouring. Colt called for a good deal of "chipping area" around a number of greens and Crump did none of that at all, for instance. You also completely dismissed Crump's novel "fairway areas" that in no way match what Colt drew. It does however match what Crump drew.
When Finegan, who's been there for decades and knows that course like the back of his hand (and who happens to be probably the only other person who has carefully analyzed Colt's hole by hole booklet) mentioned in his Pine Valley history book that the course has more differences than similarities to Colt's booklet and plan, he is absolutely right about that.
You can say that is wrong and there are way more similarities than differences, but come on Paul, how many times have you ever seen that course? Twice at most? And Tom MacWood continued to say the same thing you do. How many times has he seen that course to make that kind of detailed comparison? He's never seen it. He's never been there and neither one of you has ever seen Colt's booklet either.
I realize you two want to do everything you can to get credit for Colt for Pine Valley but the facts are the facts and they are not just my interpretation. The facts with Colt are both what he left there and the way the course turned out when it opened for play a number of years after Colt left never to return, and those things are both actual, physical and very easily observable if one has enough time and inclination to do it all and analyze it all in real detail.
-
Thanks for this discussion, gents.
"That in and of itself (the unraveling of a basic routing glitch), I believe is a truly significant story and it tells a great deal to people who really don't understand the intracacies and interconnections of routing golf holes and certainly routing golf courses on intricate, interesting and complex topography like Pine Valley's."
TE - I can't add anything to this discussion, but this reference to routing reminded me of what for me is the basic 'historical' question about not only Pine Valley but many of the great early courses, i.e. how ultimate design credit is granted. I can't get past the belief that routing a course - envisioning all 18 holes, their lengths and shapes and basic shot-making demands, and how those holes drape over the landscape and connect to one another -- is the main criteria. And yet, I'm not sure the designers/architects themselves -- including the famous amateur-sportsmen -- would agree with me. That is, time and again I read about how those designers/architects for months and years worked on (and revised) the bunkers and other hazards. In short, they seemed to feel that the overall quality and even greatness of their courses had quite a lot to do with the quality of the hazards -- or at least more to do with it than I do now, looking back.
Anyway - not much of a point or a point for discussion I guess, just a thought and an observation (that may or may not be accurate).
Peter
-
Tom
Hang on. Other than the drawing of 17 in a magazine, we don't know if Crump drew anything. I assume you are assuming that the red lines are his. I don't necessarily think that's a wrong assumption.
I don't put as much stock in the lack of waste areas on Colt's drawings as you do. Much of that was inherent in the site and Colt had already built holes with carries long over sand/heathery scrub, including a couple with island fairways.
-
"Colt was surely more familiar than you are regarding the development of Pine Valley."
Paul:
Since Colt was there one time for a week in 1913 I have no doubt he certainly was more familiar than I am or any of us are with what went on at that time and probably up until that time (what Crump had done before he arrived).
But as far as Colt being more familiar with the details of what went on with the development of that course after he left in 1913 and never to return again, I would seriously doubt he was ever as familiar with that time period in the course's development and what happened during that time, as I am.
I mean perhaps you are under some impression that he kept in constant contact with Crump and Pine Valley from England for the next 4-5 years after he left America for good but I see absolutely zero indication of that other than that photo album from 1914 Crump gave him.
As an example of that, let's just take a look at Hugh and Alan Wilson both of whom were prominent members of Pine Valley and both of whom were directly involved in both its architecture and agronomic development.
Around 1920 Colt wrote Wilson a letter asking him if he would kindly send him a copy of the Green Section bulletins and in the course of that letter Colt said he hoped Wilson remembered him it had been so many years since they'd been in contact.
It is no knock at all on my part on Colt, Paul, but that does not sound like a guy who had been keeping in touch with what went on at Pine Valley architeturally or otherwise and those who had to do with the course in the years following 1913.
-
"I assume you are assuming that the red lines are his."
Paul:
I am indeed and have for 5-6 years. I assume the red lines are Crump's just as much as I assume the blue lines are Colt's. That frankly is the very thing that allowed for the specific unravelling of who did what and when which was all essentially corroborated timeline-wise by Tillinghast's constant contemporaneous reporting.
-
"I don't put as much stock in the lack of waste areas on Colt's drawings as you do. Much of that was inherent in the site and Colt had already built holes with carries long over sand/heathery scrub, including a couple with island fairways."
Paul:
I know you don't. You said the same thing a few years ago on here. I just don't believe your explanation is a good one at all via what Colt did versus what Crump did in that vein.
Although there are enough similarities between the blue lines on that "Blue/Red line" topo map which you have seen (thousands of people have since it's been hanging in the club's front room for decades), I think you are going to have to carefully analyze that hole by hole booklet of Colt's, which you have never seen, to have a complete understanding of the similarities and differences between what he drew and how the course turned out in the four and a half years after he left when Crump was there working on its design and construction practically every day.
-
I've grabbed many of the Tilly articles from 1912 until mid-1916 from the newspaper The Philadelphia Record. On another thread I've posted some of them. It seems on this PV thread I started with the large Ford review from 1925, it might be neat to see how Tilly talked about PV in The Record. Below are all of the PV mentions from Jan 1913 until mid-1916. Note: I still don't know for many more months or years Tilly wrote for this newspaper, but I'll know that in due time.
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Jan12_1913_part1.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Jan12_1913_part2.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Mar23_1913_part1.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Mar23_1913_part2.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Apr27_1913.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/May18_1913.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/June8_1913.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Nov16_1913.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Jan18_1914.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Mar8_1914_part1.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Mar8_1914_part2.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/May3_1914.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Nov8_1914.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Jan3_1915.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Jan10_1915.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Aug15_1915.jpg)
(http://xchem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PineValley/Aug22_1915.jpg)
-
Joe,
You mentioned, "Note: I still don't know for many more months or years Tilly wrote for this newspaper [Philadelphia Record], but I'll know that in due time."
I apologize... I thought I had sent the reference to you.
In the March 1919 issue of the American Golfer, Tilly wrote, "Mr. A.W. Tillinghast, who for many years contributed the golf column in each Sunday's edition of the 'Philadelphia Record', has resigned from that publication's staff. His activities as a golf course architect prevent him from writing so much as of old."
Though I don't know the exact date of his last column, I also believe that he had stopped writing weekly for them for quite some time by this date, though I could be mistaken.
-
Joe Bausch,
I really want to thank you for the tremendous efforts you've put forward over the past year or two in unearthing all of this wonderful historical material that has given us such greater insight into what exactly transpired in these early days of golf in and around Philadelphia.
To sit here and read this stuff written as it happened that probably hasn't been looked at in almost 100 years is just absolutely tremendous.
I know some folks here think all of this historical research, debate, arguments, and discussion is so much "speculation", but f*cking A...it sure beats the hell out of another discussion of ratings, of Tiger Woods, of Michelle Wie, of where to play when I'm visiting X, and a host of other non-architectural, non-related topics.
-
And yet, I'm not sure the designers/architects themselves -- including the famous amateur-sportsmen -- would agree with me. That is, time and again I read about how those designers/architects for months and years worked on (and revised) the bunkers and other hazards. In short, they seemed to feel that the overall quality and even greatness of their courses had quite a lot to do with the quality of the hazards -- or at least more to do with it than I do now, looking back.
Peter,
I think that's quite the insightful and valid observation.
When Merion was first opened in the fall of 1912, a number of writers including Tillinghast, Alex Findlay, and "Far and Sure" all seemingly believed that it was much too early to really fairly and effectively analyze or review the course because so few of the bunkers or "artificial hazards" had been established.
A number of writers of the time clearly felt that the only really effective way to place bunkering on a new course was to watch play for some time after the course opened, and then act accordingly.
Findlay even went so far as to call them "Mental hazards", which clearly inferred the strategic and intellectual aspects of the game, and also argued that their placement should await further visual examination of how the course actually played.
What's interesting is that this thinking absolutely flew directly into the face of the thinking that modelled holes against great ones overseas, to a large extent. If you consider the famous template holes, almost all of them were defined by their bunkering patterns, yet here these guys were arguing that instead of placing a row of bunkers diagonally down the middle as in a bottle hole, or at the left front flank and foreshortened as in the redan, or in the direct front and front left as in the Eden, or in the length of the diagonal back and with a deep circular pit right in the central bowels as in a road hole, or along the lengths of each side as in a Biarritz, etc., etc., these men seemed to suddenly be arguing that this type of rote placement really didn't make much sense except in broad, conceptual terms...not in on the ground routine placement.
Instead, I believe these men had some revolutionary ideas of their own which argued that each course and golf hole should have its own identity, and should leverage the unique landforms and variables of its own uniqueness, and that any work of man should first and foremost take into account the particulars of that individual piece of real estate without preconditions and preconceptions.
-
Mike - thanks, that's a very interesting post. A really good post. I hadn't thought about almost any of the points/ideas you raised - so I will now. It just struck me that what I think of as the 'end point' -- a golf course routed over existing terrain so as to maximize the interest and playability and beauty of that terrain -- seemed to be viewed as just a 'starting point' by many of the old architects.
Peter
My thanks too, Joe
-
Peter Pallotta said:
"Thanks for this discussion, gents.
From Tom Paul:
""That in and of itself (the unraveling of a basic routing glitch), I believe is a truly significant story and it tells a great deal to people who really don't understand the intracacies and interconnections of routing golf holes and certainly routing golf courses on intricate, interesting and complex topography like Pine Valley's.""
TE - I can't add anything to this discussion, but this reference to routing reminded me of what for me is the basic 'historical' question about not only Pine Valley but many of the great early courses, i.e. how ultimate design credit is granted. I can't get past the belief that routing a course - envisioning all 18 holes, their lengths and shapes and basic shot-making demands, and how those holes drape over the landscape and connect to one another -- is the main criteria. And yet, I'm not sure the designers/architects themselves -- including the famous amateur-sportsmen -- would agree with me.
That is, time and again I read about how those designers/architects for months and years worked on (and revised) the bunkers and other hazards. In short, they seemed to feel that the overall quality and even greatness of their courses had quite a lot to do with the quality of the hazards -- or at least more to do with it than I do now, looking back.
Anyway - not much of a point or a point for discussion I guess, just a thought and an observation (that may or may not be accurate)."
Peter;
Personally, I think you (and others) need to really understand the difference between the routing of a golf course and what I call the "designing up" of a routing! I think they are or most certainly can be two remarkably different and distinct phases of design and architecture.
I've said it before, and I will again; I believe one can take a specific routing on any golf course or any site and basically make it into numerous and distinct courses.
To me a routing is the layout of a course's holes in length and direction before anything is done to the site.
From there one can only imagine the different iterations that are possible. Routing is immensely important and can also be complex (particularly on complex property) but what I referred to as the "designing up" phase of a specific routing really can produce an immense array of golf courses and shot values and looks and styles on the very same ROUTING!
And in the context of this particular thread about Pine Valley as well as in the context of Colt's part and Crump's part in the routing on the one hand, and the "designing up" phase" on the other hand, that is really important to understand and appreciate---in my opinion ;)
-
And yet, I'm not sure the designers/architects themselves -- including the famous amateur-sportsmen -- would agree with me. That is, time and again I read about how those designers/architects for months and years worked on (and revised) the bunkers and other hazards. In short, they seemed to feel that the overall quality and even greatness of their courses had quite a lot to do with the quality of the hazards -- or at least more to do with it than I do now, looking back.
Peter,
I think that's quite the insightful and valid observation.
When Merion was first opened in the fall of 1912, a number of writers including Tillinghast, Alex Findlay, and "Far and Sure" all seemingly believed that it was much too early to really fairly and effectively analyze or review the course because so few of the bunkers or "artificial hazards" had been established.
A number of writers of the time clearly felt that the only really effective way to place bunkering on a new course was to watch play for some time after the course opened, and then act accordingly.
Findlay even went so far as to call them "Mental hazards", which clearly inferred the strategic and intellectual aspects of the game, and also argued that their placement should await further visual examination of how the course actually played.
What's interesting is that this thinking absolutely flew directly into the face of the thinking that modelled holes against great ones overseas, to a large extent. If you consider the famous template holes, almost all of them were defined by their bunkering patterns, yet here these guys were arguing that instead of placing a row of bunkers diagonally down the middle as in a bottle hole, or at the left front flank and foreshortened as in the redan, or in the direct front and front left as in the Eden, or in the length of the diagonal back and with a deep circular pit right in the central bowels as in a road hole, or along the lengths of each side as in a Biarritz, etc., etc., these men seemed to suddenly be arguing that this type of rote placement really didn't make much sense except in broad, conceptual terms...not in on the ground routine placement.
Instead, I believe these men had some revolutionary ideas of their own which argued that each course and golf hole should have its own identity, and should leverage the unique landforms and variables of its own uniqueness, and that any work of man should first and foremost take into account the particulars of that individual piece of real estate without preconditions and preconceptions.
Mike
I wonder how much of this is true if the archies of the day were so willing to add the number of artificial hazards they did. Personally, I think many of the artificial hazards (bunkers) had more to do with creating very challenging if not championship standard golf courses than adhering to any sense of the land. If anything, the sense of individuality of holes is compromised except where the land shines. If you look at the best courses from this era, many are considered the best because they seriously challenge the best players in the world either officially or not. Alright, a place like Pine Valley probably wouldn't make the top players shake in their boots as is, but I bet the club could make it extremely tough if they chose to. I spose my point is that in an attempt to create championship courses (this being an important goal for many of these famous early courses) the risk of placing rote bunkers was very much real. Ironically, I think why the Mac/Raynor style stands up to scrutiny today is because of its (now) unusual bunker style of placement and shape.
I would argue that the great template holes are defined at least as much by the land as by the artificial hazards - especially if we consider what essentially has to be considered as part of the land. For instance, the railway sheds on the Road Hole were for all intents and purposes natural hazards because they weren't placed for the sake of golf. The same can be said of the road. Sure, some bunkering helps on the Redan, but that is a great piece of land in a way could be said to be just as good if only the left bunker were installed. The one hole where the bunkering makes a huge difference is the Eden and all that required was one hazard (I know there are two, but the left bunker is not essential to the strength of the hole) to go along with the contours. That is what makes the hole superb, minimal intervention with maximum impact.
Ciao
-
Joe Bausch,
I really want to thank you for the tremendous efforts you've put forward over the past year or two in unearthing all of this wonderful historical material that has given us such greater insight into what exactly transpired in these early days of golf in and around Philadelphia.
To sit here and read this stuff written as it happened that probably hasn't been looked at in almost 100 years is just absolutely tremendous.
What he said. Thanks Joe.
-
Joe
Thanks for all that work!
I think the entire collection of Tilly on PV is at (starting 1912-1914):
http://www.tillinghast.net/cms/taxonomy/term/34?page=1
Over the years on the is DG, the comments of Ben Sayers, and others (regarding how the style of PVGC was influenced by Colt and the London heaths) have basically been dismissed by Tom Paul.
I think it's ironic that Tom has been dismissive of this but now is willing to speculate that Colt influenced Wilson in the bunker design style of Merion; a course Colt had very little to do with!
-
Mike
I wonder how much of this is true if the archies of the day were so willing to add the number of artificial hazards they did. Personally, I think many of the artificial hazards (bunkers) had more to do with creating very challenging if not championship standard golf courses than adhering to any sense of the land. If anything, the sense of individuality of holes is compromised except where the land shines. If you look at the best courses from this era, many are considered the best because they seriously challenge the best players in the world either officially or not. Alright, a place like Pine Valley probably wouldn't make the top players shake in their boots as is, but I bet the club could make it extremely tough if they chose to. I spose my point is that in an attempt to create championship courses (this being an important goal for many of these famous early courses) the risk of placing rote bunkers was very much real. Ironically, I think why the Mac/Raynor style stands up to scrutiny today is because of its (now) unusual bunker style of placement and shape.
I would argue that the great template holes are defined at least as much by the land as by the artificial hazards - especially if we consider what essentially has to be considered as part of the land. For instance, the railway sheds on the Road Hole were for all intents and purposes natural hazards because they weren't placed for the sake of golf. The same can be said of the road. Sure, some bunkering helps on the Redan, but that is a great piece of land in a way could be said to be just as good if only the left bunker were installed. The one hole where the bunkering makes a huge difference is the Eden and all that required was one hazard (I know there are two, but the left bunker is not essential to the strength of the hole) to go along with the contours. That is what makes the hole superb, minimal intervention with maximum impact.
Ciao
Sean,
I think we mostly agree here. The intent of the "mental hazards" were indeed to make the course more challenging, and I think it's inherent in the definition that to a degree bunkers were sighted where marginal shots would end up.
However, it's also clear that others were sighted to protect optimum landing areas.
-
"Over the years on the is DG, the comments of Ben Sayers, and others (regarding how the style of PVGC was influenced by Colt and the London heaths) have basically been dismissed by Tom Paul."
Paul:
I've never said anything of the kind on here or anywhere, not even close. I've never dismissed any Heathlands connection to Pine Valley. Matter of fact, for years I've been aware of some of the particulars of Crump's trip there in 1910. I've said numerous times that as an influence on really good INLAND architecture to come the healthlands was probably more important than the linksland, and PV may be the best inland representation of it over here. I've always felt Pine Valley is remarkably reminiscient of the look and style of the heathlands and I think that Evans article explaining how dedicatedly Crump and his friends sat in his cabin pouring over the plans and schemes of Herbert Fowler is complete confirmation of that fact.
All I've ever really disagreed with you on about Pine Valley is your contention and implication that Colt did more there than he ever actually did and that consequently Crump did less there than he actually did do.
-
"Routing is immensely important and can also be complex (particularly on complex property) but what I referred to as the "designing up" phase of a specific routing really can produce an immense array of golf courses and shot values and looks and styles on the very same ROUTING!"
TE -
I remember some of your past posts on this, and I think I understand it, at least a little. I didn't think about or factor in the "designing up phase" in the context of what the old architects, especially the amateur-sportsmen, deemed important; but what I was suggesting is that the notion of routing (e.g. its primary importance; its role as a measuring stick of talent and skill) that's come down to us today doesn't seem to have been shared by the old guys themselves. And if that's indeed the case, I was wondering why that is.
Peter
-
Joe
Thanks for all that work!
I think the entire collection of Tilly on PV is at (starting 1912-1914):
http://www.tillinghast.net/cms/taxonomy/term/34?page=1
Paul, did you not mean to say that the entire collection of Tilly on PV from the American Golfer is on the web site above? I posted what is what I believe is the entire collection of Tilly on PV from the newspaper the Philadelphia Record from 1913 until mid-1916. I believe there is plenty of overlap between the two sources, but I don't think the material is identical. It does appear the American Golfer material is much more extensive.
-
".....but what I was suggesting is that the notion of routing (e.g. its primary importance; its role as a measuring stick of talent and skill) that's come down to us today doesn't seem to have been shared by the old guys themselves. And if that's indeed the case, I was wondering why that is."
Peter:
Oh I don't know about that. I doubt I would say that, at least from whatever I do know about how some of them may've looked at routing.
First of all, it seems like way fewer of them back then referred to it as "routing" as we do today. It's hard to say what Wilson and his committee thought about routing Merion East because it's so little mentioned anywhere back then except for Macdonald mentioning that one of MCC's "Plans" had the best last seven holes on an inland course in the world. That was the "Plan" that was approved and built, by the way.
But I can tell you that everything Crump's friends said about what he was thinking and trying to do all those years had a ton to do with some real particulars in routing.
The reason I say that is Crump was trying to get some very specific "shot tests" (club and shot requirements basically) on all his holes in a particular "balance" and "variety" context and that surely ain't easy if one is dealing with complex topography as Pine Valley is. That kind of comprehensive balance and variety shot requirements around the course is actually listed in a few of those early articles!
Here's a perfect example: Crump's two close friends at Pine Valley both wrote apparently independent of one another that Crump had said he wanted to redesign the 11th hole to get the green up on the ridge near the windmill to basically duplicate the type of high approach shot on #2 but he wanted to make it even longer and harder on #11. The reason they gave is that's the kind of shot he wanted as the approach to the second hole on each nine.
My point is if one tries to fit that kind of precise balance and variety and shot demand on particular holes all around a course it is just going to be really hard to do for a whole lot of natural and physical reasons to do with the land, particularly if the land is complex including topographically.
So yes, to Crump at least, routing was really important for a lot of reasons including really tight green to tee and the fact no two holes could go in the same direction or even be visible from other holes. To really make those shot demands tougher sure he experimented all the time with bunker placement and schemes (for years actually). Crump and his foreman, Jim Govan, (a really good player) hit shots and shot tested all the time and for years trying to get things the way they wanted them exactly.
That kind of almost daily and years-long type of effort and time input on site is not what one does if he's simply constructing a golf course to the plan of a man who was only there for one week in the beginning, left his plan at that time, and never changed it himself and never came back. Why the obviousness of that seems to continue to escape some people on here who might be classified as the Pine Valley Colt design proponents, is just beyond me and always has been.
It's not as if Colt did nothing at Pine Valley; he did quite a lot and what he did do even if not that comprehensive in the broad scheme of an entire course's routing and design was pretty important nonetheless for some pretty interesting reasons that I alluded to in that post above---eg how much the fix on #5 allowed much of the rest of the routing to begin to fall into place. But even with that it still took Crump another four and a half years to get all the holes sorted out and when he died he still wasn't satisfied (as Simon Carr reported about what Crump told him about #15 the very last time they spoke to one another).
-
"Over the years on the is DG, the comments of Ben Sayers, and others (regarding how the style of PVGC was influenced by Colt and the London heaths) have basically been dismissed by Tom Paul."
Paul:
I've never said anything of the kind on here or anywhere, not even close. I've never dismissed any Heathlands connection to Pine Valley. Matter of fact, for years I've been aware of some of the particulars of Crump's trip there in 1910. I've said numerous times that as an influence on really good INLAND architecture to come the healthlands was probably more important than the linksland, and PV may be the best inland representation of it over here. I've always felt Pine Valley is remarkably reminiscient of the look and style of the heathlands and I think that Evans article explaining how dedicatedly Crump and his friends sat in his cabin pouring over the plans and schemes of Herbert Fowler is complete confirmation of that fact.
All I've ever really disagreed with you on about Pine Valley is your contention and implication that Colt did more there than he ever actually did and that consequently Crump did less there than he actually did do.
I know you post a lot, but your memory is like swiss cheese.
Everytime I've suggested that Colt had a big part in the style of PVGC you've completely shut it down.
-
No sir, my memory particularly about Pine Valley is just fine. As for the look and style of Pine Valley I've been aware for years, certainly longer than I've known you, that Crump (and Baker) spent time abroad in the heathlands studying architecture, and I think the recent find of the Evans article explaining in some detail Crump and his friends fixation on the work and plans of Fowler just additionally confirms that they admired that heathland look and style.
As far as Wilson and Colt, perhaps you've never realized it but it appears practically certain that Wilson stayed with Colt at his home in England when Wilson was there in the spring of 1912. Perhaps you think they just talked about insurance or British/American relations or whatever but I would say the subject of architecture was utmost and with that probably the look and style of inland bunkers and heathland style inland bunkers of the sand flashed variety.
With the content and tenor of your last post, it's really a shame, Paul, but you and your posts are sounding and looking more and more like Tom MacWood's all the time, and that is too bad if an intelligent discussion on the history of Pine Valley's architecture is to be had! ;)
-
Tom
Well you weren't willing to admit to that a year ago:
Me:
" A big reason why Pine Valley's bunkers looks so raw and natural is because of Colt's input."
Paul:
That might very well be the case but no one could possibly prove that. On some of his hole drawings Colt did write in such instructions as "tear out sod or vegetation to form bunker" but how do you know what Pine Valley's bunkers would look like if Colt had never been there? Do you happen to know if Crump had some other idea for what they should look like. Of course you don't. Neither do I.
You were skeptical of Colt's influence at PV, but now you're willing to speculate on Colt and Merion's bunker style??
-
Paul:
My remark you quoted from apparently some time ago is just as appropriate today as it was back then, perhaps even more so.
As far as Colt's influence on Wilson and Merion's bunker style, it is just a thought on my part, but I will remind you again obviously Wilson sought out Colt in England in 1912 because he stayed with him. There must have been a reason for it! ;)
I've never implied Colt designed Merion or anything like that, only that Wilson and Colt may've collaborated on the philosophy and subject of architecture in both England and Philadelphia. It would appear from Colt's letter to Wilson that he also wanted to collaborate on agronomic issues as he asked Wilson for a copy of the agronomy bulletins that had been compiled.
"You were skeptical of Colt's influence at PV, but now you're willing to speculate on Colt and Merion's bunker style??"
Paul:
I was never skeptical of Colt's influence at PV. All I ever tried to do is track precisely what he did there and what Crump and others did there over the years and I believe I've done that.
-
Paul/Tom,
From reading Tillinghast's accounts it seems that by March 1913 there was already a rough plan in place that fully described today's holes 1-4, a foreshortened #5, a 6 that was a three-shotter, and today's 18th. It also seems to me that probably more than that was roughly sketched as he talked about the idea of avoiding parallel holes.
The old story goes that Colt suggested today's 5th, which solved a routing glitch and allowed much of the rest of it to fall into place. It also strongly suggests that a routing plan was already previously created.
While I am also sure that Crump leveraged and valued Colt's opinion on all matters during his visit, and certainly helped with the design, it does also seem to me that Crump had much underway before Colt's arrival and also revised much after Colt left, so I'm not sure how it could be called anything but a Crump/Colt design,with perhaps a 60/40 or at most a 50/50 attribution?
-
Mike:
First of all, I don't think Pine Valley has any problem at all with calling the course a Crump/Colt design but it seems to me to be fairly worthless to try to call it 60/40 or 50/50 or any other precentage breakdown between the two.
What is worthwhile, in my opinion, is to simply go through the entire creation of Pine Valley from the beginning of 1913 until probably 1921 and explain in detail who did what and when.
That I believe I can do quite accurately with all the material now available that has all been analyzed together.
-
There are a few other Tilly mentions of PV in The Record. Here they are in chronological order, continuing on from the post earlier in the thread:
August, 29, 1915:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Aug29_1915.jpg)
October 18, 1916:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Oct08_1916_p1.jpg)
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Oct08_1916_p2.jpg)
November 26, 1916:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Nov26_1916.jpg)
August 5, 1917:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Aug5_1917.jpg)
December 9, 1917:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Dec9_1917.jpg)
January 27, 1918:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Jan27_1918.jpg)
October 27, 1918:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Oct27_1918.jpg)
December 15, 1918:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Dec15_1918.jpg)
December 29, 1918:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/Philly_Record_AWT/Pine_Valley_mentions/Dec29_1918.jpg)