News:

This discussion group is best enjoyed using Google Chrome, Firefox or Safari.


TEPaul

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #100 on: February 28, 2010, 09:55:44 PM »
"....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.
 

Rick Sides

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #101 on: February 28, 2010, 10:01:31 PM »
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.

TEPaul

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #102 on: February 28, 2010, 10:12:55 PM »
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?

Phil_the_Author

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #103 on: February 28, 2010, 11:06:24 PM »
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...
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 05:48:13 AM by Philip Young »

TEPaul

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #104 on: March 01, 2010, 08:34:15 AM »
"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.

TEPaul

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #105 on: March 01, 2010, 08:53:54 AM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 08:56:25 AM by TEPaul »

Mike Cirba

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #106 on: March 01, 2010, 10:45:25 AM »
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

TEPaul

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #107 on: March 01, 2010, 11:10:25 AM »
"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. 

Mike Cirba

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #108 on: March 01, 2010, 11:13:02 AM »
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?   ;)
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 11:25:09 AM by Mike Cirba »

TEPaul

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #109 on: March 01, 2010, 11:53:38 AM »
"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.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 12:19:05 PM by TEPaul »

Bradley Anderson

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #110 on: March 01, 2010, 12:02:35 PM »
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.

TEPaul

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #111 on: March 01, 2010, 12:33:37 PM »
"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.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 12:40:35 PM by TEPaul »

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #112 on: March 01, 2010, 05:26:39 PM »
 :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
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 05:46:09 PM by archie_struthers »

Tom MacWood

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #113 on: March 01, 2010, 05:44:06 PM »
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.

TEPaul

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #114 on: March 01, 2010, 06:16:32 PM »
"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!"

TEPaul

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #115 on: March 01, 2010, 06:25:15 PM »
".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?  ;)

TEPaul

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #116 on: March 01, 2010, 06:32:55 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 06:34:39 PM by TEPaul »

Rick Sides

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #117 on: March 01, 2010, 07:52:25 PM »
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?  ???

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #118 on: March 01, 2010, 08:11:39 PM »
 ;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





Patrick_Mucci

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #119 on: March 01, 2010, 09:04:48 PM »
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.

archie_struthers

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #120 on: March 01, 2010, 09:20:39 PM »
 ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

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 ??????

« Last Edit: March 01, 2010, 09:50:43 PM by archie_struthers »

Jim_Kennedy

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #121 on: March 01, 2010, 09:20:58 PM »
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.  
"I never beat a well man in my life" - Harry Vardon

Patrick_Mucci

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #122 on: March 01, 2010, 09:24:50 PM »

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.


Patrick_Mucci

Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #123 on: March 01, 2010, 09:32:50 PM »
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 ?

Mac Plumart

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re: What's missing in this photograph? Why?
« Reply #124 on: March 01, 2010, 09:34:33 PM »
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.
Sportsman/Adventure loving golfer.

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back