Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: JMorgan on February 25, 2010, 09:23:41 PM
-
I never noticed the omission in this photo until this evening while stumbling through old files thinking about a certain very underrated hole on the same course. Assumed this famous feature was there from the beginning; well, nope; perhaps talked about here before, noise to me if so
when did it appear, and why?
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
-
The bunker that's missing apparently developed on its own.
-
Kyle, how did it develop on its own?
-
three more sequential pics of same, separated chronologically by 15 years (roughly) ...
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/0012.jpg)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/002.jpg)
Was something wrong with the original design of this hole?
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/0013.jpg)
-
As far as I know no one that we know and none of the material we have really sheds any light on either exactly when or even how or why the famous DA on PV's 10th came into being. If someone was really interested in that answer the very first order of research would obviously be WHEN it first came into being. I think the only thing extant that could reflect any info on that would be a well documented stagger of photos. I don't think there is anything otherwise on it from the club itself or any other material source.
Originally that hole had sand flashed just about up to the green surface across most of the front of the green and certainly the entire left side. Eventually that had to be grassed down just for stability. We think Flynn did it in the 1919-22 period as he also did with the same problem on the massive sand flashed faces in front of #2 and #18. In that period Flynn was actually at PV for a number of days a week for probably over six months. He was on the payroll and we have some correspondence that mentions that correspondence to him should be mailed to Flynn at Pine Valley.
Of course for the sake of analysis one needs to date photos and their stagger. On that note, I'm quite sure the first one on this thread is the oldest for fairly obvious reasons that are identifiable in the photo. It hangs in one of the rooms of PV but it doesn't have a date on it as the next one on this thread doesn't either. Perhaps someone on here knows the dates but I don't.
-
Whats more apparant to me than the bunker on 10, is the trees. Was it Crumps intention to have trees fill in the golf course? I always thought Pine Valley to be densely populated with trees...great pictures!
-
"Whats more apparant to me than the bunker on 10, is the trees. Was it Crumps intention to have trees fill in the golf course? I always thought Pine Valley to be densely populated with trees...great pictures!"
BillR:
That is an enormous question that has been discussed on here for many many years. There are a ton of threads on that with some wonderful discussion and information residing somewhere in the back pages of this uber resource website.
I'll tell you this though on the details of the architectural history of Pine Valley, I have not seen anyone on here who's added anything of real historical significance to the story of the architectural history and evolution of the Valley. Tom MacWood wrote a fine piece on Crump himself, his suicide and his history, but that piece didn't add a thing to the historical evolution of the architecture of the course or club itself.
But we have a new player on the block now who may be about to add some fascinating new info on the history of the purchase and beginnings of the club. It's Rick Sides and some of the stuff he's come up with is potentially very important and perhaps even heretofore unknown (other than to the beginning participants). But like all good stuff on research he's not exactly doing it through the Internet, he's doing it through investigative imagination combined with some real local legwork!
-
I've never been to Pine Valley, more's the shame.... I've never contributed to a thread on it... I've hardly read them...
but PLEASE tell me NO.10 doesn't look anything remotely like that 2nd picture in current form...
-
JMorgan,
I've seen that first photo in an article from 1915, sans DA, and I recently saw a 1926 article that had a photo showing that particular feature.
-
This was a spur of the moment thread/query; but while I'm on the topic, I'll mention that this hole appears and plays nothing like one might expect from the photos one sees over the years. It surprises many to find that it plays downhill, which probably accounts for the development of the a**hole (which has become a bit like a tourist attraction), combined with favored (limited?) hole locations. Like the equally famous #5, #10 actually feels less imposingfrom the tee than all of the pictures taken over the years would lead one to believe (the green's the thing), and no doubt less so as the trees filled in. Another aspect of the course that deserves much more discussion (and will now I hope as Tom alluded to Mr. Sides' participation) is the evolution of different features of the course. One of my favorites is #8, which had a kidney shaped green before splitting in two, or the run-up to the green on #17 that became a forced carry. Arguably one of the 3-5 most organic, allometric courses in the world, which perhaps makes it so admired.
Ally, it looks nothing like the second picture, which was taken in the very early '60s.
-
JMorgan,
I've seen that first photo in an article from 1915, sans DA, and I recently saw a 1926 article that had a photo showing that particular feature.
Interesting. It looks like it is just developing in the second b&w photo, which dates around that time.
-
Just developing? I don't see it being developed either in that photo or with anything other than a backhoe. It is clearly a built feature. That said, I do see the shadow you are referring to, and as TePaul says, the banks were not stable at that slope and with the native sand. More likely was that it collapsed under foot traffic and the formalized it into a bunker. The only other plausible theory is that someone decided that short par 3 just wasn't tough enough with that little area of safe turf on the front right of the green, hard as that is to imagine. Maybe some guest won the hole with a brilliant chip from there over a big wig member! (Stranger things have happened!)
About those trees.....the bare shots show just how much earth was moved to build PV. The scale of those fill pads for greens and tees is pretty big for that era. And look at those artifical mounds on the right side of the green side bunker!
About those trees II - the surrounding property is solid woods (look at the background) and yet the PV course has only scattered trees. Was it a previously forrested site (perhaps bought for its lack of trees) or did Crump take down nearly all the trees after purchase? I have an old PV book somewhere, but I guess I have never heard what the original propety looked like and bet someone here has!
Also, while we probably don't know what Crump had in mind, obviously a few generations of PV super and members thought that they could let nature go and the surrounding woods show the results of that over time. I heard the super once say he spent more time cleaning out and maintaining the wild areas than he did the turf, so at some point, it dawned on them that the native'wild areas did require maintenance to keep the course playable. If small trees are growing in the bunker waste areas, its probably a matter of manpower to keep them out of there. It has to be a constant battle.
I would also say those five little conifers left of the left bunker were planted solely to protect the adjacent tee when it proved too close to the green. Chances of a natural tree forming on those bunker mounds in exactly those locations are pretty remote.
-
Ally, it looks nothing like the second picture, which was taken in the very early '60s.
I wouldn't be too keen on all the mini-conifers in picture 3 either... Could the course do with some clearing and roughing up?... Am I allowed to ask that question?
-
JMorgan,
I've seen that first photo in an article from 1915, sans DA, and I recently saw a 1926 article that had a photo showing that particular feature.
Jim,
I wonder if early alterations to the course were done piecemeal or as part of an overall project.
When you consider the adding of the DA, the removal of the mound in # 18 green and the cutting off of the right side of # 8 green, it seems like a lot of revisions were taking place.
Finegan's "Pine Valley Golf Club" doesn't delve into the details of the architectural history of the club.
-
Just developing? I don't see it being developed either in that photo or with anything other than a backhoe. It is clearly a built feature. That said, I do see the shadow you are referring to, and as TePaul says, the banks were not stable at that slope and with the native sand. More likely was that it collapsed under foot traffic and the formalized it into a bunker. The only other plausible theory is that someone decided that short par 3 just wasn't tough enough with that little area of safe turf on the front right of the green, hard as that is to imagine. Maybe some guest won the hole with a brilliant chip from there over a big wig member! (Stranger things have happened!)
Jeff, of course it was eventually a built feature, as the whole course is capital 'A' Architecture ... but I would hypothesize underclubbing as one factor that eventually led to the backhoe and the appearance of the feature as an officially defined hazard.
-
This hole was a Colt one, wasn't it?... Just something I noticed reading The Links by Hunter recently....
-
Pat,
I really wouldn't know the schedule of how revisions were done, but a guess would be a bit piecemeal, especially after Crump passed.
Here's an interesting look from an older thread of a 'mash up' by Michael Dugger. Just click the link and wait/watch.
http://greenvillegolfingsociety.com/PineValleyBeforeAfter.htm
...and another that shows the bunker as rather formalized, but no date was given:
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42663.0;attach=4072;image)
..and here's the article from '26 that seems to show the bunker in an evolutionary state, and less formalized than in the above photo. The caption is wrong, says it's the third hole.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1926/gi255c.pdf
-
As I have posted on other threads RE: PV, I have a book, given to my father by Eb Stienager, long time PV supt in '87 entitled Pine Valley, A Chronical. Dick, Mike Keiser, and Peter Senott had gone their to talk to Eb about the maint. aspects of PV when they were planning The Dunes Club.
About the trees, on pg 22 it states that a stabilization program was undertaken between '27 &'32 utilizing between 3k-5k seedlings (of which 70% flourished) "this furtehr advanced Crump's desire to keep each fairway a separate entity, lost from view of any other part of the course. The course is blessed as well with Dogwood, Azaleas, and Mountain Ash."
Jeff B. The book shows many early pictures of the site and it appears not to be entirely wooded but rather like something that was logged a while back and in the process of naturally revegitating. There's a photo of a hunting Crump from 1909 in an open area with a thin stan of tall pine behind but beyond those, one can see another open area.
About the bunker on 10, dad said Eb told him that it came about because of wear and tear. Evidently, balls would roll off the green and come to rest in that spot. Due to repeated pitch shot and foot taffic on/off the green, the turf wore out and was hard to re-establish. Eventually they gave in and allowed it to become a bunker.
-
Tim,
Who's the author of the book and what's the date of publication ?
Thanks
-
Pat,
I really wouldn't know the schedule of how revisions were done, but a guess would be a bit piecemeal, especially after Crump passed.
Here's an interesting look from an older thread of a 'mash up' by Michael Dugger. Just click the link and wait/watch.
http://greenvillegolfingsociety.com/PineValleyBeforeAfter.htm
Jim, I suspect the attribution above should be to Michael Whitaker, who leads the Greenville Golfing Society in South Carolina.
But I could be wrong.
-
Ally, it looks nothing like the second picture, which was taken in the very early '60s.
I wouldn't be too keen on all the mini-conifers in picture 3 either... Could the course do with some clearing and roughing up?... Am I allowed to ask that question?
All those trees you see above the left greenside bunker were removed several years ago, as have many other trees around this green.
-
From the before and after photos it looks like the 10th has lost much of its valley between tee and green. I played PV in 94 but don't remember much about the 10th. The course in general looks much better in the photos from back when it was built with less trees and informal bunkering. I must add however that I spent my 36 hole stay there in total awe, what a great course.
-
From the before and after photos it looks like the 10th has lost much of its valley between tee and green. I layed PV in 94 but don't remember much about the 10th. The course in general looks much better in the photos from back when it was built with less trees and informal bunkering. I must add however that I spent my 36 hole stay there in total awe, what a great course.
It really hasn't. The photos in that before and after sequence are from odd angles.
-
This is a really good topic and I think it also goes to drive home Mike Cirba's point from a few years back. He said PV has lost its wild look and more resembles a Japanese Tea Garden of sorts.
In those old pictures, that hole has a scraggly wild look to it, compared to the more recent ones with all the clean lines, neatly mowed roughs, and finely combed sand. Maybe with current maintainence practices its tougher to keep that old-timing theme to it, but to my eye the original version looked better.
P.S. Renting a fleet of chainsaws for the winter crew would certainly seem to be a worthy pursuit as well!! ;D
-
They had pulled out over 22,000 stumps after the completion of the first eleven holes in June 1914. After that, they stopped counting. Then they planted seedlings to isolate the fairways.
-
One of the photos I posted was by Michael Dugger, the 'mash up' was by Michael Whitaker.
Thanks Bill.
-
"About the bunker on 10, dad said Eb told him that it came about because of wear and tear. Evidently, balls would roll off the green and come to rest in that spot. Due to repeated pitch shot and foot taffic on/off the green, the turf wore out and was hard to re-establish. Eventually they gave in and allowed it to become a bunker."
Tim:
I have always heard from the club the DA did sort of begin to evolve in some way and eventually they just sort of formalized it. No one ever actually mentioned who said that. If Eb Steineger told your Dad what you mentioned above then that is the closest thing to a direct oral history of the feature I've heard.
I had an interview lined up with Eb through John Ott but unfortunately Eb died within two weeks and I never got to meet him and speak with him. The primary purpose for talking to him at the time was to get more of his details about why the right alternate fairway on #17 slowly went out of play.
About the trees on the site before Crump bought it----there were many of them but they were certainly not of full maturity leading me to believe that there may've been a pretty massive forest fire in that area perhaps 20 years before Crump found it.
In Crump's searching for hole corridors it has been reported he had between 40-52,000 trees cut down. And it is true that between 1927 to about 1932 3-5 thousand seedingly trees were planted per year in what the club referred to as the "stabilization program" or "Holding the Course Together."
I am very happy to say there is now a very dedicated on the ground new researcher on the very early years of Pine Valley. He has been running down the deed transfers at the county seat from basically Sumner Ireland to Crump. He reports they seem a bit confusing due to the seller names on some deeds one of which is apparently a sand mining company (apparently owned by Ireland or perhaps his wife or relation of the same name---eg Ireland). So this could mean that PV or parts of it previous to Crump's purchasing could have been a sand mining operation.
In my opinion, this could be a very significant revelation beacuse it could mean certain parts of the topography of the site were the way they were not because of nature but due to sand mining operations. I don't know much of anything about the history of sand mining but Bradley Anderson tells me it was a primary component of the burgeoning concrete industry. And of course we know that long before Crump bought PV there was a rail line right next to the property from which sand could be tranported. To even begin to try to track where sand mining operations took place on that property my first thought would be to track the dirt roadways that existed before Crump bought the place and I believe I know where some of them were.
-
"neatly mowed roughs,....."
For all practical purposes there really is no rough at Pine Valley and there never has been. The only rough areas there today are on the sides of fairways and aren't much more than a few yards wide. The purpose of them is to turn mowers.
My thought has been that if PV decided to go to that old fashioned up and back fairway cut that so many restorations are now using that they wouldn't even need those rough collars at the sides of fairways to turn mowers on.
-
If someone has some early photos of the fronts of #2 and #18 greens you can see how those two holes presented the same problems of lack of stability of upswept sand faces that #10 did. I have the photos I just can't post them on here.
I have also seen a photo of the original 17th hole on here before Alison's redesign. The original 9th green does have one old photo but its pretty distant and not very clear. As far as I know there are no photos of Crump's original 6th and 11th greens both of which were deemed to be problematic in play as was #9 and #17. Of course some good photos exist of his original 8th green which I guess must have been deemed somewhat problematic in play too.
Crump was actually in the process of transitioning all his greens to the so-called "Taylor Method" but Taylor died in 1915 and only six were done before Crump died and no more were done.
Somebody on here mentioned the 10th hole was a Colt design and I think it was. At one point Crump had a green planned perhaps 30-40 yards to the right of the 10th green but it was slated to be the 6th hole. As for Colt holes there is no question that most of #5 is (the tee is in the same place Crump had it before Colt first arrived). #9 is definitely Colt and is about the closest to his hole plan of any hole at PV (even the bunker schemes are the same as his drawing). Crump had no hole planned in the same place and in the same direction as #9. There are others which are not so clear.
-
Wasn't the concept of "isolation" an alien concept in golf and American golf circa 1918 ?
How would Crump have conceived of that concept based on his exposure to courses in America and any information gleened from courses in the U.K. ?
Why, with those grand vistas of the holes at Pine Valley, would he want to choke them off and eliminate them ?
Why create a barrier, impeding the wind and its effect on play, especially when Macdonald had decreed that wind was the finest asset in golf ?
Is there anything in Crump's hand that indicates that was Crump's intent, or did others, subsequent to Crump's death cloak the tree planting project in the specter of Crump and Crump's vision in order to give it added credibility ?
In addition, I'm not so sure that pine trees provide the greatest stabilization of the soil. The same can be said of fir trees
Last question on this reply: Were the photos in Finegan's "Pine Valley Golf Club" touched up or enhanced ?
Something about the picture of the 10th hole doesn't right.
-
Pat:
On the tree isolation of the holes of PV there is nothing I know of in Crump's hand about that (Crump apparently did not keep a diary about what he wanted to do with the course even though at least one and perhaps two of his closest friends there did to some extent when Crump was still alive---eg they are that document I call "The Remembrances."
So it's hard to know when and from whom that idea first emanated.
However, one thing is pretty clear and that is Crump hated the idea of "parallelism" of a routing and he did dedicatedly have the course routed to prevent that. By that time in some circles "parallelism" had become a very bad tining in golf design. Given the routing mechanism to prevent "parallelism" which can probably be loosely defined as "triangulation" (a term that did gain currency in golf design terminology) there are obviously going to be some plentiful triangulated space between holes and the trees in most of those triangulated areas and extensive areas between holes were always treed.
Also, as I have told you for years now (apparently to no avail) is certain areas of the site were cleared by Crump just to look at them for possible hole corridors but they were never actually used for holes. Those areas were retreed.
-
TEPaul, et. al.
I don't believe for one second that the right side grassed bank had any stabilization problems.
Nor do I believe that one small segment wore out to such a degree that it evolved into the DA.
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
To much of what happens to golf courses become myths, absent factual information.
The photos of Pine Valley circa 1926-1928 and even into the late 30's are spectacular.
Someone, subsequent to that time, either overplanted or through benign neglect allowed the trees to become excessive and invasive.
I maintain that Crump's intent was never to confine his holes to tubular corridors through dense forests
The aerials from the 20's, 30's and 40's confirm that.
-
"Wasn't the concept of "isolation" an alien concept in golf and American golf circa 1918 ?"
Perhaps among some such as Macdonald but I think it can be pretty well documented that Harry Colt had already begun to use or experiment with the use of trees as a design element on inalnd sites.
I think the practical element was that if a site was heavily treed it wasn't very cost effective to remove them all and so practical architects began to just use them in various ways in design.
This so-called linksland refrain of "Nae links, nae golf" that also happened to lap over into the idea that since the linksland never did have trees that trees did not belong on golf courses was just not enduring with some of the best architects on inland sites that had trees.
In the late 1920s Flynn wrote an article about that which was pretty funny about those linksman and their aversion to trees on golf courses.
-
Patrick,
Perhaps the apocolypse is upon us....but gulp...I agree with every last word in your last post!! ;D
-
A rather detailed article published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 4, 1914 specifically mentions the tree planting in order to "shield the fairways."
-
"Wasn't the concept of "isolation" an alien concept in golf and American golf circa 1918 ?"
Perhaps among some such as Macdonald but I think it can be pretty well documented that Harry Colt had already began to use or experiment with the use of trees as a design element on inalnd sites.
There's a huge difference between experimenting and planting 5,000 trees.
I think the practical element was that if a site was heavily treed it wasn't very cost effective to remove them all and so practical architects began to just use them in various ways in design.
But, we know that Pine Valley had to clear trees to create the golf course.
Early photos reveal the cleared areas, subsequent photos in the 20's, 30's and 40's still reveal open expanses of sand.
It's only in the last few decades that the course has been allowed to be choked off.
Do you not remember the thread on the 12th hole and the timeline photos Jamie Slonis posted, clearly showing how that hole has suffered by intentional planting or neglect.
If someone could pull that thread back up, the time lapse aerials are quite revealing and prove my point with respect to the unencombered invasion of trees at PV
This so-called linksland refrain of "Nae links, nae golf" that also happened to lap over into the idea that since the linksland never did have trees and so trees did not belong on golf courses was just not enduring with some of the best architects on inland sites that had trees.
I don't believe that that was the case in 1914 - 1922
In the late 1920s Flynn wrote an article about that which was pretty funny about those linksman and their aversion to trees on golf courses.
As golf moved inland, where forests abounded, the nature of the surrounds changed.
But, many golf courses had their earlier roots as farmlands, void of trees.
-
Pat:
Regarding your post #31, I don't really care what you believe and I very much doubt Pine Valley does either. It is your opinion and you are welcome to it but frankly it is not very well based in a good deal of the history of Pine Valley. Trees were beginning to be replanted when Crump was alive but in limited numbers around tees and such. Within about ten years thousands of trees were planted for a practical purpose. Now whether that was done on some old written dictate of Crump or was simply done as a practicality for course stabilization is unclear.
My hope is that the club will get into a program of clearing trees out of all the old bunkers and their sight and shot lines but if you think they are ever going to clear trees to return to some of those photos before the stabilzation program I can guarantee you that is never going to happen and shouldn't.
The other issue with the look of the trees at PV is in those old photos the existing trees were probably less than half the height of full maturity. Of course after over 80 years all of them are probably two to three times higher and fuller than any of them on that site were back then.
-
And when Ben Sayers, who was the pro at North Berwick at the time, visited in May 1914, he supposedly exclaimed, "It's Colt and Sunningdale" without knowing about Colt's involvement.
-
"A rather detailed article published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 4, 1914 specifically mentions the tree planting in order to "shield the fairways."
JMorgan:
True indeed but as you can see there're a few pig headed or block headed contributors on here who just discount or completely avoid considering things like that as it doesn't seem to support their historically uninformed points and perspectives.
-
"And when Ben Sayers, who was the pro at North Berwick at the time, visited in May 1914, he supposedly exclaimed, "It's Colt and Sunningdale" without knowing about Colt's involvement."
JMorgan:
That is another good example that the likes of Pat Mucci will invariably fail to understand the connection and the point of and just continue to rationalize it away.
-
"But, many golf courses had their earlier roots as farmlands, void of trees."
True, but Pine Valley was not a farmland site. Merion was but Pine Valley was the farthest from that kind of site. PV was heavily treed albeit unusually small trees when Crump bought it. And now we are finding that the site may've had some sand mining operations before Crump.
-
Tim,
Who's the author of the book and what's the date of publication ?
Thanks
Patrick, it appears that this is a privately produced book for members and guests. The book does not have a title page w/author or publisher, just the title. It does have a 1st left page preceeding the title page (on right) that has a couple paragraphs written by Ernest L. Ransome III , President of Pine Valey Golf CLub.
"This expanded and profusely illustrated history of the Pine Valley Golf Club and its courseis theresult of a decision it should be recorded and that Warner Shelly prepare and write it. Warner seemed best qualified because of his long history at Pine Valley. He played his first game on the course in 1925, was sponsored for membership in 1928, and was elected to the club in 1929. He has the longest continous membership in the club of present memebers, and has been on its board of directors for over forty years. He has also served the Borough of Pine Valley, first as a commissioner and currently its Mayor.
The members and friends of Pine Valley are greatly indebted to Warner for his outstanding contribution to the club with the completion of this most wonderful history."
In the back is a Credits page that lists many who worked on the book including Don Barr of Sports Illustated w/ editing of SI's writer Mark Mulvoy. Other advice of Warren Owens, of Chilton Book Company, and amost able and dedicated book designer William Lickfield. the co-operation of S.D.Warren dic=vision of Scott Parer Company, as well as the help of Babe Nydam and Milt Walberg of Federated Lithographers and Printers But most of allto Pine Valley member Richard Hirsh who quarterbacked the whole job in its many stages, and finally produced this book.
-
Pat,
Here you go. This is a link to Historic Aerials. You can zoom around the one of Pine Valley and choose views from different years. The best way to see the differences of years is to zoom the image to 1:2,400 then use the Compare Tools tab at the top and click on "Swipe". It allows you to drag the image back and forth from different years.
http://www.historicaerials.com/default.aspx?poi=3850
Have fun!
-
Tom Paul, the photos (I wish i knew how to upload) of the early days, show what looks to be stands of mature but spindly pine. As I summized early, it looks like sections were logged because the remaining trees have little in the way of lower branches. Plus there were mentions of hunting small game and that is more suited to open ground. It is possible that there were so many stumps that had to be removed because they were left after the logging. Plus, there would have been a lot of slash left on the ground, which would have helped in the establishment of a new generation of vegatation. Also, the book says initially 200-250 shares at $100 would give them $20k plus 18 men were to put up $1,000 ea and each build a hole. Eventually the final cost far exceeded that. So, I doubt heavy clearing was initially though of or the price/hole would have been higher.
Just think, for $1,000, you could have been a founding member! If they only knew then....
-
"Who's the author of the book and what's the date of publication?"
Pine Valley has three club history books:
1. a short 36 page book printed in 1963 by John Arthur Brown (Short History of Pine Valley)
2. a 106 page book by Warner Shelley printed in 1982 (Pine Valley Golf Club--A Chronicle)
3. a 234 page book by James Finegan printed in 2000 (Pine Valley Golf Club--A Unique Haven of the Game)
-
TEPaul, et. al.
I don't believe for one second that the right side grassed bank had any stabilization problems.
Nor do I believe that one small segment wore out to such a degree that it evolved into the DA.
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
To much of what happens to golf courses become myths, absent factual information.
The photos of Pine Valley circa 1926-1928 and even into the late 30's are spectacular.
Someone, subsequent to that time, either overplanted or through benign neglect allowed the trees to become excessive and invasive.
I maintain that Crump's intent was never to confine his holes to tubular corridors through dense forests
The aerials from the 20's, 30's and 40's confirm that.
It sure would have some stabilization issues when that high traffic area got compacted enough so that no turf could grow on it.
-
Just think, for $1,000, you could have been a founding member!
A few others. (simple inflation for today would be 11 times these numbers)
LA area:
Flintridge club, 1920, $250
Hillcrest club, 1920, $750,
Wilshire club, 1920, $250
California club, 1921, $150
Los Angeles Country club, 1920 $500, ($5000 by 1925)
Brentwood club, 1915, $60
Virginia Country club, 1921, $100
...and
Winged Foot, 1922, $600
Sheesh! :o
-
Just think, for $1,000, you could have been a founding member!
A few others. (simple inflation for today would be 11 times these numbers)
LA area:
Flintridge club, 1920, $250
Hillcrest club, 1920, $750,
Wilshire club, 1920, $250
California club, 1921, $150
Los Angeles Country club, 1920 $500, ($5000 by 1925)
Brentwood club, 1915, $60
Virginia Country club, 1921, $100
...and
Winged Foot, 1922, $600
Sheesh! :o
Interesting that Hillcrest was 50% higher than LACC.
-
Pat:
Regarding your post #31, I don't really care what you believe and I very much doubt Pine Valley does either. It is your opinion and you are welcome to it but frankly it is not very well based in a good deal of the history of Pine Valley. Trees were beginning to be replanted when Crump was alive but in limited numbers around tees and such. Within about ten years thousands of trees were planted for a practical purpose. Now whether that was done on some old written dictate of Crump or was simply done as a practicality for course stabilization is unclear.
Old aerials don't seem to confirm your position
My hope is that the club will get into a program of clearing trees out of all the old bunkers and their sight and shot lines but if you think they are ever going to clear trees to return to some of those photos before the stabilzation program I can guarantee you that is never going to happen and shouldn't.
That's interesting.
Years ago, when I proposed clearing out the trees in bunkers and on the sight lines you opposed my suggestion.
As to your caveat, "before the stabilization program", I never suggested that.
I suggested returning the golf course to its configuration circa 1925-1928, or even 1938
To see what the golf course looked like at that time, just turn to pages 53, 63 and 64 in Geoff Shackelford's book,
"The Golden Age of Golf Design"
The other issue with the look of the trees at PV is in those old photos the existing trees were probably less than half the height of full maturity. Of course after over 80 years all of them are probably two to three times higher and fuller than any of them on that site were back then.
I'm capable of projecting what tree growth will present in future years, and the "maturity" issue is NOT the issue, it's the over planting issue, benign neglect and the invasive issue.
Jamie Slonis's chronological aerials of # 12 proved that to all but those in denial, such as yourself.
I played PV when there were NO trees in the right side elbow on # 1, along with many other areas now under canopy.
If you have Finegan's book, just look at the pictures, especially the one of # 10 and then tell me that the course wasn't over planted and/or allowed to suffer from benign neglect.
-
"A rather detailed article published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 4, 1914 specifically mentions the tree planting in order to "shield the fairways."
JMorgan:
True indeed but as you can see there're a few pig headed or block headed contributors on here who just discount or completely avoid considering things like that as it doesn't seem to support their historically uninformed points and perspectives.
JMorgan,
If we've learned one thing from GCA.com, it's how UNreliable newspaper accounts are.
As to Ben Sayer's alleged comment, how can you even post that he "supposedly said".
It's pure third party or more, hearsay.
TEPaul & JMorgan,
Crump and Pine Valley must have been a century ahead of Northrop with stealth technology.
How is it that those trees are invisible in the aerials of 1922, 1925, 1928 and 1938 ? ? ?
Please look at the 1925 photos of Pine Valley that appear in Geoff Shackelford's book on pages 53 and 66, along with the others
Where are the trees that were allegedly planted to "shield" the fairways ?
Where are the trees that currently choke off air circulation, are invasive to bunkers, lines of sight and lines of play ?
To refresh your memories, which are clearly empty, please look at the aerial chrono's of the 12th hole as contributed by Jamie Slonis.
It will show you how the trees became invasive and it wasn't vis a vis some tree planting program categorized as "stabilizing.
Since when does perfectly level ground need stabilization ?
Can someone post the two 1925 photos that appear on page 53 and 66 in Geoff's book.
TEPaul wants you to believe his theories versus your own eyes.
-
Kyle Harris,
You said,
It sure would have some stabilization issues when that high traffic area got compacted enough so that no turf could grow on it
Look at the photo below and look how wide the right side approach is.
As to high traffic, this is Pine Valley, not Dyker Beach.
What high traffic ?
And, I would think that any superintendent seeing wear and tear in a given area would direct golfers elsewhere.
Are you saying that the superintendent was negligent in caring for this area ?
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
-
Patrick,
One man's apathy is another man's negligence. Your question implies the superintendent/membership cared.
-
"A rather detailed article published in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 4, 1914 specifically mentions the tree planting in order to "shield the fairways."
JMorgan:
True indeed but as you can see there're a few pig headed or block headed contributors on here who just discount or completely avoid considering things like that as it doesn't seem to support their historically uninformed points and perspectives.
JMorgan,
If we've learned one thing from GCA.com, it's how UNreliable newspaper accounts are.
As to Ben Sayer's alleged comment, how can you even post that he "supposedly said".
It's pure third party or more, hearsay.
TEPaul & JMorgan,
Crump and Pine Valley must have been a century ahead of Northrop with stealth technology.
How is it that those trees are invisible in the aerials of 1922, 1925, 1928 and 1938 ? ? ?
Please look at the 1925 photos of Pine Valley that appear in Geoff Shackelford's book on pages 53 and 66, along with the others
Where are the trees that were allegedly planted to "shield" the fairways ?
Where are the trees that currently choke off air circulation, are invasive to bunkers, lines of sight and lines of play ?
To refresh your memories, which are clearly empty, please look at the aerial chrono's of the 12th hole as contributed by Jamie Slonis.
It will show you how the trees became invasive and it wasn't vis a vis some tree planting program categorized as "stabilizing.
Since when does perfectly level ground need stabilization ?
Can someone post the two 1925 photos that appear on page 53 and 66 in Geoff's book.
TEPaul wants you to believe his theories versus your own eyes.
Pat,
I'll let you and TP duke this one out since I already have my mind made up and your exchanges are much more entertaining. But keep in mind that you're essentially saying John Arthur Brown, President of Pine Valley and a member of the Club from 1918 until his death didn't know what he was talking about when he used that very article to summarize, in part, the planning and building of the course in the club history, in addition to Club records and his own memories. Plus, accounts from several founding members, including Simon Carr. And then to dismiss all of these accounts because they are potentially "unreliable written accounts" on one hand while citing another written account derived from some of these same written accounts -- The Golden Age of Golf Design (in more than several posts to bolster your positions in other discussions, I might add) -- as if that book was delivered to your doorstep by Moses through Geoff, when he -- and no offense, he did what authors do -- got his information from these readily accessible, self-same sources ... you're speciously trying to fit facts into your own preferences if I do say so. That Sayers quote is also in Club records.
-
"Please look at the 1925 photos of Pine Valley that appear in Geoff Shackelford's book on pages 53 and 66, along with the others
Where are the trees that were allegedly planted to "shield" the fairways?"
Pat:
If you're really interested in the evolution of Pine Valley and particularly the tree planting program that they referred to as "stabilizing the course" what you need to do is learn how to do research and that pretty much requires reading and understanding the historical information in that evolution. Apparently you're doing neither for some reason.
The aerials on pages 53 and 66 are from 1925. The "stabilization program" took place between 1927 and 1932 in which 3,000-5,000 trees PER YEAR were planted. For starters have you actually considered that 1927-1932 comes AFTER 1925 and not BEFORE? ;)
By the way the trees planted in that "stabilization" program were seedlings and obviously very small when they planted them. They cost $6.00-$8.00 per 1,000!!
That's 3,000-5,000 trees planted PER YEAR and according to the club 70% of them took. That would be 10,500 to 17,500 trees or are you going to say you don't believe that either? Of course I never said that was the last time Pine Valley planted trees, it wasn't, but we are talking now about that "stabilization" program between 1927-1928 that Warner Shelley mentioned in his Pine Valley history book. By the way, Warner Shelley would probably know first hand as he was probably there then. I remember him and he lived a good long life but he was a member at PV for close to 60 years.
I've been over all this with you a number of times in the past few years. It's from Pine Valley's own history and records but if you choose not to believe it that's your problem and not mine or Pine Valley's. For your own sake you should probably henceforth just keep quiet on this issue instead of opening your mouth which just shows how uninformed you are despite my constant efforts to point out the history of the course.
"TEPaul wants you to believe his theories versus your own eyes."
I'm sure there's nothing wrong with your eyes or anyone else's on here, but first to understand this evolution it helps to get the chronology right on the evolution.
"Since when does perfectly level ground need stabilization?"
Level ground? Did you say you've actually been to Pine Valley? If so, is it your obsevation that Pine Valley is all level ground?
On some of the ground that may be fairly level where trees were replanted may be some of those areas that Crump originally cleared to look at prospective hole corridors but never used. I've explained where some of them are to you before too but I guess you didn't understand that either.
I've also explained to you where some of the very unlevel ground is where sliding sand necessitated stabilization which was done with trees or terracing and vegetating the terracing.
-
??? 8) ???
TEP in many hours spent with Mr Shelley , Doc Dyson and many of the older members in the late 70's and early 80's I never remember a conversation about the origin of the DA...it was if it was always there, but of course the pictures prove otherwise
never knew Eb Steiniger to comment on architectural features although he often talked about various cultivars and grasses ....he had a particular affection with zoysia , which I'm sure he thought could be hybridized into a supergrass
Have to respectfully disagree with your contention that no architectural discoveries about the Valley have ever been made on the site in that the work done by superintendent Dick Bator has been well chronicled here, his work went past agronomy and involved serious work on the bunkers that altered the playing characteristics of at least two holes with physical changes
..we've discussed it here.. the front of the greens on #2 and #10 were both changed rather dramatically to keep balls from rolling off the greens into the bunkers....not big architecture but definitely architecture...
-
The evolution of the DA is an interesting topic. If you look at the two black and white pictures at the start of this thread, you can see clearly that grass/sod was added to the 10th hole probably to stabilize the sand from washing out as it is prone to do since the 10th green sits up on a plateau. Ironically enough, there is a par 3 at my home course that also sits on a plateau and I have noticed within the past two years, especially with the intense, heavy rains we have had this past summer, there is actually a pit forming at the base of the hole very similar to the D.A. I don't know how far apart these two pictures were taken, but if you think about it, the D.A. could have formed in a relatively short period given the fact the rain would run off the green into this collection area. I honestly don't believe this bunker was ever planned or constructed. I think nature planned it and Pine Valley embraced it.
-
I have noticed within the past two years, especially with the intense, heavy rains we have had this past summer, there is actually a pit forming at the base of the hole very similar to the D.A. I don't know how far apart these two pictures were taken, but if you think about it, the D.A. could have formed in a relatively short period given the fact the rain would run off the green into this collection area. I honestly don't believe this bunker was ever planned or constructed. I think nature planned it and Pine Valley embraced it.
There are a couple of maintence crew members there that are third and fourth generation employees. When I asked the older generation (before they retired) how the DA evolved, the answer was that it was created by a washout, the powers that be at the time liked it, left it and it then matured over time into the bunker we have today. Even with the modifications to divert water around it, it still washes out on a regular basis and I can't even imagine how bad it washed out when everything funneled to the front.
-
There's our new PV "on-the-ground" expert!
Rick:
Thanks for that post. From that it does make sense that a depression or pit began to develop early on in that area. That area (the original sandy lowest before that green) is mentioned in the records of the club as one of the many areas that was very susceptible to insability and sliding (particularly the area in front of the green and on down towards the beginning of #18. Matter of fact a lot of the left side of #18 was apparently prone to sliding. I see some on here call it a myth that the DA may've first begun to develop from a depression or whatever but I generally find these kinds of old myths, as some people call them, ;) have some basis in fact or they probably wouldn't have been a story in the first place.
-
"Have to respectfully disagree with your contention that no architectural discoveries about the Valley have ever been made on the site in that the work done by superintendent Dick Bator has been well chronicled here, his work went past agronomy and involved serious work on the bunkers that altered the playing characteristics of at least two holes with physical changes."
Archie:
I don't know where I said something like that or why but if I did I'm well aware it's not true. My general focus on the architecture of Pine Valley has always been up until about the early 1930s but I'm well aware of the rest of the architectural history including other things done in later years including by such as Dick Bator, Fazio, and even John Arthur Brown (he apparently created the back tee on #8) and Ernie did have a few very short tees built as well as trees planted. There has been some tee lengthening on some holes too at various times including in the last ten years or so. Actually almost all the holes have had some teeing lengthening even if only slightly. #2 and #17 may be the only ones that haven't. Perhaps #8 and #5 too. I think Dick made some of those bunkers to the left above #15 green too. And Dick did plant those obnoxious cypress trees or whatever they were between the 18th tee and #10 green. There as a few other things done too but nothing of any large architectual significance even though the 1927-32 massive tree planting program certainly wasn't the only time trees were planted at PV. Some of those sort of ornamental trees planted on #4 and #6 and a few other places are an example but some of them were removed in the last decade or so. This is why I feel PV is a course that was not much tampered with at least compared to some other signifcant courses and architecture.
-
Patrick M, the experience I have with sand sites is it is not the topography of the site that leads to sand movement, it is the wind blowing the sand that causes the biggest problems (granted an west-east slope will wind erode faster). If you study the evolution of Dune formation, you will see how something vertically small, like Beach Grass, can be instrumental in catching and despositing blown sand. My guess is that the trees were being planted to deminish the verocity of the wind and thus, it's erosive effect.
Blown sand not only is a problem for the area it erodes from but can be detrimental to downwind turfgrass. Much like the areas between bunkers and greens, sand buildup on turf can be a major factor in the turfs decline.
TEP, I wound tend to agree with you. Just look at it from a Soils Mechanics point of view. You have a situation where a steep slope abruptly changes to a much flatter slope. Since we all know that water travels downhill and the steepr the slope, the faster it travels, it makes sense to assume that where a slope flattens, there will be a highly saturated area - more water entering than can leave. Even after a rain event and the surfaces dry, there will still be subsurface water draining into that area due to the porous nature of the sandy soil. And once the protective turf "carpet" has been breached, the combination of surface and subsurface runoff can move a lot of sand particles (which don't have the cohesion of clays) in a short period of time.
And as to the assertion that tif foot traffic was an issue, the supt. would just redirect players, HUH??? To where? That's pretty much the access point. Although I believe back left be used, golfers generally don't like to backtrack.
-
Tim:
It appears the majority of the original instability problem with Pine Valley was related more to water than to wind. They had a couple of rain events early on (even some of the dates are mentioned and are part of the record of the club) did a lot of damage to the course. But since Pat Mucci (now apparently our new geology expert) doesn't believe any of it perhaps it never happened and is no more than Pine Valley myths or lies. It seems to me there are a few on this website who believe many of these significant clubs and their memberships did a whole lot of purposeful lying or just making up of stories out of whole cloth.
Whether that highly unusual and famous bunker first began as a sand depression or semi-pit due to water collection or whatever (even if it was orginally turfed on top, I certainly can tell you at some point the club definitely turned it into a formal bunker. Check out its steep earthen sod vertical walls. That part of it is certainly not something that could occur naturally on that massively sandy site.
-
One the primary objectives of the PV project was to build a golf course that could be played in the winter. According to Simon Carr, in a January 1915 article, new trees were planted on the north side of tees and greens for protection from the winter winds. This article is also the source for the photo showing the 10th green sans the Devil's Arse. I don't know when is the earliest photo of the 10th showing the DA, but it shouldn't be too difficult to find.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1915/gi4j.pdf
-
I believe that particular photo mentioned sans the DA is the earliest photo of that hole. I say that because it is the only one I've ever seen that shows how part of that orginal fronting bunker had sand swept all the way up to the green surface-----a construction method and style that would clearly not able to endure due to its verticality. The same was the case originally with the bunkering in front of #2 and #18. All of them were grassed down with separated bunkering remaining well below the green surface. According to PV's history it looks like William Flynn made the fix on all three. Maybe he made the DA in the process but that was not specifically mentioned as far a I know. Flynn did work at PV for a number of days a week for something like six months or more. If it wasn't Flynn it was probably Jim Govan who was the pro/clubmaker/greenskeeper at PV at the time and Crump's close collaborator and shot-tester in the years Crump worked on the course. From the records it looks like Govan worked with Flynn on the course when Flynn was brought in to finish it off and work on the problematic agronomy.
By the way, I don't believe that particular photo could've been taken later than the late fall, early winter of 1914. At that point, probably only eleven holes were in play, although it's possible #11, #16 and #17 may've been opened up too at that time. I'll check the records on that.
I guess it is also possible at that point that all that sand piled to the right of the right bunker could've been from Crump's idea to have a green to the right of #10 green which would've been his 6th green in an early routing iteration, even though I don't believe Crump got that far with clearing and rough shaping holes as he had with #1-4 before Colt first got there.
-
The earliest photo I've been able to find showing the DA is 1923. Here is a letter from Alan Wilson to Howard Perrin from 1921 where he mentions a new bunker at the 10th. CH Alison's written report does not mention adding the bunker at #10, but there were drawings attached to the written report where he illustrated his proposed changes along with detailed notes. I suspect there was a drawing of the 10th included with his report and the DA was added between 1921 and 1923.
-
:o ??? :-*
Since we've been talking Pine Valley, one of my favorite subjects, TEP is right in that short of trees and vegetative growth , very little in the way of substantive changes have been made over the years to the golf course......The old picture of three green is pretty awesome , as you can see it shows the white sand of the bunkers in front of the 6th fairway in the distance ...way way cool!
However it's really interesting that superintendent Dick Bator was given such a license to do the kind of work he did , and a credit to the powers that be , notably head potentate Ernie Ransome to see the brilliance of Bator and allow it to flourish. Of course if there was ever a place where Bator could flourish it would have been at Pine Valley, where you didn't have to worry too much about him strangling a member or upsetting a group of women golfers with his language.
The question remains whether Bator, given the force of his personality actually theorized the changes needed to #2 and #10, which are indeed significant. The changing of the fronts of both greens to keep balls from returning into the front bunkers, one being the DA and the "spectacles" that looked at your second shot on two , under the guise of water management . Surely the run-off on both holes during the big storms is tremendous and often the DA was completely filled , but the way the holes play changed rather dramatically with the changes. The stark terror putting down the hills on both holes no longer impacts the brain like it used to!
Don't think that Tom Fazio or any architect of note was nvolved in this process, but will check it out now that the question is back in front of us.
-
I think my first view of the DA came during a Crump Cup, several years ago. One of the top amateurs (Pat Tallent?) hit a ball into the front right bunker on #10. He walked down to the DA, considered his options (including coming out backwards away from the green surface), then told his caddy to pick it up. At that point, he walked back to the tee to hit his 3rd.
I'm wondering if anyone on this string has managed to play out of the DA... I'm not talking an up-and-down; just out... in say the past 10 years.
-
"The changing of the fronts of both greens to keep balls from returning into the front bunkers, one being the DA and the "spectacles" that looked at your second shot on two , under the guise of water management . Surely the run-off on both holes during the big storms is tremendous and often the DA was completely filled , but the way the holes play changed rather dramatically with the changes. The stark terror putting down the hills on both holes no longer impacts the brain like it used to!"
Archie:
That's a good point and I agree with you. Perhaps Bator just added some material to the beginning fronts of those greens, raised them up a bit and gave them a bit of a "Bob Hope nose", if you know what I mean. You're right, compared to the way they once were balls do not so easily just come right off the fronts and into those bunkers below. With the greenspeeds they run even though they sort of fixed it some years ago maybe they should just give the right front of #5 a bit of a "Bob Hope" nosejob too.
-
"I think my first view of the DA came during a Crump Cup, several years ago. One of the top amateurs (Pat Tallent?) hit a ball into the front right bunker on #10. He walked down to the DA, considered his options (including coming out backwards away from the green surface), then told his caddy to pick it up. At that point, he walked back to the tee to hit his 3rd.:
Mark:
I've seen a number of golfers who obviously know that course well, play stroke and distance from the tee before even bothering to go look at their ball in the DA.
"I'm wondering if anyone on this string has managed to play out of the DA... I'm not talking an up-and-down; just out... in say the past 10 years."
Sure they have but it definitely ain't easy. One of them was actually Tommy Naccarato in his one and only time at PV. But the story is waaay better than that because he stood on the tee and asked his caddie exactly how far it was to the DA. When the caddy asked him why he wanted to know that, TommyN told him because he WANTED TO hit it into the DA. and so he did and got it out forward in one shot. Obviously the caddy said; You want to do WHAT????
I heard that was virtually the end of that caddie and he was last seen around one of the New Jersey State mental insitutions. Naccarato did the same thing from the front way below LuLu's #4 and got it up and down. That isn't as hard as the DA but some feat nevertheless.
PS:
I guess I've played PV hundreds of times and I have tried to hit shots out of the DA but I can proudly say I've never gotten into the DA in regulation play. Now don't talk to me about the far end of the left greenside bunker the way it USED TO BE. That was the thing that really got into my head on the tee and if you were smart you'd just putt the ball down to the front of the bunker and then go from there. Archie just told me one time when he got in there he just played the ball backwards onto the 18th tee and went from there. Maybe that's why Bator planted all those obnoxious cypress trees between the 18th tee and the 10th green which have thankfully gone to see their maker.
-
Tom MacWood,
Thanks for the additional information.
Are you suggesting that Hugh and Alan Wilson added the DA? ;) ;D
Personally, I think God just sent a little mini tornado one night, or perhaps sent the Jersey Devil over to spin in place like a whirling dervish, and in five minutes that spooky little creature did the erosionary work of roughly 2000 years of a glacial pothole.
(http://neilnumberman.com/images/news/jersey_devil.jpg)
More Info on the architect;
http://theshadowlands.net/jd.htm
-
CH Alison is responsible for the bunker, and a number of other changes.
-
"CH Alison is responsible for the bunker, and a number of other changes. In the letter Wilson is simply agreeing with Alison's suggestions."
Even though Wilson’s letter to Perrin that includes the committee's report items on Alison’s proposed plan mentions on #10---"10th Hole---complete as suggested. (bunker at green)," Alison's actual hole by hole report that includes various hole drawings for proposed green redesigns and other items like the breaking up of bunkering and the redoing or removing of mounds etc did not include or suggest a bunker on #10.
In his course plan that included suggestions on 17 of 18 holes (nothing was suggested for #14) all Alison said in his plan on #10 was:
"10th Hole. It is suggested that the banks which partly hiade (sic) the bunkers in front of the green should be removed."
That's all Alison said for #10 in his report, and so if he did recommend the DA he must have done it verbally which seems unlikely for Alison given he recorded in his plan everything that PV voted to do (the committee voted to accept a number of Alison's suggestions and do them but they also voted to table some items and not do others. Actually PV approved a few of Alison's suggestions and for some reason either never did them or did them later with someone else such as Maxwell----eg the 8th green redesign).
In the committee report on Alison's plan what was said on #10 is thus:
"10th hole. Remove banks in front of the bunker at face of green."
Nothing was suggested by Alison or the committee about building a bunker.
On that note of what Alison actually did suggest for the 10th hole in his plan, I was telling someone today who really knows PV we can probably see just what Alison was referring to in his report to PV on #10 and how his suggestion was excecuted in that stagger of photos on this thread.
It looks to me like Alison was suggesting the removal of the top of that bank between the tee and the green. If one looks carefully at the photo in question (the black and white from the tee----which was arguably taken in 1921 (I’ll explain later the reasons for that which can be seen in that b&w photo)).
If you look at the next color photo of the hole taken many years later you can’t miss that the top of that bank between the tee and the green has been reduced down. particularly on the right, so the bunkering in front of the green is much more visible from the tee as Alison was suggesting. You can also see that the slight swale between the tee and that bank is there no longer meaning they probably pushed the material from the top of that bank back towards the tee. One can also see in the B&W that the path to the green actually inclines for a way and it certainly doesn't in the color photo from the tee; it actually goes slightly downhill. It's possible the path was moved slightly left but nevertheless the ground to the left of the old path is lower now than in that black and white in that area of the right side of that bank that was blinding the bunkering in front of the green and does not longer.
It’s certainly more than possible that Alison recommended the DA but nothing in either his report nor Wilson’s itemized letter to Perrin says so. Consequently, there is no proof at this point from those reports that Alison recommended the DA itself. Therefore, part of the statement at the top of this post----viz "CH Alison is responsible for the bunker," is potentially historically inaccurate.
It can also be pretty well documented that although the so-called 1921 Advisory Committee of which Alison was actually a member, wanted Alison to be on hand to oversee the work that was approved from his plan. It is clear to see that Alison could not be around----it appears he was opening an office and in the midwest at that time, and so someone apparently oversaw the work from his plan. It may've just been Govan himself but some think it was Flynn and perhaps with an assist from George Thomas to carry out Alison's drawings or some of them----eg some think Flynn/Thomas may've overseen the construction of the new right ninth green. So, if that is true as has been reported by the likes of GeoffShac, I believe, it is probably also reasonable to assume it may've been either Thomas or Flynn who recommended the DA as it seems they were working with the course in that year overseeing the execution of Alison's plans.
What is probably the most logical history of the DA is that long time story that it just evolved on its own due to wear and tear and a depression in that area and was then eventually formalized as a deep pit bunker (see Tim Nugent's post #17 and what soon to be super Eb Steineger told Tim's Dad about the DA. That might even indicate the DA did not even appear and get formalized until Eb Steineger got to PV which I believe was around 1925).
When someone says what post #70 did----"C.H. Alison is responsible for the bunker" (the famous DA) considering Alison's own plan makes no such suggestion but something quite different and considering the committee's report on Alison's plan uses the same words as Alison's plan on #10 in their approval of Alison's suggestions for #10, this is how myths and rumors and inaccurate architectural history gets disseminated to the public, not to even mention this is how inaccurate legends ;) get created. I'm not so sure Captain Hugh Alison would want to be remembered as the man who suggested the creation of the famous Pine Valley Devil's Asshole bunker, but for his sake he can rest easy as at least his very own plan and the Pine Valley Committee report on #10 suggest no such thing.
-
I would also say that in that B&W photo from the tee in Post #3 that shows a massive amount of sand behind #10 green is the beginning of the project to redo the 17th green and other features on the 17th which took place in 1921. That would therefore very likely date that b&w photo of the 10th from the tee to 1921 when that work was done.
The other thing that struck me about the 10th hole after analyzing that photo of the 10th from the tee is that the green surface itself may be quite close to original natural grade (close enough that all they needed to do is put topsoil on the top of it to grow grass) which would mean they just went DOWN and reamed out around it to a large degree (a technique by the way, that the likes of C&C use often----eg going down off natural grade around something like a green rather than transporting fill in and going up from natural grade). All that sand fill to the right of the right bunker would also indicate that, as well as some of the fill for the 17th behind.
-
One of the best shots I have ever seen was from the DA. We played early the year they added a new tee, and the caddy gave us the distance from the old tee. Anyway, my friend hits inthe DA and it buries. Takes him almost a minute to find it. Caddie wants him to go back to the tee, but he says what the hell. Comes out perfect and lips out to 6 inches.
-
First time posting...the DA made me do it!
In September I watched my nephew, coached by his caddie, hit a full swing hybrid (215-yd club) out of the DA. The ball popped off the front bank, went up 20 feet in the air and settled 10 feet from the pin. It was amazing. And he made the putt.
Unfortunately, he initially lacked confidence in his caddie's instruction and first tried to flop a lob wedge out...when that failed he played the shot as he was advised to, and it's something I won't forget. Would've been a fantastic three, but he was pretty happy with the four.
-
Three pages into this thread have we come any closer to conclusively answering JMorgan's question in the initial post of this thread he started?
"Assumed this famous feature was there from the beginning; well, nope; perhaps talked about here before, news to me if so
when did it appear, and why?"
Probably. What we know so far is it was not in the first photo which has been variously dated as 1914 and 1916. 1914 would be accurate as we see this same photo in an early 1915 article.
As to when the DA first appeared as a formal bunker we can't seem to pin it to a specific date. I do see it on a Dallin Aerial that also shows the infamous "pimple" on the 18th green so the DA was certainly there before 1928 when the "pimple" was removed by John Arthur Brown. It appears we can take it at least two years previous to that---to 1926 via an article In Golf Illustrated of Aug. 1926 that shows it in something of an evolving state (photograph on this thread). There's an undated photo of the 10th on page 60 of his "Golden Age of Golf Design" that shows the DA evolving and would seem to be after (for a particular visible reason) of the photo (on this thread) from the tee of the hole that GeoffShac notes is circa 1922 (more likely 1921 from club records and other evidence in that photo) where unfortunately the low right side can't be seen which appears to be Alison's concern and suggestion in his 1921 course plan and suggestions.
As to whether someone designed and called for the DA or whether it just began to appear on its own due to wear and tear as super Eb Steineger apparently claimed to the father of one of our contributors and then was formalized we still can't seem to be sure.
Keep searching the stagger and chronology of all availbable photos and aerials and maybe we can narrow its origination date down some more. I suppose it's very possible that the DA was there before Alison became involved but unfortunately we don't seem to have photograhic evidence of the hole between late 1914 and 1921.
Or do we? As far as I know the earliest Dallin aerial of PV was 1924 but I guess I should check that with the Hagley (there is a 1917 aerial of PV but it only includes some of the 1st and 4th.
-
Jim Kennedy:
That's an interesting article you linked onto your post #16 on the Valley from Golf Illustrated August 1926 and some cool photos but I don't think I have ever seen a competent magazine like that one make so many mistakes in a single article of mislabeling the holes of photos as well as their yardages. I don't think they got one of them right. I've never seen something like that or to that extent before. Unusual for GI. I think that fellow from New York who helped out Willie Park in Jersey had taken over as the editor from Max Behr at that point.
-
TEP,
I was searching for a photo later than the one from 1915 that showed the DA, and wasn't having much luck, when I happened to come across a small paragraph that gave the correct hole numbers and mentioned in what issue the mistake was located. ;D Serendipity at work.
-
The first image is Walter Travis's drawing of 10th hole circa 1915, when he devised a reversible scheme for the course.
The next three images come from a July 1923 article. That is the earliest I've been able to find the existence of the DA.
-
TEPaul, et. al.
I don't believe for one second that the right side grassed bank had any stabilization problems.
Nor do I believe that one small segment wore out to such a degree that it evolved into the DA.
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
It sure would have some stabilization issues when that high traffic area got compacted enough so that no turf could grow on it.
"High Traffic"
You must be kidding.
The entire golf course didn't open for play until the summer of 1920.
In addition, aerial and ground photos show the DA in existance in 1925 and earlier.
So you're going to try to perpetuate a myth that the DA was the product of heavy traffic ?
Think about this.
Look at the photo.
If heavy traffic caused the middle to become a bunker, that would mean that the grass faces to the left and right of that bunker would have to accomodate increased traffic, accelerating and creating even more wear and tear on those areas, causing them to become bunkers as well.
But, we know that didn't happen.
In addition, the last thing a prudent superintendent would do if he wanted to stabilize a slope, was let a sand bunker just evolve on that slope.
Early photos show that the bunker is man made, clearly a constructed, deep pit bunker with steep sides, not a bunker created through casaul foot traffic.
Whom, in their right mind would walk down into a deep sand hole, then, back up the front side.
It's undocumented statements such as yours that perpetuate myths.
In addition, early photos show that bunker offset from the putting surface.
At one time, in the mid 60's that bunker was right up against the putting surface such that ball extracted from that bunker, onto the front of the green, would roll back off the green and down into the bunker.
I believe it was just prior to, or subsequent to the Walker Cup when a lip or mini-berm was added to prevent that occurance and probably to deflect surface water as well.
-
Pat,
I'll let you and TP duke this one out since I already have my mind made up and your exchanges are much more entertaining. But keep in mind that you're essentially saying John Arthur Brown, President of Pine Valley and a member of the Club from 1918 until his death didn't know what he was talking about when he used that very article to summarize, in part, the planning and building of the course in the club history, in addition to Club records and his own memories.
JMorgan, TEPaul will be the first to tell you that there are flaws/errors in the history of the club.
You would have us accept vague recollections, many, many years reomoved over photographic evidence.
John Arthur Brown died in 1979, , three (3) and twenty one (21) years before two of the histories of Pine Valley was published.
Plus, accounts from several founding members, including Simon Carr. And then to dismiss all of these accounts because they are potentially "unreliable written accounts" on one hand while citing another written account derived from some of these same written accounts -- The Golden Age of Golf Design (in more than several posts to bolster your positions in other discussions, I might add) -- as if that book was delivered to your doorstep by Moses through Geoff, when he -- and no offense, he did what authors do -- got his information from these readily accessible, self-same sources ... you're speciously trying to fit facts into your own preferences if I do say so. That Sayers quote is also in Club records.
The photographic evidence and physical facts are irrefutable.
As to Geoff's comment, he merely repeated the myth, and, if you'll read closely, he states on page 60, beneath a photo taken in 1925 or earlier,
"note the small sand pit in front of the green, which EVIDENTLY evolved on its own.
Look at that picture, circa 1925 or earlier (remember the entire course only opened for play in 1920) and tell me that that's not a man made constructed bunker.
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
Now look at the picture above, before the bunker was there.
Do you notice any difference in the topography between the picture above and the picture on page 60 in Geoff's book
The picture in Geoffs book shows a mound, a footpad into which that bunker was built.
And, it shows that bunker clearly OFFSET from the slope, not in it.
You can choose to accept undocmented folklore, I'd prefer to rely on the facts as documented by the photographic and physical evidence
-
There are a couple of maintence crew members there that are third and fourth generation employees. When I asked the older generation (before they retired) how the DA evolved, the answer was that it was created by a washout, the powers that be at the time liked it, left it and it then matured over time into the bunker we have today. Even with the modifications to divert water around it, it still washes out on a regular basis and I can't even imagine how bad it washed out when everything funneled to the front.
Alan,
That can't be true.
The photo in Geoff Shackelford's book, on page 60 clearly shows the DA bunker offset from the front slope and elevated on a minifoot pad
If someone could post that photo, you'll see how far off the grassed slope that bunker is.
In addition, look at the massive bunker left of the DA.
Why didn't that erode.
And if water was cascading off the green, down the bank, into the DA, why create a swimming pool as a hazard.
The explanations don't make sense and the photographic and physical evidence refutes the legends
-
Patrick M, the experience I have with sand sites is it is not the topography of the site that leads to sand movement, it is the wind blowing the sand that causes the biggest problems (granted an west-east slope will wind erode faster).
Tim, Pine Valley is NOT known to be a windy site.
If you study the evolution of Dune formation, you will see how something vertically small, like Beach Grass, can be instrumental in catching and despositing blown sand. My guess is that the trees were being planted to deminish the verocity of the wind and thus, it's erosive effect.
I think your guess is off the mark
Blown sand not only is a problem for the area it erodes from but can be detrimental to downwind turfgrass. Much like the areas between bunkers and greens, sand buildup on turf can be a major factor in the turfs decline.
Tim, have you ever been to Pine Valley when the wind is blowing hard ?
Would you equate the wind at Pine Valley with the winds that sweep NGLA and Shinnecock ?
TEP, I wound tend to agree with you. Just look at it from a Soils Mechanics point of view. You have a situation where a steep slope abruptly changes to a much flatter slope. Since we all know that water travels downhill and the steepr the slope, the faster it travels, it makes sense to assume that where a slope flattens, there will be a highly saturated area - more water entering than can leave. Even after a rain event and the surfaces dry, there will still be subsurface water draining into that area due to the porous nature of the sandy soil. And once the protective turf "carpet" has been breached, the combination of surface and subsurface runoff can move a lot of sand particles (which don't have the cohesion of clays) in a short period of time.
Tim, unfortunately you and just about everybody else are laboring under a false set of facts.
Namely, the LOCATION of the DA.
It was NOT in the bank, but offset from the bank.
If someone could post the photo on page 60 of Geoff's book you, others and that idiot savant would see the light and the error of your ways.
Look at the physical facts provided by the photographic evidence instead of listening to myth perpetuators.
And as to the assertion that tif foot traffic was an issue, the supt. would just redirect players, HUH??? To where? That's pretty much the access point. Although I believe back left be used, golfers generally don't like to backtrack.
-
Tom MacWood,
Thanks for the find.
Now we know that the entire course was ONLY open from 1920 and that the DA was there in 1923, hence the theory of excessive traffic causing erosion to that broad bank, resulting in the DA is erroneous.
Everyone seems to be uniformed about the LOCATION of the DA.
It was OFFSET from the green and grass bank leading to it
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
-
Tim:
It appears the majority of the original instability problem with Pine Valley was related more to water than to wind. They had a couple of rain events early on (even some of the dates are mentioned and are part of the record of the club) did a lot of damage to the course. But since Pat Mucci (now apparently our new geology expert) doesn't believe any of it perhaps it never happened and is no more than Pine Valley myths or lies. It seems to me there are a few on this website who believe many of these significant clubs and their memberships did a whole lot of purposeful lying or just making up of stories out of whole cloth.
TEPaul, I have a suggestion for you. Look at the photo of the DA on page 60 of Geoff's book, then perhaps you'll finally understand that bank stability, traffic and drainage had NOTHING to do with the creation of that bunker.
In fact, if someone would post the picture below, with the picture on page 60, you'll see for yourselves how the myth is destroyed.
Physical and photographic evidence clearly demonstrate the absurdity of your position.
Whether that highly unusual and famous bunker first began as a sand depression or semi-pit due to water collection or whatever (even if it was orginally turfed on top, I certainly can tell you at some point the club definitely turned it into a formal bunker. Check out its steep earthen sod vertical walls. That part of it is certainly not something that could occur naturally on that massively sandy site.
You don't even know where the original bunker was located, nor do you understand that it was in a mound, an elevated footpad, NOT into or at the base of the bank pictured below.
You're wrong on this issue and the photos prove it.
Why do you defend maintaining the status quo over revealing the truth ?
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
-
Pat,
Look at this photo from the same time period. The bunker has the the tallest face of any photo shown so far and it really looks to be right against the front of the green, even though it's on the 'pad'.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1926/gi255c.pdf
You'll find it on the third page, middle right photo, and it's not labeled correctly, but you'll easily know which one it is.
Blow it up to 200% and you'll see how it is attached to the green.
-
"Please look at the 1925 photos of Pine Valley that appear in Geoff Shackelford's book on pages 53 and 66, along with the others
Where are the trees that were allegedly planted to "shield" the fairways?"
Pat:
If you're really interested in the evolution of Pine Valley and particularly the tree planting program that they referred to as "stabilizing the course" what you need to do is learn how to do research and that pretty much requires reading and understanding the historical information in that evolution. Apparently you're doing neither for some reason.
Producing two 1925 aerial photos with excellent clarity, is both research and evidence of Pine Valley's physical state at that time.
The aerials on pages 53 and 66 are from 1925. The "stabilization program" took place between 1927 and 1932 in which 3,000-5,000 trees PER YEAR were planted. For starters have you actually considered that 1927-1932 comes AFTER 1925 and not BEFORE? ;)
Tell or show me where 5,000 trees per year were planted, for several years, using the 1925 aerial as your starting pont.
Then, look at the 1938 aerials, when your alleged 5,000 trees per year would be 11 to 6 years old, and show me where they are.
Seperate fact from fiction by identifying the difference in the 1925 and 1938 photos.
By the way the trees planted in that "stabilization" program were seedlings and obviously very small when they planted them. They cost $6.00-$8.00 per 1,000!!
That's 3,000-5,000 trees planted PER YEAR and according to the club 70% of them took. That would be 10,500 to 17,500 trees or are you going to say you don't believe that either?
Let's see, should I believe my eyes, or your say so ?
The 1938 aerial/s don't seem to confirm your position.
Of course I never said that was the last time Pine Valley planted trees, it wasn't, but we are talking now about that "stabilization" program between 1927-1928 that Warner Shelley mentioned in his Pine Valley history book.
Let's not take either of our words for it.
Look at the 1925 photos, look at the areas you feel needed stabilization, look at the 1938 photos, do the 1938 aerials confirm of refute your contention ?
By the way, Warner Shelley would probably know first hand as he was probably there then. I remember him and he lived a good long life but he was a member at PV for close to 60 years.
I've been over all this with you a number of times in the past few years. It's from Pine Valley's own history and records but if you choose not to believe it that's your problem and not mine or Pine Valley's.
I don't believe it because the photographic evidence doesn't support it.
You insist on trying to ram this down everyone's throat without producing a shred of documented evidence, while at the same time dismissing documented aerial photographs that seem to refute your contention.
For your own sake you should probably henceforth just keep quiet on this issue instead of opening your mouth which just shows how uninformed you are despite my constant efforts to point out the history of the course.
Unlike you, I'm not going to perpetuate a myth or myths about the golf course.
Photographic evidence takes precendence over vague third party recollections.
When you look at the photo of the DA in Geoff's book, on page 60, you'll see how wrong you are about its location, function and genesis.
With the help of Jamie Slonis's historic aerials I was also able to prove you wrong about the 12th hole and how invasive trees became long after the alleged massive tree planting program.
I'd prefer that the truth be known rather than perpetuate a myth in order to endear myself to the goling community
"TEPaul wants you to believe his theories versus your own eyes."
I'm sure there's nothing wrong with your eyes or anyone else's on here, but first to understand this evolution it helps to get the chronology right on the evolution.
The dated aerial photos provide the proper chronology, you just choose to ignore them to suit your purpose/theoris
"Since when does perfectly level ground need stabilization?"
Level ground? Did you say you've actually been to Pine Valley? If so, is it your obsevation that Pine Valley is all level ground?
Are you saying that # 7 isn't flat ?
# 1, # 6, # 12 ? and to a slightly lesser degree, # 9 ?
[/size]
On some of the ground that may be fairly level where trees were replanted may be some of those areas that Crump originally cleared to look at prospective hole corridors but never used. I've explained where some of them are to you before too but I guess you didn't understand that either.
I've also explained to you where some of the very unlevel ground is where sliding sand necessitated stabilization which was done with trees or terracing and vegetating the terracing.
Then it should be easy for you to identify the areas where 5,000 trees were planted for six straight years .... shouldn't it ?
-
Pat,
Look at this photo from the same time period. The bunker has the the tallest face of any photo shown so far and it really looks to be right against the front of the green, even though it's on the 'pad'.
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/GolfIllustrated/1926/gi255c.pdf
You'll find it on the third page, middle right photo, and it's not labeled correctly, but you'll easily know which one it is.
Blow it up to 200% and you'll see how it is attached to the green.
Jim,
I'm not so sure that the photo you posted pinpoints the location of th bunker. It's rather dark which mutes the relationship of the back of the bunker to the bank. The lighter photo that Tom MacWood posted provides a clearer, more detailed image.
I think you'll get a better, more accurate comparison with the image provided by Tom MacWood and the original image JMorgan posted.
A few things are evident, namely that wind and foot traffic didn't create the bunker
-
Pat,
You're acting the fool here. None of this exists in a vacuum of time or space. A picture is but a warped viewpoint of an infinitesimally small moment in time. You've been tripped on this before and will continue to be tripped up on in the future so long as you are under the false presumption that a picture is actually worth a thousand words.
Haven't you considered maintenance traffic, golfer traffic, et. al adding up over the years? Do you know how soil compaction works? How traffic and environmental factors in that area add and compound each other? I don't know, but my theory is based in understanding the most basic soil scientist would have.
Fact is, you get years of build up and then one large event occurs that breaks the camel's back.
Then you get an idea for a bunker - and you follow through on it.
We cannot have a rational discourse if you are going to continue to take statements out of context to fit your paradigm.
-
Pat,
You're acting the fool here. None of this exists in a vacuum of time or space. A picture is but a warped viewpoint of an infinitesimally small moment in time. You've been tripped on this before and will continue to be tripped up on in the future so long as you are under the false presumption that a picture is actually worth a thousand words.
I haven't tripped on any photos.
Haven't you considered maintenance traffic, golfer traffic, et. al adding up over the years? Do you know how soil compaction works? How traffic and environmental factors in that area add and compound each other? I don't know, but my theory is based in understanding the most basic soil scientist would have.
Kyle, please, if anyone's acting the fool, it's you.
You want us to believe that in three years or less use, from 1920 to 1923 or earlier, that foot traffic was so heavy that it cause compaction on a STEEP slope leading to the erosion of the bank which evolved into a bunker.
It's an absurd theory.
And, if foot traffic was so heavy on an approach 45 feet wide, wouldn't it be even heavier on the same slope only 30 feet wide ?
Wouldn't the creation of a bunker in the slope compress and narrow the traffic area causing even more compaction ?
The answer is unequivically YES, and, if that's the case, it would accelerate erosion on the narrower bank, causing bunkers to evolve at the flanks of the newly created bunker.
Your facts and your logic are seriously flawed, as is your theory and conclusion.
Fact is, you get years of build up and then one large event occurs that breaks the camel's back.
What are you talking about ?
Have you read what you've typed ?
Then you get an idea for a bunker - and you follow through on it.
Then, why didn't the process repeat itself at the flanks, which would have experienced even more traffic, compaction, erosion, etc., etc. ?
Your theory has no merit.
We cannot have a rational discourse if you are going to continue to take statements out of context to fit your paradigm.
I didn't take anything out of context, I relied on your written words.
Your theory doesn't fly for a number of reasons, don't take it personally, you just have your facts and your logic wrong.
-
"With the help of Jamie Slonis's historic aerials I was also able to prove you wrong about the 12th hole and how invasive trees became long after the alleged massive tree planting program."
Pat:
You definitely never proved me wrong about anything on #12. Perhaps you think I said the 1927-32 "stabilization" program at which time 3,000-5,000 trees per year were planted in which 70% took were planted within any bunkering. I never said anything like that at any time. The trees covering those bunkers on that hole were obviously planted later or grew in there later.
It has always been my belief that PV should remove all the trees within or blocking the shot angles of the bunkering on the course period. I do not believe any of that was done during that 1927-32 "Stabilization" program.
The problem with you is you're just not familiar with the detailed history and evolution of that course and it keeps showing in almost every post you make on the subject. You get very confused very easily about what actually happened out there, when and why.
I've done thiis hole by hole before on where trees were planted to cover those areas of the course where Crump considered hole corridors and such which were never used but apparently you missed that too.
Again, I would recommend removing all the trees within bunkers and surrounding their shot angles. I would not recommend going back to 1925 because that was before those areas that were cleared for hole corridors that were never used were replanted and before the club's 1927-32 "stabilization" program. There is no reason to remove the trees in either of those areas, but if the trees were removed within and surrounding bunker shot angles the course would be just fine, and to the left of #12 is one of those areas. If they took those out the green or a large part of it could be seen from the right tee at least and more so than now from the back tee. I would also recommend taking all the trees out about 40-50 yards deep on the left side of #13 because the record shows Crump wanted players to see the flag from the tees. I would also recommend removing enough trees all along the right of #6 to show the green from the tee. I think both of those holes done that way would serve to visually confuse or unsettle the player somewhat on those tees.
I would not recommend taking the trees out that block a straight approach from the very left side of #11 because I think those trees serve a very important strategic function on the tee shot.
-
I think the 1923 article photo on Post #77 is the earliest I've seen of the DA too.
Now the differences in that photo from the first photo on Post #3 should be analyzed. I've assumed the first one on Post #3 is from 1921 for various reasons in that photo but who knows?
-
Pat,
The only thing wrong with my theory is that you don't agree with it.
You're assuming a few things here:
First: That the attitude and attention paid to the bank before and after the creation of the DA was the exact same (Or, in other words - nothing was learned about how to maintain that area).
Second: That the superintendent/membership actually cared about the maintenance of the area (I never said the DA was created as a way to solve the problem of compaction, merely that it was created as a result of the problem).
Third: That the creation of the DA bunker was not part of a more holistic maintenance process for that area. (Build the bunker, restabilize the area - move forward. I think we can all agree that more effort is put into maintaining bunker surrounds than grass banks).
-
Pat,
What that photo does show is a bunker that is flashed up more than in any other photo so far, and you have to have a backer to do that.
-
If I had to guess when the D.A. developed, I would have to guess between 1920 and 1923. If you look at JMorgan's first b&w picture from post 3, that picture was taken between 1915 and 1919. I can tell that because this photo was published in Pine Valley's History by Warner Shelly on page 50 and it also appears in Harry Colt's book, Essays on Golf Course Architecture, published in 1920. In this picture I really don't see the D.A. However, in Tom MacWood's b&w photo from 1923( post 77) you can see the beginning of the D.A. As I stated earlier, it is not impossible for a hole like the D.A. to develop naturally on a plateau green in a short period of time with sandy soil and heavy rains. I told the story earlier about a bunker/hole that has developed, also on a plateau par 3, at my home course in the last two years from the heavy summer rains.
-
"If you look at JMorgan's first b&w picture from post 3, that picture was taken between 1915 and 1919."
Rick:
Trying to pin down the date on that first photo from the tee on post 3 has been really confusing and confounding me.
At first I thought that massive amount of sand behind the green might've been when they redesigned the 17th hole and redid the green to Alison's specs and that would've been in 1921 but now I think it must have been taken as Crump was building the original 17th green. That had to have been in early to mid 1915 as three more holes (#11, #16, #17) were opened for play in the first half of 1916. Plus one can clearly see various trees along the left side are much smaller than the photograph from the tee that appeared in the August 1923 issue of the USGA's Bulletin (photo in post #77). The difference in growth of some of the same trees looks to be about 7-8 years to me.
Now, if that is true that the first photo in post #3 was taken in 1915, then that would probably mean the first photo on the initial post was very likely taken towards the end of 1913 or the beginning of 1914 as there is good deal of difference with the front bunker between those two photos. The first is clean sand flashed right to the green surface and the second has some grassing on the face with a good sized sand mound at the base of it. That might've been the result of that clean sand flashed face in the first photo coming down shortly after it was constructed. We can also see in later photos of that front bunker that the sand mound at its base is gone.
Since the first photo on the initial post that shows no DA is that early I suppose it's quite likely that the DA began to appear due to some kind of depression and was therefore turned into a formal bunker, perhaps by Crump and the crew as early as late 1914 or early 1915 or as late as say 1922 (we don't seem to have any visible photos of the DA between that one first photo that doesn't show it and the 1923 photo that does show it).
However, I should point out that very little if anything was done to the golf course architecturally between Crump's death in January 1918 and the 1921 Advisory Committee with Alison in early 1921 other than to try to maintain the course's condition which frankly wasn't that successful in the year or so after Crump died. Actually Flynn came in to work on the course's condition for perhaps six months in 1919 and Hugh Wilson became the green chairman at that time.
I also note that Alison's only 1921 suggestion for that hole says: "It is suggested that the banks which partly hiade (sic) the bunkers (plural) in the front of the green, should be removed." That would lead me to believe the DA was already there when Alison made that suggestion for #10 in his comprehensive plan for PV.
-
Tom,
I would have to agree with you from looking the trees maturity that the first picture was taken perhaps during Crump's time and the second is probably no later than 1919.
-
Rick:
If that is true it seems to me the DA was probably formalized into a bunker during Crump's time or shortly afterwards and I think it would be inaccurate to assume or conclude Alison recommended it, not to even mention the fact his report on #10 never said or suggested such a thing.
It seems to me what Alison suggested on #10 was to remove or reduce that bank between the tee and the green that hid the front bunkering or probably the DA on the right side. That certainly is what he said in his report----again he mentioned front bunkers and not a single bunker which was all that was there before the DA.
I might also point out that it does not seem they did much or anything with that bank or rise between the tee and green even by 1923---as the photo in the USGA Bulletin in Aug 1923 essentially shows the same bank or rise. However in later photographs it seems to have been reduced quite a bit more and the path also seems to go downhill from the tee in that area other than sort of uphill in the earlier photos.
It would not be unusual if this work was done over time. There are actually a few other items from the Alison plan the 1921 Committee approved but either never did such as the front left greenside bunker on #4 or did much later such as the redesign and rebuilt of the 8th green to Maxwell's plan, not Alison's.
Actually the entire evolution of the two 9th greens is pretty interesting. Alison recommended moving that green to the right and he designed the present right 9th but to keep the left green in play until the right green was ready for play. The committee accepted that suggestion with the idea of putting a drinking fountain where the left green was with a view of the valley but eventually they chose to keep the left green and had Maxwell redesign it.
-
Tom,
That's really interesting stuff about the 9th green(s) evolution. I imagine back then when the trees were not behind the green(s), as they are today, that would be a great view of the valley below and a suitable spot for a drinking fountain.
-
If I had to guess when the D.A. developed, I would have to guess between 1920 and 1923. If you look at JMorgan's first b&w picture from post 3, that picture was taken between 1915 and 1919. I can tell that because this photo was published in Pine Valley's History by Warner Shelly on page 50 and it also appears in Harry Colt's book, Essays on Golf Course Architecture, published in 1920. In this picture I really don't see the D.A. However, in Tom MacWood's b&w photo from 1923( post 77) you can see the beginning of the D.A. As I stated earlier, it is not impossible for a hole like the D.A. to develop naturally on a plateau green in a short period of time with sandy soil and heavy rains. I told the story earlier about a bunker/hole that has developed, also on a plateau par 3, at my home course in the last two years from the heavy summer rains.
Good find...from the looks of the other PV pictures in the Colt book my guess is those photos were taken closer to 1915 than 1919. I agree with you, I don't see the DA in that photograph.
-
Tom M,
I too agree that it's closer to 1915 because if you look at the Colt book, the other photos are also from around 1915 like the famous picture of Tilly and the lady on the 5th tee was from 1915 I believe.
-
"....that would be a great view of the valley below and a suitable spot for a drinking fountain."
I suppose and I believe after Crump died they seriously considered having a statue of him done and putting it right there.
-
Tom P,
That would be a nice tribute to Crump; it's never too late. Think of how great the Payne Stewart statue is at Pinehurst.
-
Certainly the DA is an odd and famous bunker but speaking of unusual bunkers there was certainly an odd one on #14. Archie Struthers would probably know more about its history than me but it was just to the left of the 14th green and it was certainly the smallest bunker I ever saw in my life. It was no bigger in circumference than if you just put your arms together in an arc. If that strange little bunker was something Crump called for and seeing he did that radical "pimple" on the 18th green even if he intended it not to be permanent I guess I could see him also calling for the DA and maybe even naming it that himself.
It sounds like Crump had a very good and dry sense of humor. Ever hear his story about those special and very expensive ducks he bought for the pond below his bungelow?
-
Rick,
"That Lady" with Tilly in the photo is his wife Lillian. There is another photo of the two of them taken the same day on another tee as well. These are the ONLY known photos of Lillian ever holding a golf club and proves that she played (she has her own bag of clubs in it), something that her family had been unaware of...
-
"I never noticed the omission in this photo until this evening while stumbling through old files thinking about a certain very underrated hole on the same course. Assumed this famous feature was there from the beginning; well, nope; perhaps talked about here before, noise to me if so
when did it appear, and why?"
JMorgan:
You got a lot of information on your questions but it stills looks like to determine when the DA first appeared, why and who might've called for it to be done is still pretty illusive. Because of the lack of photos or other information between when it's known it wasn't there until the first photo of it still is pretty wide, apparently up to 8 or 9 years, I guess it's origination will remain a mystery unless and until something else turns up.
-
JMorgan:
Unbelievable!
You know when I typed the last sentence in the last post I started wondering where or what any other resource material would be to shed any light on the DA.
On one of my computers, the one I'm on now, I have as a screensaver that amazing "Blue/Red" line topo which is the one both Crump and Colt worked on. Colt only for a week in 1913 but Crump used it for a number of years and put his developing ideas on it. Colt's drawing is in light blue and Crump's is mostly in red. The greens are generally roundish shapes and not particularly representative of the shapes of the greens as built. #10 green's shape is a bit unusual in that it's shaped like a gord or squash. Crump used a red pencil to outline all his bunkers as he developed them over time apparently generally with his pro/foreman Jim Govan at his side constantly shot-testing.
And BINGO, right at the front right of where the 10th green would be is a little round red circle----eg right where the DA would come to be. So it looks like it was Crump's idea and probably came to be when he was still there working on the course and before Jan 1918 when he died.
Some of these assets like that "Blue/Red" line topo are sort of like Rosetta Stones; you just have to keep looking at them and looking at them to study anything that might come up and it's just amazing what they can reveal if you study them enough.
-
Tom,
What does that do to Patrick's theory? I honestly couldn't keep up with all the green type and wonder if you could summarize...
I'm guessing that the little red circle probably doesn't have a "C.A" notation next to it, does it? ;)
Also, it would be great if it were possible to get a blow up of that greensite on the red/blue map on here, wouldn't it? ;D
-
"I'm guessing that the little red circle probably doesn't have a "C.A" notation next to it, does it?"
What does C.A mean?
As for what this does to Patrick's theory, I have no idea at all. First someone would need to know what Patrick's theory is and I doubt even he knows what it is. Furthermore, I don't really read ALL of Pat's green type posts because there seems to be no logic in it other than to be argumentative in all instances. As far as his frequent "myths, rumors and legends" retorts it seems like he picked that up from MacWood and Moriarty who he seems to value as analysts a whole lot more than I do.
-
Tom,
RE: The "C.A." notation...I was just asking if Mr. Allison was so kind as to notate his contribution for posterity on that map? ;)
-
"Tom,
RE: The "C.A." notation...I was just asking if Mr. Allison was so kind as to notate his contribution for posterity on that map? ;D"
Mike:
I know you're being jocular but frankly that is a very good question with a ton of interesting answers and facts involved in it when one considers how Alison worked and what he did there. But no Alison did not put anything on that seemingly amazing and information-laden "blue/red" line topo map which on its lower left side has the surveyors wording "Property of George A. Crump."
By the way, at first glance one may assume that meant the topo map itself was the property of George Crump while I feel it meant that the property of Pine Valley itself was George Crump's and as Rick Sides is beginning to prove in detail with a series of deeds that was in fact true at that time.
When Alison arrived on the scene it was just about three years after Crump died and apparently that "blue/red" line topo that Crump used so much and for so long as the design and development of the course progressed from 1913 to his death in Jan. 1918 had been put away.
Alison, essentially worked off a document that I have for some years referred to as "The Remembrances" as he studied the course and came to his recommendations or suggestions for it hole by hole that were submitted to what I call the "1921 Advisory Committee." Alison had at least some recommendation or suggestion for every hole with the exception of the 14th.
If any man (and his contribution) who made a fairly significant contribution to the architecture of Pine Valley really has been somewhat misunderstood or not well enough recognized over the years, in my opinion that man is definitely Hugh Alison. It's odd how these things begin to reveal themselves over time but there may be a very logical reason that happened. I have a very strong hunch that the material that Alison generated for the 1921 Advisory Committee although always at the club, for some reason found its way into another place than most all the rest of the resource material that makes up the PV archives of the creation of the golf course. These things just happen and to most of us. I put things in places sometimes without really thinking and sometimes I find them again by accident many years later after having wondered for so long where they went or were.
In that vein, I should also mention that whole course topo map that is labeled "Scheme For the Pine Valley Golf Course as Suggested by H.S. Colt" that a few of us picked off of ebay when apparently no one extant even knew it existed. The "fold lines" in it are fairly light so it probably just walked itself off the course one day in someone's pocket probably during the creation and did not come back again and was not seen again by PV until some bartender in Clementon bought it at a Flea Market around Clementon about five years ago for $56 and put it on ebay.
In my opinion, these kinds of little things are the real and most interesting little facets of the entire tapestries and the histories of some significant clubs and courses----eg some things happen over time for just the damnedest reasons, but if one looks hard enough they can begin to reveal themselves. Others who don't get into it so deeply seem to tend to automatically look at these things as some kind of conspiracy theory of a club trying to minimize someone unfairly to build someone else up inaccurately.
By the way, who even introduced Alison to Pine Valley? It is not conclusive but there is something factual or actually a few things that lead me to believe it was none other than Hugh Wilson. He had been for a time after Crump's death the Green Chairman of Pine Valley.
-
There is the possibility that everyone is right on this issue. :o
The area where the DA is located may have been a low spot that water coming off the green washed out repeatedly enough to expose sand. Crump may have decided to simply stop fixing the washouts and let nature have its way with that spot.
From there golfers would have found themselves in the sand, and subsequent shots out of it would have gradually altered the elevations all around it.
That DA bunker would certainly change its shape over time because it sees a lot of action, and so it could have started out as a much wider and shallower shape than what we see today. A pot bunker that is built on sand would just get deeper every year, and the walls would get steeper. You can see this with the Road Hole Bunker evolution. And then it might even get smaller as the grass grows in on the edges. And the water could still drain in to it if the lip stays below the elevation of the collar, which the pictures seem to indicate it does.
I think I agree with Patrick that traffic was not the causal factor. But I may agree with others who think that erosion had something to do with its location too.
-
"I think I agree with Patrick that traffic was not the causal factor. But I may agree with others who think that erosion had something to do with its location too."
Bradley:
I tend to agree with you. In that vein, one does need to understand and consider what the natural material of Pine Valley is and always has been. I think that's a wonderful and important story that Tim Nugent offered on this thread that long time PV super Eb Steineger (about fifty years at PV) offered to Tim's father that the DA evolved as it did due to wear and tear. I don't see in that story that Eb said that wear and tear was just foot traffic; that idea seems to have just popped up on here on its own. The wear and tear might just have been mostly the nature of that little bunker and where it was and the material around it and below it and what particularly water and sheet flow can tend to do to areas like that of that material over time and tide.
By the way, I've begun to seriously consider that the green surface of that green is not that much above what once was natural grade in that area pre-golf course. It seems to me they may've basically just cut out around most of it---eg there is a ton of seemingly excess material to the right of it in the earliest photo. In a sense that may've been a bit of a mistake in a macro drainage sense in that area because it looks like a significant amount of sheet flow water could come across that hole from the right and by cutting out around that green, and in the front particularly, just served to narrow and deepen the access and egress of that sheet flow water across the hole. I'm talking about an equal amount of water confined into a more limited space will run faster and with a lot more force----destructive force, particularly with that kind of natural light sand material which basically is PV.
-
:D ;) ;D
A little off topic but in the neighborhood .....someone commented on the great view that you would have had off the back of the 9th green and 10th tee vis a vis the 18th fairway and beyond back in the early days... It's interesting that if you were caddying and looking for golf balls over the 9th green (left green) after the occasional skull one had to be very careful not to slip the fall is so dramatic
One day of a fellow looper was looking for a wayward pellet behind said green and it happened to be a little wet, sure enough he slipped and ended up a couple of bounces from the 18th fairway ....how he didn't break his neck we'll never know but after we realized he was ok we laughed for the whole back nine...
.in talking to TEP regarding the 10th tee and it's elevation I related that with the advent of soft spikes many golfers off early on the back nine would slide down the hill walking off the tee .....the dew did them in
the club built a small grass ramp as you are leaving the tee to alleviate the danger of slipping
-
Here is the plan TEP was referring to, and also a close-up of the 10th hole. I see a little red bubble encroaching into the green, but that appears to part of the right-hand bunker. The red bunkers that look like spider webs are probably one large sandy waste area, which is what appears to be going on to the right of the 10th green on the map.
-
"The red bunkers that look like spider webs are probably one large sandy waste area, which is what appears to be going on to the right of the 10th green on the map."
They are indeed (or were ;)); and that brings up a few pretty interesting points. It seems like most all of my time down there over the years was pretty much in one kind of a tournament or another, and certainly in the old days (over about ten years ago ;) ) they really didn't maintain their bunkers and sandy waste areas down there like other courses do (and I frankly wish PV would go back to that policy because I happen to think that was some of what made the course as great as it was and is and can be).
What most courses that have some of those massive areas of sand (ex. PV's 7th hole "Hell's Half Acre") call them "waste areas" on there cards and such and what that basically means and the purpose of having that on a scorecard is basically a local rule that defines those areas as "through the green" in which a player can ground his club.
I don't believe Pine Valley ever had anything like that on their card or has that on their card now and I doubt they ever will. So that brought up a whole lot of debate from time to time over the years amongst those playing down there----eg where should you ground your club and where shouldn't you?
My old buddy Mayor John Ott (God rest your kindly soul, my friend) was definitely a purist in that regard if he was anything and he made it pretty simply for me and anyone else who talked to him on this particular subject.
He basically said; "If your ball is in sand or touching sand do not ground your club, period, or you would, or at least should be penalized!"
-
".in talking to TEP regarding the 10th tee and it's elevation I related that with the advent of soft spikes many golfers off early on the back nine would slide down the hill walking off the tee .....the dew did them in
the club built a small grass ramp as you are leaving the tee to alleviate the danger of slipping"
Archie:
In that vein, when soft-spikes were coming in and when so many clubs were going to soft-spike rules and policies, the subject of people slipping like that and the liabilities attached to that came up a lot. I think it was Aronimink who came up with the most clever soft-spike policy I ever heard of that was obviously geared towards avoiding that kind of liability. Their soft-spike requirment was that they only asked you to wear them on the greens! Do you think they ever had a golfer who took that so seriously and was so wedded to metal spikes that he actually bothered to change his shoes 18 times a round? I doubt it. Pretty clever, Huh? ;)
-
By the way, if the so-called "blue/red line" topo above is not interesting enough (which it most certainly is) at one point some years ago, Paul Turner, who was very good at that stuff, overlaid a photo of Crump's original topo routing (before Colt got there) right over the "blue/red line" one which is basically Colt in blue and Crump in red. It's in the deep back pages of this website somewhere from when we were carrying on a number of threads on the "Was it Colt?" or "Was it Crump?" or "Was it someone else?" discussions and debates. I wonder how many years ago that was. Scary to even think.
-
Hey Tom P,
In looking at the blue /red topo map, the 14th green sits along the 15th fairway. Why do you suppose the club decided to make this the par 3 today, and not go with Crump's original intent? ???
-
;D ;) ;D
'
TEP at Pine Valley they clearly stated in the local rules and used to put on the card that "all sand is playable as a hazard''
no waste areas ...all hazard...perhaps this has changed but I doubt it...John Ott "the Mayor" would have certainly adhered to this
-
Pat,
What that photo does show is a bunker that is flashed up more than in any other photo so far, and you have to have a backer to do that.
Jim,
I've maintained that the bunker on page 60 in Geoff's book is clearly offset from the fronting bank, and that it sits on an elevated footpad, and that it's not flashed, which would appear to be a different bunker than the one in the picture you presented.
At some point in time that bunker had to have both migrated and morphed to its current location and configuration.
The question is, when and why and under who's direction.
I'm not a believer in the notion that "things" at Pine Valley just happened naturally or randomly
There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that the bunker in Geoff's book was not the product of compaction, erosion or foot traffic.
It's clearly constructed within and elevated footpad and removed a good distance from the steep fronting bank.
-
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Perhaps pictures lie , perhaps not! But doesn't the seemingly disjointed DA beg the question ....when did they connect the bunker to the green ???
Surely there would have been some pictures of the connection, or a written record of the construction that conjoined the bunker and green..... the green appears identical to to the naked eye as it is today so who thought to redo it ..and when did it happen ??????
-
Pat,
Those are mostly not points that I'd argue with you about. The only place I differ is that it looks, and this is only a guess from a less than HiDef photo, that even though the bunker is up on its own elevated pad it's also flashed up the slope of the green.
-
There is the possibility that everyone is right on this issue. :o
Bradley, TEPaul .... "right" you must be kidding.
Do you know that when he was a teenager trying to date young debutantes from the Main Line, Palm Beach and the Gold Coast that he used to wear a big sign around his neck that had one word written on it ? The word " LEFT " And, when girls approached him and said what does that mean ? He replied, "will I do until the "right" one comes along ?
The area where the DA is located may have been a low spot that water coming off the green washed out repeatedly enough to expose sand. Crump may have decided to simply stop fixing the washouts and let nature have its way with that spot.
If you look carefully at Geoff's picture on page 60 of his wonderful book, you'll see that the bunker is sits in an elevated footpad above the surrounding terrain, so it didn't sit in a low spot, so drainage and washouts into the bunker couldn't have been a factor.
From there golfers would have found themselves in the sand, and subsequent shots out of it would have gradually altered the elevations all around it.
Wow, that's really a stretch, sand splash created the surrounding footpad ? ? ? Especially in 1920-1923 long before the Sand Wedge was even invented
That DA bunker would certainly change its shape over time because it sees a lot of action, and so it could have started out as a much wider and shallower shape than what we see today.
I disagree with that theory as well.
That bunker was offset from the slope of the bank and sat in an elevated footpad, and, it's small.
I doubt it got much play at all, especially when compared to the putting surface and much larger bunkers adjacent to the green.
A pot bunker that is built on sand would just get deeper every year, and the walls would get steeper. You can see this with the Road Hole Bunker evolution. And then it might even get smaller as the grass grows in on the edges. And the water could still drain in to it if the lip stays below the elevation of the collar, which the pictures seem to indicate it does.
You're laboring under a false concept.
Eugenio Saraceni didn't invent the Sand Wedge until the early 30's, a good decade after the DA appeared.
Thus, the concept that "sand splash" created the elevated footpad, all 360 degrees of it, is misguided at best.
Plus, you must be aware that if TEPaul says one thing, you must bet the other way.
This is a man that predicted color TV would never make it big, that football wasn't meant to be a spectator sport and that noone would come to an amusement park where a large mouse, ducks and other animals were the star attractions.
I think I agree with Patrick that traffic was not the causal factor. But I may agree with others who think that erosion had something to do with its location too.
With an offset bunker on an elevated footpad erosion couldn't be a factor.
-
Pat,
Those are mostly not points that I'd argue with you about. The only place I differ is that it looks, and this is only a guess from a less than HiDef photo, that even though the bunker is up on its own elevated pad it's also flashed up the slope of the green.
Jim,
What I'm saying is that if you compare your picture with the picture on page 60, the bunkers look different, in size, location and configuration, leading me to believe that one is an earlier version of the other.
Since today's bunker is tighter to the putting surface, I'd guess that your iteration came after the one on page 60 in Geoff's book.
Tom MacWood,
I see the red circle "into" the 10th green, and I suppose a reasonable argument could be made that this circle represented an intended bunker.
But, the photo that you posted, which appears to be the photo on page 60 of Geoff's book, shows a bunker detached from the putting surface, not into it as the schematic seems to suggest. Any idea as to the date of the photo on page 60 ?
-
I don't know if this helps you guys or not or even if you already know this...but on page 215 of George Thomas' "Golf Architecture in America" there is a picture of the tenth at Pine Valley. It looks like that bunker is being formed then, but it is not as well developed as some of the pictures on this thread.
I hope this helps in some way.
-
If Pine Valley did not want that bunker wouldn't they correct it? I think we would all agree the kind of course Pine Valley is, and knowing that they could fix any issues that was not intended?
-
??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Perhaps pictures lie , perhaps not! But doesn't the seemingly disjointed DA beg the question ....when did they connect the bunker to the green ???
Absolutely.
And, we know that today's version is tight into the green area.
Hence, it would appear that the photo on page 60 is an earlier iteration of the DA bunker, one NOT created by compaction, heavy traffic, erosion, drainage or wind, but, by man's design
Surely there would have been some pictures of the connection, or a written record of the construction that conjoined the bunker and green..... the green appears identical to to the naked eye as it is today so who thought to to redo it ..and when did it happen ??????
I think you might have a better chance in stumbling upon photos than written records.
It seems to me, and tell me if you agree, that from a golfer's perspective, especially in the context of a championship course, that a more devilish, challenging location for a bunker is one right up against the putting surface rather than one offset from the green, especially if you accept that NGLA was an icon of American golf and that many,.... many of NGLA's bunkers were hard against the putting surface, producing rolloffs into adjacent bunkers for misjudged or mis-hit shots. And that that juxtaposition between putting surface and bunker was a preferable architectural combination, versus, the bunker offset from the putting surface.
-
I don't know if this helps you guys or not or even if you already know this...but on page 215 of George Thomas' "Golf Architecture in America" there is a picture of the tenth at Pine Valley. It looks like that bunker is being formed then, but it is not as well developed as some of the pictures on this thread.
I hope this helps in some way.
Mac,
Great find.
However, I think the picture on page 215 is a much later rendition, in that the putting surface comes down to, and appears to wrap around the left side of the bunker. The entire bank appears to be putting surface. Note the worn path to the left of the bunker.
Interestingly enough, look at the credit for the photo, "Crump and Colt"
-
If Pine Valley did not want that bunker wouldn't they correct it? I think we would all agree the kind of course Pine Valley is, and knowing that they could fix any issues that was not intended?
Bill, I tend to agree.
I don't think anything happened by chance at Pine Valley
-
Tom MacWood,
I see the red circle "into" the 10th green, and I suppose a reasonable argument could be made that this circle represented an intended bunker.
But, the photo that you posted, which appears to be the photo on page 60 of Geoff's book, shows a bunker detached from the putting surface, not into it as the schematic seems to suggest. Any idea as to the date of the photo on page 60 ?
I agree with you. I do not see single detached bunker in front of the green. I see a series of bunkers connected to one another like many of the other bunkers on the map. These series of attached bunkers are meant to be a single large waste bunker. This map is inconclusive.
-
Here's the drawing blown up 5x.
Thanks for sharing it Tom M. I'm not sure it's conclusive because the colors blend a bit at this magnitude, but perhaps someone with a better copy could tell us if there is separation.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4400568537_60e3c0b620_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4400594811_89a1cc32b3_o.jpg)
Are folks contending that the DA and the red circle aren't in the same spot?
-
;D ??? ??? ??? ??? 8)
Again I ask the question , if the picture in Geoffrey Cornish's book shows a DA that iappears to be separate from the green on #10 , whyy no pictures or references to the change to present day conditions. There is no way the bunker could have migrated on it's own. Someone had to build it or it evolved ? Pretty good mystery here boys ...
-
Archie,
Which Cornish book does the D.A. appear?
-
8) ??? 8) :P
Sorry I was looking at the George Thomas picture ..my bad
-
On the "blue/red line" topo map, I think the point of the placement of that round circle (the DA) is more about the fact that the green was not built the way it appears to be shaped in that drawing. Given the way the front of the green was actually done the DA as it exists is in the right place.
Here's another item for you.
Colt did hole by hole drawings in a booklet. The holes are outlined as are his bunkers but generally the greens are fairly amorphous shapes and many of them do not have a solid line to demark their fronts with the exception of some of them that have a dimensional line (sometimes solid and sometimes ticked and sometimes with nothing but a dimensional number) showing the distance between left and right greenside bunkers or if there is a fronting bunker to the green (ex: Colt's version of #8 and #13, and apparently #18's green front demarked by water). #10 on Colt's drawing has no line to demark the green front and it has no fronting bunker that we see on the left front of the earliest photo of the 10th.
Crump's red line drawing of the green shape of #10 very vaguely resembles Colt's green shape and like Colt's Crump's has no line demarking the green front.
But the point is we can see in the earliest photo (on this thread) arguably from late 1913 or 1914 how Crump actually built the green and its front including the the left fronting bunker which he did not draw on the "blue/red line" topo. But dimensionally on that hole that little round red circle (the DA bunker?) on the "blue/red line" topo is about exactly where the DA actually is.
-
"There is no way the bunker could have migrated on it's own. Someone had to build it or it evolved ? Pretty good mystery here boys ..."
Archie:
Of course they actually built the DA into a formal bunker, at least at some point. By my calculations it looks like the earliest photo extant of it as a formal bunker may be 1923. But that does not mean it was not a formal bunker long before that, it only means we don't seem to have an actual photograph of it before 1923. The fact that the little red round circle on the "blue/red line" topo is right in the same place would indicate to me that Crump during his lifetime intended to put it there. Now, it certainly could have been because a depression was forming in that area through natural causes or whatever that inspired him to draw it onto the "blue/red line" topo and then create that bunker.
I think the fact that little round red circle right in the positon the DA is actually in appears on the "blue/red line" topo pretty much confirms that bunker was concieved of and very likely built during Crump's lifetime. I can't believe I never thought to look for it on the "blue/red line" topo before yesterday. I guess it was just a matter of the specific question never coming up, at least to me, before this thread.
-
Here's the drawing blown up 5x.
Thanks for sharing it Tom M. I'm not sure it's conclusive because the colors blend a bit at this magnitude, but perhaps someone with a better copy could tell us if there is separation.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4400568537_60e3c0b620_o.jpg)
Mike
Thanks for blowing it up. When blown up what is being referred to as round bunker looks more like the tail-end of a rectangular bunker. The line outlining the green is what is creating the illusion of a round bunker. As you can see that line (the one outlining the green) has a stuttering affect or a dot-dot-dot affect and goes right through the rectangular bunker and continues on past it.
-
Mac:
The photograph that appears on p. 215 of Thomas's book is the same one that appears on this thread on post #16 (Jim Kennedy's). It is a photograph taken by a man by the name of Rau. It is not the same photograph as the one on post #77 (Tom MacWood's) although for numerous reasons it is very easy to see those photographs are not separated that much in time.
The photograph in C&W's book of the 10th hole was taken many, many years later, possibly as late as the early 1990s unless it happens to have appeared in their first edition in which case it could've been taken as late as 1980 or 1981.
Actually strike that---I think it would have to have appeared only in the second addition because of those cedar trees planted to the left of the left bunker. Dick Bator put those in and I don't believe he got to Pine Valley until the mid 1980s at least. Archie Struthers could probably confirm or deny that.
-
Another interesting item on #10. It looks like it might be true to say what I was surmising yesterday or so that the actual green surface on #10 was probably close to what was natural grade pre-construction and that they just reamed out natural grade around it. It looks like the textual notation's on Colt's hole by hole drawing booklet would indicate that.
Next to the right bunker is the notation; "sink "B" 2' deep with side face."
Next to the left bunker is the notation: "deep "B" with face torn from hill 5'7" deep."
"B" would be his key for the hole's bunkers.
Behind the green Colt called for a deep hollow in grass. He did a lot of that in his hole by hole booklet but it appears in almost every case Crump put those areas into sand and bunkers. It seems with that item fairly prevalent on Colt's PV hole by hole plan he was into an early version of greenside chipping areas because behind #3 he actually notated it should be "kept mown."
-
"Bradley, TEPaul .... "right" you must be kidding.
Do you know that when he was a teenager trying to date young debutantes from the Main Line, Palm Beach and the Gold Coast that he used to wear a big sign around his neck that had one word written on it ? The word " LEFT " And, when girls approached him and said what does that mean ? He replied, "will I do until the "right" one comes along?"
Patrick:
That is absolutely hilarious. I wish I had thought of that when I was a teenager and I inevitably would've gotten more booty than I did. With the gals you are definitely the all-time king of clever pick-up lines and other situational evocations in that particular vein.
I was pretty shy as a teenager and I think the only type of pick-up line I used on the gals and young debs was basically borrowed from Henry Higgins/Rex Harrison in "My Fair Lady." To explain or describe myself I would tell 'em---"Im just a sensitive and ordinary man, who never would and never could...blah, blah, blah."
I guess I figured that might appeal to their maternal instincts or something like that. It wasn't until many years later that I finally realized most of the young debs I met as a teenager probably hadn't developed much in the way of maternal instincts; they were probably pretty much into the experimental trial and error stage of what it took to even think about developing maternal instincts. Do you remember---eg things like "petting." ;)
It wasn't until I was in my mid-twenties and into dating married women or at least divorcees that I figured out married women and such with real maternal instincts weren't into "petting" anymore. Lucky for me in my life that I had some really great mentors in the ways of life and love and they were pretty much exclusively women older than me who had what we called "experience."
-
Tom MacWood,
I don't even want to say what I think this looks like...
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4024/4402163842_75c39c97d1.jpg)
Did any of these guys draw graffiti as kids? ;)
Perhaps it was just shorthand symbolism for "if you hit it here, you're screwed!" ;D
-
Mike:
I wouldn't put too much stock in too much of the detail of what any of the red lines on that map look like, particularly blown up 5-10 times! :)
If the red lines are George Crump's and maybe 7-8 years ago I made that assumption/conclusion (including the blue lines being Harry Colt) for a variety of reasons I'd be glad to explain.
I should also add for historical clarity that map was not called "The Blue/red line" topo map by the club or anyone else. I named it that about eight years ago simply because it appeared at that time that noone had ever understood the difference or significance of the blue and red lines on that map or what they meant. I'm afraid the last PV history book writer might have mistakenly assumed everything on that map was done by Crump and even that he may've finished the map before March 1913----the actual surveyor's date on the map.
Crump may not have been much of a drawer and I doubt he'd ever previously tried to do golf architectural drawings so we shouldn't expect the same things from them as we might a professional architect who needed to be detailed with his drawings for crews and foremen when he was not there. ;)
When that map was begun (arguably right around May/June 1913 during that one and only week Colt was at PV) that particular "blue/red line" map was definitely a work in progress that would progress for a number of years. I know that because there are various things drawn on that map that I know did not take place for some time to come. Actually trying to figure out how long Crump used it to draw on is an interesting investigation in itself. In that vein, he may not have put that much on it in late 1916 or 1917 because some of the things that had taken place at that time (ex. the final development conceptually and actually of the 14th hole) do not really show very well or in detail on that map. There is probably a logical reason for that----eg America's entry into WW1 and the lose of crews and the virtual shutting down of PV's construction until the war was over and Americans came home---unfortunately after Crump died.
The other thing viewers of that map and PV's course's long-going development and creation should remember is the way Crump worked at Pine Valley---eg he was basically there most all the time with his pro/foreman Jim Govan so it wasn't as if either of them needed to perfect that map and the details of the drawing on it to such an extent that it could be interpreted by someone else without either of them around. In other words, generally both of them were there to just show the crews what they wanted to do even if it may've departed on the ground from what Crump put on his map. Most of the early years there were only two abodes on that property---Crump's bungalow and the Govan family's next to the 2nd hole. Govan was there all the time---it was his job, and apparently Crump left fairly infrequently.
I do not think it would be too much to say that in the annals of golf architectural projects, and perhaps anywhere in the world, Crump's life and his experience there at PV was more of a sort of "Waldon Pond" thing than anyone else like him had ever done before or since and by a considerable factor to boot.
Hope that helps you interpret that map compared to what got on the ground architecturally when George Crump was there. And in that vein, when studying the details of that map it sure does help to be intimately familiar with not just all the little architectural details of the course itself today but particularly the details of how it got built and the way it was in Crump's time, and shortly thereafter.
-
Was the red circle in question drawn at the same time as the rest of the plan?
Does this plan represent a conceptual diagram, or an as-built?
-
Kyle:
The blue lines of Colt were put on that map in something like a week's span in May/June 1913. The red lines of Crump were gradually put on that map over a period of probably 4-5 years. If you look at it carefully on some holes you can see where green positions were Xed out and moved etc. You can also see where Crump did not go with some of Colt's green positions and such (ex. #2, #7, not to mention Colt never got within 200 yards of #13 or 14 green. And when one compares that map to the first one Crump did probably mostly on his own before Colt ever got there you can pretty much see the whole evolution of the thing in Crump's lifetime. Of course, Crump never saw the entire 18 holes in play; he only saw 14 of them. The last four (12-15) were in various states of development and construction when he died suddenly on Jan 14, 1918. The entire 18 holes would not open until 1922.
-
Mike:
I wouldn't put too much stock in too much of the detail of what any of the red lines on that map look like, particularly blown up 5-10 times! :)
Tom,
I take it you aren't requesting that I zoom in further and blow it up much bigger at this juncture?
-
"I take it you aren't requesting that I zoom in further and blow it up much bigger at this time?"
Sure, no problem, blow it up as much as you want, particularly if you want to make Crump's seemingly amateurish red-lined drawings into a cool rorschach test exhibit on here. ;)
Who the Hell knows---if you blow it up enough maybe we will actually be able to identify Macdonald, Whigam, HH Barker and Willie Campbell all together standing on the ground out there on PV somewhere. Maybe George doodled them in on the map in red when he had some downtime as somebody was shoveling out the beginnings of a golf architectural asshole.
But seriously, if you want it to be at all useful perhaps the ticket would be to reduce it or expand it to about the size and scale George Crump and the rest of the people out there back then saw it as and were looking at as they worked on and held that topo map. But you never know, maybe Crump had a computer back in the teens and he blew that hole's drawing up to 20 times its size or whatever and maybe that's why he came up with the name Devil's Asshole for that particular bunker. We've obviously got a lot of very enthusiastic and resourceful computer researchers on here, so is there any chance someone can blow up a photograph of a Devil's actual asshole so we can compare it to that bunker on PV's 10th at any point in time?
-
"I take it you aren't requesting that I zoom in further and blow it up much bigger at this time?"
Sure, no problem, blow it up as much as you want, particularly if you want to make Crump's seemingly amateurish red-lined drawings into a cool rorschach test exhibit on here. ;)
Who the Hell knows---if you blow it up enough maybe we will actually be able to identify Macdonald, Whigam, HH Barker and Willie Campbell all together standing on the ground out there on PV somewhere. Maybe George doodled them in on the map in red when he had some downtime as somebody was shoveling out the beginnings of a golf architectural asshole.
But seriously, if you want it to be at all useful perhaps the ticket would be to reduce it or expand it to about the size and scale George Crump and the rest of the people out there back then saw it as and were looking at as they worked on and held that topo map. But you never know, maybe Crump had a computer back in the teens and he blew that hole's drawing up to 20 times its size or whatever and maybe that's why he came up with the name Devil's Asshole for that particular bunker. We've obviously got a lot of very enthusiastic and resourceful computer researchers on here, so is there any chance someone can blow up a photograph of a Devil's actual asshole so we can compare it to that bunker on PV's 10th at any point in time?
Tom:
If you were to take every 18th letter from the Piper and Oakley papers from Hugh and Alan Wilson - you'd get an entire confession that Hugh Wilson actually went abroad to study bordello architecture instead of golf architecture.
;)
-
I agree, Kyle, particularly considering who it might be who's analyzing every 18th letter of Hugh and Alan Wilson to Piper and Oakley. What this website has taught me over the years is just how much difference and variation of opinion there is not just on the same thing in architecture but on the same thing on pretty near anything in history.
It's a "Big World" out there, don't you know? ;)
-
;D ??? ??? ??? ??? 8)
Again I ask the question , if the picture in Geoffrey Cornish's book shows a DA that iappears to be separate from the green on #10 , whyy no pictures or references to the change to present day conditions. There is no way the bunker could have migrated on it's own. Someone had to build it or it evolved ? Pretty good mystery here boys ...
I agree.
I also think this is what makes GCA.com so much fun.
Trying to piece together the architectural jigsaw puzzle in terms of configuration, location and authorship is an interesting challenge.
Very few, if any architectural alterations happen by chance at PV and I think the genesis and evolution of the DA is a fascinating study, especially since this feature became a legendary architectural feature.
I find the photo on page 215 of Hunter's book to be exceptional.
There's clearly a symbiotic architectural relationship between the putting surface and bunker, one that didn't exist originally, which doesn't exist today. So, studying the cycle of that bunker, from creation to present day form is an interesting pursuit.
In terms of ascertaining the date of origin, I would think that dated photos will probably pinpoint that date, then, working backwards you can determine who was President, Superintendent and Green Chair if the position existed. You might also be able to ascertain which consulting architects visited PV prior to the creation of the D.A.
What I like about this thread is how it evolved from a generalized thread to a thread keenly interested in details, dates and authorship about a famous architectural feature.
At this point, it would seem that identifying the date of creation along with the dates of migration to current day location, vis a vis photos, would seem like the first and best step on solving the mystery of creation and migration
TEPaul,
I know it sounds far fetched, but, at the right moment, producing a little sign that says, "left" and then answering the question that naturally follows, from the woman who sees that sign, with the $ 64,000 question, produces some great results.
I know, I've field tested that little sign and it's spectacularly effective.
-
I agree, Kyle, particularly considering who it might be who's analyzing every 18th letter of Hugh and Alan Wilson to Piper and Oakley. What this website has taught me over the years is just how much difference and variation of opinion there is not just on the same thing in architecture but on the same on pretty near anything in history.
It's a "Big World" out there, don't you know? ;)
I meant individual l-e-t-t-e-r-s, not reports ;)
Coincidentally, every 15th letter if you read them backwards is for a cracking Snapper soup.
-
Mike Cirba,
To date, I don't think the color coded schematic provides concrete/conclusive evidence with respect to any aspect of the DA bunker.
-
Patrick:
Have you ever tried hanging a sign around your neck when out at some hot pick-up joints that says "I'm a know-it-all who is actually just an incredibly dumb Cluck" or would you say that's generally not been necessary?
-
Patrick:
Have you ever tried hanging a sign around your neck when out at some hot pick-up joints that says "I'm a know-it-all who is actually just an incredibly dumb Cluck" or would you say that's generally not been necessary?
Why would he be out at "some hot pick-up joint"?What exactly would he be picking up?
-
Patrick:
Have you ever tried hanging a sign around your neck when out at some hot pick-up joints that says "I'm a know-it-all who is actually just an incredibly dumb Cluck" or would you say that's generally not been necessary?
No, I haven't, but, based on the miserable reaction/results that you received when you tried that approach, I don't think I'll be trying it anytime soon.
;D
-
"I meant individual l-e-t-t-e-r-s, not reports ;D
Coincidentally, every 15th letter if you read them backwards is for a cracking Snapper soup."
I see. Knowing your scientific mind I wouldn't doubt you've already tested the historical accuracy of both. I know what dsylexia is but if your theories are true I think there are a few people on here who read both those ways.
As for Pat Mucci, he's a good friend and I know he's mostly an excellent Italian/American but I'm afraid he somehow got like a Chinese brain transplanted into him just after delivery because his reading comprehension clearly shows he seems to read English either backwards or straight down or whatever it is the Chinese do with their Chinese language.
-
"No, I haven't, but, based on the miserable reaction/results that you received when you tried that approach, I don't think I'll be trying it anytime soon."
Go ahead and try it and see what happens with some hot chicklets. I've tried it and it works great which probably proves I'm naturally a whole lot sexier than you are or else most hot chicks really eat up a violently self-deprecating sense of humour.
By the way, did you notice how I just spelt what you think is spelt humor? In the last week I've been doing a whole lot of research on the Anglo side of the great 200 year old "Anglo-Saxon Anglo/American Malthusian Moneycrat Oligarchy and it's been rubbing off on me---- the Humour, that is.
-
Patrick:
Have you ever tried hanging a sign around your neck when out at some hot pick-up joints that says "I'm a know-it-all who is actually just an incredibly dumb Cluck" or would you say that's generally not been necessary?
Why would he be out at "some hot pick-up joint"? What exactly would he be picking up?
BEANS and KNOWLEDGE[/size][/b]
-
"In terms of ascertaining the date of origin, I would think that dated photos will probably pinpoint that date, then, working backwards you can determine who was President, Superintendent and Green Chair if the position existed. You might also be able to ascertain which consulting architects visited PV prior to the creation of the D.A."
Patrick:
First of all I can pretty much tell you who the president, superintendent and Green Chair was at any point in time back then but on what you said about ascertaining the date of origin of the DA by working backwards with photographs, have you even been following what's been written on this thread? Can you even tell me the app date of the one available photograph that clearly showed that hole without that bunker and the date of first one that clearly did show it? ;)
-
"Why would he be out at "some hot pick-up joint"?What exactly would he be picking up?"
Jeff:
Well, with Patrick I can guarantee you it ain't hot takeout food! What happens in places like Vegas, stay in places like Vegas and believe me, Patrick knows all those places intimately.
As for me, I don't know places like that much at all and even though I do admit they certainly have their meretricious allure for some, I find them ultimately to be the vulgar underbelly of civilization inhabited by the demimonde and rakes such like.
-
"Why would he be out at "some hot pick-up joint"?What exactly would he be picking up?"
Jeff:
Well, with Patrick I can guarantee you it ain't hot takeout food! What happens in places like Vegas, stay in places like Vegas and believe me, Patrick knows all those places intimately.
As for me, I don't know places like that much at all and even though I do admit they certainly have their meretricious allure for some, I find them ultimately to be the vulgar underbelly of civilization inhabited by the demimonde and rakes such like.
Meretricious AND demimonde in the same sentence.You are officially on a roll.
-
Jeff:
As for me, I prefer to stay at home and read Rupert Brooke poetry before I turn in early so I can rise early and like the Bird of Freedom and Resource catch the proverbial early worm. Or is it the early chipmunk? Whatever.
-
"Meretricious AND demimonde in the same sentence.You are officially on a roll."
That is true, my good man and as the great Winston Churchill said: "Like the Mighty Mississippi, let it ROLL, let it ROLL ON FULL FLOOD and BENEFICENT!"
PS:
But unlike the Mighty Winston, believe it or not I haven't even had my first glass of wine or champagne yet, and to think it will be my bedtime in Philadelphia in a little less than 12 hours. Opps, sorry, I didn't check the cuckoo; make that 10 hours.
-
"In terms of ascertaining the date of origin, I would think that dated photos will probably pinpoint that date, then, working backwards you can determine who was President, Superintendent and Green Chair if the position existed. You might also be able to ascertain which consulting architects visited PV prior to the creation of the D.A."
Patrick:
First of all I can pretty much tell you who the president, superintendent and Green Chair was at any point in time back then but on what you said about ascertaining the date of origin of the DA by working backwards with photographs, have you even been following what's been written on this thread?
YES
Can you even tell me the app date of the one available photograph that clearly showed that hole without that bunker and the date of first one that clearly did show it? ;)
YES.
Having a "range" within which the photo falls isn't good enough.
You/we need to identify the precise year, without fear of contradiction
-
Patrick:
Regarding your response in #156---KNOWLEDGE and BEANS????
And in WAR headline sized print and bright red letters no less?
Did Deb give you warm paplum for dinner and did you ingest it by mistake straight through your nose and right into you brain that's been more than a bit suspect anyway for some time now?
What on earth does KNOWLEDGE and BEANS mean?? BEANS?? what kind of beans?
-
By the way I appreciate your second response in #162 and particularly the soft cuddly pink color context you put it in. That is one of the best examples of an attempt at Internet textual soft pillow-talk I've ever seen. I don't think it would be too awful, do you, for me to admit on here that it shows how you have secretly always felt about me?
-
I'm just throwing a strange idea out there, but any possibility that George Thomas may be responsible for the D.A.? We know Thomas had an influential hand in the design of Pine Valley and he liked creating unique, almost comical traits in some of his holes. Think about the 6th hole at Riviera with that bunker in the middle of the green. Thomas also features the D.A. in his book and mentions the importance a deep bunker can play near a green. Just food for thought.
-
Patrick:
Regarding your response in #156---KNOWLEDGE and BEANS????
And in WAR headline sized print and bright red letters no less?
What on earth does KNOWLEDGE and BEANS mean??
BEANS?? what kind of beans?
What kind of beans you ask ?
Well, I'll tell you ....... Great looking Human Beans with big T's ;D
-
"Well, I'll tell you ....... Great looking Human Beans with big T's"
Ah, Jeesus, Patrick, you're too damn much.
-
TEPaul,
It's possible that Crump had the concept in his head, but, when he initially crafted the golf course the DA was not included in the construction.
It initially appears as an offset bunker detached from the bank and green and eventually migrates right into the green.
With Crump's death in 1918, it appears to have appeared and completed its migration after he was gone, so someone else had to construct the original. The migration and reconfiguration had to be done by someone else as well.
The contrast with the initial photo posted by JMorgan and the photos on page 60 and 215 of Geoff Shackleford's and Hunter's books is quite striking, and, in complete contrast to what exists today.
It's a nice mystery to try to solve.
We should focus on other famous architectural features and try to determine how they came into existance and evolved into what they are today.
P.S. we will get to Philly this season.
-
;D :D ;)
Lots of pictures up at Pine Valley clubhouse that show the changes to the architecture, however they are not for the most part dated, making analysis fairly difficult . It's a fairly logical assumption that the disjointed DA predated the attached one, so we're going to figure this out pretty soon.....I've got the carbon dating info coming soon !
-
"TEPaul,
It's possible that Crump had the concept in his head, but, when he initially crafted the golf course the DA was not included in the construction."
Pat:
I don't see how you or anyone can credibly or conclusively make that statement. If that little round red circle on the "blue/red line" topo map in the position the DA came to be in represents what would be that bunker or was that bunker during Crump's time at Pine Valley then it can be assumed the concept was Crump's. The red-line drawings are Crump's, at least a very good assumption can be made that they are for all kinds of factual and historic reasons.
The problem for us at the moment is there does not seem to be any photographic evidence of the area of that bunker between about late 1913 or early 1914 and the first photo of the bunker in app. 1923. But the fact that there is no photographic evidence of that area in that time span does not necessarily mean that bunker was not there in that time span.
By my calculation and study of the creation of PV during Crump's lifetime pretty much everything in red drawn on that map had been constructed before Crump died on Jan. 24, 1918. I don't see why that little round red circle in the position of the DA should necessarily be considered an exception to that fact.
-
"With Crump's death in 1918, it appears to have appeared and completed its migration after he was gone, so someone else had to construct the original. The migration and reconfiguration had to be done by someone else as well.
The contrast with the initial photo posted by JMorgan and the photos on page 60 and 215 of Geoff Shackleford's and Hunter's books is quite striking, and, in complete contrast to what exists today.
It's a nice mystery to try to solve."
Pat:
I think what we are looking for first is when that bunker in that position first appeared as something resembling a bunker. If we can logically get that date into Crump's lifetime then it can probably be assumed the idea was his, and in that vein I really don't think we can discount the significance of that little round red circle on the "blue/red line" topo map in the area the DA would be in or was in during his lifetime. As I just said there was little to nothing on that course that was drawn in in red that was not constructed in his lifetime.
Next as far as what you call the bunker migrating we can look into that next over any time span. We surely do know that Crump changed many things out there during his app five years working on the course with Govan pretty much all the time and the record shows had he lived it was his intention to keep on changing things on that course until he felt he finally got it right. There is a very fine chronicle compiled by his two closest friends down there what he intended to do had he lived. There is also that famous remark one of those two men closest to him that when Crump would be asked why he was taking so long and when he would finally finish the course he would bellow "NEVER!!"
"Lots of pictures up at Pine Valley clubhouse that show the changes to the architecture, however they are not for the most part dated, making analysis fairly difficult."
Depending on any particular picture, and certainly of PV there are all kinds of nuancy and interesting little ways to get photos into a pretty tight timespan if it is undated. That's some of the finer points of what historical architectural analysis is all about. There are a fair number of people who have some pretty good experience at it but of course being intimately familiar with the golf course and all the details of its history in any given time is sort of essential otherwise one wouldn't even know what to be looking at or for.
-
Mike Cirba,
To date, I don't think the color coded schematic provides concrete/conclusive evidence with respect to any aspect of the DA bunker.
Patrick,
It looks like a red circle drawn along/over/adjacent to fomerly drawn blue lines to me, but the tough part is the more I blow it up, the less distinct it becomes and the colors tend to blur.
I think I'd need to look at the original to say for sure what I think, but if indeed a red circle is drawn atop a former blue drawing that would seem pretty strong evidence to me that Crump wanted a separate little circular bunker in that location.
As far as fun investigations, I completely agree.
I haven't had this much fun since Bryan Izatt measured the acreage of the original Merion property although for the life of me I can't recall what conclusion we all came to from that herculean exercise and labor on Bryan's part... ;)
-
btw..how cool would the 10th be with the green configured gourd-like as in that drawing with the DA in the position drawn?
Can you imagine a front hole location? :o
-
"btw..how cool would the 10th be with the green configured gourd-like as in that drawing with the DA in the position drawn?
Can you imagine a front hole location?"
It does seem to be a cool "gourd-like" shape to that green as drawn on that "blue/red line" topo map and on Colt's individual hole drawing in his booklet which is vaguely similar to the shape on the B/R topo map (Colt's green shape in his booklet is nowhere near as gourd-shaped as the green on the B/R map, even though Colt's shape is nonetheless interesting as it appears the green or at least that front area which is not now green may go right around the entire front of the left bunker to create a sort of shallow perpindicular peninsula of greenspace!). Frankly, I don't think that front area that some on here assume may've been greenspace was ever intended to be that for the reasons given in the following.
We need to remember we are basically looking at this in only two dimensions---eg length and width and we cannot see or appreciate the vertical dimension in that seemingly front greenspace area on both drawings. Again, I don't think any of it in that front area was ever intended to be front greenspace and especially with this particular green and its topographical surrounds either pre-construction or afterwards.
The reason seems to be that originally that area may've been naturally pretty vertical or else Crump decided to make it that way by basically cutting fill out and down on the right, front and left of that green and maybe even somewhat in the rear.
On that note there is some Rosetta Stone items on that map and on Crump's first map that could confirm or deny the foregoing and that is that "blue/red Line" topo map, as well as the topo counter map Crump used before Colt got there, does have contour lines on them but unfortunately given the age and wear and tear on both maps those contour lines tend to be very faint and difficult to pick-up and follow. It is just about impossible ot pick them up on a photograph----you pretty much need to get very close to the originals to have any chance of picking them up and following them (actually they may've even been quite faint originally from the surveyor as you may be able to notice that for some reason Colt seems to have drawn over and followed a few of them prominently with his blue pencil).
If and when I go down there again I will make a note to look around the tenth green on those two topo contour maps (anyone interested in this who goes down there should) because we have to remember those contour lines were drawn before anything at all was done architecturally down there as far as moving any earth---those two maps show the natural contours before PV or Crump did anything to that site. But if we can see and follow those pre-construction contour lines it could tell us if that area where the little red circle is drawn and where the DA now is had like a natural 20-25% incline/decline on it before that green was built. We certaily do know that area has that much incline/decline or more to it now and after that green and its surrounds was constructed.
-
I just checked out the photo of the B/R line topo on post #113 and nope one cannot make out any of the surveyor's topo contour lines even though you can pick up some of the ones Colt highlighted in his blue pencil----particularly prominent in the mid-left of the site between say #12 and #13 and #15.
-
It's possible that Crump had the concept in his head, but, when he initially crafted the golf course the DA was not included in the construction."
Pat:
I don't see how you or anyone can credibly or conclusively make that statement.
My statement is irrefutable.
We know that the D.A. bunker wasn't there when the course was built.
What we don't know is whether Crump originally conceptualized the idea or was oblivious to the idea.
We don't know if the idea was someone else's, and if so, whether they relayed the concept to Crump.
What we know as irrefutable fact is that the hole was originally built without the D.A. bunker.
Remember too that the 10th hole was in the ground long before the entire 18 were crafted and ready for play.
If that little round red circle on the "blue/red line" topo map in the position the DA came to be in represents what would be that bunker or was that bunker during Crump's time at Pine Valley then it can be assumed the concept was Crump's.
Not necessarily.
If you look at the red circle, it's more of a flanking bunker than a fronting bunker, and as such, it's a stretch on anyone's part to claim that Crump wanted a fronting bunker, but, didn't know where the front of the green was in the schematic/blue/red line topo.
The red-line drawings are Crump's, at least a very good assumption can be made that they are for all kinds of factual and historic reasons.
It doesn't matter, the location of the red circle is nowhere near where the original or evolved DA bunker resided.
The problem for us at the moment is there does not seem to be any photographic evidence of the area of that bunker between about late 1913 or early 1914 and the first photo of the bunker in app. 1923. But the fact that there is no photographic evidence of that area in that time span does not necessarily mean that bunker was not there in that time span.
IF the DA bunker wasn't there in 1920, or 1921 or 1922, then it's a good bet that it wasn't there earlier.
You're making a totally unreasonable quantum leap and it seems as if you're trying to force attribution of the bunker to Crump irrespective of the time it first manifests itself photographically. At least that's the way I've read your reply.
By my calculation and study of the creation of PV during Crump's lifetime pretty much everything in red drawn on that map had been constructed before Crump died on Jan. 24, 1918. I don't see why that little round red circle in the position of the DA should necessarily be considered an exception to that fact.
I think that's wishful thinking on your part.
The "red circle" is a flanking, not a fronting feature, and, it's into the green whereas we know the original version appears detached from the green.
Please review the original photo JMorgan posted. Look at that fronting bank and then look at page 60 in Geoff Shackelford's book which shows the bunker fronting and detached from the green, then look at the schematic where the red circle is flanking and into the green.
I'm not saying it isn't possible that Crump envisioned the DA in it's original and evolved positions, but, it does seem highly unlikely.
Why wouldn't he have included the DA bunker in the original construction if he in fact drew it as an integral part of the 10th green ?
And, why would he have left it out or detached it if he intended to incorporate it in the 10th green ?
-
Pat,
That red circle is not flanking the as built green...maybe on the drawing, which included the long stem, but not the actual green.
Do we really not have pictures between 1914 and 1923?
-
"Do we really not have pictures between 1914 and 1923?"
We do. The first photo on Post #3 is probably from late 1914 or 1915 (see the fill for #17 green behind #10). The only problem with that photo if the DA had been built is the bank between the tee and the green hides the area the DA may be in and would be in. That bank is what Alison suggested removing in his 1921 plan so the bunkers in front of the green could be seen.
Patrick, however, is apparently under the impression a bunker can not exist until there is a photograph of it that he can see. ;)
-
Ehm,
sorry, maybe I'm just being a bit dim, but what do people think the feature I've outlined might be? Look at the shadow of the right side tree which DISAPPEARS into a deep chasm before returning to the previous level. The left shadow continues unaffected.
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y240/Fatbaldydrummer/with-1.jpg)
I'd also suggest that this photo - and the one in GAIA - are taken from somewhere on the right side of the hole, rather than from the tee which may be throwing the DAA's apparent position slightly off...? (The sandy track is running left to right-ish rather than towards the hole from the tee, if you see what I mean).
cheers,
FBD.
-
What I find interesting is that the sand on the left appears to be in the process of being formed into a bunker. The bottom area looks to have been built up to contain the sand. Furthermore, it looks as if that formed ridge melds into the platform which which holds the DA in place. The question is, was that done originally or was it done after some time? If original (which one can't tell without clearly visable and dated pix) I think there is a chance that it may have been possible that the planning for the DA was in place. Of course, it also looks as though that entire area might have turned to sand (linking the two waste areas) just by folks walking up that area. It looks steep and with a lot of use, difficult to maintain that walkway. Honestly, I could see a "bunker" forming there either by plan or chance or a little of both. That said, its shape must be totally manufactured.
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
That said, its shape must be totally manufactured to end up looking like this.
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/0013.jpg)
Ciao
-
Marty,
I think you can see in Sean's second picture that the bunker you've outlined is still there and flanks the right edge of the green. The DA is in front of the right portion of the green.
-
Jim,
thanks, I see the rear portion of that bunker now!!
Having been an unfortunate 'visitor' to the DA, you'd think I would have better recognised it! ;D
cheers,
MB.
-
Certain objects look hole-ly different from the inside I guess...
I still think the single best hole ever played has to be Tommy N aiming for the DA, hitting it, and getting out in one shot...do I have that right? Did he make the putt?
-
Marty Bonnar:
The area you outlined is the front of the right bunker. It's along the right side of the green and along the right side of the right bank up to the green where the DA is. Sorry, Sully; I just read yours that says the same thing.
-
"What I find interesting is that the sand on the left appears to be in the process of being formed into a bunker. The bottom area looks to have been built up to contain the sand. Furthermore, it looks as if that formed ridge melds into the platform which which holds the DA in place. The question is, was that done originally or was it done after some time? If original (which one can't tell without clearly visable and dated pix) I think there is a chance that it may have been possible that the planning for the DA was in place. Of course, it also looks as though that entire area might have turned to sand (linking the two waste areas) just by folks walking up that area. It looks steep and with a lot of use, difficult to maintain that walkway. Honestly, I could see a "bunker" forming there either by plan or chance or a little of both. That said, its shape must be totally manufactured."
Sean Arble:
On your thoughts and questions there would be one foolproof way to tell and answer some of your questions and that would be if that "blue/red line" topo map or Crump's first topo map (another one but a copy of from the same surveyor) shows the contour lines on and around that green site because those topo maps were drawn before anything was built there. I also stress that Colt's instructions for and around that green (May/June 1913 before anything was built at that green) do say to cut down 2' deep on the right and 5'7" deep on the left. I do stress that would be a foolproof answer but just a potential one because as I said on another thread some of the contour lines on those topographical survey maps are very faint even if you are standing within inches of the originals. They really don't show up on photographs of those maps other than very faintly on some parts of the site.
Most interestingly, you can see some contour lines even on photos but they are only the contour lines that Colt highlighted with his light blue pencil right over the top of the surveyor's contour lines. He seems to have only highlighted something like one in every fourth or fifth contour line on the surveyor's map for some reason, particularly in some of the high topographical areas.
It is also pretty apparent that in the beginning at least Crump seemingly did not know how to identify various areas on the ground very well to where they were on his topographical survey maps in relation to its contour lines. I'll explain how we can know that later.
-
Frankly, what I'm beginning to appreciate more and more with the entire evolution of the DA is not just the question of its basic shape and position over time but how and why it got as deep as it did with such a small conical base. Its sides are so vertical that it actually has wooden steps sort of jammed into one bank just to get in and out of it. Part of the answer may be that the effective sand base of the bottom of the bunker where any ball getting into it will come to rest probably doesn't have a circumference much larger than a man's armspan if he makes a circle with his arms. And then one needs to add to that its walls are grassed down pretty far. It very well be one of the smallest bunkers in the world in actual sand square footage. Or looked at another way it can be pretty hard for anyone to take a normal backswing and follow through in it. That's part of the reason it can be such a problem to get out of, and why so many golfers tend to just play stroke and distance back to the tee if they get in it.
Sully:
I don't think TommyN got up and down after going into the DA on purpose but he did get his ball on the green in one shot. He did get up and down, though, from the base of the 4th hole at LuLu which is almost as impressive. I know that because I was playing with him.
Another interesting item to notice in comparing the two photos on Post #180 is the color photo (many decades after the B/W above it) is it seems a good deal of the left back greenspace is gone or reduced from that B/W which is the earliest photo of the 10th (probably late 1913-to late 1914). That could be due to the collapse in the beginning of those original high sand flashed faces around the green as evidenced by the visible front left bunker.
Essentially there's a ton of evolutionary history of all kinds of things one can pick up on this stagger of photos over time if you scrutinize them all carefully enough. Basically they could be considered an historical/evolutionary architecture analysts' classroom.
-
Not seeing what you are on the back left there...the B&W is just not clear enough for me to see much difference.
I'll tell you what, the hole location in the color photo is absolutely one of the most difficult on that course...and if you go 4 or 5 feet left it's probably the most difficult.
-
Pat,
That red circle is not flanking the as built green...maybe on the drawing, which included the long stem, but not the actual green.
Jim,
Please reread the sentence you posted above.
On THE DRAWING, the red circle FLANKS the green.
As to the "as built" there is NO D.A. BUNKER !
Do we really not have pictures between 1914 and 1923?
Hopefully, some will turn up, but, I'm also interested in photos that depict the migration of the bunker.
-
"Not seeing what you are on the back left there...the B&W is just not clear enough for me to see much difference."
Sully:
It looks to me like the back left of that green (starteing from about ten steps on) had more space to it essentially creating more width across the back. I'll check some later photos to see what they show on that.
On of the most interesting aspects of the earliest photo (the one without the DA) is it may show the natural grade behind the back tee on #18 before Crump built the 17th green.
There has been at least one old photo on here of Crump's 17th hole and green before Alison changed it in 1921. There was no waste area 100 yards and in to the green as there is now----Crump's was all fairway and his green created one helluva beautiful pure SKY-line affect from the approach. It seems like on his original green you couldn't even see the rise of the 18th tee behind the green as you can now.
-
"Hopefully, some will turn up, but, I'm also interested in photos that depict the migration of the bunker."
Patrick:
Something tells me when you start talking about the "migration" of the DA you might be implying that the bunker has been moving or moved on its own throughout time or that someone is suggesting such a thing. And looking at the various photos over an extended period of time of that hole and bunker that very well might be the case, but not or probably not if you're somehow suggesting that bunker is moving all by itself which I find truly hilarious. Have you ever considered it very well may've been rebuilt or even repositioned over time, maybe even a number of times, for various reasons such as it was getting torn up by time and tide such as sheet flow? Knowing the way you think you probably think it magically moved on its own somehow. There's a good reason for everything if you look carefully enough even though you don't seem to be very good at figuring out why or how. ;)
Have you figured out yet why what you think was the front of that green on the "blue/red line" topo (and on Colt's drawing which you've never seen) very likely wasn't? ??? ::)
-
Perhaps a comparison of the photo that started this thread as well as a shot I think from a very similar spot and angle:
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
This from October, 2009:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PV4Max/PV_No10_800.jpg)
-
Joe,
That's a very interesting angle, but I don't see you casting the same type of shadow as the original photographer in the 1913/14 pic....hmmmm.....
In fact, I wonder if that is a shadow at all....let me pull out my Ted Turner American movie classic colorization technology and see if we can't shed a little light on that object in the immediate foreground...
AHAH!! I KNEW IT!!! :o :o :o
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4039/4406519561_e51b694e63_o.jpg)
-
Joe:
If it helps for timelining, dating and clarity I would, again, just mention that the first photo (without the DA) is pretty conclusively from a point in time as early as the spring of 1914 as at that time eleven holes (1 through 9, 10, 18) had been unofficially put into play. That would mean the construction of that hole was logically done by the late summer or early fall of 1913 and seeded for at least a 6-7 month grow-in.
Again, it is also important to note on that first early photo just how high and veritcally the sand was flashed to the green surface and the left long bunker was even flashed right to the 18th tee. I don't believe that situation would last long at all on this hole and it became necessary to begin to eventually grass down the faces of the bunkers of this kind of verticality until eventually they became grassed all the way down to fairly flat to gently concave floors as we see in the color photo above.
-
Tom,
I believe I've JUST PROVEN with UMISTAKEABLE CLARITY WHO DESIGNED THE FEATURE IN QUESTION!!!
If you weren't both BLIND and DAFT you'd have seen it by now instead of focusing on STEEPNESS OF BUNKERS.
Did you ever wear a sign that said "I'm WITH STUPID", with an upwards POINTING ARROW!?!
Carry on... ;) ;D
-
The true answer to what is missing from those pics is me and Eric Smith.
ARG
-
Mike:
While I admit I don't know what you're talking about I did notice from the green print and such it appears Patrick Mucci is unfortunately apparently beginning to rub off on you. One might even label it the "Internet Patty Hearst Hostage Affect."
-
Of some interest may be the fact that the flash of sand has old stacks of sod behind it and behind the sod are timbers. I was told when working there that the whole green is framed up with treated timbers.
-
Crump died in 1913, right?
Four holes were built out by Wilson after that, right?
And in 1921 the course was fully open, right?
You guys have narrowed down the changes were made between 1913 and 1920, right?
Wouldn't it seem that Wilson would have done the work as he built out the remaining holes.?
-
Mike et al:
Even with Patrick on here gumming things up discussion-wise and otherwise I do think this particular thread is one of the best for a really good historical, investigation/analysis of some amazing details of a significant old golf hole and feature I've ever seen on this website. I have and IM or email to Ran to that effect.
And I would also suggest and remind as I have a few other times on this website, to not much response----can you imagine how important and interesting and edifying it really would be if we could somehow manage to identify those old surveyor contour lines on those PRE-construction topographical contour maps Crump worked on in his time with Pine Valley and really track them in detail. They wouldn't tell us when the DA was done or whose idea it was but it sure could tell us anything and everything we'd need to know about what holes looked like naturally and exactly what they did or didn't do to them.
Can you imagine how cool that would be if we ever found the same thing Wilson and his committee were working on with Merion East in 1911 (their PRE-construction topo contour survey maps)?
A virtual GCA Rosetta Stone, I would say.
With Patrick it seems he can only imagine or contemplate things in photographs----and unfortunately to such a total reliance on them that he probably assumes something may not be able to even exist before a photograph is taken of it. ;) It's probably the influence of Tom MacWood who on here mentioned a few times that there could be no way Crump could ever have wanted trees isolating his holes at PV unless and until something could first be found where he actually wrote that down HIMSELF! ::)
-
"Crump died in 1913, right?"
Crump died on Jan 24, 1918
"Four holes were built out by Wilson after that, right?"
Not necessarily, even though Hugh Wilson did serve as PV's green chairman for a time after Crump died
"And in 1921 the course was fully open, right?"
In the spring of 1922.
"You guys have narrowed down the changes were made between 1913 and 1920, right?"
Somewhat; at least a bit more than previously.
"Wouldn't it seem that Wilson would have done the work as he built out the remaining holes?"
Again, not necessarily. At least neither he nor his brother or anyone around PV at the time seemed to mention such a thing. Both of them most assuredly did contribute to the agronomic development of the place and to a number of its necessary fixes both before and after Crump died. In 1919, William Flynn actually went on the payroll and apparently spent a few days a week there for about six months. Flynn also may've overseen the Alison architectural suggestions along with PV foreman/pro/clubmaker Jim Govan and perhaps even an occasional assist from architect and PV member George Thomas. Amazingly, we also find that Flynn's soon to be partner, Howard Toomey was not only a member he was apparently on the board of PV around this time. But Toomey was not exactly an architect, he was an engineer and apparently quite adept at some agronomic application developments.
It also seems that very little was done at PV architecturally after Crump's sudden death and perhaps for up to three years until Alison became involved in the beginning of 1921 and that might even be extended to close to four years when you consider the USA's involvement in WW1 in 1917-18.
And there is more. I guarantee you some of the stuff that our contributor/dedicated On-the-ground researcher Rick Sides is coming up with on original deeds and such is potentially amazing, at least it is to me.
-
"Of some interest may be the fact that the flash of sand has old stacks of sod behind it and behind and that I was told when working there that the whole green is framed up with treated timbers."
Steve:
Now that sure could be a remarkable revelation. That is certainly something I've never heard before. If that were true a core of the strata would most probably reveal it. On that note, Colt's hole by hole booklet notes could be a key but he sure never mentioned anything like that. All he seemed to say is such as "tear away" and basically go down X feet.
-
Tom,
Obviously, my artistry is anything but.
What do you think that thing in red is eyeing a...nay...eyeing THE perfect spot for his bunker? ;
-
Perhaps a comparison of the photo that started this thread as well as a shot I think from a very similar spot and angle:
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
This from October, 2009:
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PV4Max/PV_No10_800.jpg)
...seems to me that the left side of the green was either grassed to stabilize, or the grass grew down it....the trees shown got to big and were cut down... and the large right side bunker was divided into two, leaving the DA. from the looks of it they might have shifted it to the left while using the excavation material to build the neck/seperation between the two....I doubt they would have brought in dirt instead of a simple cut and fill to the right.
the current form is just a good example of the effects of sand splash and grass moving in to fill faces and find a way to grow in the sun.
but its really tough to judge unless the before and after pictures are taken from the same spot.
-
Paul:
I realize you may've been speaking of other factors but those are some pretty clever observations on your part and perhaps fairly historically interesting in some of the impracticalities of some of the architecture of some of the old holes that particularly were totally surrounded by sand bunkering----eg the best example probably being the Macdonald/Raynor "Short" template hole. It seems to me many of them were originally totally surrounded by sand bunkering and over time the impracticality of golfers approaching and particularly exiting those greens through the sand and in some cases wooden stairs necessitated at some point the addition of grass walkways and such. It appears from the original photo (arguably constructed and seeded in the late summer/early fall of 1913) of the 10th sans the DA that Crump et al thought of that with the right front grass walkway and of course there is not much in the way of bunkering in the rear for easy egress to the 11th tee.
Of course we can see from that original photo that the front right grass walkway was the only way to get back out of those bunkers (due to their vertical sand faces) and up on the green other than in the back. Today it's perhaps not completely recommended but it certainly is possible for golfers to come up on the green on some of the other grassed down faces, which as the say, have gotten quite "easy" (not so vertical and certainly not sand but grass).
-
Sometimes, we're so busy looking at the trees we miss the forest.
What seems to be just perhaps a shadow from a photographer in the foreground of this black and white photo...
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
...turns out to be the real architect, when modern colorization technology is selectively applied! ;) ;D
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4408138272_1524b85db9_o.jpg)
-
"Hopefully, some will turn up, but, I'm also interested in photos that depict the migration of the bunker."
Patrick:
Something tells me when you start talking about the "migration" of the DA you might be implying that the bunker has been moving or moved on its own throughout time or that someone is suggesting such a thing.
The ONLY one infering that is YOU.
Perhaps you missed or can't remember a reply to Bill Rocco on how things happen at Pine Valley.
And looking at the various photos over an extended period of time of that hole and bunker that very well might be the case, but not or probably not if you're somehow suggesting that bunker is moving all by itself which I find truly hilarious.
What I find hilarious is how you could draw that inference, especially in light of my replies to Bill Rocco and others on the subject of how things get done at Pine Valley.
I suspect that your closet doors were left open when you were a toddler, causing you to see boogeymen everywhere ;D
Have you ever considered it very well may've been rebuilt or even repositioned over time, maybe even a number of times, for various reasons such as it was getting torn up by time and tide such as sheet flow?
Considered it. You idiot ;D, I'm the one who suggested that in the first place.
Haven't you been reading this thread ? ?
Knowing the way you think you probably think it magically moved on its own somehow.
There's a good reason for everything if you look carefully enough even though you don't seem to be very good at figuring out why or how. ;)
That's really funny.
You're the one who claimed that the bunker just magically evolved.
Here's your quote from your reply, reply # 26
I have always heard from the club the DA did sort of begin to evolve in some way and eventually they just sort of formalized it.
[/u]
But, what's really interesting is that you're championing conflicting positions, which isn't unusual for you.
On one hand you claim that Crump's red circle was the DA he intended and on the other hand you tell us that the bunker just evolved.
You can't have it both ways, please, in the name of consistency, make up your mind, which position do you claim ...... today.
[/size]
Have you figured out yet why what you think was the front of that green on the "blue/red line" topo (and on Colt's drawing which you've never seen) very likely wasn't? ??? ::)
Tom MacWood's reply # 113 clearly shows the red circle as a FLANKING feature in that green, not a fronting feature.
I'll trust my eyes in analyzing the schematics in reply # 113 versus your's or anyone else's interpretation
-
Patrick:
I said on Post #190:
“Knowing the way you think you probably think it magically moved on its own somehow.
There's a good reason for everything if you look carefully enough even though you don't seem to be very good at figuring out why or how.”
You said on Post #206:
“That's really funny.
You're the one who claimed that the bunker just magically evolved.
Here's your quote from your reply, reply # 26”
From Post #26:
"I have always heard from the club the DA did sort of begin to evolve in some way and eventually they just sort of formalized it."
This is from Post #26. Is this what you’re referring to in your Post #206?
From Tim Nugent:
"About the bunker on 10, dad said Eb told him that it came about because of wear and tear. Evidently, balls would roll off the green and come to rest in that spot. Due to repeated pitch shot and foot taffic on/off the green, the turf wore out and was hard to re-establish. Eventually they gave in and allowed it to become a bunker."
My response to Tim in Post #26:
“Tim:
I have always heard from the club the DA did sort of begin to evolve in some way and eventually they just sort of formalized it. No one ever actually mentioned who said that. If Eb Steineger told your Dad what you mentioned above then that is the closest thing to a direct oral history of the feature I've heard.”
Patrick:
Is that what you’re referring to in your Post #206 above?
If so, perhaps you may want to give some thought to the fact that Eb Steineger who was the greenskeeper at Pine Valley for close to 50 years knew more about the history and evolution of that course and the features on it than you do or ever will. ;)
-
...I do think this particular thread is one of the best for a really good historical, investigation/analysis of some amazing details of a significant old golf hole and feature I've ever seen on this website.
I very much concur with this. The analysis and study of unique architectural features like this and their evolution is fascinating (at least to this GCA geek). I suspect we could spend a lot of time going through PV hole by hole with this exercise and find a lot to discuss. Some have already been covered in this way to some extent, like 12.
-
TEPaul,
You said,[/zize]
If so, perhaps you may want to give some thought to the fact that Eb Steineger who was the greenskeeper at Pine Valley for close to 50 years knew more about the history and evolution of that course and the features on it than you do or ever will.
Steineger didn't become the superintendent at Pine Valley until 1928, years after the DA first appeared, hence he wouldn't have first hand knowledge of its origins.
Steineger's knowledge of Pine Valley probably exceeded all but a few, but, that doesn't grant him infallibility, nor does it lend credence to alleged hearsay two and three parties removed.
Rather than grasp at straws and/or grant credibility to wishful thinking, let's discover concrete evidence and not create or perpetuate myths.
-
:D ;D :D
Hey guys gotta work today but we are playing golf tomorrow, Can't resist after two and an half months off....anyone who wants to visit Greate Bay manana give me a shout ...we will have a couple good games going...a scratch game and a net game no doubt
-
How do we get in touch with you quickly Archie?
-
"Steineger didn't become the superintendent at Pine Valley until 1928, years after the DA first appeared, hence he wouldn't have first hand knowledge of its origins.
Steineger's knowledge of Pine Valley probably exceeded all but a few, but, that doesn't grant him infallibility, nor does it lend credence to alleged hearsay two and three parties removed.
Rather than grasp at straws and/or grant credibility to wishful thinking, let's discover concrete evidence and not create or perpetuate myths."
Pat:
That's one way of presenting this and looking at it----eg apparently your way.
I think a more historically realistic way would be to add and mention that even though Steineger first came to PV in March 1927 with superintendent Norman Mattiace, he took a year off and traveled the country, and when he came back he took over from Mattiace when he was fired by JAB in 1928. However, the original foreman/greenkeeper under George Crump who lived on the property from March 1914 and was with Crump constantly remained at PV about for 30 years and into WW2 as the club's pro/clubmaker. Therefore, with that kind of constant direct and daily contact I see very little reason why Steineger and Govan who was there when the DA first developed and was finalized would not have talked about it in specific evolutionary detail. Again, Govan was there and he was Crump's construction foreman and was probably responsible for everything to do with the course and with the DA from its origination and on until around 1927. Again, Govan remained at PV until WW2 at which point his son George who had lived at PV since 1914 took over as PV's pro. So, even though you call it hearsay and two or three parties removed I won't call it that because it really wasn't. ;)
I have no problem really with your form of constant "Devil's Advocacy" about the details of the histories of some of these clubs but it most certainly does not make for a complete, an informed, and an accurate history with any of them.
-
I think a more historically realistic way would be to add and mention that even though Steineger first came to PV in March 1927 with superintendent Norman Mattiace, he took a year off and traveled the country, and when he came back he took over from Mattiace when he was fired by JAB in 1928. However, the original foreman/greenkeeper under George Crump who lived on the property from March 1914 and was with Crump constantly remained at PV about for 30 years and into WW2 as the club's pro/clubmaker. Therefore, with that kind of constant direct and daily contact I see very little reason why Steineger and Govan who was there when the DA first developed and was finalized would not have talked about it in specific evolutionary detail. Again, Govan was there and he was Crump's construction foreman and was probably responsible for everything to do with the course and with the DA from its origination and on until around 1927. Again, Govan remained at PV until WW2 at which point his son George who had lived at PV since 1914 took over as PV's pro. So, even though you call it hearsay and two or three parties removed I won't call it that because it really wasn't. ;)
You don't know what was said so how can you claim it wasn't hearsay.
Secondly, you're out of touch with reality with respect to superintendent's succession.
Do you really believe that when one superintendent takes over for another that they discuss the evolutionary history of every architectural feature on the golf course ? Think about what you're saying before you reply.
A new superinetendent is concerned about the golf course he inherits on the day he takes over, not the course as it existed 10 years ago.
While there might be residual concerns with a problem area, a superintendent couldn't care less if a bunker was reconfigured or repositioned 5 or 10 years ago, he's concerned about what confronts him, agronomically, not architectural history.
I have no problem really with your form of constant "Devil's Advocacy" about the details of the histories of some of these clubs but it most certainly does not make for a complete, an informed, and an accurate history with any of them.
That's funny.
You were the one who fought with Tom MacWood over the circumstances surrounding Crump's death.
MacWood was informed and accurate, you chose to be uninformed and inaccurate, perpetuating the myth.
Moriaraty proved that Wilson did not visit the UK as Merion's history indicated.
He was informed and accurate. You chose to be uninformed and inaccurate, again perpetuating the myth.
Moriarty and MacWood also indicated that the original 10th at Merion was indeed an "Alps" hole, something I disagreed with them on, until they presented photographic and documented evidence confirming their position.
I've been open minded on the issues/theories presented, you've been the one trying to maintain and perpetuate the status quo on myths.
And now, you're relying on undocumented, alleged hearsay, several parties and 32 + years removed, which conflicts with the photographic evidence and modis operandi at Pine Valley regarding the DA.
But, what's really funny, is that earlier, you claimed that Crump's red circle represented the DA.
If that's the case, then the DA couldn't have evolved out of thin air, which was your second theory, your new Steineger theory, a theory in direct conflict with your first theory, and a theory which is in direct conflict with Steineger's alleged representation, which you now cling to.
Instead of grasping at straws, relying on wishful thinking and hearsay, I've relied on the photographic evidence presented to date.
I was also the one that pointed out that the DA had migrated and changed in form, debunking the myths over foot traffic, compaction and drainage, something you finally agreed to, but acted as though you had discovered the difference, a difference that you implied I was unaware of.
I think you'll find my position is rather consistent, not vascilating from one extreme to the other.
I think you'll find my position is bolstered by photographic evidence, not speculation and/or alleged hearsay 32+ years removed.
As to the D.A.
It seems that the DA was not in the original "as built", it appears subsequently and it's location is removed from the face of the bank.
It migrates into the green and currently resides adjacent to the green, into the bank. Over the years, in addition to its location, its configuration has changed.
The challenge is FIRST to identify when those changes occured, then discover why and under who's direction and supervision, and NOT to perpetuate a myth, Steineger's or anyone else's
-
If you are trying to find out about the bunker in question on Pine Valley's 10th hole, why is this quote from Patrick's last post not 100% correct?
"The challenge is FIRST to identify when those changes occured, then discover why and under who's direction and supervision"
As a matter of intense interest to me is, how do you accomplish step one first?
Y'all have collected pictures and seemed to have narrowed down the time frame. How do you narrow it down to the precise time? Does Pine Valley have archives that will yield pictures, notes, minutes that could provide evidence? If so, who can go get them? Are there any other options that can shed light on this?
-
"Secondly, you're out of touch with reality with respect to superintendent's succession.
Do you really believe that when one superintendent takes over for another that they discuss the evolutionary history of every architectural feature on the golf course ? Think about what you're saying before you reply."
Patrick:
I most certainly would think so in the particular case of Pine Valley when you have a man, in this case Jim Govan who had served from March 1914 until Crump's death as his constant companion, companion shot-tester, construction foreman, GREENSKEEPER, pro and club-maker and continued as the club's pro/club-maker AND construction foreman and GREENSKEEPER until 1927 when Norman Mattiace became the greenskeeper and brought Eb Steineger with him from their former club. Following 1927 Jim Govan remained the club's pro/clubmaker until WW2.
Therefore, if you for some odd reason think that Eb Steineger and Jim Govan remained on the same property working there every day together for the next seventeen years and never discussed the history and evolution of all or most of the features of Pine Valley that Jim Govan had been responsible for constructing AND maintaining both during Crump's lifetime and afterwards, and certainly including the origins and evolution of the DA, then I think it is vey much you who is really out of touch with reality and should think very seriously before you make most of the incredibly stupid replies on here that you so often do make such as the one above that those two men probably never even discussed these kinds of things with one another because as something as mundane as a technical superintendent succession, and particularly when a former superintendent remains with the club for almost two decades after the one in question---Eb Steineger took over in that capacity! ;)
-
"Secondly, you're out of touch with reality with respect to superintendent's succession.
Do you really believe that when one superintendent takes over for another that they discuss the evolutionary history of every architectural feature on the golf course ? Think about what you're saying before you reply."
Patrick:
I most certainly would think so in the particular case of Pine Valley when you have a man, in this case Jim Govan who had served from March 1914 until Crump's death as his constant companion, companion shot-tester, construction foreman, GREENSKEEPER, pro and club-maker and continued as the club's pro/club-maker AND construction foreman and GREENSKEEPER until 1927 when Norman Mattiace became the greenskeeper and brought Eb Steineger with him from their former club. Following 1927 Jim Govan remained the club's pro/clubmaker until WW2.
Therefore, if you for some odd reason think that Eb Steineger and Jim Govan remained on the same property working there every day together for the next seventeen years and never discussed the history and evolution of all or most of the features of Pine Valley that Jim Govan had been responsible for constructing AND maintaining both during Crump's lifetime and afterwards, and certainly including the origins and evolution of the DA, then I think it is vey much you who is really out of touch with reality and should think very seriously before you make most of the incredibly stupid replies on here that you so often do make such as the one above that those two men probably never even discussed these kinds of things with one another because as something as mundane as a technical superintendent succession! ;)
Then tell us EXACTLY what they said !
AND, DOCUMENT IT.
If you can't, and we know you can't, then everything alleged is just speculation, wishful thinking and myth perpetuation on your part
I'd prefer to work with documented facts.
-
"As a matter of intense interest to me is, how do you accomplish step one first?
Y'all have collected pictures and seemed to have narrowed down the time frame. How do you narrow it down to the precise time? Does Pine Valley have archives that will yield pictures, notes, minutes that could provide evidence? If so, who can go get them? Are there any other options that can shed light on this?"
Mac:
Of course there are other options and other evidence and some of it has been supplied on this very thread. Anyone is free to interpret that additional evidence and those options any way they want to but the ultimate question here, at least for me, is not to determine exactly the date the DA may've come to be formed even if as a depression that was formalized into a bunker, but to figure out who it was who likely conceptualized and called for it. There is some additional evidence now it was Crump and I think that additional evidence is very important even if it cannot at this time be confirmed by an actual photograph of the DATE of the very beginnings of the DA. The reason for that is there seems to be a gap in time of up to perhaps 8-10 years between the time when that area it is in was photogaphed.
There may be some on here such as Pat Mucci who for some reason is willing to conclude that if a photograph cannot be found of the date of the actual and very beginnings of the DA then that has to mean that it proves it could not have been there BEFORE or conceived of BEFORE the first photograph that actually shows it. I don't happen to be a golf course architecture researcher or analyst who subscribes to some research theory or analytical modus operandi quite that stupid and short-sighted.
-
There is some additional evidence now it was Crump and I think that additional evidence is very important even if it cannot at this time be confirmed by an actual photograph of the very beginnings of the DA. The reason for that is there seems to be a gap in time of up to perhaps 8-10 years between the time when that area it is in was photogaphed.
What additional evidence?
-
"What additional evidence?"
It's on this thread as of some days ago. Sorry you missed it but you seem to be very good at missing or misinterpreting a lot of additional evidence in the research and analysis of old and significant golf course architecture, so it certainly doesn't surprise that you would have to ask a question like that at this point.
-
Are you referring to the map I posted with the red and blue lines?
-
Actually, I just noticed something this morning to do with this investigation. I don't know very much about photography but I noticed this morning that the photograph I took of the "blue/red line" topo survey map actually does show a good deal to perhaps most of the surveyor's contour lines on that map even if some of them in some areas seem pretty faint. I guess it was because I used an older wide angled 35 milimeter camera and I was really close to the actual map when I took the photo. It's on the screen-saver of one of my two computers.
It looks to me as if the pre-construction grade along the entire distance the 10th hole sits on was basically a continuation of the same grade ridgeline that runs from the left of the 9th green all the way over to the area of the 11th tee and even the 17th green and particularly in that area about 40 yards and in towards the 10th green.
This would seem to mean that during construction of the 10th hole they essentially cut out around the green on the right and particularly the left and even more so in front of the green that creates the definite and significant swale one walks down as he approaches the green and then back up from as he walks up on the green (past the fronting left bunker and the area of the DA.
They may've done that as some kind of drainage release for water coming from the right of that hole which was slightly higher. I guess that makes some sense even though it did create some damage in that wide swale which they eventually terraced and vegetated to some extent.
This would also seem to explain the rather massive amount of fill surrounding this area in the two photos that seem to be from the late 1913 to late 1914 or perhaps even early 1915 timespan.
-
That map is inclusive at best. What some are claiming is a circular bunker at #10 does not look like a solitary bunker when blown up. It is also a matter of speculation who is responsible for the red lines on the map.
-
"Are you referring to the map I posted with the red and blue lines?"
Yes, but I am specifically referring to my own photograph of it and not the photograph you posted. And I'm referring to the material within the Alison report on the 10th hole.
-
"It is also a matter of speculation who is responsible for the red lines on the map."
That may be your interpretation of the red lines on that map but it is not my interpretation, and more importantly, it is not the interpretation of the club and its historians.
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4400568537_60e3c0b620_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4400594811_89a1cc32b3_o.jpg)
Are some folks contending that the DA and the red circle aren't in the same spot?
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4400568537_60e3c0b620_o.jpg)
Does that look like a circle to you? Its bottom edge looks squared to me, as does the top edge of the bunker above it.
IMO that bunker and the bunker above are a single rectangular bunker. The illusion of single small bunker is created by
the line delineating the green. In fact that line appears run right through that rectangular bunker.
-
Tom MacWood,
Honestly, I'd have to see the drawing in person...it's too distorted blown up photographically.
I can't tell if someone drew a red circle/block over an original blue line drawing or if that red is other marking.
I was talking about location, which looks pretty exact to me.
I'm generally of the school of thinking that the front left of the right side bunker got expanded through wear and washout, split, and was built back up and formalized into a DA.
I think that's what Joe's pic from about the same angle seems to suggest.
-
Tom,
It looks like a single circle to me, not an extension of the right side bunker. If it were intended to be all one bunker, why wouldn't that extension have made it into the initial iteration posted at the beginning of this thread? And why would the line gelineating the green have cut through it?
Pat,
In looking at the aerials of today, the DA is not exactly right in against the green. There is a bit of separation even if it's only a couple yards. From the photo of where a bunker first was there isn't much movement required to get to today's presentation.
-
"Does that look like a circle to you? Its bottom edge looks squared to me, as does the top edge of the bunker above it. IMO that bunker and the bunker above are a single rectangular bunker. The illusion of single small bunker is created by the line delineating the green. In fact that line appears run right through that rectangular bunker."
Not really, and that's why I don't believe in the analytical efficacy of blowing something up like that map and that marking to some factor far greater (like 5x or 10x) than people were looking at who actually made those maps and their markings and those who actually used those maps back then. ;)
I prefer to use the same size and scale of the orginals they used frankly and on my photograph of this particular "blue/red line" map that little round circle does look pretty exactly like what that bunker came to be. Ideally, I prefer to use the actual original itself and I'm aware you've never seen it because you have still never even been to Pine Valley where it is.
It's all a learning experience I guess and as I've always said to you on here I think you are a really fine expert on finding research material but I have never thought, and still don't think, that that talent transfers very well to your ability to actually analyze some research material.
I realize you think that I even mention this is intended to be some personal insult or cut towards you in the way you analyze some of these things. I assure you it has never been that and it isn't now----I truly believe that about you (or anyone else who ONLY does this analysis the way you do) and I always have and I've given the primary reasons for it over the years. Generally you do your analyses of research material on your computer and you just don't have enough experience with the original material and in that context I also very much include and mean the golf courses themselves, as you know. I don't think anyone would be capable of doing analysis any better than you do if they ONLY did it in one way, as you do.
I have always done it both ways----with the actual material including real familiarity with the details, and on the ground, of the subject golf courses and for that reason alone I really do understand the important differences in BOTH, and in the real differences between trying to do it only one way---via a computer, compared to the true value of actually being with the real thing in front of you and in studying the real thing in these ways.
-
Tom,
It looks like a single circle to me, not an extension of the right side bunker. If it were intended to be all one bunker, why wouldn't that extension have made it into the initial iteration posted at the beginning of this thread? And why would the line gelineating the green have cut through it?
Jim
Obviously there was a change in the plan, and it was impossible to erase the red line. Who knows if the line delineating the green or the rectangular bunker was drawn first.
There were numerous red bunkers that were not executed. Here is the complete plan. There are several of those strange looking bunker complexes that look like spiderwebs or stained glass windows, and I doubt if the author intended each of the rectangular bunkers in the spiderweb complex to be an individual bunker. They look like large waste bunkers to me rather than a series of individual rectangular bunkers.
Also it looks to me that there red bunkers all the way around the 10th green.
-
There were numerous red bunkers that were not executed."
Tom MacWood:
Please keep making statements like that on here and particularly about Pine Valley because it just continues to make and reinforce my point about you as I articulated it on Post #229 about your inablility to do competent architecture analysis. Again, you're production of resource material is particularly impressive but your ability to analyze it is bizarre to say the least.
Show me a bunker drawn in red on that map that was not constructed and executed on the holes that were actually built and in play before Crump died. Do you even know which they are? ;)
There is really only one I can see and that is that leftside fairway thing on the 6th hole that looks like one of his big bunkers that really were what we today refer to as "waste areas" even though no one back then referred to them that way.
This really is what happens when you try to act as if you really know this course or any other one without ever having actually been there or seen it. In fairness to you the same thing would probably happen to anyone who tried to analyze some of this stuff that way----eg without even going to a course or seeing it.
-
"There are several of those strange looking bunker complexes that look like spiderwebs or stained glass windows, and I doubt if the author intended each of the rectangular bunkers in the spiderweb complex to be an individual bunker. They look like large waste bunkers to me rather than a series of individual rectangular bunkers."
That's because that is precisely what Crump built in those areas and what he intended them to be and precisely what they still are. They pretty much look just like what some clubs and golfers today refer to as "waste bunkers" in which golfers can ground their club because they're considered to be "through the green" by a local rule designation on the scorecard. However, Pine Valley does not play them that way, never has, and I doubt ever will.
All of the above are items you may've had some chance of already knowing if you'd ever been there. Matter of fact, some of the things you say in the majority of your posts on Pine Valley are misinformed and/or clearly historically inaccurate. That you can never seem to admit this or ever even acknowledge it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual facts and accurate architectural history of Pine Valley.
-
If memory serves me, when I was at PV in 89 and had the timber story relayed to me it was prefaced with a story of a tremendous rain event that got down to the timbers and also that the DA had been at one point closer to the green surface, such that a missed putt could roll in or off to the side. This is clearly hearsay, but for me was very interesting.
Cheers,
Steve
-
Steve:
I would love to hear all you know and are willing to tell about the fact the verticality of some of those bunkers like on #10 may've been originally supported by wooden timbers behind sand flashing or turfing. I have never heard anything like that or seen any photographic evidence of it on any hole. God knows, though, that they surely did have a ton of lumber around that golf course when they were designing and constructing it----22,000 trees down when they finally stopped counting.
1989 huh? That would have been the time that madman Dick Bator at PV, right? That guy was something else and arguably one of the best "quick fixers" and grass-growers ever.
We had him over to speak to our green committee when he was at Merion and we were considering going from our odd fairway mixture to bent fairways. Somebody sitting behind him asked him if we should consider rye fairways. I watched his blood pressure rise and he said; "That Fuckin' Rye grass....." and had only got that far when he swung around to the person behind him who asked only to see it was a woman, at which point he stammered, "Ooops, sorry about that language ma'am but I really hate rye grass."
-
That's quite interesting Steve, and makes it more plausible to believe that the earlier photo of the steeply flashed bunker that I posted shows it as part of the slope of green, or at least close enough to have the effects that you mention.
-
Tom P,
That cluster bunker on #6 is there...next time you're on your way to the range just look to the right as you're passing the 9th regular tee.
Tom M,
The full course drawing only strengthens my belief that the circle was an independent feature.
-
Jim
Circle? It looks like a square to me. In fact the great majority of red bunkers are angular aren't they?
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4400568537_60e3c0b620_o.jpg)
-
Would you care to say something about your understanding of the "province," history, timeline etc, about that second or lower drawing? ;)
There is also another "asset" very similar to that one (which is just the 10th hole part of a whole course drawing) in the second example in the post above which appeared in an early local newspaper article. Given the particular era involved just try to begin to imagine how that may've actually happened----that whole course map got into a Philadelphia newspaper article in 1913 (1914?)? ???
The differences in the two "assets" actually tell a fairly interesting evolution timeline story about not just the course from the earlier point to the later point but also about who may've actually drawn one or both of those two separate "assets" and even why there are a few various differences on them. ;)
-
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4400568537_60e3c0b620_o.jpg)
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4064/4400594811_89a1cc32b3_o.jpg)
Are some folks contending that the DA and the red circle aren't in the same spot?
Mike,
That's a disengenuous post.
Why would you choose to deliberately ignore the lines denoting the green in the schematic, and the bunker's position relative to the lines defining the green and the area designated as the green ?
-
Mike Cirba, Jim Sullivan, et. al.,
I only refered to the "red circle" because that's how others previously refered to it, but, upon closer inspection I'd have to agree with Tom MacWood, it looks more rectangular.
Mike, I'd like to address your attempt to support the theory that the red circle/square represents the DA in its conceptualized, but pre-built stage.
If we accept that theory, then every other theory promoting the D.A.'s origin as a product of either:
wear and tear,
compaction,
erosion,
and foot traffic
has to be wrong.
Would you agree to that ?
Is there universal agreement on that ?
-
"That's a disengenuous post.
Why would you choose to deliberately ignore the lines denoting the green in the schematic, and the bunker's position relative to the lines defining the green and the area designated as the green?"
Two good and primary reasons why we can ignore the lines you say were denoting the green in the schematic is #1 we know from the first photograph of that hole that the green front was not designed or constructed as you seem to think it was indicated in that schematic, and #2, I already explained why most all the greens that essentially Colt drew for that course did not have lines drawn accross their fronts and I even explained precisely why some of them did and others didn't. I guess you missed that too or just want to argue about it anyway.
My God, are you ever either really obtuse or just completely uneccessarily argumentative. Believe me I have enough asset information on these things, some of which is not on this thread in its orginal form such as a actual copy, you really should either start just listening or else start trying to ask some intelligent questions about them rather than solely argumentative ones commonly prefaced by your horseshit---"That's disingenous." ;)
-
Does anyone know who coined the phrase the "Devil's Asshole" or who named it? Maybe the origin of the phrase may shed some light on its creation?
-
Pat,
In looking at the aerials of today, the DA is not exactly right in against the green.
A lip on top of the bunker was added subsequent to 1964, probably just prior to or after the Walker Cup.
The lip was added to deflect surface water and to keep balls from running off the green, down, into the DA.
There is a bit of separation even if it's only a couple yards.
From the photo of where a bunker first was there isn't much movement required to get to today's presentation.
That's not true.
There's considerable movement.
One of the earlier photos shows the bunker as a relatively flat bunker sitting far offset, on it's own elevated foot pad, not into the footpad created by the bank as it is today
-
"I only refered to the "red circle" because that's how others previously refered to it, but, upon closer inspection I'd have to agree with Tom MacWood, it looks more rectangular."
Patrick:
Have you actually ever tried to look at it on the original map or a decent photograph of it? That's a rhetorical question, by the way, because I know you never have. No one even thought of that little round red circle on that hole in that area on that map until I did about 3-5 days ago, and like everything else I come up with that is considered analytically important to that club and its architectural history you and apparently MacWood seem to find some way to argue with it or call it speculative. One of the reasons for that is clearly you either have never looked at these original assets for that purpose or you just don't get it. MacWood has never even been to Pine Valley. What do you think about that Patrick? Aren't you the guy who claims that anyone needs intimate familiarity with courses to understand their nuances and architectural histories. You're the one who keeps using Macdonald's remarks about all kinds of winds and weather anyway. ;)
And that's one reason you don't think it's round----eg Crump didn't draw it and those who considered it on his map did not that little round red circle in 5x or 10x its actually scale and one could reason why they didn't is that back in the teens there was no particular technical or technological way to do that which obviously you never even considered you are so historically obtuse!
By the way, those maps are app. 4' by 2' or 5' by 3' in total size even when we look at them reduced from that 5x to 10x that some did on here on that hole. That would make those whole maps about 50' by 30' in size and nobody made or used anything like that---not ever.
My God you're obtuse but I've known that for well over a decade so what's new? ;)
-
"Does anyone know who coined the phrase the "Devil's Asshole" or who named it? Maybe the origin of the phrase may shed some light on its creation?"
Rick:
Nobody I've ever known and no story I've ever heard sheds any light on that and I've known plenty of both over the years. None of PV's history books shed any light on that term either and at least one makes mention that the term and its origins is mysterious, I believe. The people who wrote those three PV history books also have about 150 collective years of experience with and at PV. When I puts them, and their knowledge and experiences with PV up against a guy like MacWood who has never even been there or seen the place, I surely would think it would give anyone pause. ;)
-
Pat,
In looking at the aerials of today, the DA is not exactly right in against the green.
A lip on top of the bunker was added subsequent to 1964, probably just prior to or after the Walker Cup.
The lip was added to deflect surface water and to keep balls from running off the green, down, into the DA.
There is a bit of separation even if it's only a couple yards.
From the photo of where a bunker first was there isn't much movement required to get to today's presentation.
That's not true.
There's considerable movement.
One of the earlier photos shows the bunker as a relatively flat bunker sitting far offset, on it's own elevated foot pad, not into the footpad created by the bank as it is today
Can someone put up a photo of the DA sitting on it's own elevated footpad. I just can't even visualize that.
-
I think I found a date on the picture without the D.A. According to Finegan's, A History of Pine Valley, on page 30 this pictures appears and Finegan labels it 1916.
-
:D ;D ;)
Hey guys Pat Gertner was the super at the Valley after Dick Bator and before Rick Christian , quite a good super also and he may have been the guy in 1989 ...occasionally he checks in here and hopefully will again...Bator was gone after the Walker Cup in 1985
As to the DA memory tells me that the changes to the green where done around '80., under Bator's supervsion....not only did they revet the bunker , they added material and a fringe to the green to keep the water out of the DA......it also ended the possibility of putting into the bunker , which is missed ....
-
Bradley Anderson,
Look at Tom MacWood's reply # 77, the fourth image he posted.
-
Bradley:
If it means anything to you I'm convinced the photograph you asked about next to the DA that's the last on Post #77 and the one just above it from the tee were taken at the same time by the same photographer. There is just way too much similarity of detail all around to be otherwise, particularly the detail in the turf on the face in the left front bunker. And if you compare the growth (particularly of the trees and bushes) to the same in the first photo of #10 without the DA it looks to be between 5-8+ years or so.
I'm also fascinated that the green surface might be fairly close to natural grade with the bunkers dug right down off natural grade which may've been some of the reason that large right to level swale was reamed out in front of the green. What I can see of the contour lines on the PRE-construction contour topo map (The "blue/red line" map) seems to confirm this.
-
"I only refered to the "red circle" because that's how others previously refered to it, but, upon closer inspection I'd have to agree with Tom MacWood, it looks more rectangular."
Patrick:
Have you actually ever tried to look at it on the original map or a decent photograph of it? That's a rhetorical question, by the way, because I know you never have.
I find it interesting that you ask a question, then answer it ........ even though you answer it incorrectly.
Why ask the question if you're going to answer the question as you want the answer to be, not what it should be ?
No one even thought of that little round red circle on that hole in that area on that map until I did about 3-5 days ago,
That's not true.
I noticed it and I'm sure others have as well.
Declaring the red circle/square as the D.A. is a bit of a stretch.
What you did was make the quantum leap that the red circle/square absolutely or undeniably represents the D.A., despite the fact that it's position and juxtaposition to the green and green lines.
But, at the same time you're claiming the red circle/square represents the D.A., you're championing a conflicting theory that the DA just evolved due to foot traffic or drainage or compaction or some other force. You can't have it both ways.
What's your official position ..... today.
Red circle/square or natural evolution ?
and like everything else I come up with that is considered analytically important to that club and its architectural history you and apparently MacWood seem to find some way to argue with it or call it speculative.
There's a reason for that.
We're not prepared to accept your word, your theories and your myths as "The Gospel", especially when you're advocating two theories diametrically opposed theories that are in direct conflict with each other
One of the reasons for that is clearly you either have never looked at these original assets for that purpose or you just don't get it.
Before we go further, we need to know, are you now refuting your own theory, the Steineger theory, regarding the origin of the D.A bunker ?
MacWood has never even been to Pine Valley.
What do you think about that Patrick?
I think he should try to get there.
But, MacWood's not arguiing about the play of Pine Valley, he's arguing about the blue/red schematic of Pine Valley, and to do that successfully, doesn't require him to have played Pine Valley.
Aren't you the guy who claims that anyone needs intimate familiarity with courses to understand their nuances and architectural histories.
You're the one who keeps using Macdonald's remarks about all kinds of winds and weather anyway. ;)
That has no relevance when arguing the merits or interpretation of a schematic
MacWood is not arguing the nuances of the golf course, nor is he arguing elements of playability.
He's arguing the details of the schematic.
He sees a square/rectangle, not a circle in Mike Cirba's presentation, and I have to agree with him on that.
Secondly, the location of the red circle/square in that schematic, in the context of the lines of demarcation in that schematic, bears no resemblence to the location of the D.A at origin, over the last 90 years, and today.
And that's one reason you don't think it's round----
No it's not.
I don't think it's round because it looks rectangular.
eg Crump didn't draw it and those who considered it on his map did not that little round red circle in 5x or 10x its actually scale and one could reason why they didn't is that back in the teens there was no particular technical or technological way to do that which obviously you never even considered you are so historically obtuse!
If "obtuse" means I don't understand the above paragraph, you're correct.
Are you saying that neither Crump nor anyone else at the begining of the 20th century didn't know how to draw a circle ?
What are you saying ? Please clarify that paragraph for us as I doubt there's anyone who understands what you wrote, other than yourself.
By the way, those maps are app. 4' by 2' or 5' by 3' in total size even when we look at them reduced from that 5x to 10x that some did on here on that hole. That would make those whole maps about 50' by 30' in size and nobody made or used anything like that---not ever.
I didn't post the schematic.
Tom MacWood didn't post the schematic.
Mike Cirba posted the schematic.
We can only render a judgement on those schematics as they appear when they were posted.
I studied Euclidian Geometry and Non-Euclidian Geometry and I can still distinquish circles from squares
My God you're obtuse but I've known that for well over a decade so what's new? ;)
We're ALL obtuse, just on different subjects.
-
"That's not true.
I noticed it and I'm sure others have as well."
Patrick:
I will absolutely guarantee you and anyone else who ever reads the above that is about the biggest load of "after-the-fact" bullshit ever put on this website. I'm surprised even someone like you would say something like that because I know you know that's not true. But it may be true that plenty of people including you looked at it without ever even considering what it meant or what it was. People have been looking at that map in that clubhouse for over 85 years without even thinking to question what the signficance of the difference between the blue versus the red lines are for Goodness sakes. ;)
-
"Are you saying that neither Crump nor anyone else at the begining of the 20th century didn't know how to draw a circle ?"
No, I'm saying no one like Crump who drew that little red circle on that map at the beginning of the 20th century ever looked at it or analyzed it on that original map during construction blown up 5 to 10 times as it was on this thread. ;)
On another note, I'm surprised you even spelled Euclidian Geometry correctly above. Congratulations, at least you got something right on here.
-
Joe Bausch and I are heading to Ocean City today to search for Willie Robinson's fingerprints.
We'll stop by PV on the way and tell them Patrick wants to know exactly why and when and what they did with the asshole.
I'm sure they'll understand. ;)
-
Love the blind drive...love the exactitudinesnesh required on the approach...nther is no one forcing you to go for it...there is room to bail, and it's an exquisite visual.
How many 370 yard par fours make your knucles white?
-
Oops
That was supposed to go on the 11th at Merion thread.
Damn early moring typing on a blackberry!
-
Here is the plan the lies below red doodlings. As TEP mentioned in an earlier post the greens are not delineated on this map. Another interesting contrast, Colt was not adverse to the curve whereas the person (or persons) responsible for the red lines was a rectilinearist.
-
"Are you saying that neither Crump nor anyone else at the begining of the 20th century didn't know how to draw a circle ?"
No, I'm saying no one like Crump who drew that little red circle on that map at the beginning of the 20th century ever looked at it or analyzed it on that original map during construction blown up 5 to 10 times as it was on this thread. ;)
I recall my mentor, Sherlock Holmes, using a magnifying glass to "blow up" the details of schematics he was examining.
In my numerous conversations with Dr Watson he mentioned that the use of the magnifying glass and convex lenses dates back centuries upon centuries. I didn't know if you were aware that people in the early part of the 20th century actually had that technology.
I became so fond of Dr Watson that I named one of my Bloodhounds after him. "Doctor Watson", I called him "Doc", for short
I named the other Bloodhound "Beau", after seeing The movie "Beau Geste".
I considered a number of names I associated with the South, . I almost named him "Rhett" after the character in the book, "Gone With the Wind", "Rhett Butler".
I know that you named your dogs "Butler", "Maid", "Valet" and "Chauffeur" after your many servants, but, I chose more sentimental names for my pets, other than my two Dobermans who I named "Odin" and "Thor"
Doc and Beau were great pets and companiions and could smell out B.S. such as that which you've typed above, at about a mile to a mile and a half.
But, my favorite dog was an Alaskan Malamute.
He was huge and gorgeous and loyal.
I had just met a rather attractive young woman in a casino in Las Vegas, in a Keno parlor, and there's a town in the Yukon Territory named "Keno Hill", so it just seemed natural that I should name him "Keno", I loved that dog. At one time, some friends mentioned that they could see how much that dog and I loved each other, so they asked me, "if it came down to a choice between your girlfriend (the one I met in the casino) and the dog, who would you choose ?" I said, "it's no contest. They both cook about the same and the Malamute listens to me 50 % of the time"
The Malamute outlasted her by many years as he lived to 15, which is uncommon for large dogs.
When I finally had to put him down, on five occassions I put him in the car and headed to the Vet.
The furthest I ever got was the end of my driveway. I just couldn't do it.
I was married by then, and eventually my wife had to take him to the Vet because I just couldn't do it.
When I came home that night, I was hoping that he'd be there, but, when he wasn't, and I cried.
I loved that dog, he was such a great companion.
He was a runner. So, he'd take off at every chance or interesting scent he picked up.
Even the police in three towns loved him.
When I'd get the calls that he'd gotten loose and they had him, they'd tell me to take my time as they were enjoying his company in the station house.
Malamutes are strong willed and can be difficult, especially over food, so if there was an outdoor party or Bar-B-Q, those hosting the event weren't happy when he showed up.
They say Malamutes aren't that smart.
But, that Malamute figured out dozens of ways to escape from a fenced in yard, ways that you wouldn't dream of.
I now have a German Shephard and he's by far the smartest dog I've ever had and he's got a set of teeth like a crocodile.
I"m sure you can guess what my son named him.
On another note, I'm surprised you even spelled Euclidian Geometry correctly above. Congratulations, at least you got something right on here.
I excelled at Euclidian Geometry, perhaps that's why I'm able to differentiate so easily between a circle and a square ;D
Is it your position that no one else ever notice the red circle/square on the schematic ?
Is it also your position that no one else ever considered that the red circle/square might represent the D.A. ?
If these questions are too difficult, ask the guide dog that I gave you, "Coorshaw" for the answers. ;D
-
If anyone would like to see a full-sized copy of the Colt PV map on Post #258 you're more than welcome to come to the barn/office and peruse it as much as you want. It's hanging on the wall. Just be sure to call first, though, because if I happen to mistake you for Tom MacWood you may get an ass full of buckshot. ;)
-
"Here is the plan the lies below red doodlings. As TEP mentioned in an earlier post the greens are not delineated on this map. Another interesting contrast, Colt was not adverse to the curve whereas the person (or persons) responsible for the red lines was a rectilinearist."
Isn't it interesting how 'red doodlings' and the 'rectilinearist' responsible for the red doodlings on the PV "blue/red line" topo map was the same person who was responsible for what has for years been perceived by so many to be the greatest golf course in the world and some of the greatest architecture in the world---ie Pine Valley? ;)
-
"I recall my mentor, Sherlock Holmes, using a magnifying glass to "blow up" the details of schematics he was examining.
In my numerous conversations with Dr Watson he mentioned that the use of the magnifying glass and convex lenses dates back centuries upon centuries. I didn't know if you were aware that people in the early part of the 20th century actually had that technology."
Patrick:
That appears to be the best reason yet why you should confine your investigations, opinions and discussions to things to do with your mentor Sherlock Holmes and his friend Watson who you've had numerous conversations with, as well as their interest in magnfying glass and convex lenses. It seems to be a better reason why you should stay away from investigations and discussions of Pine Valley and George Crump who apparently did not need magnifying glass and convex lenses to draw things on his map and understand how to build what he drew on his map.
-
"Is it your position that no one else ever notice the red circle/square on the schematic ?"
Not really since I never bothered to try to interview every single person who ever looked at that map particularly considering it has been hanging in the PV clubhouse for well over eighty years. ;)
"Is it also your position that no one else ever considered that the red circle/square might represent the D.A.?"
As far as I know no one considered that red circle as representing the DA and that includes two of PV's members who wrote two of the club history books who'd been members of PV collectively for about 120 years and with whom I've had numerous discussions on the the details of the architectural history of that course. And as far as another member who was fairly fixated on the history of the architecture of the course and who lived at Pine Valley for about forty years no one had ever thought to distinquish the blue and red lines on that map between Harry Colt and George Crump before so far as he and the club knew. But I do recognize there are a few who claim after-the-fact that they thought of such things before. Interesting that they never mentioned it before to anyone who had anything significant to do with the club and course, don't you think? ??? ;)
-
Maybe it has already been discussed here, but I don't think that bunker has been relocated to a different spot.
I think that everything about that hole has evolved so much that the bunker only appears to be moving in the different pictures. I have no doubt that it has been rebuilt or revetted several times, but I don't think anyone ever said lets relocate here closer or further from the green.
-
Bradley:
Perhaps. I can certainly see what you're saying. However, there is no doubt at all that the DA sure has gotten significantly deeper somehow and for some reasons over the years and it has also gotten significantly rounder and more conical and significantly smaller at its sand base over the years. It's sides have also become just about completely turfed and/or revetted over the years but that seems only logical given the way it's shaped and in the place that it's in.
-
That appears to be the best reason yet why you should confine your investigations, opinions and discussions to things to do with your mentor Sherlock Holmes and his friend Watson who you've had numerous conversations with, as well as their interest in magnfying glass and convex lenses. It seems to be a better reason why you should stay away from investigations and discussions of Pine Valley and George Crump who apparently did not need magnifying glass and convex lenses to draw things on his map and understand how to build what he drew on his map.[/SIZE]
Except, he NEVER built what was shown on the schematic/map fn the 10th hole.
He BUILT THIS INSTEAD.[/SIZE]
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
-
"Except, he NEVER built what was shown on the schematic/map fn the 10th hole.
He BUILT THIS INSTEAD."
Pat:
Honestly, what in the world is the point of trying to carry on a discussion about Pine Valley and Crump with you? Look what you just said above about that photograph!
Do you have any idea when that photograph was taken? Do you have any idea how long Crump worked on that golf course? Do you have any idea how long Crump drew features on that map? Have you ever even CONSIDERED any of those things and those questions?? ???
You can't produce that photograph and tell someone who knows something about the history of the architecture of that course that that photograph proves Crump could not have built the DA on that hole.
You're an idiot! You're completely hopeless! Why don't you just go back to having conversations with Doctor Watson or whatever Sherlock Holmes's friend's name was? Or talk to your latest dog and see what he has to say to your ramblings. Talk to anyone other than anyone on this thread!
-
Bradley:
Perhaps. I can certainly see what you're saying. However, there is no doubt at all that the DA sure has gotten significantly deeper somehow and for some reasons over the years and it has also gotten significantly rounder and more conical and significantly smaller at its sand base over the years. It's sides have also become just about completely turfed and/or revetted over the years but that seems only logical given the way it's shaped and in the place that it's in.
I built a DA bunker on the par 3 17th hole at Midlane back in 1991. Unfortunately that hole was eliminated when they sold nine holes to development. But I built it about midway up the left hand side of the green right in to the collar. It really didn't see too much action, but it gave you something to think about when the pin was back left, back middle, and middle left. Once I saw a guy fall in it when he was lining up a putt and walking backwards. That was maybe the funniest thing I have ever seen on a golf course.
Anyways it did not get deeper with time because we were constantly adding sand to it. But I think if you had that kind of a bunker on a sandy environment like PV it would certainly get deeper with time, because the type of shot that you hit from that kind of bunker carries a lot of sand with it.
-
Bradley:
Perhaps. I can certainly see what you're saying. However, there is no doubt at all that the DA sure has gotten significantly deeper somehow and for some reasons over the years and it has also gotten significantly rounder and more conical and significantly smaller at its sand base over the years. It's sides have also become just about completely turfed and/or revetted over the years but that seems only logical given the way it's shaped and in the place that it's in.
I made the mistake of not recording its dimensions when I played from it 46 years ago.
It's also possible that the bunker has gotten shallower over time due to the fact that very little in the way of sand escaped the perimeter on that steep bunker.
At one time could there have been stairs leading down into the bunker ?
I built a DA bunker on the par 3 17th hole at Midlane back in 1991. Unfortunately that hole was eliminated when they sold nine holes to development. But I built it about midway up the left hand side of the green right in to the collar. It really didn't see too much action, but it gave you something to think about when the pin was back left, back middle, and middle left. Once I saw a guy fall in it when he was lining up a putt and walking backwards. That was maybe the funniest thing I have ever seen on a golf course.
Plumb Bobbing on a green can be dangerous.
I know of a fellow who was plumb bobbing and backing up when he stepped right off the green into an adjacent pond at the 16th (?) hole Loxahatchee. He was subsequently appointed the unofficial Captain of the Loxahatchee Swim Team
Anyways it did not get deeper with time because we were constantly adding sand to it.
But I think if you had that kind of a bunker on a sandy environment like PV it would certainly get deeper with time, because the type of shot that you hit from that kind of bunker carries a lot of sand with it.
Bradley, that's not true.
When I first played the DA, over 45 years ago, it was shaped like an ice cream cone, with steep sides.
The amount of sand that escaped that bunker was de minimus.
The sand merely cascaded up into the sides and back down again.
The only area where sand might have been lost in quantity would have been backwards.
In addition, my guess is that the bunker received plenty of TLC from the staff.
-
Ok...as I mentioned earlier, I am following this thread with great interest.
Although, I find a lot of it entertaining and very funny...I have gotten lost as to where you guys are and what you are looking for and what has been accepted and what is being disputed. Perhaps it is my stupidity that has gotten me lost in the midst of your collective genius...or maybe Sherlock Holmes, swim team captains, and dog names has confused the issue a smidge. ;)
You all are looking for the origins, dates, architect, etc...of the DA bunker on the 10th hole at Pine Valley, correct?
You've narrowed the time frame down relative to its creation from somewhere between 1913 and 1918...is that right?
It doesn't seem like there is any agreement as to who is the actual creator/designer...is there? If so, who is claiming what and why? And what is needed to provide the proof to satisfy all parties relative to the answer?
Thanks...I find this whole process very interesting and educational.
-
Mac,
It goes beyond that.
There are a number of theories regarding the origin of the DA bunker, I'm just trying to get TEPaul to narrow the possibilities down since he has promoted two seperate, conflicting theories, and I'd like him to tell us which one he supports just so that we can eliminate the theory and continue with our quest, and, I don't care which one he chooses/rejects, although I do have my own view on the possibility of either.
Numerically, I just want to narrow down the viable theories.
-
Pat,
What sense does it make to narrow down the theories when they are just that, theories. If one is disproven, great...but to do it for the sake of convenience is foolish.
For what it's worth, I think your Creationist theory is much more likely than any Evolutionist theory...but I disagree that the placement moved from when it first appeared (1921 ?) to where it is currently...you used the word "considerably"...how would you define considerably?
Additionally, whether that Red circle is a circle or a rectangle (as you and Tom M are grasping to...), it is in basically the exact position relative to the tee and the center of the green as the as-built DA. Please note on the full Colt drawing that several of the holes do not have a closed front end to the green so there is evidence that the extended shaping on that hole is intended to be approach fairway, not green space so your contention that the circle/square is flanking (or adjacent) is wrong.
-
Jim,
I'd agree based on what's been produced here to date.
-
Mike,
Mac did ask a question that you're probably more able to answer than I am...what are the dates of the last photo without the DA and the first photo with it? Any idea? Not day or month, but at least the year will give us a reasonable guage...
Thanks
-
"I just wanted to see if going back over the evidence months later with a clear mind revealed any different angles or new ways of looking at the existing evidence that would be more iron-clad."
Mac:
As of now all I would say for existing evidence is that the DA could have appeared or begun to appear as early as late 1914-1915 to as late as 1922-23. Those are app. the bookends of the actual photographic evidence of the area it would be in and when it first appeared photographically.
There is some other evidence that may point to who called for it (Crump?) but it's not conclusive, and certainly not as conclusive as a photo of the DA.
However, if some photograph of it that could date it before 1918 turns up then I would have to say the bunker was Crump's.
Also between Crump's death (Jan 24, 1918) and the work of the so-called 1921 Advisory Committee (early 1921) with architect Hugh Alison acting as the consulting architect, I don't believe anything was done to Pine Valley architeturally, at least I'm not aware of anything being done to the course architecturally during that time. It was obviously a massive shock to the club that Crump was gone so suddenly and it's pretty safe to say that with him went the available money for the course which was the way it had been done when he was there.
During that three year timespan just about all they did is work on fixing the agronomy and the condition of the course and they continued to play the course as only fourteen holes (they'd play the first four holes over again and that was 18 as the fourth hole was right at the clubhouse.
-
A square, rectangle or circle, we can agree, disagree or agree to disagree for the next several pages of this thread, but the underlying question remains unanswered.
-
Tom,
I'm not sure which underlying question you're thinking of, but I would be curious whether you'd agree that feature is just about right where the DA is today.
-
The question is when precisely was the DA introduced, and by whom.
-
Is anyone skilled enough to layer the drawing over a photo (or vice versa) of the Colt drawing and the as-built DA?
-
"Tom,
I'm not sure which underlying question you're thinking of, but I would be curious whether you'd agree that feature is just about right where the DA is today.
Sully:
I agree that if by 'that feature' you mean that little round red circle on the "blue/red line" topo----then absolutely that is just about right where the DA is today.
Some of these guys on here don't know enough about the details of this material to even understand that the area the DA is in that appears as front greenspace on the B/R line topo and on Colt's drawing is not greenspace, was not intended to be greenspace or even why it couldn't be. ;)
All they need to do is look at the first photo of that green (without the DA) to understand that.
Also, look at the round red circle on the actual map at PV or even on the photo I took of it which is much better and closer than the one on here. You can see it much clearer than on that photo of the map on this thread which they blew up 5x-10x which made it look nothing like it does on the map that Crump drew it onto.
-
"Is anyone skilled enough to layer the drawing over a photo (or vice versa) of the Colt drawing and the as-built DA?"
I think that would be pretty pointless because the original green shape on both maps was done before that hole or green was built and it's not hard to see it really wasn't built to exactly conform to the shapes on those maps. Crump didn't really follow Colt's drawings anyway and Crump himself was a pretty amateurish drawer. He didn't need to be that good anyway because he and Govan were right there anyway on the ground overseeing everything when that course was being built.
-
The question is when precisely was the DA introduced, and by whom.
And, how did it morph and migrate and who was responsible.
-
What sense does it make to narrow down the theories when they are just that, theories.
If one is disproven, great...but to do it for the sake of convenience is foolish.
Sully,
Judging by the number of posts to date, TEPaul is quite capable of answering for himself, he doesn't need you to deflect the issue.
As to your question, finding the answer often lies with deductive logic.
When two theories are diametrically opposed to one another, they both can't be right,
Yet TEPaul had championed both theories as valid, and we know that each theory is at odds with the other, so which theory does he now endorse and which theory does he now reject ? He can't continue to support both theories, two conflicting theories.
So, which is it, the Crump theory or the Steineger theory ?
For what it's worth, I think your Creationist theory is much more likely than any Evolutionist theory...
but I disagree that the placement moved from when it first appeared (1921 ?) to where it is currently...
If you view all of the photos presented and referenced, there's no way you can believe that the DA bunker hasn't morphed and moved over the years.
you used the word "considerably"...how would you define considerably?
The same as most dictionary's,
But, remember, "relativity" is an important issue.
The bunker didn't move to Cleveland, but it clearly migrated and morphed from inception to current date.
Additionally, whether that Red circle is a circle or a rectangle (as you and Tom M are grasping to...), it is in basically the exact position relative to the tee and the center of the green as the as-built DA. Please note on the full Colt drawing that several of the holes do not have a closed front end to the green so there is evidence that the extended shaping on that hole is intended to be approach fairway, not green space so your contention that the circle/square is flanking (or adjacent) is wrong.
I'm not grasping, I'm describing, and there's a difference.
I've also refered to the red figure as a circle/square.
I don't care how several of the other holes are drawn, I only care about how the 10th hole is drawn.
That's ALL you can rely on, the evidence presented on # 10, not some other hole.
My contention that the red circle/square is a flanking feature remains valid according to the schematic posted by Mike Cirba.
-
"As to your question, finding the answer often lies with deductive logic.
When two theories are diametrically opposed to one another, they both can't be right,
Yet TEPaul had championed both theories as valid, and we know that each theory is at odds with the other, so which theory does he now endorse and which theory does he now reject ? He can't continue to support both theories, two conflicting theories.
So, which is it, the Crump theory or the Steineger theory ?"
Patrick:
Are you actually telling me you can not see how both theories COULD be true? If you can't you really don't appreciate the evolutionary nature of much of the documentary material we have at our disposal. I'm not saying both theories ARE true just that they most certainly COULD BE. There is nothing about either that makes them necessarily mutually exclusive. And if you think so then no wonder you're a terrible historical architecture analyst.
-
Pat,
I asked about the other holes because clearly it was not the habit of the person who drew that diagram to delineate the front of the green every time...and I think #10 is one of those holes. The area adjacent to the DA feature is probably not intended as greenspace so I would not call that feature "flanking" the green.
As to the DA's migration, from Cleveland or otherwise...are we saying it moved relatively considerably? I think the front edge may have moved up to three yards. Would you say it moved more or less than that?
-
"As to your question, finding the answer often lies with deductive logic.
When two theories are diametrically opposed to one another, they both can't be right,
Yet TEPaul had championed both theories as valid, and we know that each theory is at odds with the other, so which theory does he now endorse and which theory does he now reject ? He can't continue to support both theories, two conflicting theories.
So, which is it, the Crump theory or the Steineger theory ?"
Patrick:
Are you actually telling me you can not see how both theories COULD be true? If you can't you really don't appreciate the evolutionary nature of much of the documentary material we have at our disposal. I'm not saying both theories ARE true just that they most certainly COULD BE.
There is nothing about either that makes them necessarily mutually exclusive. And if you think so then no wonder you're a terrible historical architecture analyst.
Of course there is.
If Crump conceived of the DA bunker, it's relative position and configuration, then your belief in the alleged Steineger theory fails because the bunker didn't just evolve due to wear and tear, it was a preconceived notion. And, if you look at the bunker, sitting in its elevated footpad, removed from the green, it's obvious that it was no accident.
Historically, architectural accidents don't occur at Pine Valley.
If the Crump theory is valid, then the Steineger theory is invalid.
You don't want to admit that because you've supported BOTH theories.
-
Pat,
I asked about the other holes because clearly it was not the habit of the person who drew that diagram to delineate the front of the green every time...and I think #10 is one of those holes. The area adjacent to the DA feature is probably not intended as greenspace so I would not call that feature "flanking" the green.
Sully, the use of words like "probably" can't be permitted in the context of ascertaining the facts surrounding the creation, location and configuration of the DA bunker
As to the DA's migration, from Cleveland or otherwise...are we saying it moved relatively considerably?
If you have a bunker with a diameter of 3 paces and it is moved 3 paces, that's considerable, especially in the context of the narrow terrain in that area.
I'm glad you finally agree with me.
I think the front edge may have moved up to three yards.
Would you say it moved more or less than that?
I can't provide the exact measurments at this time.
What I do know is that the location and configuration has changed, and I'd say, to a considerable degree.
Look at the elevated footpad the early bunker sat in. Look at the configuration of that bunker and how it's offset from the fronting bank.
That bunker didn't get there by accident or just appear vis a vis random wear and tear.
That bunker was clearly conceptualized and constructed.
-
TEPaul,
Do you support the Crump theory ? or
Do you support the Steineger theory ? or
Do you support the "duality", the Crump and Steineger theories ?
Please, just make your position known and CLEAR ;D
OR, do you support the "tooth fairy" theory, that the DA began as a pinpoint cavity that became impacted and larger, causing PV and Crump considerable pain ? ;D ;D ;D
-
Tom MacWood,
The first order of business would seem to be locating photos/aerials that would pinpoint, within a relatively short period of time, when the DA first appeared.
The next order of business would then be to obtain photos/aerials on a quinennial basis from that point on, so that the migration and configuration changes could be studied and further narrowed down in terms of establishing time frames.
Then, once armed with the dates of origin and change, we can zoom in on who the active parties and consultants were on those dates.
I don't believe that architectural changes at PV occur randomly, except for benign tree management/neglect.
It may be that we never learn when the DA made its debut, or when and why it morphed and moved, but, it's an interesting mystery to pursue.
The same could probably be said of the "Road Hole" bunker, that too would probably be an interesting study.
-
A good friend sent over this frame showing the DA in 1962.
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4419094311_e487e21322_o.jpg)
-
In these pictures am I noticing the green changing dimensions...shrinking, growing, etc?
-
Mike,
That's a terrific picture, especially when compared to this one
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
And this one
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=43341.0;attach=4662
-
"A good friend sent over this frame showing the DA in 1962."
Don't be so mysterious; not just a good friend but arguably the guy who has more historical material of this area's historic architecture in his own personal archives than anyone----eg Ferdinand Alphonse Wayno "Pissboy" Morrison VI, Esq.
And to think that some of these duffus interlopers from out of region, out of state and such thought they could compete with him in that vein? No way and no how; not back then, not now, not ever! ;)
-
"The next order of business would then be to obtain photos/aerials on a quinennial basis from that point on,...."
Hey Patrick:
Look, I realize you understand you are amongst some GCA intellectuals on here and that your mentor and master is arguably the uber-GCA intellectual of all of them but try not to get too carried away with yourself trying to impress them, OK?
Quinennial? QUINENNIAL?
What the f... does that mean Patrick? Is it supposed to mean like every five years or something you mix with gin or vodka? Try to get the paplum out of your head before you try for too many big words, OK, or you might hurt yusself.
-
"TEPaul,
Do you support the Crump theory ? or
Do you support the Steineger theory ? or
Do you support the "duality", the Crump and Steineger theories ?"
Patrick:
Support?
What I have done is raise some avenues of inquiry regarding an investigation of the origins of an interesting and famous golf architecture feature, the exact origins of which have never been completely determined as far as I know or as far as I know anyone knows; and I think I've probably had a whole lot more interreaction and collaboration with some people from that club who would be the ones in a position to know than you ever have.
The story that the DA first began to evolve as a depression has been around that club for years and I find it interesting that long-time super Eb Steineger confirmed that story to Tim Nugent's father.
As for the little round red circle that shows up on the "blue/red line" topo map in the same area that the DA would be built in is another piece of information which leads to an important avenue of inquiry----eg Crump himself.
That's the way these kinds of historic golf architecture investigations and analyses are done or best done. But I wouldn't expect you to embrace that or even understand it because it's pretty obvious all you ever do on here and all you are interested in doing is just verbally arguing with everyone about everything. I guess you feel that makes you appear smart or something on here. ;) I think there is a good place for "Devil's Advocacy" and counterpointing in any intelligent investigation and analysis but not if that is all one ever does as is the case with you on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com.
It would also probably help if you actually went out and did some of your own research and analysis with this original material rather than arguing with everyone else's who have done it.
You're something like your "Cousin Vinnie" who, as his family proudly said about him----"Just loves to argue, actually just lives to argue."
-
That is an interesting photo that was just put up from Hogan vs. Littler in 1962. I believe if you look closely where the D.A. is in that photo (1962) and compare it to the black and white photo form post 16 (1923) , the D.A. appears to be in the same spot. Although the camera is a bit different in both photos it looks in the same spot. Does this disprove the D.A. migration theory? We know that the green no longer runs down to the D.A. like it use to, but other than that, the D.A. looks to be in the same spot in the 1923, 1962, and current photos. How it was created is still a bit of a mystery.
-
Patrick,
Actually, I think the more interesting comparisons are these;
(http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4067/4419094311_e487e21322_o.jpg)
(http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=42663.0;attach=4072;image)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/0013.jpg)
It appears to me less that the bunker "moved" than the front of the green was altered.
EDIT*** Rick..our posts crossed. I think we're on the same page with the bunker being in the same spot.
Actually, Joe Bausch and I were going to go over there this past Sunday on our way to play Greate Bay and demand they tell us when and where and why they moved the Asshole, but the guard heard our line of questioning and forbade our entrance. ;)
-
"In these pictures am I noticing the green changing dimensions...shrinking, growing, etc?"
Mac:
Basically, at that time they just mowed down into greenspace what had previously been rough grass. I liked that application a lot but now that area is pretty much back to roughish grass. The ball does not release off the front like it used to when they had it in that "false-front" greenspace application. Archie Struthers who has been around that course for many years mentioned the same thing on one of these threads.
-
"Does this disprove the D.A. migration theory?"
Rick:
The "migration" theory?
I'd say that is nothing more than the paplum-brained Pat Mucci trying to argue with people more informed than he is. There is no question at all that the DA is a bunker that is and has been more than a little problematic over the years. There shouldn't be much doubt why that is to those who actually know that course and its history well which apparently paplum-brained Mucci doesn't and arguably never will. Consequently he comes up with pap like the "Migration" theory. ;)
-
Mike C.
I think we are right on the money. ;D If you carefully exam the three pictures you posted, the D.A. has not moved at all. The shape of the green has been altered- sod has been added in places the green was once at, but the D.A. is in the same spot. Maybe we should go on the show Mythbusters since we just disproved the "migration theory"
-
Rick,
You have to wonder how these modern urban legends get started, don't you? ;) ;D
-
I think it would be instructive to overlay the image of the Red/Blue map, focussed on just the 10th hole with an aerial image of today with the back edge of the green and the line of play being the key points to line up against. I don't know how to do this, but somebody must.
-
Jim,
I agree...that's beyond my abilities, however.
On the other hand, there are some great Photo Shop masters in here, but there is one problem...ensuring that the map and the aerial are to the same scale, which the pics I posted are not...just my close approximation.
-
"I think it would be instructive to overlay the image of the Red/Blue map, focussed on just the 10th hole with an aerial image of today with the back edge of the green and the line of play being the key points to line up against. I don't know how to do this, but somebody must."
Guys:
If you're gonna try to do that (which I wouldn't necessarily recommend) perhaps before you do it you should both notice and very carefully consider something potentially very revelatory about the "assets" (photograhic and maps) that we do have and already have on this thread.
Here's what I specifically mean and particularly for the few analytical duffuses on here who can't seem to understand and apparently can't admit that that DA and that little red round circle on Crump's "blue/red line" topo really are in the same location on that hole.
So take a look at all the photos of that hole----all the ones showing the DA and even the first photo that does not have it. Notice very carefully the angle or line of that right greenside bunker in all those photos and even on the copy of the so-called Colt map. Notice how the angle and line of it comes pretty much straight back in pretty much of a straight line towards the tee.
And now take a look at the same angle and line of that bunker on Crump's "blue/red line" map and notice how much the angle and line of front of that bunker angles towards the 18th hole.
Are you with me so far? If so, is there any wonder why that little red round circle looks like it's almost attached to that right side bunker on that "blue/red line" topo and particularly the app 5x to 10xs blowup of it on this thread? ;)
-
When did the DA name first come into play? It doesn't look that severe in the '62 photo, although that might be the angle. It definitely has gotten smaller in circumference though.
-
Sean:
I don't believe the club or anyone else is sure either when the name of that bunker first originated or from whom. I know I've always heard from those who logically would know that it is not known.
-
Ok...
Y'all think that the DA appeared between 1913 and 1920ish, right?
I found a 1915 article that has that DA-less picture of the 10th in it.
Then moving on to 1916, I notice that they write a lot about a problem with the greens involving too much acidity and they are "fixing" them around that time.
Still digging...will let you know if I find anything of value.
-
"Y'all think that the DA appeared between 1913 and 1920ish, right?"
I'd say at some point after late 1914 to some point around 1922.
"I found a 1915 article that has that DA-less picture of the 10th in it."
Mac:
That sounds like Father Simon Carr's Jan 1915 article (one of Crump's closest playing companions at PV and a Catholic priest and extremely fine golfer and holder of some impressive championships around here. He was also one of the two who wrote what I call "The Remembrances" on what Crump wanted to do with the course had he lived). That article has made the rounds on here over the years, and has been in PV's archives since the day it was printed.
"Then moving on to 1916, I notice that they write a lot about a problem with the greens involving too much acidity and they are "fixing" them around that time."
That would be because Crump had loaded up greens and such pre-grassing in with what they described as "muck" (apparently lake and swamp bottom material that was heavily acidic). It created an agronomic failure and some real problems. The fix for that problem Alan Wilson (Hugh's brother) chronicled very well.
-
Tom...
You are right...Simon Carr 1915...with that DA-less picture attached and this description...
Jan. 1915 –
THE SHORT TENTH, 140 YARDS, AT THE NEW PINE VALLEY COURSE, SUMNER, N. J.
140 yards to the center of the green. The tee is built out on the very edge of the ridge, with the valley on the left, 50 feet below. The green is located on a knoll in the side of a huge sand hill. In the distance the green looks like an uncut emerald, as it rests amid the yellow and white sands of the surrounding bunkers. It is the jewel of the round. There is no fairway; only the roughest kind of ground along the edge of the ridge for a distance of 100 yards, and then a sudden dip down 20 feet into a small ravine, through which a road runs, 25 yards in front of the green. A topped or sclaffed tee-shot is in danger of slipping off the ridge, and bringing up in the bunkers of the eighteenth fairway in the valley below. The green is very slightly below the level of the tee, and has an upslope from front to back of three feet; so that every part of its surface is clearly in view from the tee. It is about forty feet in width, and sixty feet long, with a very irregular outline; it is entirely surrounded with bunkers. The wind always blows out on the edge of the ridge where the tee is placed; it tests one's judgment soundly to gauge this important factor accurately in playing the shot. Tee-shots at this hole are either good or bad; there is no margin for the least error. There is no secondary green, from which one may putt or chip his ball over obstacles, up to the hole-side. There is no fairway, no rough, in a word, no refuge for a nearly good shot, except the bottom of the bunkers. One must play the shot just right or fail.
Wouldn't that push the dates out to 1915-1922ish?
As always, just curious.
-
"Wouldn't that push the dates out to 1915-1922ish?
As always, just curious."
Mac:
Yes, unless of course that photograph was taken earlier and not for the article!
Isn't it amazing some of the things we sort of semi-automatically forget to consider? ;)
Are you like me who constantly flips switches to turn on the lights during a power failure when I know damn well the electricity is off? ???
-
Mac:
Actually, that particular Simon Carr article got a ton of play on this website some years ago on some PV threads when I was arguing against the likes of Paul Turner and Tom MacWood about assigning attribution for PV between Crump and Colt.
During those interesting discussions I mentioned that that article by Carr (who again was with Crump constantly down there) which seems to attribute a lot of create for the design of the course to Harry Colt was remarkably similar in its wording to an article on the course around the same time by Walter Travis. That led me to believe Crump himself might've orchestated those articles (which were just after some of the holes first officially opened for play) to promote the place as designed by the famous architect Colt rather than himself who had never done a course before.
WELL, the screeching and gnashing of teeth over that suggestion was positively hilarious.
Nevertheless, I still believe there is a good deal of truth in it and the primary thing they forgot to consider was Crump would continue to work on designing and building and changing the course for close to three more years to come after those articles!
Ah, the undeniable benefit of a really good "timeline." ;)
By the way, apparently Pat Mucci doesn't even understand what a good timeline is or what it does. In his paplum-filled brain if he can't find a photogaph of some hole or feature before a certain date he figures it couldn't have existed before the photograp! ::)
-
Tom...on the article and the 1914 or 1915 date...here were my thoughts...correct and critique as neccessary...
The article comes out in 1915 with that picture attached and the description of the hole. I've seen that picture in multiple places, so I assume it wasn't specifically taken for this article. BUT, it is included...therefore, I am think the hole hasn't drastically changed since the picture was taken. ALSO, the description of the hole doesn't specifically describe the DA bunker. So, I conclude the time line can be bumped to 1915 rather than 1914.
In your opinion, does that hole description lead you to believe the DA bunker wasn't there in Jan. 1915? I ask, simply because I don't know for sure. Much like proving a negative is hard to do, concluding that something didn't exist by looking at a written description of what did exsist is difficult.
-
Tom MacWood,
The first order of business would seem to be locating photos/aerials that would pinpoint, within a relatively short period of time, when the DA first appeared.
The next order of business would then be to obtain photos/aerials on a quinennial basis from that point on, so that the migration and configuration changes could be studied and further narrowed down in terms of establishing time frames.
Then, once armed with the dates of origin and change, we can zoom in on who the active parties and consultants were on those dates.
I don't believe that architectural changes at PV occur randomly, except for benign tree management/neglect.
It may be that we never learn when the DA made its debut, or when and why it morphed and moved, but, it's an interesting mystery to pursue.
The same could probably be said of the "Road Hole" bunker, that too would probably be an interesting study.
I agree, there has been a lot of speculation surrounding the design and evolution of PV, the more solid evidence the better IMO.
-
Has anyone taken a look at the picture of the DA in Robert Hunter's book The Links?
-
Good call. Even though there's no date assigned to it in The Links, I'd say that photo looks to predate the last photo on Post #77 by a year, maybe two.
-
What's been lost, architecturally, in this discussion, due to the sole focus on the D.A. bunker, is the way the fronting bank and front of the green have changed over the years.
Look at the original photo on this thread and then look at the successive photos and how much the fronting bank and front of the green have changed over the years.
One cannot have a thorough discussion of the D.A. without including the morphing of the front bank as it appears below.
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m49/jtm212/misc%20rand%20pics/withoutA.jpg)
-
Here is the picture that appears in The Links (1926).
-
"What's been lost, architecturally, in this discussion, due to the sole focus on the D.A. bunker, is the way the fronting bank and front of the green have changed over the years."
A PV timeline:
As the progression of photos we have show us, various areas on the course (best examples being the fronting bunkers on #2 and #18) were in a fair state of natural physical evolution or perhaps more appropriately devolution. The fronting bunker on #10 is a pretty good example of it.
And to plug an architectural timeline into the progression it should be noted that after Crump died suddenly in Jan. 1918 there were still only fourteen holes open to play. #12-#15 were in some state of construction and development at that time but it is pretty hard to say what that degree of construction and development was at that time other than they were not ready for play and not grassed.
When Crump died suddenly the club was somewhat unsure how to proceed with the finishing off of the course and of course Crump's own construction money was not available as he was gone. Construction was also at a standstill until the WW1 armstice in Nov. 1918. America had been at war for nineteen months during which time very little if any construction work had been done at Pine Valley (May, 1917 to Nov. 1918).
In early 1919 a $20,000 gift was provided by member Grinnell Willis to complete and put into play holes #12-#15. Club records and club histories indicate Hugh and Alan Wilson were tapped by the board to complete those holes which they spent 4-6 months working on. Hugh Wilson would be appointed PV's green chairman.
Documentary material from a source other than the club indicate that it was William Flynn who was given the assignement (by the Wilsons) in 1919 to complete those final four holes (12-15) which he did in collaboration with foreman (and pro/clubmaker/greenskeeper) Jim Govan who had been Crump's foreman and constant on-course companion and shot-tester from March 1914. Flynn actually went on the PV payroll and his mailing address was Pine Valley. It looks like he was at it with Pine Valley for about six months through the spring and summer of 1919.
The last four holes were grassed in the early fall of 1919 and brought into play in the summer of 1920 which finally opened up the entire eighteen for the first time.
-
"One cannot have a thorough discussion of the D.A. without including the morphing of the front bank as it appears below."
The best and perhaps only good way to track the evolution of the course or any hole or any feature is to line up side by side the available progression of documentary material, particularly photographs in chronological order and try to date all the assets if they aren't and create as exact a progression timeline as possible (John Ott and I used to do this on his diningroom table with the approximate 21 available aerials from the Dallin aerial collection).
Much of that photographic material showed up in newspapers and magazines and some prominent golf architecture books such as Hunter's "The Links" and Thomas's "Golf Architecture in America," and of course in the club's three history books. However, not all the available photographs are extant in those books and periodicals. It appears there are some other photographs in the archives and many of them actually hang on the club walls including the rooms in Dormie House.
With all the available material, arranging it into a progression timeline and analyzing all the details would yield, in my opinion, a pretty exact architectural creation story of the course, its individual holes and even their features from the beginning (Oct. 1912) to the final opening of all eighteen holes (mid-1920). Of course, at least personally, I believe the architectural creation story should be taken probably to 1923 at least (or through Maxwell's work into the late 1920s or early 1930s) as that would encompass the important architectural work done to the course by the so-called "1921 Advisory Committee." The timing is getting right as well as PV is coming up on its centennial (incorporation) in 2013.
Will the origins of the DA ever be known? Who knows until everything extant is assembled and carefully analyzed. It has been analyzed to some good degree in the three PV history books but it seems there is still much in the way of detail that can and probably will be revealed in perhaps a far more careful analysis.
BTW, the photograph of the 10th in Hunter's book (Post #317) apparently came from the collection of a seemingly prolific photographer by the name of Walter Harriman Savory.
-
Thanks Tom, that is helpful...to me anyway.
What makes you say there looks to be a year or so difference between the two pictures with the DA? The one Tom just posted looks to have significantly less scrub around the ground and even the trees seem a little thinner.
-
That's one of the reasons I think the one in The Links may be bit older than the last one on #77. How do I try to tell earlier/later or try to assign an app. date? I have a whole bunch of what might be called evolutionary "keys" on these holes. Obviously the easiest is to just compare the same tree(s) or bush(es) between the photos. Unfortunately not all the photos show the most important of those "keys."
-
Mike Cirba asked me to post this photo he was sent by a fellow GCAer of the 10th, pre-DA. This is from the Strohmeyer photos.
I've posted it wider than 800 pixels wide as I think it is warranted.
(http://darwin.chem.villanova.edu/~bausch/images/PV4Max/PV_No10_preDA_Strohmeyer.jpg)
-
Joe,
Thanks for posting that. I found this clipping yesterday evening. The perspective that I am getting from this broad view of the entire hole, before the pines have grown up, is very interesting:
It looks to me like there was a lot of earth moving in this section of the course. Look at how much fill is going in to the adjacent tee!
Does anyone know what those sand mounds are in back of the green? Those are curious. Are those stock piles?
Can you imagine how hard this shot was back in those days?
-
Joe,
In what publication did this photo appear ?
Any chance at dating it ?
-
Pat,
I can tell you the picture is pre 1920 because it's the same photo that appears in Colt's 1920 book Essays on Golf Course Architecture/i]
-
Joe:
That photo is the same one as the first photo on Post #3.
Strohmeyer was a very prolific and pretty famous photographer who did a lot of golf photography (he did a whole course series of photographs for Flynn's Cascades course at the Homestead). If that photo was in Colt's book it was probably from the photographic scrapbook that Crump sent Colt perhaps in 1914 or 1915. It's a beautifully bound scrapbook and it's now in the USGA Museum/Library.
-
"Does anyone know what those sand mounds are in back of the green? Those are curious. Are those stock piles?"
Brad:
I think they are. The same basic to contours of those sand mounds shows up on the earliest photo of the 17th hole from the fairway. They are just to the left of the 17th green.
I think that fill was generated from cutting down below natural grade for the bunkers of the 10th but I think the majority of it came from a massive cut that created the large swale in front of the 10th green. The instructions on Colt's hole drawing seems to indicate they cut down for #10's surrounding bunkers. And I think they must have been trying to get the right to left sheet flow across the ridge the tenth hole is on directed in there. Obviously they used some of the cut's fill to create the back tee on #18.
-
from looking at pat's picture in his previous post, and comparing it to tommc's most recent picture and post....it's apparent that the DA was added between the time frame of the two.
I haven't checked in on this thread of late....but what am i missing? has the DA bunker's construction time frame been resolved? do we know who was responsible for it's addition?
-
upon further reflection of the photos, it seems to me that the turf from the excavation of the DA could have been shifted to the left....something I would probably due....to shore up the more massive bunker on the left on the left corner....all the other differences seem to be a result of continued grow in.
are we still discussing this, or am I in a little vacuum of my own?
-
Paul...
Nope...we haven't solved the puzzle and no you are not in a vaccum. I am sure the gurus will be eager to hear your thoughts and continue to work to get to the bottom of this.
Cool stuff, I think.
-
"upon further reflection of the photos, it seems to me that the turf from the excavation of the DA could have been shifted to the left....something I would probably due....to shore up the more massive bunker on the left on the left corner....all the other differences seem to be a result of continued grow in."
Hmmm, very interesting theory. One thing is certain----eg that high vertical sand flashed face of the front bunker on the left (in the first photo of the 10th hole without the DA) was incredibly unstable and not prone to lasting in that configuration for even a year.
Also notice that in one of the next photos in the chronoligal progression a huge mound of sand with turf on it was at the base of that bunker. To me there is only one logical reason for that----it slide right down off that vertical face of the left front bunker!
-
"I haven't checked in on this thread of late....but what am i missing? has the DA bunker's construction time frame been resolved? do we know who was responsible for it's addition?"
Paul:
Not yet, even if some evidence has been recently found and explained that might point to a particular timespan and person. But basically the over-all timeline is this:
1. If some real visual evidence of the conception and/or appearance of the DA predates Jan. 1918 it is fairly certain the conception and creation of the DA would be Crump.
2. If the foregoing occured after that date the list of potential candidates would necessarily grow.
However, some things on this thread should be clarified and altered for the sake of accuracy, at this point anyway. An example of that is this remark on Post #69 from Tom MacWood which is the entire extent of that post:
He said:
"CH Alison is responsible for the bunker, and a number of other changes."
That might look to some casual observer and reader as a statement of fact; it isn't, at least part of it isn't. It is merely conjecture and speculation regarding the conception and creation of the DA. It is true and provable that Alison was responsible for a number of other changes to Pine Valley but it is not provable, at this point, that he was responsible for the DA.
-
Joe:
That photo is the same one as the first photo on Post #3.
Strohmeyer was a very prolific and pretty famous photographer who did a lot of golf photography (he did a whole course series of photographs for Flynn's Cascades course at the Homestead). If that photo was in Colt's book it was probably from the photographic scrapbook that Crump sent Colt perhaps in 1914 or 1915. It's a beautifully bound scrapbook and it's now in the USGA Museum/Library.
I have a series of great Strohmeyer photos of Pine Valley, but I've given up on posting any photos to this site. The photos are pretty rough shape because they were clipped from an original magazine and they are almost 100 years old. If someone messages me their e-mail I'll scan them and send them along to be posted.
-
Brad
Please send them.
I'd be happy to post for you.
-
I wonder if the term "Devil's Asshole" came from a bunker on the 14th hole on the Old Course that was once a small pot bunker called the "Devil's Kitchen?"
-
There is a nice pic of the present day 10th in this week's GolfWeek magazine, as well as on the GolfWeek website.
-
Something tells me there is something out there that will positively establish the DA as before Crump or just after Crump and visually. ;) I think we've gotten pretty warm on that timeline to date on here with other kinds of evidence but nothing completely positive yet that everyone would agree on.
But for an architectural/historical/analytical learning experience classroom type thing this thread has been excellent. With this kind of architectural/historical analysis though it's a bit like that infamous three mile run all USMC boots have to go on with all their gear in a set amount of time at Parris Island----the deal is you can only go as fast as your slowest men and if they are too slow as the likes of Mucci and MacWood are on this thread and subject and others like it, you just pick them up and carry them over the finish-line even if they tend to yell and scream and claim they somehow managed it on their own! ;)
-
Just came across this picture of number P.V. #10 from 1941.
(http://bccgreens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/PV-10.png)
-
Bradley:
That one's significant because you can see that old short grass area where balls could easily run off the right front and down. One can also pick up the significant chances to the front and left bunker compared to the original photo which shows it flashed all the way up. That was way too unstable and couldn't last. It looks on the original photo that there was more green originally on the left front. It apparently collapsed as did the fronting bunkering on #2 and #18. I believe it was Flynn who grassed all three of them down.
-
Brad,
Do you have any other Pine Valley photo from that era?
-
I see a bunker
(http://www3.sympatico.ca/iandrew//posts/PV10.jpg)
-
Ian:
It could be but it's more likely longish grass at the end of that semi-ridge before you walk down and then up onto the green. I'm afraid they had some pretty significant stabilization issues in the beginning in the valley before that green and around to its left. If you think about it there is a lot of sheet flow that could come from both the front right of that green and around that bunkering on the left. Both originally were like some pretty fair sized funnels and it was all sand.
In the late 1920s they had a massive project they called "stabilizing the course" or holding the course together. They did a ton of terracing and vegetating it. They also planted a lot of trees in various areas for the same purpose. The most signficant areas were in the front of this green, the hillside on the left of 18 and on that massive sand area on #6. The fronts of #2, #10 and #18 also weren't holding because they were all sand flashed way up.
-
I looked again - it's a perfect oval - I see a bunker.
-
I found a nice picture from 1923 with the DA in it. I'm having a hard time posting it, but I'll put it up tomorrow.
-
From the USGA Instructive Golf Hole Series August 1923
(http://bccgreens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/PV-10-Map.png)
(http://bccgreens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/PV-10-Tee.png)
(http://bccgreens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/PV-10-DA.png)
-
1941 or thereabouts
(http://bccgreens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/PV-10-1941.png)
-
I looked again - it's a perfect oval - I see a bunker.
I agree, the dark area looks like shade to me, similar to the other bunkers.
Niall
-
(http://bccgreens.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/PV-10-DA-ev.png)
The left photo is 1941, the right side is from 1923. Note how the mowing lines were changed to help the ball roll off the green towards the DA. But it looks like they may have even modified the contours of the putting surface?
-
Brad:
Could the difference in color be attributed to different shadows?
-
This always was a really interesting thread. I don't know that anyone has ever actually tried to pin down precisely when the DA came into existence or whose idea it was, although there sure have been a number of stories about it, but so far this thread has not exactly done that, in my opinion. To do that I think the first order of business would be to pin down as accurately as possible the precise date that photograph that appears in Posts #3, 322, and 341 was taken, and even if that could be done it may not answer the question (particularly if it was taken after Jan, 1918).
However, the first photograph showing the hole without the DA was very likely 1914 or not later than early 1915. There are a number of supporting reasons that show up in that photo that have to do with the chronology of the construction of the course to assume or conclude that.
Also, even though the angles or vantage points from where the various photos on this thread of this hole were taken from are not all that helpful for comparative purposes, the following should certainly be included in the comparative analysis anyway.
After Crump died (Jan 1918) not much was done to the course architecturally for the next two years other than a massive program to fix the agronomy and the completion of holes #12-#15 to bring them into play (the course was originally opened for play with eleven holes in play and following that for approximately 4-5 years only fourteen holes were in play. All eighteen holes did not come into play until the summer of 1920 and even with that some bunkering on the #12-#15 stretch was not done).
In the fall of 1920 Hugh Alison came to Pine Valley and on January 8, 1921 he offered a hole by hole improvement plan. The Committee voted on every itemized suggestion Alison made as to whether it was approved, put on hold or not approved.
Alison's only suggestion for hole #10 was thus:
"It is suggested that the banks which partly hiade (sic) the bunkers in front of the green, should be removed."
The Committee approved this suggestion on March 13th and 14th 1921 and notated the following regarding it:
"Remove banks in front of the bunker at face of green."
One can also notice from some of the photos as well as familiarity with the hole itself that the ground from the tee to near the green, particularly on the right was once higher than it is now. Apparently that difference was the execution of Alison's 1921 suggestion.
-
Brad:
Could the difference in color be attributed to different shadows?
Yea I think the shadows and light could be making the later photo appear to be steeper in front than the earlier one, but there is no disputing that the mowing lines are brought in the later photo.