Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Brian_Gracely on November 24, 2004, 09:18:29 PM
-
...the rankings started today, instead of 50yrs ago, and the years of tradition weren't necessarily such a huge factor? Ignoring the club, the members cache, the exclusivity, etc.
...the magazines weren't US-based?
And for that matter, would the Top 10 or Top 50 be anywhere near the same?
-
Great question,
I believe that as long as the rankings reflect superlative architecture, Pine Valley will always be close to the top of any rankings list.
So few courses can be considered as original pieces of golf course architecture, on such fantastic terrain, that it is inevitable that the treasure that is Pine Valley will always be a contender for the worlds finest.
-
I think the modern magazine rater would have trouble understanding the double greens...it would be seen as a confusing comprimise that would keep the course out of the top 10...
-
Generally yes. Whats better? I've always thought you have the top 5 which are in a league of their own and then everything else with PV leading the pack.
With all that said, I haven't played PV in 3 years and I've heard of some of the changes. If Brewer/Fazio keep messing than it may have some problems.
-
yes
-
Joel:
The changes to PV are basically all tee length additions which hasn't exactly changed the architecture of the holes--the additional tees are just a choice. A couple of fairways were bunkered a bit narrowing them slightly. It'd be very hard for someone to tell that even if they really know the course well without a photo of the way those fairways were previously. I sure don't advocate narrowing the fairways of PV which have always been the same width but they did it on three holes but very slightly. Those new bunkers are really good though--at least they look like they've been there forever.
Instead of over-analyzing every little detail of PV whoever said above 'What's better?' has got a pretty good point.
-
Easily!
Why? Because few, if any courses anywhere, have the complete 18 hole architectual and shot-making values of PV. Other than the maybe one or two holes that MIGHT be deemed "weaker" than the others, every hole on the course would likely stand out as a shining and noteworthy examples of top 1-5 holes of their kind in the USA or world.
Jaka's quote:
"I think the modern magazine rater would have trouble understanding the double greens...it would be seen as a confusing comprimise that would keep the course out of the top 10... "
This is a perfect question that reframes the argument: Isn't it obvious that the modern magazine rater lacks the creativity, sophistication and historical perspective to add any real value to the measurement or judgement process???
PV, from the moment you cross the railroad tracks until the moment you leave easily deserves the premier golf course and club designation of its kind on this planet.
-
Brian,
For my money, if they did a little sensitive tree clearance of say a "xx,xxx trees", and brought the course's sense of place and awesone architecture back into the equation, then the course would be even better than people have ever thought since the rankings started.
-
Steve:
You're so right about the magazine raters and what they look at and don't seem to know what to look at. I think I'm very close to getting them to include in their rating and ranking evaluations how much better the architecture of any course would be if they could play the course with Heidi Klum when she had a see-through golf shirt on!
-
James:
They are doing tree clearing and one should expect more of it. What they never will do though is return the golf course to the look of some of those very early photographs and there're excellent reasons for that---eg Crump did not want that for his course. He removed app 22,000 trees from that site to both experiment with proposed holes and build his course (some cleared areas were never used but they do show up on those early aerials and photos). What most don't seem to realize is Crump also had an active tree planting program. The use of trees in the design of PV was a very purposeful intention of his but it's probably true to say that his intention with the use of trees was never meant to actually effect a shot from a fairway, for instance. But he purposefully intended to use trees in the course's design---that was fairly unique for sure, but at the same time it's completely documented and should be something that's respected and preserved in the future. That does not mean the course did not get massively over-treed in the ensuing decades but those who are calling for the return to the exact look of those early photos simply do not understand the details of what that course was intended by Crump to be!
-
Brian,
Your point about the magazines being based in the US is a good one. I wish Golf World UK or one of the Australian magazines would put together a proper world top 100 instead of sticking to parochial rankings - the results probably wouldn't be any less biased than the US rankings, but they would be biased in a different direction, and in and of itself that might be instructive.
Cheers,
Darren
-
Darren:
Are you saying that the rest of the world doesn't have its bullshit magazine raters and rankers like we do? ;)
-
No, Tom - but I don't know of any *world* rankings produced by non-American publications. I disagree strongly with much of the Golf World UK rankings of the Top 100 in GB&I, but I'd be interested to see how a predominantly British panel of "experts" from GWUK might rank the Top 100 in the World, particularly to see how many GB&I courses are in it relative to e.g. the Golf magazine rankings in the States.
Cheers,
Darren
-
Darren:
Tell me the truth---do you see anyway in the world US courses like Sand Hills and PVGC could possibly stack up against the likes of TOC, Carnoustie, RCD and Portrush (or is it Port Rush?)?
-
TE,
As an englishman now living here, I would reverse your question, can the courses you mentioned back in the UK stack up to the likes of PV and Merion for instance.
Tostart with the answer has to involve the qustion ...how do you really compare a links course to a non links course?
To me you really cannot, all the ranking lists try to put them all in there together..but how realistic is that.
I love links golf, but I cannot compare that style to my love of Merion and Pne Valley.
It is like asking, who do you love more your wife or your kids?
-
No, Tom - but I don't know of any *world* rankings produced by non-American publications. I disagree strongly with much of the Golf World UK rankings of the Top 100 in GB&I, but I'd be interested to see how a predominantly British panel of "experts" from GWUK might rank the Top 100 in the World, particularly to see how many GB&I courses are in it relative to e.g. the Golf magazine rankings in the States.
Cheers,
Darren
Somewhere in my library, I have an article by Peter Dobreiner written for one of the English golf magazines giving his 100 best in the world, excluding the United States. As I have mentioned here before, ad nauseaum, my beloved Nchanga took 14th place.
If I can scan it and post I shall try... I am a bit of a klutz at this sort of thing.
-
Michael Wharton-Palmer:
In my question to Darren, I was trying to be a little ironical simply to see what he might say! Somewhere in the back of my mind rests some instincts of a nefarious lawyer. As hard as I try to stifle them they just pop out on their own sometimes. ;)
-
Bob Huntley:
Nchanga? Is that near the place you were when one of your officers explained to Princess Margaret that although the officers were white their privates were black? If you happened to see that I'd appreciate at least a brief description of Princess Margaret's reaction.
-
TEPaul,
I guess we'll continue to disagree on this issue.
Crump may have wanted seperation but, I don't think he wanted total isolation.
Crump and his immediate followers had ample time to plant trees, but, if you look at photos of the golf course from the 30's, 40's 50's and even early 60's, it's evident that the extent of their plantings don't compare to what exists today.
The golf course has become choked off by taking Crump's desire for seperation to the extreme.
Brian Gracely,
If the ratings started today, as you indicate.
Pine Valley wouldn't be ranked at all.
It would take years for the raters to gain access and put forth the minimum number of ballots for consideration.
Pine Valley is a wonderful golf course. A challenge at every hole. Who cares what raters think ?
-
TEPaul:
One of the key issues for PV is getting the tree issue under control. Frankly, the course has too much timber. Although it may be likely to return to its "original look" I'd much rather prefer PV closer to that than the vast number of trees that exist today.
Darren K:
It would be quite interesting to see the assessments of those from outside the USA rank the best courses in the world and see where a number of American course would eventually rank.
Maybe you should throw forward your own listing to kick the ball off?
-
Pat & Matt:
For the umpteenth time, the separation of holes by using trees to do it is what Geroge Crump wanted and intended to do and began to do before he died. That fact is completely documented!
However, when one looks at aerials from the earlier years of PVGC one sees many "clearing lines" and cleared areas that were done simply to test for holes that were not used or built. I can go through where those areas were if you'd like. That is the reason an early aerial should never be used as a guide for tree clearing on that course.
Crump intended visual isolation between holes, insisted on it actually (it was part of his plan before even routing or constructing) but you're right he never would've intended as many trees to encroach as were on that course in the last 4-5 decades. Ernie Ransome, particularly, really like trees and continued to plant more (even move a few around). But now they've removed some of those excessive trees from the hole corridors and are continuing to. But they surely won't do it at some pace recommended by Pat Mucci, Matt Ward or Tom Paul, they'll do it at their own pace like everything else they've ever done there.
The perfect prescription for tree removal on that course, in my opinion, would be if they got all the trees completely out of and out of, and out of the lines of all Crump's old bunkering amd constructed sandy waste areas. If they did that, and I believe they eventually will, you'd see a marked difference down there but the course would still have visual isolation between the holes as Crump intended it to be.
-
TEPaul:
The very fact the club IS REMOVING trees is an admission they have become a real annoyance and unnecessary addition to the course.
End of story.
P.S. IMHO -- they should simply sharpen the axe and cut plenty more! Whether they do that or not is their affair but I personally believe PV would be even greater without them.
-
Tom,
No, that was several hundred miles south, in Salisbury, Southern Rhodesia. Nchanga came after my military career.
Truth be told, she almost choked on her champagne. She had a wicked sense of humour but it wasn't much apparent at the time. She had been shipped out of Britain with the Queen Mother having fallen in love with Group-Captain Peter Townsend. Owing to his having been divorced (although in odd English parlance, he was the 'innocent party.') the Church of England and the Establishment were totally opposed to the union.
When Anthony Eden, then Prime Minister, advised her that if she decided to go ahead with the marriage, all perquisites of being a Royal would be withdrawn. She would become Mrs. Townsend, no titles, no houses, no freebies and not a cent from the Civil List. This latter meant no allowance. A devasting blow which she decided was just too much. As an aside I remember the poor late, lamented Christina Onassis, who, in one of her strange, looking for a husband mode, married a Russian. She went to live with him in an apartment together with his Mother. It went well for a couple of months but when she went to the store to but a refrigerator, the salesman said, "Fine, we'll deliver it in four years." She gave him a couple of tankers worth about six mill and got a divorce.
I am afraid Margaret was a bit of a sad case, she liked to lead a louche sort of life and be non-conformist, but woe betide anyone who treated her as anything but a Queen in waiting.
I must say she had the most wonderful bust and beautiful blue eyes.
-
Tom,
I forgot to mention that I provided the reply, but it was not directly to Margaret. It was to Lady Patricia Plunkett,a member of her entourage who provided the riposte. M. was standing nearby having a drink.
-
"TEPaul:
The very fact the club IS REMOVING trees is an admission they have become a real annoyance and unnecessary addition to the course.
End of story."
Matt Ward:
Do you ever sometimes wonder why some golf courses, like a PVGC, get turned off by some criticism by people like you? It's because of statements like you just made.
I don't know that many who haven't said PVGC had too many trees, certainly no one on here. The point is were they going to remove trees and how many? They're never going to remove as many trees as it would take to return to the look of some of those early aerials because if you look at those early aerials you'd see the trees they planted on purpose that weren't anywhere near maturity. But the point is the have been removing trees in the last few years, and apparently intend to contiinue.
Guys like you criticize them for having too many trees and call for the removal of trees and then when they do that you start yelling in CAPTITAL LETTERS the fact that they ARE REMOVING trees PROVES they had too many in the first place.
Jeeesus Christ some critics can get annoyng!
-
Darren
Good luck forming your international panel! It ain't exactly easy to see the great US courses, from a foreign country. Unlike vice-versa!
Links is the best. But from an architectural perspective I see no problem with PV at #1. The course would clearly be more attractive with some open vistas, regardless of what Crump wanted. Unless the course is simple seen as a monument to him. First job should be to remove the deciduous trees, it is "Pine" Valley after all.
-
TEPaul,
Do you think a rapid tree removal program would have been tantamount to an admission that they overplanted and let the invasive growth get away from them in the first place ?
With a sufficent budget, why wouldn't you do it as rapidly as possible ?
They proved that they could clear trees in a hurry when they created the new back tee on # 18.
-
Brian,
I have been very fortunate to see a lot of great courses. Pine Valley came with rediculously high expectations above all the other I ever went to visit............and damned if it didn't exceed them. Something that well thought out will always get discovered and highly regarded.
The modern example is Friars Head. It may take time for golfers to find the right connections to see this wonderful gem, but it to will see its day.
-
I agree with, Ian.
Heading to Pine Valley my expectations were very, very high. As far as I was concerned, I was familiar with every hole through reading and photos. Amazingly, the course exceeded those expectations, ten-fold. Ten-fold.
-
"TEPaul,
Do you think a rapid tree removal program would have been tantamount to an admission that they overplanted and let the invasive growth get away from them in the first place?"
Pat:
I've tried often but I think it's pretty hard to put into words on here the way PVGC looks at things and does things down there with their golf course. Tantamount to an admission that they overplanted to who Pat? To GOLFCLUBATLAS.com? To architectural critics elsewhere? To who? I've tried to explain the way I think they look at things down there. They've had five presidents in their 92 year history and it seems to me they've never been in a big rush to do anything. The course is probably as evolutionary as any there is and it's been #1 in the world for a long time. I don't think they feel the need to rush into anything---to follow some sudden recommendation. And thank God for that. They must be doing something right all these years.
"With a sufficent budget, why wouldn't you do it as rapidly as possible?"
In my opinion, see above.
"They proved that they could clear trees in a hurry when they created the new back tee on #18."
That's a little different, don't you think? If they build a new tee they really don't want to ask their golfers to try to drive the ball off the tee through trees in the way!
I like the last two posts of Ian Andrews and Jeff Mingay---without question two of the most intelligent, informed and sensible golf architecture analysts I've ever seen on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com. I think their impressions of the place on their first visit is very representative of PV.
-
TEPaul,
It proves that where there's a will, there's a way.
As to whom they have to prove or not prove something to, the answer is, to the golfing world. Pine Valley is and holds a special place in American golf, and as such, despite trying to keep a low profile, there is a high degree of scrutiny focused upon anything they do.
I draw a distinction between seperation and isolation.
Let's just leave it that we have a disagreement of opinion, not in concept, but in degrees.
Don't ever forget that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, despite the best of intentions.
And, that noone is infallible, not even the folks at 08021.
-
This thread has taken a slightly different direction in that would PV still be #1 or how dramatic would the top 100 list change if international panelists only voted. I know 3 or 4 Golf Magazine panelists and I honestly believe they go out of their way to include international courses. Many of them are down in New Zealand as we speak playing with Tom Doak and then off to Australia. Most have played Old Head, Kingsbarn and Doonbeg as examples of new courses in GB or Ireland and some make it and others don't.
As for PV being #1, the one time I met Colin Montgomerie we talked about Pine Valley and he was emphatic that PV was the best course in the world. He played there in the Walker Cup and said nothing comes close. I think most people feel PV is way above anything else.
-
TEPaul,
Yes, I think thats what I was trying to say, that in my only visit to the course in August 2002, I walked down the 1st hole and thought , ""hell, there are a lot of trees here, but fine, thats clearly meant to be"".... but then when I got to the turning point and saw this awesome green complex surrounded by trees overhanging its severe edges, I thought, ""thats just a management issue and it surely cant be the intention of the architect"". If those particular trees were cut back, it would enhance the second shot dynamic because the golfer would see just sheer drops on either side! Also from a playability issue, when the ball kicks off the edges, you cant get the ball back on the green as the trees overhang too much..
-
Yes, Pine Valley would be a better course with the trees cut back, at least as far as the natural bunkering (some of which is now in the woods). It would also be better with all of the trees cleared on the left side of number 12. It would also be better with the alternate fairway on 17 restored. Hell, I think it would be better if there wasn't a tree out there, but that's really not the point, or the question, is it?
The answer to the question is simple. I've been fortunate to have played a lot of golf courses. To say it exceed expectations is an understatement. It's incredible, awesome, and excites the mind and senses like no other course on the planet that I'm familiar with. The architecture of the holes is mind-bogglingly good, and the greens are the best I'm familiar with.
I couldn't even begin to make a case of any course topping Pine Valley as the best course in the world.
-
The answer to the question is simple. I've been fortunate to have played a lot of golf courses. To say it exceed expectations is an understatement. It's incredible, awesome, and excites the mind and senses like no other course on the planet that I'm familiar with. The architecture of the holes is mind-bogglingly good, and the greens are the best I'm familiar with.
Yea...and that explains why Friars Head is number 11 modern...and it has the views to boot..
-
John;
Friars Head is wonderful.
It is still not Pine Valley.
-
Mike,
Are you really going to tell me the same people that vote Friars Head number 11 modern...which translates to somewhere around 50th overall...would have the sense to see though the gobblety gook and vote Pine Valley number 1.....You guys aren't that good..
-
John;
Which of the other Top 10 Modern courses should Friar's Head replace, in your estimation?
You are also perpetuating a fallacy when you mentioned that it would be "50 overall". In the Golfweek system, modern courses are compared to modern courses and classic to classic. There is no cross-pollination, or some comprehensive meaning one can gain by comparing the two lists.
-
Mike,
If you look purely at the architecture....Bandon Dunes is no better than Barona...top 80 at best as a stretch...and you only asked for one course..
-
You are also perpetuating a fallacy when you mentioned that it would be "50 overall". In the Golfweek system, modern courses are compared to modern courses and classic to classic. There is no cross-pollination, or some comprehensive meaning one can gain by comparing the two lists.
That just flat pisses me off...so...for the sake of this argument...do you believe that the Golfweek panel would give Sand Hills the boot off the top of the Modern list for Pine Valley as it sits today. I know Pine Valley is way better...but I don't think you guys can get past the trees and location/lack of views...
-
John;
I'd agree with you that FH is better than Bandon, although I think Bandon is quite good and certainly deserving of a spot in the Top 30 modern.
I've not played all of the top 10, but I think both Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are superior. I think Friars Head is better than Whistling Straits, however, and I wouldn't argue with a rating in the top 5 modern courses although the other competition is fairly stiff.
1) Sand Hills
2) Pacific Dunes
3) Bandon Dunes
4) Whistling Straits
5) Pete Dye Golf Club
6) Shadow Creek
7) The Golf Club
8) Muirfield Village
9) Kinloch
10) Honors
p.s.
Just read your last post...
For the record, the "views" at Friars Head are really not all that great, except for perhaps the 15th tee. Despite the proximity to the water, it really doesn't come into view elsewhere or play anywhere.
Also, there are a LOT of trees at Friars Head, and much of the back nine has the same type of "splendid isolation" that PV does.
-
Mike,
Everybody knows that the party line out of courtesey to Kenny B...is to say on this site that Friars Head is top three but then vote it much higher. I don't get it and would love to know the private votes that pushed Friars out of the top ten....behind that goat ranch Shadow Creek for Gods sake...at least Golf Digest has had the good sense to move Shadow back as the sun sets on its 15 minutes..
-
TEPaul:
I expected your usual response to my comments / re: tree removal at PV. You did the usual "turn around the argument back on the person making it" approach. Nothing new there.
Tom -- let's be clear the tree situation -- irrespective of the name "Pine" Valley has gotten way out of wack. The inherent qualities of the course don't need the invasive clutter that all the trees do cause.
Like I said -- the very fact that trees are being removed and have been removed (e.g. the 18th, to name one example) is admission that their very presence has only obscured what George Crump and the other collaborators originally intended.
Frankly, why would PV get any "free pass" on the tree issue when the same point has been raised on a number of other courses that are equally highly rated?
-
Mike,
Everybody knows that the party line out of courtesey to Kenny B...is to say on this site that Friars Head is top three but then vote it much higher. I don't get it and would love to know the private votes that pushed Friars out of the top ten....behind that goat ranch Shadow Creek for Gods sake...at least Golf Digest has had the good sense to move Shadow back as the sun sets on its 15 minutes..
John;
Perhaps I'm an idiot but I don't know any party line. How could we vote it "much higher" than top 3? Do you mean lower?
I haven't played Shadow Creek, unfortunately, but some good friends of mine are playing there soon and I'm interested to hear what they think.
-
It may not be a party line but it is polite conversation to tell Ken that Friars Head is top three Modern...why hurt your hosts feelings and say anything different cause you never know...you might see something different on your forth or fith visit...
-
Well John...I've already said that I think at least two modern courses are better than Friars Head. If I believed that number were 4, or 6, or 10, or even 100, I would say it to anyone who asked.
I don't think Ken Bakst would be too offended by someone's opinion presented in a critically reasoned way.
-
John K,
"Everybody knows that the party line out of courtesey to Kenny B...is to say on this site that Friars Head is top three but then vote it much higher."
Try to remember that it is possible that you do not know what everybody thinks. Not everyone is as narrow minded nor as simplistic as your posts would have you seem. It is heartening to know that a number of people I know consider your on-line persona different from your likeable in-person persona.
Matt,
"Tom -- let's be clear the tree situation -- irrespective of the name "Pine" Valley has gotten way out of wack. The inherent qualities of the course don't need the invasive clutter that all the trees do cause."
Would you please name some specific areas on the course where the tree encroachment has gotten out of hand--or wack? If you're talking about the trees in general that segregate the holes, let's just say you are entitled to your opinion but that it differs from Crump's intent and the club's adherance to the intent.
In my mind there are trees that constict the playability of some holes. I would begin with the left side of the 2nd fairway where most of the bunkers lining that side are overrun with pines. The right side bunkering is exposed as it should be. I guess there are one or 2 pine trees in the left side of HHA on 7 that could be removed and maybe a couple on the right side of the end of the second fairway. The first formal trap on the right past the sandy waste off the tee on 9 is cluttered with trees. I haven't seen the work done on this hole, I think some bunkers were added in the landing area, so maybe it has been resolved. I think there could be some tree removal to open up the 10th greensite. I admit I don't know the course well enough to know what can be done with trees between the green and 11 and 18 tees. Some clearing could be beneficial around the bunkers right and short of 11 green. Tom P has mentioned in the past the removal the trees on the left side of 12 that covers some bunkering. On 15 I think it would be beneficial to cut back some of the trees around the bunkers short left of the green and the trees that are on the downslope from the green short right.
-
I've not played all of the top 10, but I think both Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are superior.
Mike,
This is what you said and it is exactly what I have heard a hundred time prior on this board....it was not a stretch and I think the limb you went out on is quite secure...kinda puts Friars Head number three in polite conversation...
-
I've not played all of the top 10, but I think both Sand Hills and Pacific Dunes are superior.
Mike,
This is what you said and it is exactly what I have heard a hundred time prior on this board....it was not a stretch and I think the limb you went out on is quite secure...kinda puts Friars Head number three in polite conversation...
John;
I must not have been keeping up in recent months because I believed I was saying something that was original and genuine when I wrote it or I wouldn't have wasted everyone's time.
I frankly haven't seen anyone else get into that type of specifics of where they'd rank FH. As far as kissing butt for access, I think I've been very upfront in my opinions of Hidden Creek and others, often swimming against the popular tide.
I'd rather be respected than liked as a rater.
-
Wayne:
My point is a simple one -- you may have missed it. The tree issue for PV should be NO LESS a statement of concern than it is when applied to other courses. PV should not get a free pass simply because of reputation.
I don't doubt the architectural pedigree / greatness of PV but there are times when the Emperor may not have any clothes and therefore something needs to be said.
Wayne -- I'll give you one example -- the par-3 14th is simpy cluttered with trees. Heck, I think Tillie's rendition of that hole is better carried out with the 8th at Bethpage Black.
-
Matt,
If the architectural intent of PVGC is different than other courses, why should the same concerns apply? I don't see how PVGC gets a free pass because of its reputation. It should only be judged on its own.
To me, the analysis should involve intent (which, as Tom Paul has discussed, is well documented) , as built and as is.
Have other courses been influenced by PVGC? Yes, to their detriment. Courses with different characteristics and architectural intent have suffered when they tried to apply PVGC methods to their own courses. PVGC shouldn't be held accountable for misinterpretations at other courses. There are some tree issues that compromise the playability on some holes at PVGC but not so much from the concept of segregation of holes.
-
Wayne -- slow down partner.
My point was on the proliferation of trees and how the original strategic qualities have been blocked or impaired because of their growing role.
Why does PV get a free pass on this when other courses are rightly IMHO cited for their inability to get a true handle on what's happening? The tree dilemma is a real one.
Wayne -- you and I see the situation at PV in two different ways. I believe the tree situation at PV is an issue. Yes, there have been improvements with a few holes -- why the delay at #14 continues to astound me, to name just one example. You also mentioned in your original response to me what other remedies should be explored to deal with the tree issue.
Wayne -- you proud yourself as a historian of sorts -- tell me how the original pictures of PV compare to what you see today? Do you believe PV would increase its stature if there was a return to those times versus what you have now? I can think of how Oakmont returned to its original intent versus the claustrophobic bent on having trees simply grew and grew over the years. In my mind -- Oakmont is now much better because of it.
-
"Wayne -- you proud yourself as a historian of sorts -- tell me how the original pictures of PV compare to what you see today? Do you believe PV would increase its stature if there was a return to those times versus what you have now? I can think of how Oakmont returned to its original intent versus the claustrophobic bent on having trees simply grew and grew over the years. In my mind -- Oakmont is now much better because of it."
Again, what does Oakmont have to do with PVGC? They are 2 different courses with 2 different design intents. Oakmont was meant to be far less treed and it was returned to its intent. PVGC is meant to have segregated holes and it does. One way to look at the tree issue at PVGC is to consider the segregation of the holes. You continually bring up other courses when PVGC was meant to be unique and should be; they want the holes to be segregated. That's what the man with the vision and money wanted and that's what the club wants today.
The other way to look at trees is the effect they have on playability I agree that there are some problems and I listed the ones I think are most egregious. There aren't that many.
I don't include the 14th hole. It may look better without the trees but it really doesn't effect playability. The wind effect might be slightly greater without so many trees however, most of the ball flight is well above the trees and is not so great a factor.
-
Wayne:
The issue is one of tree growth and its impact on the course design. Oakmont is a very successful proactive position on what trees did to that storied layout. Clearly, Oakmont and PV are two different courses -- the issues is one that deals with the invasion of trees on their respective layouts and how each layout approaches that topic.
Wayne, you keep mentioning the word "segregate" to describe the nature of the tree growth at PV.
It's a bit beyond "segregration" and is more in tune with hole obstruction. Let's be clear -- the very nature of the terrain at PV prevents people from hole-hopping when playing a particular hole there. If the trees were eliminated the player would not get some sort of easier time with the core ingredients that shape the layout.
Like I said before -- look at the pictures of PV in its "original" state -- do you see / view those pictures as being the more preferred status of PV when compared to the tree-imposed layout you see today? Simple question -- yes or no?
When you say there aren't that many trees that impact the architecture -- the very fact that there is speaks to the issue of what is being done now and most recently. Courses deemed bulletproof as PV is -- should not have issues impacting upon their strategic greatness.
And, if trees do impact upon its original character should not PV face the music when compared to those courses that have aggressively handled the tree question and been more faithful to their original intent?
I'm not a historian and simply want to understand how people who place a great degree of respect for the past jive things that are different in today's setting.
I see the 14th, to name just one example, as a classic example of a hole far afield from its original intent. The trees engulf the very nature of what was there originally. Yes, air currents that can influence shots have now been toned down because of the bowling-alley effect the trees create.
-
Jaka B & Mike Cirba,
Would you both concede that the routing at Friar's Head is superior to the routing at Bandon Dunes and Pacific Dunes ?
Wayne Morrison,
I can't disagree with Matt on the "free pass" issue.
Let's face it, certain clubs and architects enjoy "most favored nation" status, and few are willing to be objective and intellectually honest when it comes to discussing them.
-
Pat,
Who is giving Pine Valley a free pass? I don't recall any examples. Tom Paul, who probably knows PVGC better than anyone I know, has critiqued the course. I posted a number of holes where the playablility is impacted by tree proliferation. Maybe some on here give PVGC a free pass, I must have missed examples. I expect there is a diversity of opinions on this site and some are more informed than others.
I know that some on here feel certain architects are close to perfect. I haven't seen examples where a majority feels any course is perfect. No course can be. What courses on this site are given "favored nation status?" Every course I can think of has had their detractors, even Sand Hills and Friar's Head. Maybe not Pacific Dunes though ;)
Matt,
Where did this notion of "bulletproof" come from? It seems an artificial device to support your allegaion that people turn a blind eye to some maintenance practices at certain courses. As I stated above, I cannot recall examples where PVGC is constantly given a free pass.
-
Wayne:
I asked you a straight-up question before in a previous post and you have skillfully tap-danced around answering it.
Let me repeat one more time ...
Like I said before -- look at the pictures of PV in its "original" state -- do you see / view those pictures as being the more preferred status of PV when compared to the tree-imposed layout you see today? Simple question -- yes or no?
Wayne -- let's be clear I've not posted any artificial device as you erroneously claim. PV is acclaimed to be #1 in the world by a fair number of people -- (not I however as I see Shinnecock as the top bananna) and I have to wonder if the "tree argument" used against other courses is simply given short shrift or worse yet amnesia when it concerns PV. Wayne -- when an argument is used against other courses and it fails to resonate with the king at the top of the throne (e.g. PV) that by my definition is called a "free pass" in my book ;)
-
Matt,
I did ask you in response to your original picture question what you mean by original pictures. Look it up in my previous response. If you mean pictures taken around the finish of the 1st 14 holes or up until the course was a full 18 holes, some holes look better with less trees others do not. I also think the improvements in the waste areas over time look a lot better than they did in these original pictures.
The trees on the peripheries of holes are generally OK to me. They don't come into play and in some cases are an improvement such as back right on 3 that hides the house up on the hill, the trees on the right that obscure Dormy House on 4 and the trees on the left of 5 that obscure the house. The trees on 5 give a narrowing perspective of the target and make the hole seem a bit harder than if it were wide open as in the earliest days. The penal nature of the surrounding trees are an important factor for this hole. It was far less intimidating looking (from photographic evidence) when it was more open in the early years. Number 9 definitely looks worse with the corridor of trees, however with the homes on the left, it is probably better that they are less visible. Likewise 10 looked better without the surrounding trees but it is clear that Crump wanted to keep all the holes unto themselves. The original plan (I believe) and early photos show there was no Devil's A**hole bunker. The hole has been changed and I'll take the surrounding trees that don't come into play as long as the bunker is there. Does anyone know who put the bunker in there? I didn't see it in some early drawings I've seen nor in Alison's writings. As for 14, it did look nice without so many trees but isn't there a road behind the hole? It may be that isolating this hole blocks the view of the road. Trees have grown up along the far right of the waste area on 16 but that carry is impossible anyway. The flat level lie that used to exist on 17 is no longer there due to tree encroachment. The area beyond the righthand bunker was fairway and it is now shrub and trees. I guess it plays a bit harder the way the hole is laid out today.
I think there is something positive to be said for the aesthetics that fewer trees would provide. The best example are the trees that proliferated behind the 2nd green. The old skyline effect has been compromised and looked much better in the old photos.
As in any course, there have been good and bad developments along the way. PVGC is not perfection but it is pretty darn close.
PVGC may be ranked #1 by a number of rankers and magazines. That, as you know, means little to me. I think it is one of the great courses in the world but this does not merit a free pass. It is what it is, and I love it. It may be the greatest experience in golf on one of the world's best courses.
However, I do believe, as you do, that Shinnecock Hills is the best test of golf today and it is my personal favorite. See, we can agree 8)
-
"Wayne -- when an argument is used against other courses and it fails to resonate with the king at the top of the throne (e.g. PV) that by my definition is called a "free pass" in my book"
Matt,
Let me try a final time to explain what seems so obvious to me. Pine Valley is so unique that it is not wise to argue that what is good for other courses (Yes, even an Oakmont) is good for Pine Valley, especially when you are arguing against Crump's principal of isolating golf holes. That's what he wanted and that's what the club wants. But, I guess you know better. There is some compromise to playability at various places around the course but to me it isn't as bad as you claim. Just because many think it the #1 course in the world doesn't mean it has to be perfection. What is?
-
What was Crump's rationale behind having "hole isolation"?
-
"Frankly, why would PV get any "free pass" on the tree issue when the same point has been raised on a number of other courses that are equally highly rated?"
Matt Ward:
Are you aware at all that PVGC has been removing trees on the course for the last few years and plans to continue? What are you talking about a "free pass" for? Free pass for what? I'm not turning anything around, I'm simply telling you the truth.
BrianG:
I guess Crump didn't want to see golfers on other holes.
-
For those familar with the history of PVGC, when was its architectural high point?
-
Does anyone know when and by whom the Devil's A**hole bunker was put in? Early photographs such as those found on pg. 50 of the 1982 PVGC history book (one during hole 11 construction era and another a bit later) show no bunker.
-
"For those familar with the history of PVGC, when was its architectural high point?"
It's architectural high point? That's an interesting question since so little has changed over the years architecturally at PVGC, certainly compared to many of the other world class American designs. Should the decades long tree encroachment at PVGC be considered "architectural" or "maintenance practices"?
First of all, it's slightly difficult to pin down when PVGC was actually "finished" architecturally, as is the similar case with it's great counterpart in the Philly district across the river, Merion East.
Personally, I'd consider PVGC to have been architecturally "finished" around 1922 about ten years after it was begun while Merion East was probably architecturally "finished" about 20 years after it was begun. To say the least, those two slow architectural creations were unusual by normal architectural standards but not unlike their "Pennsylvania School" counterpart in Pittsburgh, Oakmont, that was in the process of architectural "improvement" by it's creator(s) for perhaps 45 years.
Is this type of evolutionary architectural output on a golf course an asset or a liability to the course's overall architectural quality? I'm sure the opinions on that question will always be varied. The answer to that question, though, is probably best answered by those most familiar with the courses, those that play them either daily or in tournaments. I feel the quality of golf architecture best reveals itself in what some refer to as "the test of time".
PVGC was always world famous in architectural circles even as it was in the midst of slow construction in the teens. We certainly have a wealth of architectural documentation from numerous sources to prove that fact.
It seems to me, having lived here for thirty years that PVGC reached a certain pinnacle in the playing awareness of its architectural greatness during the Walker Cup in 1988. A large part of that fact was due to the extraordinary maintenance process, Dick Bator, one of the world's best superintendents, put the course though. Previous to that point the course constantly suffered from conditioning problems of one kind or another, mostly turf problems.
As I've said on here many times, in my opinion the tree encroachment problem at PVGC has a certain relatively obvious solution. Just remove the trees that are in or in the line of play of any of Crump's original bunkering. The interesting thing about PVGC is most all those old Crump bunkers are still very much there and most all of them have actually been maintained in the normal course of architectural evolution. All that remains to be done is to return them to visibility and functional play by removing any tree from their "lines of play".
I personally feel that the best possible prescription for tree management at PVGC would be for the club to very closely analyze the Dallin aerials from the mid 1920s in combination with a close study of the archives as to what original tree clearing at PVGC (by Crump) meant in specific detail. The point being there were a number of areas cleared of trees that were the result of Crump both analyzing prospective holes and various shot testing on those prospective holes that ultimately were never used. Those areas did need to be closed back up with trees but the holes that actually opened for play should be taken back tree-wise to those aerials. If they did that basically the course would have tree separation between the holes and the intended width of hole corridors that Crump intended architecturally. Again, his constructed flanking bunkers and probably basically constructed sand areas define those parameters in those 1920s aerials.
If that was done tree-wise the club would probably also have to strip some vegetation from those architecturally intended sand waste areas to expose the massive widths of sand. This is the very same thing that Shinnecock should do on a few of its holes, namely, #5, #6 and #8. Those massive areas of rugged sand areas were all basically constructed and intended by the original architects, we certainly know they were at Shinneock as they show up on what we call "construction instructions" on the individual hole drawings. For some reason they were apparently forgotten about on both courses. Maybe they never understood the architects actually intended them to be that way.
-
"Does anyone know when and by whom the Devil's A**hole bunker was put in?"
Wayne:
I don't, and I don't know who does. It wasn't Crump although it showed up not long after his death. It was probably the result of J.A. Brown early on or superintendent Jim Govan or perhaps Eb Steineger perhaps in the early to mid 1920s. Maybe Alison had something to do with it but it isn't mentioned in his hole by hole recommendation report.
-
"For those familar with the history of PVGC, when was its architectural high point?"
Tom MacWood:
Do you feel you have enough familiarity with PVGC to have an intelligent opinion on this question of yours? If you do I really do wonder how that could be if you've never even been there. But if you do have an opinion you feel is valid I'd love to hear what it is. If you've never been there at all, though, I'd have to assume what you're concentrating on is solely the "look" of architecture, not necessarily the way it may've played or does now.
-
Where does Crump explicitly state that he wanted isolation? Was it a third party indicating his wishes after he died?
I think anyone would have a hard time arguing that the course would not be grander with a few more open vistas.
-
Tom MacWood:
Do you feel you have enough familiarity with PVGC to have an intelligent opinion on this question of yours? If you do I really do wonder how that could be if you've never even been there. But if you do have an opinion you feel is valid I'd love to hear what it is. If you've never been there at all, though, I'd have to assume what you're concentrating on is solely the "look" of architecture, not necessarily the way it may've played or does now.
TomP,
Considering the access you have to PVGC, do you get some sort of twisted pleasure by knowing that TomM has never been there? And wouldn't it save your fingers years of wear and tear by extending him an invitation next spring to actually walk the course and hash this out like men, over drinks or 4irons?
-
Brian:
It doesn't give me any pleasure at all that Tom MacWood has never been to PVGC or Merion. As he continues to make very specific suggestions and continues to present specific opinions about both places I simply continue to ask him how well and how accurately he really thinks he can say some of those things if he's not only never played those course but never even laid eyes on them. Does that sound illogical to you in some way? I'm not the only one who feels that way, and certainly not just about him but about anyone who tries to appear particularly informed about some place or its architecture they've never even seen.
I'd love to ask Tom MacWood to see Pine Valley and Merion but I don't belong to either.
-
TE
I don't recall making any specific suggestions or opinions of PV and Merion...what were some of my opinions and/or suggestions?
-
Wayne:
I appreciate your answers, but my point was a very simply and consistent one -- tree issues at PV have evolved well beyond the early times -- I use as a reference point the early photos illustrated in the "Pine Valley Golf Club -- A Chronicle" book (dated 1982).
When I see PV in its earliest days the great vistas the course presented is really mindboggling for the sheer views and overall "terror" the course provides to those playing there. When trees started to encapsulate the course the very large sense of where you are at and the uniqueness of the site is really held in check because of there growing role.
The nature of the qualities of the site can truly be seen and appreciated from early times. Oh my -- I'm beginning to sound like Tom MacWood -- yikes! Good examples of this type can be seen with the 2nd (p. 33), the 5th (p.40), the 6th (p.42), the 8th (p.47), the 9th (p.49), especially the 10th (p.50), the 11th (p.52), the 12th (p.54), especially the 14th (p.59 & 60), the 16th (p.66), and clearly the 18th (p.68 & 69).
I don't doubt the club has removed trees -- I played the course this past summer -- and clearly there has been some improvement. However, the involvement of trees on the general scope of the course is still IMHO a good bit beyond the original intent of what the course was many years ago.
When a course is "segregated" (your word) with trees it's highly likely -- if not guaranteed -- that the encroachment of trees will eventually impact the ORIGINAL INTENT of the design. For God's sake I sound like one of those right wing defenders of original intent of the Constitution. ;D
Wayne -- there are plenty of classsic courses that over the course of their development allowed the invasion of trees to dominate the landscape and sadly, in many instances, compromise -- even modestly -- the original intent of the course.
What's so wrong in acknowledging the fact that even the great Pine Valley -- the Xanadu of all that is golf -- followed that same trend and that it has had an impact on what was envisioned by George Crump and his initial team of collaborators who finished the course?
Wayne -- let me also mention your point on Crump's desire to isolate holes -- how does one even remotely believe that removing trees will somewhow provide for the holes to be less than great? I mean removing the trees would not allow golfers to hit onto the wrong fairway and still make a good score on the hole actually being played. PV never permits those type of shortcuts.
I can't verify or confirm what Crump's original intent was -- I don't know if you or anyone else can either. Clearly, the desire to remove trees is a good one -- whether it be Oakmont, Winged Foot or heaven forbid the renowned Pine Valley. The issue of tree removal is not about the individual personality of those respective coursses -- they are different no doubt -- but the core ingredient on what role trees should play is still a common aspect worthy of debate.
I have heard from a number of people who were positively enthralled with PV, however, were taken aback by the vast amount of lumber that dominates the landscape. To be fair many of these people had these comments prior to the '04 golf season.
Pine Valley is one of the elite courses in the world -- I just think that even the proclaimed #1 course in the world is fair game for discussion and appropriate constructive criticism when warranted. If the tree discussion is good for others than PV is no different IMHO.
-
"I can't verify or confirm what Crump's original intent was -- I don't know if you or anyone else can either."
Matt Ward:
"...pines, with a good share of cedars, form the tree growth of the place. To these have been (added) hundreds of evergreen saplings from the (White) pine, Scotch fir, hemlock, etc. They...in this sand soil. In exposed places, they planted to the north side of tees and greens, to have a comfortable protection against the cold winds of the winter season."
Does that sound like a man who didn't want trees between the holes? What do you think he was doing, planting them to see if they'd grow just to cut them down again? That was written in 1914, by the way. It's probably resonable to assume that since he worked on the course constantly for the next three years until he died he may not have stopped planting trees when that article was written.
What one sees in some of those very early photos, again, apparently was not the way he intended the course to look tree-wise. That's certainly not to say the course didn't become encroached upon by overgrowth, but again they've been doing something about that for a few years now. Again, in my opinion, the best possible thing to do would be to get tree encroachment out of the outside of all Crump's orginal bunkering and intended sand waste areas and the course and the tree situation would be ideal for the way that course was very likely intended by Crump to be. If they did that one still would very rarely see golfers on other holes which is what he wanted.
-
Brian Gracely,
You missed the point TEPaul was trying to make, in his response to Tom MacWood.
With Tom MacWood never having seen Pine Valley, by what standards and in what context would he be able to evaluate any answer that TEPaul or anyone else supplied ?
I've never played Sand Hills, never seen the property before and after the golf course was built.
Hence, I'm TOTALLY UNQUALIFIED to evaluate comments and assessments regarding its architecture and playability.
-
further to Brian's point, another observation:
What would a round at Pine Valley, or even a close study of the course, tell Tom MacWood (or anybody) about the course's "architectural high point."1
____________________________________________
1 This observation assumes the architectural high point is not the day/month/year of Tom MacWood's visit.
-
I think Paul Turner asks a good question regarding Crump's supposed quest for isolation...is this a case of the present PV administration taking a friend of Crump's observations out of context, to prehaps rationalize the uncontrolled encroachment of trees?
-
At the expense of being accused of braging..I have had the pleasure of competing at the Crump..and the only reason I mention this, is this thread appears to headed into battle and I wanted to add another ten pence worth prior to its demise.
I have gathered that no opinoins are valid on this thread unless you have experience at the venue,hence my reason for mentioning my playing at PV.
I do not really understand this obsession with tree removal, in the so called name of restoration.
That is only relevant when the course would benefit, or when the trees become an inherent problem.....I just do not see that as much of a problem at PV.
One of the things that makes PV what it is, is the isolation that one feels on the course...the routing is done in such a way that this was Crumps intent, and now that his vision has come more to forefront then ever, there appears to be this obsession to 'restore' the course...leave it alone..not just because it is number 1..but because it is an integral part of what makes the course great.
I am not saying some minor trimming is not a good idea, but trimming being the operative word.
I love Pine Valley the way it is, the trees take nothing away from the course, and as TE has repeatedly stated on this thread. it appears to be what the man wanted.
I feel as though the true experts of PV..MR Brewer and the members know what is best for PV..I feel leaving the decisions to them is a good idea...and it appears that they like the current set up.
Whenever I play that course it is a thrill and joy, but I know that I am only seeing what I see because there are a group of people who care for its beauty on a day to day basis..I trust their judgement and above all their knowledge that they understand what PIne Valley needs or does not need.
-
Could somebody please tell where the uncontroled encroachment of the trees at PV actually is...I have racked my brain and just cannot figure out where on the course this seems to be the case.
This is not a critisism of anybody's contribution on this thread, just a question to perhaps make me aware of something I have not seen.....I am the first to admit that when you like something as much as I do with PV, you can sometimes be blind to faults...but I repeat I just done see it
-
Michael Wharton-Palmer:
Thank you for the thoughtful and obviously informed post. Some of these fellows on here are now questioning why PVGC back during it's creation would bother to take the word of some friend of Crump's about what he wanted the course to be and what he intended to do had he lived. Anyone who understands the history of that early time from 1912 to 1918 when Crump was working on the golf course understands that Father Simon Carr was Crump's best friend, was on the Board of Directors and was one of two men who those who founded the club depended on to supply written "remembrances" to assist and guide the 1921 Advisory Committee to finish off the course after it had basically been in about a three year hiatus after Crump's guiding hand and his wallet were gone.
You may not see much tree encroachment there because as I keep mentioning the club has been removing trees in the last few years. But even before that the golf course and its fairways have always been very wide. I think PVGC could be unique as in all these decades its fairways have never been narrowed at all as far as I can tell (except a bit this year with bunkering on #9 and #18). That may be because basically the course has always had a remarkably small amount of rough. And as you know if one is on a fairway there really aren't more than 2-3 holes (#1, #11, #13) where you don't have a clear shot at the green, and #13 was always intended to be that way---it was so the driver would pay some price for not trying to drive the ball over Hollman's Hollow.
-
TE/Michael
What exactly did Crump (or Father Carr) say about the need to isolate every golf hole?
I don't think Crump would approve of his hazards being overgrown by trees.
-
Correct me if I am wrong, but numerous golf course become enhanced by trees with age..so who is to say some 50,60,70,80,90 years later that is not what the architect intended?
I think about some British courses like Wentworth that are clearly better courses now that they were 40 years ago, because of the proliferation of tree size and number.
Sunningdale is another one that has benefited from some tree growth.
A sparse terrain may have existed when a course was opened, but does that mean we always have to restore to that...obviously not.
I am interested to know how many people on this site have played Merion in the past 15 months and like it more now than prior to the extensive tree removal on holes 16 and 17.
Does the quarry hole or the awesomely difficult 17th benefit from being 'restored'?
Again this is a question not a critisism of what has been done by the owers of Merion....another course I absolutely love.
-
Michael W-P:
IMO, Merion has been vastly improved by tree clearing, and 16 is a prime example. The trees to the right of 16 blocked off what was in a more primitive era an alternate route to the hole. Certainly there would have been no reason to wrap the fairway around the quarry if Wilson intended balls hit there to be blocked out by trees.
As for 17, with the new back tees, the trees closing in the entrance to the quarry are simply too narrow. I'm not sure they added anything to its mystique either.
As for PV, the best example of excessive tree growth that I observed was the area around 14 green. If you happened to go over the green into the bunker 9 times out of 10 you'd have a tree impeding your backswing. Perhaps this was part of Crump's grand plan, but I'm inclined to think it wasn't.
-
Micheal
Why would you want to cover interesting natural features and rugged ground with trees....especially exposed sandy terrain like you find at PV and why would you want cut off panaramic views over the same rugged terrain. I find it difficult to comprehend how an architect would want his strategic hazards and options eliminated by uncontrolled tree growth. Do you think Sunnigdale, Walton Heath and Wentworth are better without their former openess, panaramas and heather?
-
SP,
I agree with you on Merion, especially with regards to number 16.
I did like the 'shoot' on number 17, but I agree it was on the verge of unfair prior to the cull of trees.
Somehow, the removal of the trees makes that green look even smaller from 235..if that was possible
Tom and SP,
number 14 long is indeed one of those areas where the hazards have become encroached by trees,and no I do not think that Mr Crump intended his hazards to be amongst the trees.
Hole number 2 on the left off the tee also has this dilemma, but beyond those two examples...sorry to the left of number 5 also.....I do not see the trees as being a distraction from thr course alyout and/or beauty.
As I said, I like the islolation, and, the vistas of each individual hole is suffice for me.
When I am standing in the fairway on number 4 for instance, it does not bother me that I cannot see number 2 on my left of number 5 on my right.
I think that closed in feeling is what makes all the tee shots appear so much harder than perhaps they really are...the fairways have plenty of width, but one of PV's tricks is to make you think they are not..and I believe he trees enhance that feeling of intimidation.
When I returned from my first visit, my primary comment to those who cared to ask, was that I was supremely impressed by how the hole got harder as you approached the green.
Every hole feels as though, once the tee shot is over the holes truly begins, as such I think Crump intended the isolation factor to make you at least have to work off the tee.
My first round at PV was in the company of the greenkeeper, who expressed this idea as we played around.
I perhaps would like to see a little more rugged sandy terrain, on holes 9,11,12,15, but most of this could be in front of the tee, as exists on number 3,4,and 6.
-
MWP - Regarding your comments about PVGC #2 overcrowding on the left of the tee. Perhaps Carr (seen here teeing off on #2, with Crump to his left) didn't recognize them, odd since it looks like he's playing a fade starting the ball left.
(http://www.tillinghast.net/images/Dr-simon.jpg)
-
Sorry TE I did not read your comments before I placed mine, but at least we agree on which holes we would like to see some more terrain than trees.
The info on number 13 is mindboggling, but could be exciting, especislly with the new tee on that hole!!!
-
SP,
Even with the excess of trees down that left side, the shot off the tee is still the same fade demostrated with such grace by Carr!!!
-
I think it was three years ago in the spring I walked off #1 green down to #2 tee and turned and looked down the hole. I can't tell you what a surprise it was. Before that you really couldn't see any of the bunkers on the left side of the fairway and now the bunkering all along both sides hits you like a ton of bricks compared to what it used to look like. Personally I wish they'd carried that tree clearing they did so much of along the left side in the tee shot area all the way up to the green on the left.
I should also say that tree clearing that would absolutely blow everyone away would be if they'd take out about 10-15 yards deep of trees directly behind #2 green. If they did that #2 green would be one of the world's truly stunning "SKYLINE GREENS"----the way it was in the old days.
-
TE/Michael
What exactly did Crump (or Father Carr) say about the need for isolatation on every golf hole?
-
"TE/Michael
What exactly did Crump (or Father Carr) say about the need for isolatation on every golf hole?"
Tom MacW:
I don't know EXACTLY what Crump or Carr said about the need for isolation on every hole. Crump, unfortunately, didn't keep a diary during the creation of the course (although apparently there may be some letters by him to various people during the construction of the course that may shed light on what he EXACTLY said about holes 'being out of sight of one another' at PVGC.
What Crump certainly did do during the construction of the course is speak with a very large number of people, but I certainly didn't hear any of that as Crump died in 1918. It seems to me practically every one of them mentions this in one way or another, at one time or another. The idea was obviously spawned from his ideas on what a great course should be in his mind, at least where he chose to build one---eg no more than two successive holes going in the same direction, a real minimum of "parallelism". Jim Finegan states in the latest PVGC history, "He thought each hole should be out of sight from every other hole".
It seems to me you don't put much truth in some of what Finegan says in the latest PVGC history. I'm not sure why that is. I've known Jim Finegan for years as have many around here and we feel he's one of the best researchers and certainly one of the best golf and architecture chroniclers there is. Certainly, it’s true he did make a mistake or two in that latest history but I’m sure that’s to be expected in any history book.
Perhaps, you feel you're able to decipher what went on at PVGC and what the intentions for the course were better than he can. And this despite the fact that Finegan has belonged there for probably forty years and took home the entire PVGC archives for about four years and obviously researched numerous newspaper and magazine accounts (something you seem to truly enjoy) as well as the accounts left from those there at that time of Crump's life and afterwards.
Perhaps you feel Finegan is not very truthful or accurate because of some of what he said about Harry Colt's contributions to PVGC. If you read his history carefully you’ll also notice he was very praising of Colt call him perhaps the best in the world at that time! Finegan depended on what he reported in that vein from what's available in the archives as well as a number of contemporaneous newspaper reports during the creation of PVGC, and from others and their articles such as Tillinghast, Grantland Rice (apparently wrote in "The American Golfer" one of five reasons for the course's greatness being the separation of each hole), and a number of well known golfers of that time.
I depend for the accuracy of the "separation" or "isolation" feature of PVGC on what Carr said about the planting of hundreds of trees in an article in the early years—1914---would it not be logical to assume that tree planting continued in Crump’s lifetime following 1914? But mostly I depend on what I know of the course and what I can clearly see on the old aerials. The fact is that the golf course is routed remarkably wide---basically using the architectural principle of "triangulation' to create this separation and isolation (an entirely different routing arrangement from the more common style of parrellelism used in that day.
My point is that it's just completely obvious to see what he was attempting to do by looking at those old aerials. Some of the areas between holes may've looked a lot sparser obviously because Crump had done a ton of clearing to both initially analyze the ground and for prospective holes and hole corridors that were never used. Many people, and many on here who see some of those old clearing lines on aerials and on on-ground photos seem to assume they were intended to remain that way but in my opinion, clearly they were not.
But even from the earliest aerials and after the planting of hundreds, perhaps thousands of saplings had a chance to grow one can clearly see the use of trees separating the holes. And we all know when trees have a few decades to grow in they do create what we call visual isolation---particularly pine trees that are not deciduous. I think it's probably save to say that Crump understood what trees look like when they grow to full maturity.
But if you feel content to think that the holes of PVGC were intended to be mostly in clear view of one another, then be my guest. I don't believe that was the intention at all. And, if I happen to find something in the archives or anywhere else written by Crump or Carr I'll be the first to let you know EXACTLY what they said.
This entire subject of trees and PVGC, I think, has gotten sort of out of hand, particularly on here. There's no question there're a number of otherwise good architecture analysts on this site who feel very few or even no trees belong on any golf course. This, to me, is as shortsighted as someone who feels all golf courses should be completely planted in trees, isolating every hole from another.
The fact is, if we look at this subject of trees, and other subjects, intelligently and accurately in an historic context we will see that there was a good deal of difference and many interesting distinctions in what some of the very best golf architects wanted for their particular courses. Some may not have wanted any trees, such as Fownes at Oakmont or Macdonald at NGLA, but others, in certain areas, particularly those that were naturally treed did want trees. This might include Ross at Pinehurst and surely includes Crump at PVGC, in my opinion.
But lest you think I'm saying that PVGC did not become too encroached upon by trees over the decades I'm not saying that at all. I think, personally, as I’ve said many time on here the best tree management for the course in the future would be simply to remove those trees that are now within or overhanging Crump's constructed bunkering and sand waste areas that were intended to be in play. If they did that I think the course would play exactly as it was intended to play by him but that the holes would still be separated from one another visually.
Does this tree separation idea create some negative influence on others to over-plant courses that may not have been designed with trees in mind? Certainly it does. But that's for those who administer those other courses to understand. Neither George Crump, nor me, is suggesting that because he intended to have tree separation between his hole at PVGC that every other course should too.
One should always understand, in my opinion, that the styles and types of golf courses and their architecture should be different. That to me is a good deal of the interest and allure of the entire art of golf course architecture.
-
I have been away for a while, but I did want to answer the original question:
I don't think ANY new course [even one as good as Pine Valley] would achieve the #1 ranking until many years after it opened. For that matter, I highly doubt that any new course will surpass Sand Hills now that it is universally accepted as the #1 Modern course.
This is not to say that I think the two current champs are undeserving ... not at all. But the way the ratings work, I feel there is an unwritten rule that you can only "win the title" by knockout; and I don't believe it's possible to "knock out" Pine Valley or Sand Hills. [On the other hand, if St. Andrews or Royal Dornoch were the consensus #1, I don't think you could really knock them out, either.]
For the record, back when I was adding up the GOLF Magazine results I did sort the list a couple of times by just the votes of the non-Americans on the panel. [I think they even published that result one year.] The foreign panelists did not think too much differently than the Americans; in fact, they seemed to be MORE impressed and more affected by the standard of conditioning of American courses than the American panelists were.
-
I have said this before on the site, I was good friends with one of the assistants who just left. He told me the superintendent waits for frosty days to go and continue thinning of the trees. They have a plan to thin out a lot of areas, but it is limited by weather and by play. They choose frosty days to limit damage, and it gives him the full crew to work with. This had been going on the full time he was there and continues today. I saw the 9th hole before and after. Frankly most of it is so subtle to the overall feel that you could likely miss what they have done, and yet there was a full bunker completely returned on the right.
The place overwhelms your senses while you are there which makes it impossible to catch everything that has changed. Only someone who plays there regularly would be familiar enough with the place to really know the changes.
Of Note: I have never felt the course was overcrowded and I'm a fanatic for views. I like the seperation and framing of the trees, the place is different becuse of this too. The only place that struck me of congested was 14, but I'm sure they will get to that in time.
-
Tom Paul -
This is not meant in any way as an opinion or conclusion on whether or not hole isolation was intended, but I had always thought that the massive presence of trees at PV was the work of Eb Steiniger. I remember reading somewhere that, beginning in the very early days of the course, he used to plant over a 1000 trees a year. Over the course of his tenure that's a lot of trees. Perhaps in doing so he was responding to Crump's wishes, or what he considered Crump's intentions to be, but is it possible that the hole isolation results not so much from Crump's desires as it does from Steiniger's?
Just fodder.
-
Michael Palmer,
Do you feel that it was Crump's intent to have a ball on the left side of the 17th fairway blocked by trees that intrude into the lines of play ?
Do you think that it was Crump's intent to have a golfer in a bunker/s have their swing impeded by intrusive tree limbs ?
Do you feel that you were capable of carefully evaluating the architecture, infinite number of lines of play, while at the same time playing golf and competing at a high level ?
Did you happen to notice the picture hanging in the big room, right next to the exit door to the parking lot ?
If so, what did you think of the golf course as presented in that aerial, and in comparison to the golf course you played ?
-
TE
“What Crump certainly did do during the construction of the course is speak with a very large number of people, but I certainly didn't hear any of that as Crump died in 1918. It seems to me practically every one of them mentions this in one way or another, at one time or another.”
Of these people, who spoke to the subject of isolation and what exactly did they say?
“I depend for the accuracy of the "separation" or "isolation" feature of PVGC on what Carr said about the planting of hundreds of trees in an article in the early years—1914---would it not be logical to assume that tree planting continued in Crump’s lifetime following 1914?”
If it is the same article I’m thinking of, Carr said the tree planting (on the sides of tees and greens) was done for protection against the winter wind, not to create isolation.
“Many people, and many on here who see some of those old clearing lines on aerials and on on-ground photos seem to assume they were intended to remain that way but in my opinion, clearly they were not. But even from the earliest aerials and after the planting of hundreds, perhaps thousands of saplings had a chance to grow one can clearly see the use of trees separating the holes.”
When were the first aerials taken? I don’t believe the aerials were taken until the 1920’s and based upon their date I’m not sure you can conclude all the saplings were planted by or at the direction of Crump. In one of your early posts on this thread you said Crump intended to use trees in PV’s design…I’m still trying to find where Crump said this.
-
The original question that kicked off this thread was whether Pine Valley's ranking is based on tradition, and if the rankings were begun today instead of 50 years ago, whould it rank so high.
I guess I don't get it. Ranking to me is silly. Just plain silly.
Ranking golf courses serves to satisfy our human need to make some sort of commercial order out of things. What other purpose does it serve to say this course is better than that course, if not to attract more attention and more dollars??
Is Pine Valley a course you would like to play? Is it a terrific place to play golf because it is ranked, or because it *just is* a terrific place to play golf?
-
SPDB:
It's my certain sense that PVGC has always been well aware of Crump's intentions for visual hole separation (isolation). That intention is almost everywhere one looks in the history of the golf course, as far as I've ever known. It seems to have been really unique too (Crump's idea) as far as I can tell considering how early the course was built. One of the reasons may've been the raw site was chockful of trees anyway, although they were relatively small when he found the place. (Many American wooded sites like that one had undergone either massive forest fires that annihilated whole tracts of forest or else was subject to massive logging during the wooden sailing ship building and residential wooden era (such as Long Island). It looks to me as if PVGC's raw site might have undergone a massive forest fire perhaps a few decades before Crump discovered the place.
In any case, although Crump's intention was clearly hole separation by trees it might be true that Eb Steineger planted thousands more (I'm sure I could find that out). Steineger was PVGC's super for about 50 years, by the way--almost the entire tenure of the presidency of John Arthur Brown. In this region the State of Pa and perhaps NJ actually gave away millions of pine tree saplings apparently during the 1930s and very definitely in the 1950s and all one had to do was plant them--a very easy thing to do (my own course underwent that in the 1930s and 1950s). During Ernie Ransome's administration I understand a good deal more were planted because apparently Ernie was very fond of trees.
So there's no question whatsover that that course became too compacted and crowded with trees and obviously that's precisely why they're removing some and thinning the course out now.
I'm sorry that this thread which was initially about PVGC being #1 today if it opened today got diverted again into a pages long discussion of trees. That always seems to happen with PVGC threads. My only purpose is to try to explain the accuracy of what was originally intended there regarding the architectural concept of using trees on a course in a site like that as a visual block between holes. My purpose has never been to defend how compacted and overgrown it eventually became.
The point is the course has never been narrowed down in it's playing areas (fairways) by trees or anything else (rough). The playing areas (fairways) have always been as wide as Crump designed them. The only areas into which trees encroached in the last number of decades is those flanking bunkers and sand waste areas that Crump intended that were meant to flank those areas of tree separation between the holes. That's precisely why, in my opinion, the course was routed as wide as it is--eg there's room for very wide fairway area flanked by some areas of bunkering and sand waste which are flanked by areas of trees which separate the holes visually from one another.
-
"In one of your early posts on this thread you said Crump intended to use trees in PV’s design…I’m still trying to find where Crump said this."
Tom MacWood:
You very well may continue to try to find where Crump said this. I've already told you Crump did not keep a diary of any kind that anyone has ever known about. Did it ever occur to you that if that was so, then the spoken word was what was used to communicate one's intentions? Apparently that rather elementary thought never really crosses your mind. Since it appears it doesn't you seem to act as if when you can't find anything directly in writing from someone (like Crump) then the idea could not possibly have existed!
That's a pretty one dimensional and frankly myopic way to look at history Tom---and certainly for someone who seems to be as interested in it as you say you are and someone who's as good at it as you say you are.
Just read the accounts of most of those who were contemporaries of Crump's (and I've provided you with a couple of them) and somewhere in all those accounts you're bound to come across the mention of hole separation throught the use of trees. Furthermore, you can simply look at an aerial from even the early 1920s and tell what the course looked like when Crump was alive. About 5 years ago I discovered just how many aerials the Hagley Museum had of the very early years (from the early 1920s) and told John Ott about them and he went down there and bought them all. Previous to that I don't think the club really had them all, perhaps just one or two of them.
But if you wish to think otherwise, again, by my guest, it certainly matters little to me. If you choose to think Crump intended to clear-cut the place and bring every hole into view of ever other hole, and that's what they should do now, then there obviously is very little me or anyone else can say to you to make you understand that was not the way the course was intended to be.
But as I said on an earlier post, although Crump apparently never kept a written record of PVGC if I happen to come across such as a letter of his to someone (which I might do if and when I can look in the archives) where he writes exactly about his idea for trees there I promise you will be the very first to know about it.
-
Hole separation or lack of parallel holes was not unique or original to Crump. Several of the earliest wooded heathland courses were separated, in the main, with v.few parallel holes: Swinley Forest, St George's Hill and Camberley Heath.
It's likely he got the idea from Colt who had started a tree planting scheme for Sunningdale Old. So we could blame him!
Also of interest, the course Colt worked on immediately prior to Pine Valley, Hamilton in Canada, is essentially a triangulation routing for most of the course, and has strong isolation.
The very wide playing areas at Pine Valley were first defined in Colt's routing plan. Same for the par breakdown at PV, almost identical to a 1910 article, by Colt, in which he describes the hole lengths for a "Championship" course. Finally, the hole progression is also very close to his St George's Hill (1912).
Of course, for all these aspects, Crump would have been in agreement. I just think it's important that it shouldn't all be attributed to original thinking on Crump's part. The "design intent" of Pine Valley encompasses many more people even if he did "edit" their input.
The nature of the land at PV means that relatively few trees are needed for isolation, that would be the way to start, in my opinion. But I'm still not convinced about what exactly Crump wanted in terms of isolation.
As an aside, another aspect is the motorized raking of the bunkers at PV...a bad trend, which I think is due to the taste of the current president of Pine Valley.
PS
I strongly disagree with Michael Wharton_Palmer regarding Sunningdale and Wentworth. Both were far more attractive with fewer trees. The subsequent loss of heather is a shame and from Colt's writing it's clear he did not like trees as hazards. I think the cases for both courses are very similar to PVGC i.e. it's well known Colt used tree planting schemes at Sunningdale Old, but it has been taken to level there, that he would never have wanted.
-
TE
"Just read the accounts of most of those who were contemporaries of Crump's (and I've provided you with a couple of them) and somewhere in all those accounts you're bound to come across the mention of hole separation throught the use of trees."
We all agree there is no evidence Crump ever wrote about a desire for isolation, and as far as I can tell no one associated with PV back then wrote about a desire for isolation. Carr wrote about the idea of avoiding parallel fairways, but avoiding parallel fairways and isolation ain't the same thing...in fact Carr writes about the wonderful panaramas.
I've read numerous accounts, specifically who metioned the need for isolation? Who are the couple of contemporaries you provided...I must have missed them? I beginning to wonder if this idea of isolation is more a legend (or a modern invention) rather than a historical fact?
-
I'm still not quite sure what all the fuss is about regarding the trees at Pine Valley.
As one who sprays the ball quite often and very dramatically I might add, I found the golf course to be most playable and quite enjoyable during the four rounds of golf I've experienced there. It did not at all play like Winged Foot West or Oakmont did before their tree removal programs. Those courses were choking from tree branches and both are now fun to play for the mid-handicapper and still retain the architectural integrity to challenge the very best.
Pine Valley still remains one of five courses which are architecturally perfect in my eyes whether you have the open vistas or not (NGLA, Cypress, Sand Hills and The Old Course) and is among 18 to 20 courses in the world which I would not argue as being #1.
-
"Hole separation or lack of parallel holes was not unique or original to Crump. Several of the earlier wooded heathland courses were separated, in the main, with v.few parallel holes: Swinley Forest, St George's Hill and Camberley Heath."
Paul;
I don't believe I said lack of parallel holes or separation of holes through triangulating a routing were unique to Crump. I simply said maybe using trees to block visibility between holes was.
"It's likely he got the idea from Colt who had started a tree planting scheme for Sunningdale Old. So we could blame him!"
Yeah, good idea, why don't we blame the excess tree encroachment on Colt too! ;)
-
"We all agree there is no evidence Crump ever wrote about a desire for isolation....,"
We do? I only said that as far as I know Crump never kept a diary or a written account of what he wanted to do at PVGC---he just did it. As far as I've ever known George Crump was not a chronicler of what he did, There very well may be letters in the archives in which Crump wrote to others about it. Apparently there are letters of Crump's on one subject or another in the archives and as far as I can see Warner Shelly and Jim Finegan may be the only ones who've really looked through that entire archive carefully to write their PVGC history books. Otherwise, one might think both Shelly and Jim Finegan just dreamed that idea up somewhere when they wrote about it in their PVGC histories.
"I beginning to wonder if this idea of isolation is more a legend (or a modern invention) rather than a historical fact?"
Of course you are---that's been pretty obvious for quite some time now. But you've never seen the PVGC archives, have you? You've never even seen....Oh, never mind! :)
But in my opinion, the question is somewhat moot anyway. All you really have to do is look at early aerials of PVGC to see there was hole separation and visual blocking used with trees.
Why don't you just take a page out of Paul Turner's recent post and attribute the whole thing to Harry Colt? After all, to you fellows Harry Colt was the real designer of PVGC, despite only spending a week or two at the course compared to Crump's five years. Oh, I forgot, a year or so ago you implied that in your opinion Crump was simply watching the grass grow all that time as workers he was paying for completely constructed the golf course to Colt's design plans. ;) Clearly that's a preposterous implication!
Gene Greco:
I don't really know either why it is that everytime PVGC comes up on her this issue of trees comes up too with a few of GOLFCLUBATLAS.com's contributors.
-
mucci, If you read all my threads closely enough, you will see that I have already stated that I do not believe that Mr Crump intended his hazards to be encroached by trees..try reading everything that I write
As for the left side of number 17 being encroached, i guess I have never been that far left, as it is not something I have noticed..but it may well be one of the cases I support for some tree trimming if that is the case.
With respect to being able to evaluate opinions on design...and that is all we are talking about, as none of us are more qualified than to be just opinion givers.....whilst competing, that is why they have these things called practice rounds...at which point it is the players job to evaluate the golf course.
-
Mr Mucci,
I failed to answer one of your question..The anwser you know already..I prefer the isolation that we now see, as it is my belief that is what Crump wanted, and it so happens to be what I prefer to see, which is why I also said I prefer current Wentworth and Sunningdale to those pictures I have seen in the past...again just my humble opinion
-
Paul Turner said:
“It's likely he got the idea from Colt who had started a tree planting scheme for Sunningdale Old. So we could blame him!
Also of interest, the course Colt worked on immediately prior to Pine Valley, Hamilton in Canada, is essentially a triangulation routing for most of the course, and has strong isolation.”
Paul:
I’d very much like to hear more about what you said there about Harry Colt and his tree-planting plan in the Heathlands as well as at Hamilton prior to his visit in May/June of 1913 to see Crump and PVGC. What do you think Colt’s purpose was with those tree-planting plans or schemes?
And secondly, I’d like to ask you to answer this question of Tom MacWood’s as well regarding what you find about Colt and his tree planting plans or schemes previous to PVGC;
“The recent thread on PV and isolation is not a case of differing opinions, unless I've misunderstood you, you have presented it as a historic fact. I'm just trying to find the documentation that supports this fact. Is it a historic fact or an assumption?”
Was Colt’s tree planting scheme in the Heathlands at Sunningdale Old and at Hamilton in Canada an historic fact or is it an assumption? Do you have the documentation that supports that fact? Did Colt write about it EXACLTY?
-
From the infomation supplied from Paul, it appears as though TP and myself should have been around some years ago when Colt and Crump wanted trees on a golf course...just when I thought we were the mad men TP !!!!!!
-
Michael:
I know! I'm one of those guys who would give anything to get in a time machine, grab those controls and get to various times in the past so I could actually talk to some of those guys way back then, like a George Crump. But as far as I know they haven't perfected the time machine quite yet. But when they do I'll be sure to take Tom MacWood on a ride so he may see that some things a protagonist didn't actually write about really did happen! ;)
-
Michael Wharton Palmer,
mucci, If you read all my threads closely enough, you will see that I have already stated that I do not believe that Mr Crump intended his hazards to be encroached by trees..try reading everything that I write.
I read and comprehend everything you wrote.
If a tree limb intrudes into the line of play, or impedes a swing, the limb shouldn't be pruned, the tree should be removed. That's architecture 101.[/color]
As for the left side of number 17 being encroached, i guess I have never been that far left, as it is not something I have noticed..but it may well be one of the cases I support for some tree trimming if that is the case.
Perhaps, the next time you visit, you'll glance over, or better yet walk over, so you can see what you missed and that pruning is not the answer, tree removal is.[/color]
With respect to being able to evaluate opinions on design...and that is all we are talking about, as none of us are more qualified than to be just opinion givers.....whilst competing, that is why they have these things called practice rounds...at which point it is the players job to evaluate the golf course.
Evidently, you didn't even notice the condition on
# 17 fairway and green. Perhaps you need to evaluate the course more carefully.
Aerials and ground level photos from circa 1922, 1925 and 1932 don't support either your, or TEPaul's theory regarding tree planting at Pine Valley.
I recognize your preference for the golf course's current look, but I wonder if your views aren't tempered by your invitational status. And, if that's your opinion, that's okay, that's what you believe and that's what you like.
When was the first year you played at Pine Valley ?[/color]
TEPaul,
With Crump's death in 1918, one would assume that those who knew him, from the time he began Pine Valley until his untimely death that they would have carried out his work subsequent to his death, yet aerial and ground level photos circa 1922, 1925 and 1932 don't bear that out.
I'm fairly familiar with tree growth in New Jersey, and at four, seven and forteen years after his death, there doesn't appear to be a continuation of a tree planting program at Pine Valley.
And, as more and more time elapsed, as those close to Crump died off, I would suspect that fewer and fewer people were aware of Crump's intentions, or his alleged intentions.
Thus, I agree with Tom MacWood.
I know that startles you, but, I submit that someone began to plant trees after 1932 on the basis of what they perceived Crump's intent to be. I submit that Crump's intent is manifested in photos taken within a decade of his death.
I couldn't tell you whether it was John Arthur Brown, different Superintendent's, or Ernie Ransome, but, this could easily be determined by boring core samples. I would be especially interested in taking core samples of the trees behind # 9 and # 17 green, as I feel that these greens, as
# 2 green, were intended to be skyline greens
If the trees are 50 years old, what does that do to your theory ? That Pine Valley waited until 36 years after his death before deciding that Crump wanted tremendous isolation ?
I think the topography and routing lend themselves to both seperation and to a degree, isolation, but nowhere to the extent that you find today. Today, one gets touch of claustrophobia when playing the golf course, and I can't believe that was Crump's intent, especially when viewing aerial and ground level photos taken decades after his death.
And, if Pine Valley didn't have the budget they have, there is no way they could preserve and enrich their turf as the trees severely impede sunlight and air circulation, AND, with all the trouble they had with their turf, why would Crump want to create a situation that would only make it worse ?
-
Pat; :)
Don't trouble yourself with suggesting core samples be taken to determine who and when the massive tree growth took place at PVGC. I'm very friendly with by far and away the oldest member of PVGC who's been a member quite a spell longer than anyone else! I'll be more than happy to ask him for you what transpired there in about the last 70 years. :)
This ultra concern over this tree issue at PVGC has really gotten preposterous. Belay that, it's gotten damn right hilarious! Why don't you guys put these efforts into solving the problem in the Middle East or something! ;)
-
TEPaul,
Let's look at this from a logical perspective.
Why would people familiar with the terrible turf problems that Pine Valley experienced want to plant trees that, when mature, would create problems with growing turf ?
I remember when Pine Valley tried placing metal shields down into the turf to act as a barrier to root growth from the surrounding and encroaching trees. If I recall correctly, the metal strips were either at the rough or fairway lines.
This has to be about 20-30 or so years ago.
Just look at all the growth since then.
Add to that, the problems associated with lack of sunlight and air circulation and you would have to question any substantive tree planting program.
I don't think it's comical, I think it's a valid question and topic of discussion.
Let me ask you this.
Suppose there was a recognized problem at PV.
Would any member or guest engage in dialogue with John Arthur Brown about the problem ?
And therein lies part of the problem.
Remember, without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.
-
"Why would people familiar with the terrible turf problems that Pine Valley experienced want to plant trees that, when mature, would create problems with growing turf?"
Pat:
That's a good question, and the answer probably is they wouldn't want to do that but they did it anyway in the past century simply because they didn't exactly understand the problem.
Remember that man I mentioned in the post above who's the oldest member of PVGC by far? That's the very same man who I mentioned sat on our (GMGC's) master plan committee and said nothing at all for a year as we all constantly criticized the tree overgrowth at GMGC and all the problems it caused including problems to turf health.
Finally, he spoke up and said;
"I've been listening carefully to all of you complain about the tree overgrowth here and all the problems it's caused. I want you to know I was the one who as green chairman back in the 1950s had all those trees planted. We were proud of what we did because the State gave them to us for free and all we had to do is just plant the little saplings. But I want you to know we didn't understand back then the problems that you say now have been created by them and if you'd like me to go in front of the membership and tell them we didn't understand those things back then so we can more easily removed them now, I'll do it!"
I can assure you Pat, that PVGC is on top of any problems excessive shade and root growth causes to turf down there. Just this fall as I was walking off the 11th green Rick Christian and to my surprise, Dick Bator, former PVGC super and now consultant to them, and perhaps the finest agronomic remediator in the world, walked up and talked to us for a moment about that very subject. Neither of those two guys are the types that beat around the bush on the subject of agronomy and PVGC and I can assure you they feel PVGC has light and shade as it relates to the course's agronomy well under control. But the next time I see them I'll tell them that you know something about their turf that they don't know! ;)
By the way, it was Bator who totally and completely transformed PVGC's turf and corrected their turf problems back in the 1980s going into the Walker Cup. During the Walker Cup basically no one had seen such fine turf conditions. Bator went back to Rochester and it was shortly after that he was hired by Merion and he came back and put that course's turf into a condition they'd definitely never had or seen before.
So those things Pat are more than just us thinking about these things logically---I'm telling you what the FACTS are. That's what you've always wanted isn't it----FACTS? ;)
-
This is an aerial that was the cover of a magazine in 1936 (18 years after Crump's death), its a little fuzzy but I think it illustrates the more open nature of the course as compared to today. A number of holes are isolated, but there also appears to be an opportunity for panaramas. There appears to be more exposed sand as well, and none of the hazards have been overrun by tree growth. Would this be the golf course's architectural high point.
(http://homepage.mac.com/tmacwood/.Pictures/pvgc36.jpg)
-
I would say that this photo doesn't quite represent the high-water mark of the architecture at Pine Valley. At this point, the sand faces below the 2nd and 18th greens were still washing away and in the case of the 2nd hole, parts of the green were eroding as well. The sand faces were converted into discrete bunkers along with other methods that stabilized the slopes fronting these 2 greens. They are aesthetically pleasing bunkers as well.
-
Wayne
You prefer the grassed 2nd and 18th green complexes to the exposed sand?
-
Here is a 1995 aerial of Pine Valley GC from TerraServer
(http://home.comcast.net/~wmorrison11/PineValley1995a.jpg)
-
Tom MacWood,
Forgive me, but I don't see the "more open nature" in the photo you posted. Sure, the trees have grown and the forested areas are more dense comparing the 1930s with the 1990s aerials, but the width of the fairways has never been compromised and the tree lines are basically the same. There is greater density in the triangle formed on the left sides of 1,2 and 4, also along the left side of the first fairway on 7 and the trees have encroached on the left side of 2. But I simply don't agree that the playability has been affected very much (I expressed where many posts ago) and the overall visibility is not significantly different after so many years.
-
Tom,
The exposed sand faces on 2 and 18 didn't work. They consistantly washed away taking green space with them. Of course I like it better the way it is now that they are stable. Given that the only way to fix the problem was to change the faces, I am glad they did. And, I do like the look of the bunkering; very Flynn-like ;) They are not completely grassed, in fact, they have very interesting large bunker complexes.
I don't think architecture is just form, it has to function as well.
Can you imagine you and I having a conversation about a building:
Tom Mac: "Gosh, it is such a beautiful building. Don't you love the architecture? It has to be the high water mark of architecture."
Wayne: "But Tom, the building fell down. Don't you think there was something wrong?"
-
Tom MacWood:
I thought you prefer to cast yourself as something like an accurate researcher!
Before any of us begin to try to compare which era (year) may've been the "high water mark" at PVGC architecturally it would be best to pinpoint the dates some of those aerials were taken. I can do that for you (given some time) by simply going down to John Ott's house and looking at the dates of those Dallin aerials. He bought every single one of them the museum had and most, if not all, are accurately dated.
It may not be accurate for you to produce an aerial shown in some magazine in 1938 as the state of the course in 1938. I doubt that magazine got Dallin or another aerial photographer to go up and photograph specifically for the magazine, although that's certainly possible. They probably just used what they could find even if the aerial was of the course ten or more years previous.
I think Wayne and I can probably go about this another way and somewhat put a time on that aerial (at least a date after which it could not be) by determining when that fronting bunker on #2 was changed (William Flynn may've been the one who fixed this problem). As Wayne said, and I have on here a number of times before, that fronting bunker on #2 may've been impressive and cool looking but the fact is it simply did not work---it kept collapsing and at one point took the front of the green with it. The same problem was the case on the massive fronting sand bunker on #18 and that too was changed in the same way as #2.
If you, or anyone else, is seriously saying that that massive sand bunker fronting #2 (and #18) should be restored today in the name of some "architectural high water mark" or architectural purity would you mind if PVGC billed you to fix them every time they collapsed? ;)
-
Wayne
The Dune green complexes at Pebble Beach and sandy waste areas at Shinnecock evidently didn't work either.
Today there have been technical developments that might allow the 2nd or 18th to return to their more natural exposed sand. Would you be in favor of returning to the exposed sand if that was the case?
-
"Wayne
The Dune green complexes at Pebble Beach and sandy waste areas at Shinnecock evidently didn't work either."
Tom MacWood:
You've got to try a bit harder to be accurate when you try to make a point on here to properly analyze these things. There was absolutely nothing about the sand waste areas that were constructed by Flynn at Shinnecock that didn't work! Where did you come up with that?
-
TE
Reread my post...I said the photo appeared on the cover of a 1936 magazine, not that the picture was taken in 1936. I'll let you determine the precise date of the photo.
I might be wrong, but my impression is that all three of these features (PVGC, Pebble Beach and Shinnecock) were altered for maintenance reasons.
Wayne
The triangle is obviously less treed and more open. The 17th included the dual fairways. There are fewer trees seperating the 7th from the 6th and 8th. There isn't a solid wall of trees between 11th and 16th. There appears to be an opennness between the 12th and 15th. Do you prefer the thick trees to the exposed sand?
-
"Wayne
The Dune green complexes at Pebble Beach and sandy waste areas at Shinnecock evidently didn't work either.
Today there have been technical developments that might allow the 2nd or 18th to return to their more natural exposed sand. Would you be in favor of returning to the exposed sand if that was the case?"
Tom MacWood,
I am in complete agreement with Tom Paul. The bunker evolution at Shinnecock Hills has nothing to do with them not working. I really don't know what you mean by that. Flynn intended that the undulating waste areas would evolve naturally with plantings of seaside grasses into indistinct sandy waste areas. The depression and a lack of understanding over the years contributed to maintenance practices that compromised the architectural intent. The formal bunker surrounds and lost sandy waste areas would be better if returned to the original look. What didn't work about the sandy waste areas? They were changed but not due to anything to do with their functionality.
As to Pine Valley, it is subjective to determine which look is preferred, whether a natural sand bank or discrete bunker complexes. I don't know if modern techniques could return the faces to the all sand look; those are some pretty steep slopes. I think the bunkering looks just fine as is and since the reconstructed faces have worked so well for more than 60 years, I don't see why they shouldn't remain as is.
-
"Wayne
The triangle is obviously less treed and more open. The 17th included the dual fairways. There are fewer trees seperating the 7th from the 6th and 8th. There isn't a solid wall of trees between 11th and 16th. There appears to be an opennness between the 12th and 15th. Do you prefer the thick trees to the exposed sand?"
Tom,
I spoke about the lost right fairway on 17 on a previous post. I think it would be great if it could be returned. It might make the hole play a bit easier as the carry to this landing area could be negotiated by a majority of golfers. This is a strategic invasion of trees as opposed to trees that block vistas. I think where trees have compromised strategy, they should be considered first and foremost. I think the trees on the left of the first fairway on 7 are visible on the photo you posted although they seem to have been planted fairly recently. The remaining trees on that hole don't seem very different. I don't see the distinction you make between 16 and 11 nor the openness between 12 and 15. As to my preference between open views of sand and thick trees, I think Crump wanted the holes to take center stage and they are what I consider the most interesting views. If there's a choice between open views and houses on the property, I'll take trees. If it is a choice between open views and the road behind 14, I'll take the trees. I would consider specifics rather than generalities.
Ideally, I like open views on a course like Rolling Green for instance, the vistas are worth opening up as are the agronomic benefits. Pine Valley has such wide fairways that agronomic considerations are different. The reason PVGC had problems with the fairway turf is due to the trial and error methods of growing grass on sand. Flynn came in and fixed that problem over a period of months in 1918 (I think). Tree growth that would isolate holes weren't a problem. Trees that created problems strategically and agronomically are those that encroached the play areas. We admit there are/were problems. The Club seems to be addressing these successfully over time.
-
Mr Mucci,
I do not really understand the invitational reference, I can only assume that you mean because one's golfing ability gets you an invite to an event then all of a sudden you cannot have any of your own thoughts...strange concept..you must have me confused with somebody else !!
I feel quite comfortable the same golfing record that enabled me to recive the invite will continue to speak for itself, and that having an opinion is not a feature that will remove me from the invitation list.
With reference to the old aerials that you and macwood keep refering to, I do not see how they could possibly show fledgling trees that may have been less than ..say..3 feet tall at the time..just a thought.
I think we all agree that tree impingment when it is a problem has to be dealt with.. such as you have pointed out to the left of number 17{I have no reson to doubt you, even though I have not noticed it} I think the only place we differ is whether we should see more land or not..and that is a matter of personal preference...I just happen to be with those who prefer Pine Valley with isolated holes than not..From what I have been told that WAS Mr Crump's original plan..but no I was not there at the time to hear him say it.....by the way I dont believe macwood was there either!!
-
Wayne,
While the photos are from two different angles, a closer look at # 17 in the 1995 aerial shows some of the "choking" of the approach corridor near the green. Add nine years of growth to that photo and these areas become more narrow.
But, you bring up another interesting point. The 9th green and the loss of its skyline effect. I wonder if trees weren't planted behind # 9 green to stabilize that incline. I also wonder if there aren't better ways to "hold" the soil on that incline, allowing for removal of those trees.
TEPaul,
You've provided some information, but not the facts.
The facts are that the tree problem has existed for some time and that the club was aware of it and sought to ameliorate it with the introduction of metal shields below ground to prevent further root growth which as you know affects the drip line, which affects trees intruding into the lines of play.
Dick Bader was an employee who receieved his marching orders from a higher authority. While his expertise is acknowledged, that doesn't mean that he had free reign with respect to PV.
I have no vested interest in this issue, no prior policies or maintainance programs to defend or champion.
I'm completely independent.
I again ask, why would Crump or his disciples, knowing of the terrible turf problems, seek to exacerbate them by planting an overabundent number of dense, tall trees to block sunlight and stifle air circulation ? Planting an abundance of tall, dense trees could not have been a plan of his.
With respect to the member you referenced.
I'm sure he's a fine gentleman.
But, that doesn't qualify him to be an outstanding green chairman. And, anyone who plants a sapling, irrespective of its species, and doesn't understand the impact of the tree at maturity, agronomically and playability wise, is short sighted and unqualified to plant those trees in the first place.
I submit to you, that the encroaching and overwhelming tree growth was planted long after Crump's death, and was not part of any plan or directions that Crump had left behind.
-
“TE
Reread my post...I said the photo appeared on the cover of a 1936 magazine, not that the picture was taken in 1936. I'll let you determine the precise date of the photo.”
Tom MacWood:
I read your post above that aerial very carefully. Here’s what you said;
“This is an aerial that was the cover of a magazine in 1936 (18 years after Crump's death), its a little fuzzy but I think it illustrates the more open nature of the course as compared to today. A number of holes are isolated, but there also appears to be an opportunity for panaramas. There appears to be more exposed sand as well, and none of the hazards have been overrun by tree growth. Would this be the golf course's architectural high point.”
What does that sound like it implies to you? To me it sounds like it implies the aerial was the state of the course in 1936. What if that was a Dallin aerial in the early 1920s? Since the subject here is trees and their growth and the question of Crump’s intended visual separation between holes don’t you think that would make a fairly substantial difference in this entire question? I do. Over here in the Delaware Valley pine trees and such grown pretty fast but maybe they’re different out there in Ohio! ;)
Or perhaps, if you think the subject here is about the state of the trees today and how the trees effect the architecture of the golf course, you might notice that I've said a bunch of times on here my personal prescription for the ideal tree management plan for that course in the future would be to remove the trees from all Crump's planned and constructed bunkering and designed sand waste areas but that the cleared areas for proposed holes that were never built should be planted in trees! There's something you might need to know about PVGC that you may not have been aware of. As far as I can tell from looking very carefully at that course on the course all of Crump's old bunkering or anything else from the course once the 1921 Advisory committee finished its work is still all out there to be found. You can even see the remains of the old bunkering to the right of the old alternate fairway on #17 that's completely in trees and hasn't been in use in about 70 years!!
-
TE
If I knew the aerial was from 1936...I would have written the aerial was from 1936. Instead I wrote it was from a cover in 1936...I think most can understand the distinction and that it isn't always possible to put a precise date on a published photo.
If the aerial is from the 1920's instead of the 1930's...my question is still valid...does the photo represent the architectural high point?
-
Michael Wharton Palmer,
I do not really understand the invitational reference, I can only assume that you mean because one's golfing ability gets you an invite to an event then all of a sudden you cannot have any of your own thoughts...strange concept..you must have me confused with somebody else !!
I feel quite comfortable the same golfing record that enabled me to recive the invite will continue to speak for itself, and that having an opinion is not a feature that will remove me from the invitation list.
You must be very young.
In what year did you first play Pine Valley ?[/color]
With reference to the old aerials that you and macwood keep refering to, I do not see how they could possibly show fledgling trees that may have been less than ..say..3 feet tall at the time..just a thought.
The detail in the aerial and GROUND level photos is sufficient enough to reveal 3 foot trees. But, how do you know that they planted 3 foot trees as opposed to 8, 12 or 16 foot trees ?
Don't you think that after 10, 15 or 20 years that those trees would grow and be a little, if not a lot bigger ?[/color]
I think we all agree that tree impingment when it is a problem has to be dealt with.. such as you have pointed out to the left of number 17{I have no reson to doubt you, even though I have not noticed it.
Did you notice the areas on the golf course where trees had recently been removed ?[/color]
I think the only place we differ is whether we should see more land or not..and that is a matter of personal preference...I just happen to be with those who prefer Pine Valley with isolated holes than not..
I understand that. Taste or style is a personal preference or choice. And, you are entitled to your opinion with respect to how you like the golf course, even though you never saw it in a different condition. If you saw the golf course as it was 30 or 40 years ago, I wonder if you'd change your opinion.
You're somewhat handicapped by not having a playing basis for comparison.
[/color]
From what I have been told that WAS Mr Crump's original plan..but no I was not there at the time to hear him say it.....by the way I dont believe macwood was there either!!
None of us were present. And, none of us were present for the Gettysburgh address, or the signing of the Armistice after WW I, but written evidence of those events exist for all to view.
Who told you of Crump's original plan, where did they see it, where is it now, and what was it ?
Are you aware of the terrible turf problems that PV encountered in its early days ? And the impact that heavy tree planting might have on those problems.
Are you aware of the fact that 20-30 or more years ago that PV was aware of problems the trees were creating with their turf and the resultant metal shield defense they employed to counter it ? Do you think that 20-30 years of growth has ameliorated or exacerbated those recognized problems ?
[/color]
-
If the aerial is from the 1920's instead of the 1930's...my question is still valid...does the photo represent the architectural high point?"
Tom MacWood:
I have no idea. Maybe your idea of what the architectural high point of the course was is vastly different from my opinion, or PVGC's opinion or Michael Wharton-Palmer's opinion or George Crump's opinion.
But if we want to determine what Crump wanted which should be and I thought was supposed to be the subject of what we're discussing here I think I can help you understand that photo particularly if it was from the early 1920s. Can you see those smallish trees between #6 and #7 on that aerial. They're still there Tom, (or ones like those if some of those died or fell down) only much larger now. Do you think perhaps Crump didn't realize those trees would get as high as they are now?
You mention the clearing between #12 and #15 green. Do you know why it's that way on that aerial? It's because Crump basically took a number of years to figure out exactly what to do in the #12 to #15 area and he had all kinds of iterations going in that section and he cleared that section to look at those different hole iterations. Given the topography (and the present back tee on #12) some might find this hard to believe but if one looks carefully on that famous routing topo showing Crump's red lines and Colt's blue lines one can see a proposed tee for #12 about 30 yards short and just to the left of #11!!! That completely explains why there's all that clearing between #12 and #15 green.
That iteration of #12 was over 400 yards and obviously it was never built that way. One has to be really familiar with the ENTIRE evolution of the construction phase of PVGC, particularly during Crump's time there which lasted from October of 1912 until January of 1918!
That's precisely why it's just not representative or accurate to cite some article in a newspaper or magazine in 1914 and conclude that represents the way the course turned out during it's construction phase that lasted almost ten years.
I hope you're learning something Tom, although I'm sure you're going to be the very last to admit that!
-
TE
Yes. I'm constantly learning. I'm still hoping to learn if Crump's desire for isolation is theory or fact.
"You mention the clearing between #12 and #15 green."
I thought I saw a clearing there...Wayne had me wondering if I was loosing it.
-
Pat:
Regarding your post #126 obviously you really don't read and you're certainly not willing to listen. I've said on here a million times and continue too I REAIZE THAT COURSE HAD A MASSIVE TREE OVERGROWTH PROBLEM and has for years. So, why in Christ's name are you telling me about metal plates and drip lines 20 and 30 years ago?
The point here isn't what PVGC has been through in the last five or so decades with tree overgrowth it's about what they're doing about it and what they plan to do about it as well as what George Crump wanted to do with the course regarding separating and isolating holes with trees.
I've said a zillion times obviously he didn't build flanking bunkers and sand waste areas on the holes so that someday they'd be chocked full of trees!
And don't tell me that the facts are what marching orders PVGC gave Dick Bator. The marching orders they gave him was to come in there and fix the condition of the course that'd had been in pretty piss-poor condition for quite some time. Those were his marching orders Pat! "FIX THE CONDITION OF THE F... GOLF COURSE!" Pretty simple to say wouldn't you say? And if you don't believe me on that I'll call down there right now and ask the Mayor what Bator's marching orders were.
That's what I've heard from down there his marching orders were. Do you think they actually told the man in detail how to do that? Of course not and that's why they hired him. Bator has a long and proven track record as being one of the very best conditioning remediators in the world! Do you think they thought they knew more about how to grow grass and condition that course than he did? Sane people don't really do that and that's why you're not very sane. You're starting to act like you know more about how to maintain that course then they do, or Bator or Christian do.
That's just nuts. This discussion on what's good for that course is going too far. There're too many on here who really don't know what the hell they're talking about, in my opinion.
As far as Micheal Wharton-Palmer and his own observations of the course I think he pretty much nailed you to the wall Pat when he mentioned he analyzed the golf course during his practice rounds. After all that's the very thing you've laid on others on this site when you claimed they didn't know what they were talking about.
'That's what practice rounds are for---to analyze the golf course'. When he said that to you I about fell out of my chair over here laughing! ;)
-
"Are you aware of the terrible turf problems that PV encountered in its early days ? And the impact that heavy tree planting might have on those problems."
Pat;
That's completely untrue. The early failures of the agronomy at PVGC didn't have one damn thing to do with trees and I can completely prove that because I really do have the ENTIRE WRITTEN RECORD of what those problems were and what it took to SPECIFICALLY correct them!
Michael Wharton-Palmer:
Can you possibly imagine what it'd be like to belong to a golf club that had Pat Mucci and Tom MacWood as members?? My God, nobody would ever get any rest at all.
The title of this thread is "Would Pine Valley still be #1 if...."
Look Pat and Tom MacWood the course is #1 and has been for a long time and probably will continue to be. The reasons they got there, are there, and probably will continue to be there are good reasons and a part of those reasons are they don't have members like you who try to micromanage the pants off everybody and everything and if they do have members like you at least they have the great and good common sense not to listen to them---and it's always been that way down there---THANK GOD!
-
TEPaul,
Evidently he didn't analyze it too thoroughly if he didn't notice that trees blocked your way to the green from the left side of
# 17 fairway. Perhaps, like you, he needs more practice rounds ;D
As to Bator's involvement.
I'd be curious to know what prompted them to experiment with the metal shield defense. Was it a compromise alternative to cutting down the invasive trees ?
Is it possible that the turf problems he was called in to cure, were caused by lack of sunlight and air circulation ?
Let me ask you another question dealing with logic.
Do you think Crump would have planted trees, knowing full well that as they matured they would have impeded with the golfers ability to swing the club in the many bunkers he created ?
Do you think Crump was SO incompetent that he built bunkers with the intention of planting trees next to them so that the trees would cover up his bunkers ?
If you follow the logic, you'll come to the uncomfortable conclusion that someone, subsequent to Crump's death, decided on what Pine Valley should be, and it wasn't in keeping with Crump's concepts on design and playability.
Someone, some time subsequent to his death, decided to plant and to allow vegatation to run wild to satisfy their vision of what they thought Pine Valley should look and play like.
But, I admire you're ardent, but misguided defense ;D
-
"Are you aware of the terrible turf problems that PV encountered in its early days ? And the impact that heavy tree planting MIGHT have on those problems."
Pat;
That's completely untrue. The early failures of the agronomy at PVGC didn't have one damn thing to do with trees and I can completely prove that because I really do have the ENTIRE WRITTEN RECORD of what those problems were and what it took to SPECIFICALLY correct them!
Tom, your reading comprehension skills are failing.
Reread what I wrote. I didn't say that the trees were the problem. I said that planting trees in the future MIGHT exacerbate the problem, callling in to question the prudence of wanting to plant more trees.[/color]
Look Pat and Tom MacWood the course is #1 and has been for a long time and probably will continue to be. The reasons they got there, are there, and probably will continue to be there are good reasons and a part of those reasons are they don't have members like you who try to micromanage the pants off everybody and everything and if they do have members like you at least they have the great and good common sense not to listen to them---and it's always been that way down there---THANK GOD!
Perhaps the routing, hole designs and individual features, which are largely untouched have something to do with it.
Tom, you continue to support an arrogant sense of infallibility, that they can't possibly make a mistake or become misdirected. I don't adhere to that. And, I'll say it again.
Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.
Follow the logic, not your emotions and ties to the club.[/color]
-
PM, Thanks for teh questions, lets see if I get them all:
I am fairly young, although I do not understand the relevance, but never mind that.
I not play PV until 2002, so you are quite correct I have very little to compare it to, however, very few of us on this site played it back in the 1940's or 1950's, but I submit that I may have a different opinion if I had played the course back then.
I must stress however that it is the current isolation that intrigues me so much about PV and what to me, helps make the course the challenge that it is.
I am making the assumption, maybe incorrectly, that the technology back at the time of early tree planting would not allow for the uprooting of 15 ft trees without the death of the roots, as such I feel quite sure that saplings were planted.
All of my "assumptions" come from older Pv members who I met at PV.
Even though I aws there to compete, my interest in architecture was such that I was going to ask questions..I was well aware from the aerials that things had either changed or matured depending on your point of view.
The members I spoke to stressed it was a maturing process rather than a changing of strategy which leads to the belief that it was indeed Mr Crumps intent to have the isolation.
But perhaps they are all wrong.
I was aware of the turf problems, as it was pointed out by those same members, but someone must have got it right, because the playing surface now is simply awesome, despite all the trees.
Again I stress that excess tree impingement has to be dealt with wherever it occurs.
At my home course,a Langford/ Moreau design that truly defines hidden gems,we had to remove some 200 trees for playability and as far as I am comcerned we could remove someto more closely "restore" the course to its intended look.
Quit simply our differences on PV are isolation versus the pre growth openness
-
Michael,
I am fairly young, although I do not understand the relevance.
It's about not biting the hand that feeds you.[/color]
I not play PV until 2002, so you are quite correct I have very little to compare it to, however, very few of us on this site played it back in the 1940's or 1950's, but I submit that I may have a different opinion if I had played the course back then.
I must stress however that it is the current isolation that intrigues me so much about PV and what to me, helps make the course the challenge that it is.
That's your personal preference and I understand and respect that, although it's at odds with my views.[/color]
I am making the assumption, maybe incorrectly, that the technology back at the time of early tree planting would not allow for the uprooting of 15 ft trees without the death of the roots, as such I feel quite sure that saplings were planted.
It's more of a cost factor then a technology factor.
Balling and re-planting 8',12' and 16' trees remains practically the same today as it did years ago.[/color]
All of my "assumptions" come from older Pv members who I met at PV.
Were they old enough to have been members in the teens, 20's and 30's when Crump's contemporaries were alive ?[/color]
Even though I aws there to compete, my interest in architecture was such that I was going to ask questions..I was well aware from the aerials that things had either changed or matured depending on your point of view.
The members I spoke to stressed it was a maturing process rather than a changing of strategy which leads to the belief that it was indeed Mr Crumps intent to have the isolation.
But perhaps they are all wrong.
Perhaps they are.
How else would you account for a large tree that is only 40-60 years old ?
If trees become invasive to the lines of play, such as at # 17, isn't that changing the strategy that Crump intended, designed and built ?[/color]
I was aware of the turf problems, as it was pointed out by those same members, but someone must have got it right, because the playing surface now is simply awesome, despite all the trees.
Were these members, members 30 years or so ago when the metal shield defense was employed ?
Do you think their budget might have something to do with it ?
Do you think grooming to prepare for a special tournament, once a year, might have something to do with it ?[/color]
Again I stress that excess tree impingement has to be dealt with wherever it occurs.
At my home course,a Langford/ Moreau design that truly defines hidden gems,we had to remove some 200 trees for playability and as far as I am comcerned we could remove someto more closely "restore" the course to its intended look.
In the context of playability, shouldn't the same standard be applied to both courses, your home course and PV ?[/color]
Quit simply our differences on PV are isolation versus the pre growth openness
But, since you never played the golf course before 2002 you wouldn't come to that conclusion other then through hearsay.
Had you played it in 1975, 1965 or 1955 your views might be entirely different. That's why I asked you when you first played the golf course, to gain a sense of relativity regarding your personal experiences and the context in which you judged the golf course.[/color]
-
"Evidently he didn't analyze it too thoroughly if he didn't notice that trees blocked your way to the green from the left side of # 17 fairway. Perhaps, like you, he needs more practice rounds!
Jeesus, now I've heard it all. You can be way over on the left side of the fairway and you may not be able to hit the far left side of the green but you certainly can hit the green. Probably the best strategy then for an ultra hyper cat like you, Patrick of Mucci, is to just hit it down the right side of that fairway and if you happen to take it just through the rough over that carry bunker and bounce it onto the right side of the fairway you'll even give yourself a bit more height from which to come into that green dead straight on.
I can just see you now, though, the big tall ultra micromanager and overthinker. You'd have Rocky on your bag and you'd hit just the shot you both agreed on and you'd say to Rocky;
"Is that next to the pin Rocky?"
And like Rocky said to that big tall bigwig micromanaging corporate type he once had the bag of when on #17, Rocky would say to you;
"Come on over here next to me pro!"
And you'd say to him;
"What?
Rocky;
"Come over here next to me pro."
You'd go over next to him, and he'd say;
"Put your head down here next to mine."
And you'd put your head near him, and he'd say;
"Get your head right down here next to mine."
So you'd be about ear to ear with Rocky, and he'd say;
"Now what do you see up there on that green, pro?"
And you'd say;
"I can't see anything up there on that green?"
And Rocky would say to you;
"Well then, pro, why the f.... are you asking me if your ball is next to the pin?"
-
TEPaul,
I heard some funny and not so funny Rocky stories recently.
In one, he was arguing with a golfer on what club to hit into # 14. The golfer wanting the lesser club and Rocky wanting him to hit more club. Rocky had the players ball in his hand, having just finished cleaning it. He brought it up to his face, looked at it and addressed it and said, "now you take a real deep breath, okay".
I know we jest, but you can't be suggesting that a ball lying within the fairway margins should have trees impeding the flight of the ball to the green on non-dogleg holes, are you ?
-
PM,
I have to ask, when did you first play PV?
The members I had the privelage of talking to ranged from about 50 to the high 70's, in fact one gentleman's dad,was present on one of the ocassions that Colt and Wilson attended the site, now that would have been cool..especially now in retrospect at what they helped to create.
I think that TE and myself have clearly stated that we do not agree with trees impinging on original hazards and clear lines of play..I do not know how many times we have to state that...but that is a totally different issue from isolation versus a more open nature to the golf course.
With reference to biting the hand thats feeds you,I believe my humble golfing exploits were behind my initial invite and whilst I am not going to act like an arsehole while I am there, I am not going to kiss anybodys arse either..again you have me confused with somebody else.
As for standards for one course being different, what crap!!
Since when do we treat all courses the same?
Just because Oakmont decides to remove some thousands of tress, everybody else has to as well..give me a break..that is what makes courses different..what is good for the goose does not always have to be good for the gander..not if it threatens an already good golf course.
-
I know we jest, but you can't be suggesting that a ball lying within the fairway margins should have trees impeding the flight of the ball to the green on non-dogleg holes, are you ?
Why?
Or to change the situation only moderately, would it then be ok if that portion of fairway was allowed to grow into rough with the impeding branches still in the exact same spots?
(usual disclaimer, I haven't played 17 at Pine Valley, or any of the other holes here)
-
"...in fact one gentleman's dad,was present on one of the ocassions that Colt and Wilson attended the site, now that would have been cool..especially now in retrospect at what they helped to create."
Michael:
If that's really so I'd love to know who that was who told you that about his Dad. As far as I've ever been able to tell that particular short time in 1913 when Colt came to PVGC with Crump (for one or perahps two weeks at most) there is basically nothing recorded, and in that lies the real dilemma about what Colt really did do. Colt apparently wrote nothing about what he specifically did do that time at Pine Valley and apparently Crump didn't either. It was left for numerous others to sort of speculate what went on with the course and between them. There're a lot of newspaper and magazine articles, and very contemporaneous ones, of that collaboration which report that Colt did a lot and others that report he didn't do that much. The articles are even from the likes of Tillinghast who was apparently very close to Crump and very much part of that PVGC collaboration and from the very beginning.
The point is it's sort of left to some of us now to try to piece back together what exactly went on between them and who was responsible for what and when. Analyzing recently that topo hanging in the clubhouse I think has told parta of a story no one really knew much of before, and there's a previous topo that can explain perhaps plenty of what's on the second one and from whom.
In any case, from a historian like Finegan who had access to the entire archives and all those contemporaneous articles there didn't seem much in there to draw from about the ONE AND ONLY time Harry Colt was there. The point is he could have done a lot more than has ever been known or a lot less than some assume from the way the course came to be under Crump.
Harry Colt, as far as some pretty good Colt experts on this website know may never again have returned to America again(after 1913).
And I very much doubt that Wilson was there with them. If a Wilson was there it very likely would not have been Hugh, it would have been Alan.
But my suspicion would be that the one that man's father would have remembered or seen there with Wilson wouldn't have been Colt, it would've been Hugh Alison in 1921, Harry Colt's partner, who did a lot of work architecturally on the course for the so-called 1921 Advisory committee.
Obvously the man who told you that wouldn't really know much unless his father told him something in real detail he remembers now but if it was Wilson there with Colt I'd sure like to try to run that one down, because it could lead us to some places to look for more information that might be fascinating.
-
The 1920 aerial
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/PV_Aerial_1920.jpg)
-
Michael:
You're on a roll pal! You've got that Patrick of Mucci on the run---his posts to you are beginning to look like large Christmas trees! You just keep after that big bothersome gnati---do not let the man up for air under any circumstances---he does not deserve it. He's the biggest micromanager the world of golf architecture has ever seen and now he's apparently into micromanaging golf courses he has nothing to do with, even the world's #1, Pine Valley. The man must be stopped and cut off at the pass at all costs. He's a nuisance to great architecture and a worse nuisance to those who have to do with it---with him around no one gets any rest and those people need their rest, so they can think clearly.
Keep after him and if you need my help I'll be right there with you. Even if you don't need my help I'll be after him anyway---some things on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com are just that way because that's the way they are! Or is that the USGA's motto?
Whatever!
-
Paul:
Wow, that's a very cool aerial. Is that the same one you sent me a couple of years ago? That one has to be pre-Victor Dallin. That aerial must have been taken in or around the winter months or else there were a lot of very sick trees on that site! :) It seems you certainly can see the difference between the deciduous trees and the coniferous ones!
-
Tom
Yes, it's the same one. The earliest I've seen. The drained pond in front of the 5th is very interesting. I wonder why they did this? It was certainly flooded at some point before 1920.
You can actually see a construction truck on that road.
-
Whats better? .....I haven't played PV in 3 years and I've heard of some of the changes.....
this response leads me to think that there may be a particular year a course is best - like a vintage of wine
suppose PV best year were say 1962 - does that mean its 2004 rating if inferior relative to other courses which are "blossoming" in the year 2004 would plummet it off the chart ?
i guess there is NO answer to the question initially posited - unless each year since inception is weighed on a standard scale relative to all other entrants by calender year
-
Also. What about the bunkers in the middle of trees on the 1st :o
-
"The drained pond in front of the 5th is very interesting. I wonder why they did this? It was certainly flooded at some point before 1920."
Paul:
I've never been entirely sure how the entire course's "water works" works at Pine Valley (I know Mayor Ott and some others down there know the details and history of that though). But I do know it was pretty elaborate for that time and was probably significantly overhauled and upgraded perhaps twice in Crump's lifetime or shortly afterwards. It was a pumped up/flow down system to and from the tower that is now the halfway house (and another original one), I think.
Anyway, seeing as how that course, like NGLA, went through at least one and perhaps two really signifcant agronomic failures there was a need for massive amounts of irrigation and one of those times of real agronomic failure was probably right around the time that aerial photo was taken. The photo, because of the apparent lack of tree and leaf cover was obviously taken in the off-season when the grass wasn't growing and perhaps they just shut the entire system down and drained parts of the place since it appears that water course you ask about was way down.
I have no idea if that's the reason but it may be a possibility.
-
Also. What about the bunkers in the middle of trees on the 1st :o
Paul;
Do you think Harry Colt...er um...George Crump intended them to be "double jeopardy"?
Sorry...couldn't resist the urge to tease Tom.
-
Paul:
Those aren't bunkers---that's the way the place looked. Those formations are still there except now they're all sort of vegetated over. Look at that enormous swath from the tee all the way down to the fairway on the right between the drive in that has trees that look like poles. That's the way the site looked. That's the way it was before the course. Don't forget PVGC is a ton of sandy surface. You don't think they hauled all that sand in the bunkers and waste areas in there back in the early teens do you? Remember Colt's instructions for some of the bunker placements? One of them just said "tear out hill"---and voila you had a PVGC sand bunker!!
-
Tom
Those are bunkers (in the trees) at the crook of the dog leg.
-
MIchael,
PM,
I have to ask, when did you first play PV?
1964.[/color]
The members I had the privelage of talking to ranged from about 50 to the high 70's, in fact one gentleman's dad,was present on one of the ocassions that Colt and Wilson attended the site, now that would have been cool..especially now in retrospect at what they helped to create.
No question about it, that would have been a great experience.
There is an experiment that is carried out by law schools and police academies. They select witnesses, position them to observe an event, and then stage the event. Immediately afterwards, they question the witnesses with respect to what they saw.
It's amazing to see the conflict in recollection and error in the details regarding what took place. They then show them a video tape of the event, so that there is no doubt in anyone's mind with respect to the errors in recollection.
The interogation is carried out within minutes of the event.
Imagine the interogation 70, 80 and 90 years removed from the event.[/color]
I think that TE and myself have clearly stated that we do not agree with trees impinging on original hazards and clear lines of play..I do not know how many times we have to state that...but that is a totally different issue from isolation versus a more open nature to the golf course.
What do you think of the picture Paul Turner posted ?
How does that influence your concept of isolation at PV and the golf course as Crump left it ?[/color]
With reference to biting the hand thats feeds you,I believe my humble golfing exploits were behind my initial invite and whilst I am not going to act like an arsehole while I am there, I am not going to kiss anybodys arse either..again you have me confused with somebody else.
Discretion is the better part of valor.
You're young, you'll learn. ;D[/color]
As for standards for one course being different, what crap!!
Since when do we treat all courses the same?
Certain principles of good design are universal.
Being in a bunker without tree limbs impeding or preventing a swing is one of them. Being in a prefered section of a fairway and not having your approach shot blocked or screened off by trees planted long after the original architect left his work in the ground is another.[/color]
Just because Oakmont decides to remove some thousands of tress, everybody else has to as well..give me a break..that is what makes courses different..what is good for the goose does not always have to be good for the gander..not if it threatens an already good golf course.
Your above example is not remotely close to the situation at PV. How does removing trees intrusive to the lines of play threaten a golf course. Especially when those trees were planted 30-40 years after the original architect died ?[/color]
Andy Hughes,
I'd reserve your comments for courses, holes and features that you're personally familiar with. The issue is trees that intrude into the lines of play, trees planted long after the architect was planted, and not rough. Keep it real, not hypothetical.
TEPaul,
Paul Turner's picture is rather revealing.
And, when you place it amongst other photos, circa 1922, 1925, 1932 and into the 50's. it becomes apparent that the excessive tree planting was not part of Crump's plan or vision.
But, if you want to stubbornly cling to that notion, I have no problem with it. If the trees didn't get out of hand, PV wouldn't have embarked upon a program of clearing them, would they ?
In the confines of a non-public discussion I think you'd agree that more clearing needs to be done. I don't think anyone is saying that the course should be cleansed of trees, just that they need to be more active in restoring Crump's course, not someone esle's additives.
Next time you visit, look at the far boundary of the large fairway bunker on # 16 and tell me what you think.
We're all human, everyone makes mistakes.
Paul Turner,
The creek in front of # 18 green appears to be just that, although the lighting and definition aren't as clear as I'd like.
What was the year that that waterway was damed ?
-
Paul:
No, there not bunkers, in my opinion, never were. In that area in the crook of the dogleg is a bunch of rolling sort of mounds and pits that's just the way the land always was in there. There all still there. I've been in there a bunch of times---although of course never looking for my own ball! ;)
But if for some odd reason those things are bunkers, well then---revelation of all revelations!!! Seeing as how large those conifer trees are scattered through the middle of all of them (I'll guarantee you they aren't man-made bunkers) I guess that just flat-ass PROVES that Crump really did intend to have tree overgrowth throughout even his own bunkers and sand waste areas as much of the course is today! ;) :)
You fellows are really great at completely outthinking yourselves! ;)
Who knows, maybe this was the nefarious work of that little English accountant look-alike, Harry Colt. You never did get back to me about his tree planting schemes and possible hole visibility isolation on Sunningdale Old and Hamilton in Canada. How about that? I want answers and I want them by quiting time today!!!
-
Pat:
Just keep talking and see how far you can get that foot of yours down your big mouth. Maybe you've never seen an aerial taken in the winter-time. Did you know it makes a golf course look a little different from how it looks when there are leaves on the trees? Oh never mind, don't bother to answer---it'd be hopeless anyway!
-
TEPaul,
I was studying aerials before you bought your dog, Coorshaw.
I didn't know that non diciduous trees sheded their leaves/needles. When did this happen ? ;D
-
"I didn't know that non diciduous trees sheded their leaves/needles. When did this happen ?
Pat:
Why don't you look at that aerial again since you've been studying them so long and see which trees look like they have something on them and which don't and maybe you can figure out how to answer that question all by yourself!
-
Is it simply my bad monitor or is the photo PV with the first 4 holes and an eighteenth green and the remainder under construction? I would think from the angle that 5 and 6 would be visible but the don't seemtostand out.
-
W.H.
The big huge 5th green is clear as day and most of the 6th is too on my monitor but my monitor is huge.
I think that 5th green back in that day may've had a ton more greenspace in the front but I could be wrong about that. On some of the old drawings it seemed to appear that way though.
-
Paul:
No, there not bunkers, in my opinion, never were. In that area in the crook of the dogleg is a bunch of rolling sort of mounds and pits that's just the way the land always was in there. There all still there. I've been in there a bunch of times---although of course never looking for my own ball! ;)
But if for some odd reason those things are bunkers, well then---revelation of all revelations!!! Seeing as how large those conifer trees are scattered through the middle of all of them (I'll guarantee you they aren't man-made bunkers) I guess that just flat-ass PROVES that Crump really did intend to have tree overgrowth throughout even his own bunkers and sand waste areas as much of the course is today! ;) :)
You fellows are really great at completely outthinking yourselves! ;)
Who knows, maybe this was the nefarious work of that little English accountant look-alike, Harry Colt. You never did get back to me about his tree planting schemes and possible hole visibility isolation on Sunningdale Old and Hamilton in Canada. How about that? I want answers and I want them by quiting time today!!!
Tom
I still reckon those are bunkers in the trees, particularly that one on the fairway edge! Not saying that I think it was a good idea, but that's what I see.
As you commanded, here are some Colt writings about trees. Which gives insight into what he would have recommended to Crump. Even if he ignored it, like a drunken numbskull, and started building bunkers in trees(!)
Colt is often credited as the first architect to have tree planting schemes, for lanscape effect. Sunn Old is usually cited as the first example (see Cornish and Whitten). I'm not entirely sure about how accurate this is (since it's hearsay). From his writing he appears to appreciated trees for landscape but dislike them as hazards. I think it's likely that Crump would have been of the same opinion. Isolation is not mentioned by Colt, but the wooded heathland courses did have much isolation, with big routings, combined with spacious fairways
1912
"And this landscape might have been improved, and made still more pleasing to the eye by planting judiciously off the course irregular clumps of whins, or broom, or rough grasses, or possibly small birch trees and Scotch firs."
1912
"Golfers are, moreover, now becoming more and more sensitive to the artistic side of golf courses, and the man whoh just ploughs around in an entirely golfing spirit is becoming rare every day. I know it well from the outcry that is raised if a hole is changed and an intruding Scotch for tree has to be sacrificed."
Writing about parkland golf:
"The trees are however always a difficulty. It is hard to condemn a fine old specimen oak or beech because it comes into the line of play. It is more or less accepted fact that trees are not the best hazards, for the obvious reason that they unfortunately afford but slight opportunity for the display of golfing skill in extricating the ball from its clutches. Moreover, during the fall of leaf they are always a nuisance, and it is exceedingly difficult to grow satisfactory turf under their shade; but they are undoubtably charming features in a landscape view."
Regarding forest courses:
"It is essential to make the clearing bold and wide, as it is not very enjoyable to play down long alleys with trees on either side, and better effects can be obtained from a landscape point of view if this be done."
1920
"Trees are a fluky and obnoxious form of hazard, but they afford rather good protection, and if a clump of these exists at such a spot it might well be considered justifiable to leave it standing."
"In cases where the ground is covered densely with trees, it is often possible to open up beautiful views by cutting down a little additional timber. In such cases it would be unwise merely to clear certain narrow lanes which are required for play. The "landscape" effect should also be studied, and although great care must be taken not to expose and unpleasant view in the process, every endeavour should be made to obtain a free and open effect. Swinley Forest, St George's Hill and Stoke Poges may be cited as cases in which tree-cutting has greatly improved the views, and in the case of the two first-mentioned clubs a great deal more felling has been done than would have been necessary from a purely golfing point of view."
On the other hand, where very few trees exist every effort should be made to retain them, and in every case the architect will note th quality of the timber with a view to retaining the finest specimens."
-
Paul:
Thanks very much for producing all those thoughts of Harry Colt's on the use of trees. It's pretty general but still interesting and somewhat indicative of the various things they apparently were trying to do with trees. I took particular note of his mention of the "landscape" effect of dealing with a treed site or hole corridor. This is probably very similar to what Tillinghast recommended and was talking about in his chapter 14 ("Clearing the Forest) in "The Course Beautiful".
Now, that aerial you produced again above is truly starting to fascinate me. I’m trying to put some kind of timeline on it. You can see from the aerial showing #1 in GeoffShac’s “Golden Age of Golf Design” that’s dated 1925 that the big bunker on the right at the inside of the dogleg does not appear on your aerial above in the issue of “The American Golfer” dated May 1920.
When you refer to the notes of Carr and Smith (“remembrances) you can see how concerned Crump was about #1---apparently continually striving to improve it to get the kind of concept and strategy he was after. (By the way, I feel Crump probably began constructing the course at the 1st hole and as we can see for Tillinghast’s articles during the beginning of 1913 that the first four holes appear to have been basically constructed in March of 1913!)
As a basic strategic concept you can see Crump was out to emulate Hoylake’s #1---a very difficult opening hole that Carr mentioned John Low deemed ‘the best 19th hole in existence’. Everyone knows that Crump wanted the 1st to be not only a very tough opener but also very much the “cut-off playoff hole”. And that it most certainly has been all these years. Carr writes; ‘hence he brought out the bunker on the right’. So it sounds like Crump already had “brought that big bunker on the right out”. It’s clear to see by comparing GeoffShac’s aerial and your aerial that that large bunker on the right that Crump “brought out” is not in your aerial at all. So that would definitely set the date of your aerial at some point before Jan. 1918 and back! Also, the credit below that photo ‘Courtesy or the Curtiss Airplane and Motor Co’ is most definitely not aerial photographer Victor Dallin who apparently began aerial photography around 1923 or 1924. Well, maybe Dallin was flying the plane for Curtiss aviation but he didn't begin flying under his own name until 1923 or 1924. (I think I remember hearing, though, that when Dallin flew under his own name he did fly a Curtiss airplane.) Curtiss, himself, by the way, according to Wayne, I think was pretty big into golf too!
Crump’s idea for #1 was to force the drive well to the left by taking away the inside corner with that big bunker on the inside which appears on the later aerial and not yours. Carr writes Crump intended to extent the fairway straight out and create more ‘sightly bunkering’ on the left instead of the drainage bunker Crump initially put there and which he considered temporary. The ironic thing is that ‘temporary drainage’ bunker is still there today---the installation of more “sightly bunkering” in that area as well as perhaps pushing the fairway farther out was never done after Crump died in Jan. 1918!
-
Andy Hughes,
I'd reserve your comments for courses, holes and features that you're personally familiar with. The issue is trees that intrude into the lines of play, trees planted long after the architect was planted, and not rough. Keep it real, not hypothetical.
Pat, I appreciate your advice as I value your opinion.
But I think you bring up an interesting issue that goes well-beyond Pine Valley's 17th hole. Your post to Tom Paul strongly implied that you think it wrong/silly/absurd to be in the fairway and at the same time also have a tree impinging on the direct line to the hole.
Is that an accurate reading? If so, why do you think it is wrong/silly/absurd? Along those lines, would it also be wrong to have a big hill in line with one edge of the fairway and the hole?
I ask because this is an issue I have gone back and forth on through the years, though I have reached resolution personally as I have decided that the issue of 'fairness' is highly over-rated in golf. But I am interested in your take on this
-
Isn't it a question of whether the hole was DESIGNED and built with no trees in the line of play? If it was designed for trees,so be it;if not,get them out of there.
-
Isn't it a question of whether the hole was DESIGNED and built with no trees in the line of play? If it was designed for trees,so be it;if not,get them out of there.
Mike, that seems to be a constant issue here-was something designed a certain way and if so, go back to that. But that assumes that a course as originally designed is as good as it can be, and I am not sure that is necessarily always the case.
But beyond that issue, I am trying to get to the 'is it fair' point-of-view of having a tree impeding the direct line from the edge of the fairway to the pin. I gather your position is that if the architect originally designed it that way then it is fine, and if not then the tree(s) must go?
-
I think there is a need for variety and for Pat to say that there shouldn't be trees blocking a shot from the fairway on a straightaway hole is a bit too restrictive.
I, unlike many others on this site, think that strategic use of trees is a good thing in moderation. And if trees block a line of play, even from the fairway, then the golfer shouldn't be in that part of the fairway and has made a strategic error or was not capable of controlling the shot to the level required. With all the width at Pine Valley, this isn't such a limiting factor as to be considered onerous; another example of Pine Valley's uniqueness and that simplistic rules do not apply.
Take for instance the 11th at Pine Valley, a 392 yard par 4. There is a straight line of sight between the tee and the green but the tree line on the left juts out creating an interesting shot demand from the tee. There's plenty of fairway out to the left, but you will be blocked out from hitting straight for the green in a large portion of the left side fairway. The fairway is there but not meant to played to. With the mound and trees on the right, the timid player will compensate and aim left getting into some trouble on a short hole.
The left side of 17 is similar in effect to the left side of 11. This is an even shorter par 4, 338 yards from the back tee with a green under 4000 square feet. The hole demands precision and I think there's nothing wrong with penalizing a shot hit too far left even if it is in the fairway.
Strategy and execution are constantly being tested at a course like Pine Valley and there's nothing wrong with the way it is currently set up. Trees that choke hazards should be cut back and according to TEP they are. To me, there is very little else the matter at PVGC.
-
Tom
If someone in the Philly area could research into Curtiss then there may be a whole series of aerials available.
The aerial is frustrating to me, because the most interesting region to see would be the back 9!
-
redanman:
I think you have an excellent point there about the removal of trees at PVGC being basically dictated by the health of the course's turf or perhaps even it's maximum potential health. I can pretty much assure you, though, that that is something PVGC and its maintenance dept pretty much concentrates on fundamentally and has done for a long, long time. If the encroachment of trees, whether intended by Crump or not, or appreciated by some as a pretty aesthetic, begin to corrupt the health of the course's turf, those trees will be gone.
It seems to me that some on here are beginning to question if PVGC understands the fundamentals of how to grow the best turf-grass they can given their situation down there with trees or whatever else they have.
I think I can pretty much guarantee that down there they understand those things at least as well and very likely far better than anyone else on here! ;)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/PV_HSC1a.jpg)
Here's the 1st from about 1916/17. Is that mound in the trees, a bunker, or just a mound ;)
To answer Patrick question about the ponds. They were definitely flooded before Crump died (at least for the 5th and 18th). Again, from approx 1916/17.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v135/paulturner/PV_HSC18c.jpg)
-
Andy,
I use an example from my home course. The second hole has a deep bunker on the left of the green and a severe downslope off of it into the green. The designer did this when he anticipated recovery shots from the left rough. Later we planted numerous evergreens on the left. Now it is not possible to approach from the left side;and these don't even hang over the fairway.
It is unusual for architects to design around a SINGLE tree,usually it is a line of trees that they are dealing with.
-
Mike Malone:
One can basically almost count on one hand those areas of PVGC where trees get in the way of shot angles to greens or other appropriate targets from fairway areas.
I'm not a big advocate of trees used strategically in that sense, at least not down there, because it apparently never was that way, apparently not intended that way by Crump with one notable exception---#13. I certainly accept that as valid and I feel there's one other example that clearly was not intended by him but I feel it's really excellent---and that is #11. All the rest I'd like to see cleared back so they don't exist. But the only other possible examples are on #1, #9, #12 (way back in the fairway), #15 and #17.
-
This whole discussion about tree growth and difference between this aerial and that aerial is getting rather tiresome.
The fact remains that the intial question regarding the justification of the number 1 rating, is in most opinions without doubt.
With regards aerials, how about comparing Augusta National aerials from 70 years ago with todays, that suggests we should remove all those trees that make Augusta what it has become...who wants the task of doing that?
That is if you subscribe to that train of thought, because as Mr Mucci so clearly stated yesterday..what you do for one course should apply everywhere!!!
That may be taking this thread to far, but that is what some of the critisism of Pv on this thread has suggested.
Please somebody tell me when it was decided trees cannot be used as a form of strategy, what is wrong with a tree or trees being used to dictate the way a hole should be played?
If it is a problem courses like Sahalee really have a problem!
-
We can put a lower limit on the age of that 1920 aerial. When was the Dormy House built and also one of the club histories has a pic of the central bunkers staked out.
-
Paul:
That first photo is interesting and it's date of 1916/17 would seem about right as per what I said on that other post this morining about what Crump was trying to do to perfect that hole and the strategic concept of it with that big bunker or complex on the inside of the dogleg on the right. It looks like that rough or seemingly dormant grass is exactly where that bunker complex now is. They were probably just about to do it when that photo was taken.
Dormy House (Morris Parrish's) was built in 1916.
"The aerial is frustrating to me, because the most interesting region to see would be the back 9!"
Paul:
No kidding! If that Curtiss plane that took that aerial was flying over the site in the winter of 1917 it would be very interesting to see what the state of #12-15 was at that time. If that photo was in the late winter to early spring of 1917 it wasn't many months until Crump was gone (Jan 1918). We shouldn't forget, though, that it wasn't just Crump fiddling around trying to figure out how to finish off #12-15, it was the WW1 period for American participation (19 months, from April 1917 until Nov 1918) and in that period very little construction labor went on. The men were mostly gone, and things like a "War Garden" were planted on what was to be #12. Even William Flynn was in the service.
-
Paul,
Flynn was familiar with Glen Curtiss, he designed a golf course, Opa Locka, for a large development city that Curtiss was building in FL complete with airport, zoo, train station, parks, etc. Chances are that he met him or one of his employees while they were doing flyovers in the Philadelphia area. There is a Curtiss museum, I'll call them and see if they know if/where aerial photographs are stored.
-
I use an example from my home course. The second hole has a deep bunker on the left of the green and a severe downslope off of it into the green. The designer did this when he anticipated recovery shots from the left rough. Later we planted numerous evergreens on the left. Now it is not possible to approach from the left side;and these don't even hang over the fairway.
Mike, it is not my contention that any and all trees should always remain no matter where they have sprung up or how big they may have gotten. But I amquestioning the notion that it is somehow wrong to be blocked by a tree(s) from taking a direct route to the pin from the edge of the fairway. Would you also think it wrong to have a hill blocking one side of a green? Or would it be better if that section of fairway was turned into rough?
I am also questioning the idea that a tree or trees should remain where they are if the architect designed them to be there, and removed otherwise. I think the criteria should be what contributes to making the hole and the course the best it can be.
It is unusual for architects to design around a SINGLE tree,usually it is a line of trees that they are dealing with.
Yes, I suspect you are right, though I have seen plenty of instances of a single tree being incredibly strategic.
-
Andy Hughes:
Some on this website are so fanatical about not having trees on golf courses, either aesthetically or strategically, that they will not accept nor apparently even acknowledge the fact that the "dogleg" concept in golf and architecture (extremely common and highly strategic) primarily makes use of trees to acheive it's purpose and function!!! There's no better explanation of the "dogleg" concept using trees that I know of than A.W. Tillinghast's. Of course, as Tillinghast and others explain if you have not negotiated the dogleg successfully the penalty is you're blocked or somewhat blocked by trees, even if you are in some part of a fairway!!
Why do those tree hating fanatics feel this way? It's sort of hard to say but my personal opinion is, if they know something about golf architecture, they've become completely fixated by that old linksland idea that trees and golf did not go together at all ("hazards in the Sky" :) . They really didn't and don't have trees in the linksland but what those people are failing to acknowledge and accept is that quite some time ago golf and architecture migrated out of its original home--the linksland--and went on to other places in the world that do have trees.
William Flynn's thoughts and ideas on trees and golf and architecture, and when and where to use them and how, are very interesting and explanatory and in the process he wrote a statement that poked some pretty good fun at that old linksland mentality that trees and golf should NEVER co-exist.
-
Tom
To some extent, I can appreciate that type of view. After all, who among us does not love the wild, wind-swept, open look of a true links course? We see a few pictures of Sand Hills (leaving aside the question of what is a true links course), and we all start to drool on ourselves. Certainly I do. But presumably we can all also differentiate between courses like that and non-links courses that are, well, just different.
But I am unclear why Pat thinks it is wrong to have a tree block his direct path to the pin from the edge of the fairway, or why Mike M thinks that if the architect originally wanted that tree or trees there, then it is ok, but if the architect didn't call for them to be there, then they should be removed. How's the hole play, that's what matters!
-
Andy,
I find that the best way to judge "how the hole plays" for classic courses designed by acknowledged experts is to research "what they might do today". This is not easy;so, the average guy says "let's make the hole better." But "better" is arbitrary and subject to interpretation and can be derived from completely different points of view.
So, I put little faith in what I or any amateur thinks is "better". What makes a course like PV great is the design philosophy as executed. So, I think the give and take here about what Crump wanted with attempts to get real research involved is the way to go and what makes GCA. com valuable.
So, did Crump want to PLANT trees in the line of play? "Plant" is key word because it is different than "dealing" with trees that were there .The cost of removal alone deterred many from getting rid of those trees.
Or,did he want to separate the holes thru plantings. I have no problem with this;in fact, it can add to the charm of a course. The only problem was that other courses without the space between holes adopted this strategy of planting and it has diminished the course.
I suspect that he did not want to eliminate angles of attack to the wonderfully complex greens at PV. Why would he want it any other way. Practically every one building courses then believed in the recovery shot.
-
TEPaul,
Did Flynn express different views on trees that were there at construction versus planting them afterwards? I have only the one comment about trees and it seems clear to me from that one and only comment that he would not "PLANT" trees in the line of play.
I would be interested in other writings that differ from this view.
-
"TEPaul,
Did Flynn express different views on trees that were there at construction versus planting them afterwards?"
Mike:
We've never found that he said or wrote that particular distinction anywhere but what he did that way seems pretty consistent. If he took on a treed site he generally demarked trees he wanted to keep. His drawings or the C.C. of Cleveland are the most explicit we have that way. If a site was completely devoid of trees going in we can't see that he wanted them or designed for them----exs Kittansett, Indian Creek and a few Florida courses.
"I have only the one comment about trees and it seems clear to me from that one and only comment that he would not "PLANT" trees in the line of play."
We've seen Flynn draw some trees on site plan that really didn't have many but we've never really seen those drawn plans followed through on in a actual constructed design sense. He never really got into the tree plans the way he did the plans for architectural construction, as far as we know. However, there was a massive, and elaborate tree planting plan for Shinnecock which was truly fascinating. It was even remarked on by Hugh Alison. And it was expensive, but as far as we can tell it may not have been done! On the other hand, if Flynn found some existing trees that were dramatic or central on a hole he most certainly did use them occassionally for strategic purposes! If anyone at all thinks that's not true, for whatever reason, we can definitely prove them wrong!
"I would be interested in other writings that differ from this view."
Flynn wrote quite a bit about trees and architecture and so did Tillinghast.
-
Flynn called for planting trees in specific locations at Cherry Hills CC. I'm not certain if they were implemented. Perhaps Mark Fine or others familiar with the course can say. I'll check some aerials that I have. However, it is certain that Flynn meant for trees, some of them strategic, to be used at Cherry Hills. Many on this site seem to generalize and not like this design tendency. Flynn did design strategic trees to be used when they were there (Huntingdon Valley, CC Pepper Pike, Cascades, and many more) and when they were not (Shinnecock as Tom P mentioned and at Cherry Hills).
At Cherry Hills, on the 4th hole, he indicated tree plantings in 3 locations, 2 on the right side and a strategic grouping of trees on the left between 210-250 yards out. Balls that land in the far left fairway were stymied by the trees and would have to shape a shot around the trees to the green on this 412 yard hole. The 5th hole drawing indicates 3 groups of trees to be planted 2 on the left and one group short and right of the green. These do not seem strategic in any way as they are 20-30 yards off the fairway lines. The 7th hole drawing shows again 3 sets of trees to be planted. Two on either side framing the tee shot about 90 yards out and then a strategic grouping between 230-260 yards out on the left that effectively blocks a shot to the green if you miss the fairway left. The trees are at the dogleg left along with mounds and hollows inside the tree line. The 10th hole drawing indicates tree planting on either side of the tee box, on the left fairway at 200 yards opposite a right side bunker, right side of the fairway at 250 yards and short left and long right of the green on this 379 yard hole. Flynn called for planting trees in 6 locations on the 11th hole, only one of which is strategic, on the left side of the fairway opposite a boundary to prevent bailouts on the tee shot. Flynn indicated planting a grove of trees right and beyond the green on 14. On 16, Flynn indicated planting 3 groups of trees along the right fairway between 260 and 370 yards out. On the 18th hole, Flynn drew a group of trees to be planted 30 yards short and 20 yards right of the green.
-
Michael Wharton Palmer,
With regards aerials, how about comparing Augusta National aerials from 70 years ago with todays,
Have you played ANGC ?
What makes you think that ANGC today bears any resemblance to Pine Valley, today, in the encroaching and claustrophobic tree department ?
ANGC remains a wide open golf course.[/color]
that suggests we should remove all those trees that make Augusta what it has become...who wants the task of doing that?
That's convoluted logic.
Show me one area of ANGC where trees interfere with the golfers swing when he's in a bunker.
Show me one area where the golfer is in the fairway, and trees at the green prohibit approach ?
I'd suggest that you become more familiar with ANGC before comparing the trees on the property with the tree problem at PV.
Were you aware that ANGC was a tree nursery before it was a golf course ?[/color]
That is if you subscribe to that train of thought, because as Mr Mucci so clearly stated yesterday..what you do for one course should apply everywhere!!!
If that's what you think I said, I've overestimated your reading comprehension skills and intellect.
Try being honest, not coy.
Go back and reread what I said, and while doing so, look for the operative word, "principles"[/color]
That may be taking this thread to far, but that is what some of the critisism of Pv on this thread has suggested.
Cite where that criticism has been suggested ![/color]
Please somebody tell me when it was decided trees cannot be used as a form of strategy, what is wrong with a tree or trees being used to dictate the way a hole should be played?
I'll try to make this simple so that even you can understand.
Crump didn't design # 17 such that balls hit into the fairway would have the flight of approaching shots to the green impeded by trees that block the line of play, that were planted as an afterthought by someone else, long after he designed the golf course.
Please tell me you understant that ![/color]
If it is a problem courses like Sahalee really have a problem!
Have you played Sahalee ?[/color]
-
thanks for your reply Tom. I spoke with a gentleman who caddied at Rolling Green in the 30's and is now a long time member. He said Swarthmore College was involved in the tree plantings at RG in the 30's. I have always been fascinated by these PLANTINGS since they conform to what I "think" Flynn intended---out of play,separate holes, background, shade on a hot day.These clearly were not intended to interfere with the intended line of play.
-
"TEPaul,
Did Flynn express different views on trees that were there at construction versus planting them afterwards? I have only the one comment about trees and it seems clear to me from that one and only comment that he would not "PLANT" trees in the line of play."
What one comment are you referring to? You have to guard statements by Flynn and other architects. Just because they wrote something about design theory doesn't mean they practiced it exclusively. You know what Flynn wrote about water at landing areas and fronting greens. Yet, there are a number of instances where he used them. They might be descriptions of design tendencies but they were not hard and fast rules.
We've gone over this many times now. I've demonstrated numerous examples, Mike. Flynn did plant and use strategic trees. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it is true. What is wrong with the variety in designs that Flynn practiced that includes trees and water in moderation?
-
Wayne,
I do not disagree with your statement about Flynn's planting of trees for strategy. I was just hoping that you guys who have more info might have something in writing on this issue. Clearly the trees planted on #12 at RG represent strategy.
But do you see evidence of annoying trees right in the ideal landing area? This is the real concern.
I also agree that it is artistic license to break your own rules sometimes.
-
Mike Malone asked;
"So, did Crump want to PLANT trees in the line of play? "Plant" is key word because it is different than "dealing" with trees that were there .The cost of removal alone deterred many from getting rid of those trees."
That's hard to say. Whether it was planting them or using what was there is hard to say. It doesn't seem he did want to use trees in the line of reasonable play (fairway) (whether existing or planted) with one very notable exception---the great #13! On that particular hole it does seem the trees that hook from right to left at the end of the fairway were something Crump very much wanted to use---and in a strategic sense. Matter of fact, that hole is so interesting in both what he wanted and the way it came to be it probably deserves it's own thread. So that's what I'll do.
-
PM
Sorry to dissapoint but yes to having layed AGCG, I assume you have also otherwise surely you would not be so blantantly coy...anyway...
Again I do not know your level of play but...
1. Drive down the lfet side of#3..blocked out by TREES
2. Drive down the left side of #9..blocked out by TREES
3. Drive down left side of # 14..blocked out bY TREES
4. Drive not long enough on # 18..blocked out by TREES
Also strategic trees have been planted on several hole, notably #13,and 17 , in order to make the player think where he wats to be off the tee.
If you dont consider some of your comments as critisism, it must be something to do with the difference in our upbringing, it sure reads like critisim to me, not that I consider that necessarily a bad thing, but you are obviously sensitive to that word..so I will leave that one alone.
On the topic of intellect and reading ability, my intelect is not in question and if it comes to a pissing contest on that issue I suggest you put yours back inside your pants right now!!
Excuse me for missing out the word principle, but whilst on the topic of "non reading and comprehension"
I thought we had established that myself and TP agree trees in bunkers are not desirable..so for I think the thirs time..we/I agree this is not a good thing...simple enough for you?
As for the tree impingement on # 17, at first I was inclined to agree with you, now that I know you can be a smart ass, so will I, hit it down the right side if you know the tree is there..just like I had to on # 14 at ANGC.
Yes, I was awre it was a nursery prior to being a golf course, however, the aerials still show a huge difference in the density and number of trees over the past 50 years..I believe it is something to do with this thing called growth, which funny enough also happened at Pine Valley.
My sources say this always happens when green plants get sunlight and water!!
Alas, no I have not played Sahallee all my info there is second hand from players who have played in the "Players" event held there, but they all seem to like it, but do say it is like an obstruction course through the trees.
-
"But do you see evidence of annoying trees right in the ideal landing area?"
Since you say this is a concern, where do you find annoying trees in ideal landing areas? By definition, those ideal landing areas would no longer be ideal, if they ever were. But I'm not sure what you mean with this question. Do you mean tree plantings over time that sometimes follow the narrowing of fairways due to irrigation contstraints? If so, yes it does occur. At Rolling Green it is the secondary tree lines that are problematic. Original tree lines or those that were planted in the 1930s are 40 yards off center. To me that is a wide enough corridor for most any design or player.
Far more often it is rough that intrudes on ideal landing areas with fairway shrinkage. Take Rolling Green for instance, the rough on the right side of 2 is in the ideal area to attack the green given its orientation to the fairway and the bunkering. With today's fairway lines and given the fairway cant, you have to either hit a straight shot over the bunker complex on the left being careful not to go into the bunker further on or hit a draw off right center. This is a pretty high demand tee shot.
-
Mike,
As to writings that indicated Flynn's philosophy on the issue of strategic trees on golf courses, his hole drawings with instructions for strategic tree planting or retention for strategic purposes speak volumes and is evidence enough. I'd be glad to show you the examples I've mentioned and others if you need further convincing.
Which trees on 12 are you referring to when you speak of planting for strategy?
-
Redanman,
Beautifully written, well said, and even tree lovers like myself, cannot possibly argue with you. I think everybody who is a player as well as a golf course architecture lover would have to agree with what you wrote.
-
Wayne:
Dr. Malone believes (no, not believes, knows) that the two windswept, attractive, almost Monterey-like pines guarding the right of 12 are causing Flynn to roll over in his grave. In my view, those two trees STRATEGICALLY protect the green, allowing 12 to be a great, short par 4. Without them. a wide slice leaves a wide open wedge to the green, while a modest fade leaves a challenging bunker shot. Did Flynn want to encourage a poorly struck shot. I think not. And I happen to think they're pretty good looking, too, although reasonable minds could disagree. I don't see, though, how reasonable minds could disagree on whether the trees add to the challenge of what is a great, short hole, or that removing them would make the hole less challenging and less great.
-
Jim,
Sorry to have gotten off the Pine Valley thread, but to answer your questions about the set up of 12 at Rolling Green GC shown below:
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/RG21.jpg)
For those that haven't been to RGGC or haven't been in a while, the pine even with the second bunker on the right is gone as is the one barely visible just behind. The large pines between the green and the 17th century house (to the right of the maintenance complex visible straight away) are almost all gone, save one, as are a large number of trees beyond the green and over the hill. There are still two pines short of the green but not as far left as were the two near the bunkers.
I do not favor those 2 remaining trees either. I know that a long hitter can bomb a drive over the creek (which has been extended to the left about 15 yards) and have difficult but possible uphill lob over a deep bunker onto a green that slopes towards you. I've made that shot a few times. The pines are not full and it is relatively easy to get lucky and hit under or through the few branches. Taking these trees down certainly simplifies the hole for the long hitter. However, I like temptation and think temptation is an excellent design feature. Tempting the player to drive over the creek (from the back tee) by opening up the hole (and the resulting better view) is ideal. However, the play from the members' tee would be a great deal easier from this angle of approach.
Yet, the preferred angle to play this hole would still be from the fairway, specifically the left fairway. Today it remains problematic that you can be in the bunkers on the right and have the trees between you and the green. But, some may argue that on such a short hole, the accuracy called for on the tee should be high and there should be a penalty for not executing a shot in the fairway. But on balance I feel the trees remain an aerial hazard in line to the green from a hazard and that's not good.
I think it is fine that there are differing opinions on this and other matters relating to trees. There isn't always a right answer nor should there be one way of looking at trees in design.
However, disagreeing with Mike Malone and his Maloneisms is often a safe route ;D
-
Well, how do you like that, Bill V? Here it is with a month to go in the year and we made our quota on agreeing on at least one thing per year! ;D I wasn't sure it was going to happen this year. But it did.
-
I will not answer Mr. Coleman since he is just trying to get a reaction---I am sure he does not believe those 2 trees add to the strategy of #12 RG. I believe he was at one time well respected in his professional field and recently was a great help at our club in a volunteer role. I can't believe he all of a sudden has lost his mind. He is only kidding.
Wayne, The trees planted in the 30's --the deciduous ones---created a dogleg. This added the strategy. Those who planted them had the good sense to stop at the creek,so as not to ruin the architectural concepts of the hole. They would not cover up the hazards at the green.
redanman is correct--this hole may have the widest stroke dispersion of any on the course,for some the definition of a great hole. When we open up the hole to the way it was designed,built, and maintained for forty years I would guess more dispersion will ensue.
-
Jim,
Sorry to have gotten off the Pine Valley thread, but to answer your questions about the set up of 12 at Rolling Green GC shown below:
(http://www.golfclubatlas.com/images/RG21.jpg)
Wayne & Mike,
The 12th is a much better hole with the tree removal. With the photo above...On an aesthetic note, from the tee to the fairway to the approach, you've got some pretty intense mowing patterns at Rolling Green. The blimp cam would have a field day. ;D
-
I too would endorse the removal of the pines visible, they apperar to be redundant with the bunker already well placed for strategy.
-
Jamie,
I certainly do agree with you about the tree removal making the hole better and offering a degree of temptation that makes for decision making. Any time good golfers have to think about strategy it is one additional branch of the decision making tree that helps separate the complete golfer from the rest of the field.
I couldn't agree with you more about the mowing patterns. I cannot stand them, especially on classic courses. I've been saying this for years. Nobody listens to me at home, why should they at the golf course ;) Give me that up and back gang mower look everytime! The skill of the men doing the mowing is evident with the cross hatchings--large and small nearer the green with a straight line across to delineate :P). It is a huge waste of time and money, looks terrible, and gives away too much of the ground movement. Other than that..... On this particular hole it camouflages the depression leading up to the hill where the creek now comes in a bit. Man do those mowing patterns look particularly bad on all the uphill approaches.
-
Wayne,
When I went to NGLA I became a believer in what you say about mowing patterns.
-
I knew there was hope for you, Mike. Despite what most people say ;D
-
Mike,
1. Drive down the lfet side of#3..blocked out by TREES
2. Drive down the left side of #9..blocked out by TREES
3. Drive down left side of # 14..blocked out bY TREES
4. Drive not long enough on # 18..blocked out by TREES
That's a completely untrue and disengenuous response.
No TREES by the green block the left approach to # 3
No TREES by the green block the left apporach to # 9
No TREES by the green block the left approach to # 14
No TREES by the green block the right approach to # 18
All of these approaches are WIDE open from the fairway.[/color]
Also strategic trees have been planted on several hole, notably #13,and 17 , in order to make the player think where he wats to be off the tee.
NO STRATEGIC TREES HAVE BEEN PLANTED ON EITHER HOLE.
Where on # 13 have any trees been planted by the green or fairway ?
The trees on the right of # 17 are merely an extension of trees in the DZ that have been there for 60 years and in no way do they intrude upon the flight of any ball approaching the green from the fairway.[/color]
Excuse me for missing out the word principle, but whilst on the topic of "non reading and comprehension"
How could you miss the word "principles" ? which was a CRITICAL word, either your comprehension skills need brushing up on, or you chose to miss it as a matter of convenience, as evidenced by your subsequent post and erroneous interpretation of what I said.[/color]
I thought we had established that myself and TP agree trees in bunkers are not desirable..so for I think the thirs time..we/I agree this is not a good thing...simple enough for you?
You again miss the point.
It's obvious that Crump didn't plant them, that someone else did, and that they're contrary to Crump's design philosophy.
Is it such a quantum leap for you and TEPaul to recognize that perhaps the same folks that erroneously planted the trees in or near bunkers also erroneously planted trees that intrude into the lines of play elsewhere on the golf course ?
[/color]
As for the tree impingement on # 17, at first I was inclined to agree with you, now that I know you can be a smart ass, so will I, hit it down the right side if you know the tree is there..just like I had to on # 14 at ANGC.
In your foolish quest to support a flawed understanding of architecture's relationship to playability, you selfishly suggest abandoning architectural principles for the first time player.
And, you selfishly abandon those players incapable of controllling their ball flight with such precision.... .the vast majority of golfers.
So now I understand your viewpoint, your perspective and your lack of understanding of architecture and it's influence on players of diverse abilites.
You'll find, as TEPaul found, that with time, you'll agree with me, more and more, on this and other subjects. I know it's difficult to come to grips with, but it will happen.
It's unfortunate that you've come under the influence of TEPaul, the Rasputin of American Golf Course Architecture.
The man needs a specially trained, architectural seeing eye dog, to guide him through the labryth of design principles, on and off of the golf course. Had you picked anyone else to align yourself with, I might have considered your convoluted logic, but, you've made your bed.
[/color]
Yes, I was awre it was a nursery prior to being a golf course, however, the aerials still show a huge difference in the density and number of trees over the past 50 years..I believe it is something to do with this thing called growth, which funny enough also happened at Pine Valley.
Mike, you need to see an eye doctor.
That's not true, at least it wasn't a month or so ago.
There are no dense, indiscriminate tree plantings obstructing lines of play at ANGC.
Are you going to compare the thick, inpenetrable, indiscriminate planting of trees, and their impact on play at PV to that at ANGC ?
If so, I'm wasting my time discussing this with you because you obviously don't grasp the problem or the difference.
The trees at ANGC have only been planted in the last five years, and nowhere do those plantings impede shots from the fairway into the greens as they do at PV.
I'm not a fan of it, but the trees that were planted at ANGC were done for one purpose, to affect one specific level of player, and the impact was in the DZ, not at the green end.[/color]
Alas, no I have not played Sahallee .....
-
The problem with removing the pine trees (the big one's gone now; the other two smallish ones aren't shown), is that if you miss the bunker to the right (a worse shot than hitting it in the bunker), you will be rewarded with a wide open shot. The trees are not a double penalty with the bunker; they only penalize a more errant shot. And, at least in my opinion, they're quite attractive.
Were the pine trees on Pebble's 18th bad? Are the new trees on Augusta's 15th bad? Both sides an be argued. But trees CAN be used to shape a hole. RG's 12th is a short dogleg right requiring a shot down the left side. Take away the trees, you take away the dogleg and reward a poorly hit shot.
-
Jim Coleman:
You're right---both sides of the issue certainly can be argued and probably equally successfully. Personally, I'd like to see no trees or maybe just a couple and compensate with slightly higher rough or something. The reason I say that is---sure, if you hit a shot right of that bunker down there---what's more interesting---making a player just pitch out of the trees or tempt him into trying to go at the green from an iffy lie and a very risky aggressive play? I realize a lot of golfers would advocate instant penalty for the tee shot---personally I'd like to see things get a bit more interesting---and perhaps variable on the next shot.
-
Jim Coleman,
What if, instead of the pines, a series of small, penal bunkers were inserted, in step fashion ?
-
"What if, instead of the pines, a series of small, penal bunkers were inserted, in step fashion ?"
Hey, Pat, this is William Flynn we're talking about here! Have you EVER seen him do a series of small penal bunkers in step fashion? For a remark like that I want you to get outta town--go back where you came from and go right to your room with no supper---you big BOOBY?!?
-
Yes this is Flynn- he would neeeevvvveeerr plant trees there. Tom, you may argue about bunkers but let's do the right thing first.
I can think of several ideas on this hole-
get rid of the bunker on the left and extend the creek out to the fairway(there is a creek on the left)-Hanse recommended extending the creek in his master plan,but kept the bunker..This would entice more drivers on the hole. I think the bunkers on both sides reduce the strategy.It may be helpful to know that in 1926 there was a bunker left and none right,but by the 30's photos the left bunker is gone and the right ones along with the three in the back were added. So, there is precedent for opening up the left side.
As well several of the big evergreens on the left can be taken down so that one could hit the tee shot into #9 bunker!-credit to Wayne.
extend the fairway from the back of the second fairway bunker to the creek on the right.- Kelly Blake Moran's thoughts
widen fairway to the right by the green to promote rollback,possibly into the creek.
narrow the back of the green by the 3 back bunkers to reduce the number of balls that suck back to the pin
move the cart path down the hill by the green on the right and cut the grass short for a few feet.
Do things to promote strategy.
Mr. Coleman seems not to understand "strategy". It has to do with one's thought process before they hit ,not where they end up after they hit. Even if a ball avoids the bunker and the creek on the right and does not make it to the trees,it still is a more difficult shot than one from a flat lie at 100 yards in the fairway with an open look to the green.What's wrong with a little randomness? Maybe you get lucky sometimes; the point is now you do not try to hit right because you will have no shot to a back right pin---the best pin placement on the hole.
Maybe Mr. Coleman needs to play a different course that is willing to penalize HIM for his slice.
-
I know Mr. Coleman just gets a kick out of being responded to--so I threw him a bone.
-
I used to play with an 18 handicapper (PV member) who, every time I hit a poor shot, asked my why I hit it there rather than where I was aiming. On the 12th hole, 99% of the players' "thought process" BEFORE they hit is to hit the ball in the fairway down the left side (as the hole was designed to be played). The cute little pines are only relevant when the player MISSES his/her shot. And being right of the bunker now does not REQUIRE a pitchout. One can attempt to go under, over or around the cute little pines if he/she chooses to take a little RISK - omigod, a strategic decision. No trees and you've got a very unstrategic, unobstructed flip wedge - a better shot than being in the fairway.
Sorry, you're blinded by the light of your myopic, knee jerk, unwavering view. The cute little pines are pretty and serve a STRATEGIC function.
-
Pat,
I am not aware that at any time I have suggested that trees should be located as obstructions near greens, but it appears that you are under that impression.
I hvae re-read my threads and nowhere does it state that trees are cosecto greens, what I did say about ANGC,and correctly so, is that if you drive the ball on the wrong side of the fairway and/or not long enough, trees are an obstruction between you and the green.
Trees are used to define the doglegs of the hoels mentioned, that is all I said. I agree they are not intrusive, but exist idf the tee ball is incorrectly placed.
At no point did I suggest that the trees planted at ANGC are in the proximity of greens, so do not suggest that I did..but to suggest that newly planted trees are not strategic is plainly incorrect.How can you say that the trees to the right of 13 are not strategic..I just do not understand you on this one..but thats your opinion.
IF however you do believe this, then you are correct we are wasting our time in discussion.
What I was trying to say about the ANGC aerials, is the vast number of Augusta pines that now exist,that did not in such at the original site.
I was in the understanding that the course is built on what was primarily a fruit tree nursery, which I would imagine did not include many pines, as other than cones they bear little fruit.
One thing that has always baffled me regarding ANGC actually, is my belief that Jones and Dr Mac wanted this St Andrews, wide open look, but someone still decide to plant all those pines!! This is not by the way anything to do with our discussion just an observation...I guess we are glad they did so that we can get the majsetic look we now see.
Despit our spirited discussions, I believe we are closer to eachother's opinions than you think.
I think from initial opinions of PV isolation v/s non isolation we have evolved to tree placement discussion as well.
The wau I see it we have covered three seperate areas:
1. Should isolation exist at PV, and /or did Crump intene that?
2. is the current isolation being abused at certain parts of the course?
3. Should trees or can trees be used as strategic obstacles?
1. This one is simple, I say yes, you say no..and as for Crump we are dealing with second hand reports, which I believe are reliable nad your are not so sure...okay
2. Belive it or not we agree on this one , there is no doubt that at certain parts of the course tree work has to be done..in the bunkers etc...as clearly this cannot of been Crumps intent.
I am not sure about the left of # 17 but hope I get the chance to check it out next September!!!
3. I am not sure of your view on this one, but I will guess we agree here as well...as long as it is fair and not simply placed as an after thought then trees are okay.
After all that is basically what dictates strategy off the tee at ANGC, in conjunction with the existing fairawy conturs.
So you see we are not that far removed after all!!
I call a truce before it gets ugly, and as an Englishman and in the name of this beautiful game, opinions are not worth getting ugly over.
-
"And being right of the bunker now does not REQUIRE a pitchout."
Jim Coleman:
That's good!
"One can attempt to go under, over or around the cute little pines if he/she chooses to take a little RISK - omigod, a strategic decision."
That's good too! What happens when the pines aren't so little and aren't cute anymore?
"No trees and you've got a very unstrategic, unobstructed flip wedge - a better shot than being in the fairway."
That's not very good---belay that---that's not good at all! If those trees weren't there on the right how do you think some fairly heavy rough in that area would work regarding that unobstruced flip wedge? Are you familiar with the fairly heavy rough down the left side of Merion's #11 and how dicey being in it makes decisions to go at that hole or not with a fairly lofted iron?
-
...if you drive the ball on the wrong side of the fairway and/or not long enough, trees are an obstruction between you and the green. Trees are used to define the doglegs of the hoels mentioned, that is all I said. I agree they are not intrusive, but exist idf the tee ball is incorrectly placed.
We weren't talking about someone who powderpuffs their ball of the tee on a DOGLEG and has their line to the green impeded by trees. We were talking about a drive hit into the fairway in the DZ having the approach shot obstructed by trees at the green[/color]
but to suggest that newly planted trees are not strategic is plainly incorrect.How can you say that the trees to the right of 13 are not strategic..
I was there a month ago. There are no NEWLY planted trees on the right of # 13. Perhaps you're confused.[/color]
What I was trying to say about the ANGC aerials, is the vast number of Augusta pines that now exist,that did not in such at the original site.
That's not true. Just go back to the aerials and ground level photos circa 1932-1935 and you'll see them. Some are large, some are small, but, they're there.[/color]
I was in the understanding that the course is built on what was primarily a fruit tree nursery, which I would imagine did not include many pines, as other than cones they bear little fruit.
Berkmans Farm was a Fruit and Ornamental tree nursery including Evergreens. Majestic Pines were in abundance in 1932.[/color]
One thing that has always baffled me regarding ANGC actually, is my belief that Jones and Dr Mac wanted this St Andrews, wide open look, but someone still decide to plant all those pines!! This is not by the way anything to do with our discussion just an observation...I guess we are glad they did so that we can get the majsetic look we now see.
I'm not so sure that I'd agree with your belief.
I think they wanted wide open playing corridors.
Had they wanted a wide open look, they would have cut down all of the trees on the interior of the property.[/color]
1. Should isolation exist at PV, and /or did Crump intene that?
2. is the current isolation being abused at certain parts of the course?
3. Should trees or can trees be used as strategic obstacles?
1. This one is simple, I say yes, you say no..
As I said before, the routing creates its own isolation in
areas, but, the early photos in the 20's and 30's don't bear
out isolation as some present day theorists like to claim.
[/color]
2. Belive it or not we agree on this one , there is no doubt that at certain parts of the course tree work has to be done..in the bunkers etc...as clearly this cannot of been Crumps intent.
3. I am not sure of your view on this one, but I will guess we agree here as well...as long as it is fair and not simply placed as an after thought then trees are okay.
After all that is basically what dictates strategy off the tee at ANGC, in conjunction with the existing fairawy conturs
Here's where we disagree again.
With such wide playing corridors, the trees don't dictate strategy, the orientation of the putting surfaces and their contours dictate strategy. Until recently, trees weren't much of a factor, with a few exceptions. And, even when you were in the trees, they were so sparse that playing out of them was relatively easy, provided you had a swing.
Had you met me first, rather then TEPaul, I would have provided you with far better architectural insight.
Now, after coming under his wing, you'll have to distance yourself from his vacuous thoughts.
It's a difficult process, but, many stand waiting to assist you.[/color]
TEPaul,
I noticed some step like bunkers at Shinnecock.
If they were good enough for Shinnecock why would Flynn prevent them from entering the State of Pennsylvania ? ;D[/color]
-
"TEPaul,
I noticed some step like bunkers at Shinnecock."
Calm down, Patrick, it doesn't take much for you to get way in over your head!
-
Tom:
I am familiar with Merion's setup, and it really works well. Rolling Green doesn't have the stomach for penal rough, it just doesn't. That's also why the admittedly bad trees to the right of 4 are needed.
Would the left side of 11 at Merion need protection if there weren't penal rough? I'd say so. In fact, I recall there also being some trees over there blocking the route to the green. I could be wrong, as I'm usually right (pun intended).
-
Pat,
First of all I have never met TE Paul, but even if I had, I do think I have earned enough experience playing around the world to still have my own opinion.
Secondly, I was wrong we just dont agree on anything when it comes to trees. I suppose we would certainly disagree on Mr Travis' use of trees on some of his courses..but hey..that okay.
-
Jim,
You seem to have forgotten about the little old guy who hit it in the fairway on the right and has no shot. That is another reason why the trees are bad and why Flynn would be against them. But he did not leave this hole defenseless.The bunker,the slope of the green, and the steep hill on the right are enough. When the trees are gone many more shots will bound down that hill as the golfer THINKS he can execute that shot but fails.
You speak of the pines on #15 ANGC and #18 PB(in the landing area ?). These give ne a good chance to help you out here ,Jim. These trees are well away from the green,they knock your ball down but leave you with some chances to recover because there is a lot of room to work the ball. I do not believe they are a double hazard as#12 is.
If you think an 80 yard shot out of rough over a bunker to a blind green is better than a 100 yard shot out of the fairawy with a clear view of the green then there is nothing I can say.
-
Jim, Are you suggesting that the members of Rolling Green prefer stupid evergreen trees to penal rough?
-
Mayday:
YES. Although I object to the form of the question.
-
"You seem to have forgotten about the little old guy who hit it in the fairway on the right and has no shot. That is another reason why the trees are bad and why Flynn would be against them. But he did not leave this hole defenseless.The bunker,the slope of the green, and the steep hill on the right are enough. When the trees are gone many more shots will bound down that hill as the golfer THINKS he can execute that shot but fails."
Mike, enough of this kind of back and forth already. What little old guy reaches any green in two ::) Are there really any absolutes in golf architecture? You seem to think you know the mind of all members of Rolling Green and you certainly speak as if you know exactly what Flynn would do.
"Yes this is Flynn- he would neeeevvvveeerr plant trees there."
I happen to agree with you that these trees are not a good feature but I have no idea what Flynn would say. I am surprised that you are so convinced you do. Did he speak to you about this? Come on now, this is mostly nonsense. I think, if anything, Flynn would wonder why you get so worked up over what he is for and not for. It comes down to preferences. He had preferences, but he varied from them and that's a good thing.
Jim is entitled to his preference and you to yours. My preference is to get rid of the trees and grow the rough more.
If you ask me, in general around RGGC, I'd widen the fairways and deepen the rough much as Tom Paul advocates.
That would be a fun setup with firm and fast conditioning. But for specifics, I'd follow my RGGC analysis exactly as written ;)
"Are you suggesting that the members of Rolling Green prefer stupid evergreen trees to penal rough?"
You must know the answer to that question by now. The empirical evidence is pretty strong. Not that we're talking about a well-informed membership. Jim considers this in a serious way, much more serious than most. Now, his conclusions are different than yours. So what?
Does that mean one of you is wrong? You can both be right.
Please refer to Tom Paul's big world theory, I think there's plenty of room in it for the two of you.
-
Wayne,
What are you smoking? Do you have any doubt that Flynn would not condone planting those two trees in that spot on this particular course?
I have no doubt because he had ample chance to do it,even planting trees on this hole. Some things are easy;some are hard to figure.This one and #7 are no brainers.
-
Wayne, you're way underrated as a thinker. I couldn't say it better myself.
Mayday, I've said this before and I'll say it again. You're certifiable.
-
Mike,
For a Quaker, you're getting a bit belligerent ;) Smoking has nothing to do with it. You might give it a try though to see more than one side of an issue 8)
Consider Flynn's use of trees by the 11th green at Huntingdon Valley. Granted they were there and he utilized them whereas you are specifically speaking of tree plantings, but the point is he has used strategic trees near greens to define angles of approaches to greens albeit not often.
I told you I didn't think Flynn would plant trees where they are/were on 12. I feel pretty confident that that is the case. But how can anyone say, especially with your certainty that they have no doubt at all? I have to maintain such openmindedness in doing research on Flynn. Conclusions such as yours tends to paint you in a corner.
Again, it is mostly a matter of preference as are most changes over time. Our preference is aligned and different than that of Jim's, I've said that. I don't take it as far as you and say authoritatively that Flynn would never do it. I think you might benefit from visiting more Flynn courses and studying the drawings of other courses in much greater detail. His variety and the inability to compartmentalize him may become more apparent.
-
Jim,
Thanks for your comment. I know I'm perceived as a bit of an oddity at RGGC -- not that that's a bad thing ;) yet I hope I'm not as odd as Mike Malone ;D
-
Flynn seemed to struggle with this hole. At first he put a bunker on the left where the ideal landing area should be. Then he came back and flipflopped(he is from Mass). He opened up the left and put bunkers on the right. In this way he placed hazards in the landing area to add to the trouble at the green. He also added the three bunkers in the back.
For some reason he did not feel the need for trees short and right.
The strength of this hole is on the right side of the green---the deep bunker,the slope of the green(a few feet of the right side even slopes down the hill),and the severe hill to the right. There is no need to cover up these strengths.
As I said before,use creativity to strenghten the other parts of the hole.
I just think planting evergreen trees near greens is the weakest form of architectural expression.
-
"Re: Would Pine Valley still be #1 if......the rankings started today, instead of 50yrs ago, and the years of tradition weren't necessarily such a huge factor? Ignoring the club, the members cache, the exclusivity, etc."
Going back briefly to Brian Gracely's initial post, it just occured to me again why PVGC probably would be and should be #1 if the rankings started today and you ignored all those things he mentioned. This, of course, is assuming you have a competent group of people ranking courses, but PVGC did have a competent group ranking it and right from the beginning---it came out of the box on top and virtually never left the top spot.
Why? There's no question that it is a unique golf course in many ways---it certainly is a unique looking course but I think the real reason it would be on top again if the rankings started today is because the course has probably the finest set of greens in the world and maybe it always will. They're the most interesting I've ever seen to approach, recover to and to putt!
I went down there a month or so ago with Renaissances's Jim Urbina who hadn't been there in a while. I went down about a year before with Gil Hanse. And probably next month with another architect or two. It's always so educational to get their particular observations on things. Jim wrote me a note saying he'd almost forgotten just how good those greens really are.
If the rankings came out today I feel compared to the courses I've seen in my life---most of the world's top ranked--that Pine Valley would be #1 and should be too---and in the final analysis because, among a number of other interesting features, it probably has the finest set of greens in the world.
-
"PV is great but it suffers from lack of yardage, over growth and relies on tricked up greens."
Eckstein:
PVGC is a par 70 very close to 7,000yds now (or soon to be) with 2 par 4s that're almost driveable. That's not suffering from lack of yardage. 'Tricked up greens'?? That's a pretty incredible statement for probably the best set of greens in the world!
From your ranking, I'd flip PV back to the top and go from there! ;)
-
Eckstein,
How long is Cypress Point ?
And, what is par ?
How does that compare with PV's length and par ?
-
"TE Paul
How do you compare Pine Valley to Sand Hills?"
Eckstein:
Not well at all since I've never been to Sand Hills, so I guess I shouldn't have said what I did above. ;)
-
I've read in a few places where Crump was praised for creating near perfect balance of the holes at PVGC. By that, it's written that PVGC has the following:
Par 3s - Requires shots of four distinct lengths (pitch, mid-iron, long-iron and full-shot)
Par 4s - Each side has a long and a short Par4. One side has a short 4 which is a drive and pitch, while the other side has a drive & pitch-run.
Half the holes allow the ball to be run in from the front, while half require an aerial approach.
Par5s - each side has a single Par5, and both are long enough or built in such a way to require three thoughtful shots.
Was PVGC the course that lead architects to try and built symmetry into designs? Was this actually a conscious effort by Crump to built the course in this manner?
-
Capiche?
I assume you are trying to use the Italian word for understand and asking if Pat understands ... the proper conjucation of the verb is "capisce" ... "farla capisce" would be the proper phrase ...
Now if you were to imply that you understand, it would be "capisco" or more accurately, "io capisco" ...
-
Eckstein,
Be careful my man...Pine Valley, too short? greens too severe?
I do not think you are going to get a whole lot of support on those to issues...why?....simple!! They are not correct.
Even the distracters of PV tend to admit the green complexes are amongst the best ever built, and at what is now close to 7000 yards, it cannot be considered too short for its design principles..it is quite simply still the masterpiece it has always been.
-
Brian Gracely:
It's true that PVGC was probably eventually (1913) "planned" with a particular "balance" in mind. However, it was definitely "constructed" with that "balance" in mind.
If one reads through the chronology of what's left from the time of the creation of the course which took almost 10 years to finish it goes something like this;
1/ The idea of the course was Crump's which he obviously shared with a few of his friends and golfing companions. The initial idea behind the course was as a place to play winter golf as it was at least ten degrees warmer in that area than in Philly.
2/ Crump searched the general area of PV for a time and eventually settled on the property which now is PV telling his friends in the autumn of 1912, "I think I landed on something pretty fine". Tillinghast writes in the January 1913 issue of "The American Cricketeer" that'd he been sworn to secrecy about the place for perhaps a year.
3/ Crump begins to clear the site and analyze it for holes with a group of friends.
4/ In March of 1913 Howard Perrin writes a "club solicitation" letter explaining that for $1,000 each 18 men can design a hole each (presumably this meant each man would contribute that amount to construct a single hole).
5/ In the spring of 1913 Tillinghast apparently describes the first four holes, and perhaps a rough outline of the front nine and #10 and #18.
6/ Crump sends for Harry Colt who arrives in May/June and spends a week or two on site routing the course and offering a hole by hole drawing booklet. Colt leaves PVGC never to return and perhaps never to return to America again.
7/ Construction begins in earnest in 1913 and 1914 with what Simon Carr, Crump's best friend, described (1914) as a "requisite" (to Colt?) that the golf course should be of "classical character" and of sufficient length to accomodate certain shot requirements (to provide "a variety of long short and medium approach shots") and probably on certain holes in a form of "course balance" (Carr later described in detail where Crump wanted those various type holes to be). The original course design was 6700 yards and par was slightly indeterminant.
8/ Crump works on the construction of the course for the next 3-4 years testing the design with his foreman/pro/greenkeeper Jim Govan (a scratch player) by constant "shot testing". In 1914 the course has 11 holes basically constructed (front nine and #10 and #18) and in 1915 14 holes constructed (#11, #16, #17). Holes #12-15 although apparently mostly designed around the time of Crump's death were not constructed until after Crump's death in Jan 1918 and were not finished until 1922.
9/ The 1921 Advisory Committee was formed to finish and improve the course and various holes. Hugh Alison produced a hole by hole recommendation basically working off two hole by hole "remembrances" from Crump's two closest friends, Simon Carr and W.P. Smith of the details of the course as they understood Crump intended them to be. The 1921 Advisory Committee approved the majority of Alison's recommendations and by 1922 the course was finished and completely open for play.
10/ Later Perry Maxwell altered Crump's left #8 and left #9 green and in the 1980s Tom Fazio added the right #8 green.
Crump apparently wanted a particular course "balance" (particular shot requirements on particular holes), he apparently explained this to Colt, who produced a design to that effect and in the ensuing four years Crump constantly tinkered with the holes with Govan to acheive that end. The irony is that some of what is still PVGC Crump considered 'temporary' which he planned to go back and fix later! When asked by some when he'd finally finish the course Crump's famous answer was "NEVER"!
-
I am unable to compare to Sand Hills, as I have not yet had the privelage, and PV just gets the edge over CPC for me.
The variation in hole type that the PV terrain allows, is what gives it the edge, along with the awesome green complexes.
I believe this provides a sterner challenge and a more shotmaking type of golf course..perhaps..they are both so good it really is hard to differentiate..but PV just gets my vote.
Hopefully Sand Hills next year, I very much look forward to it.
-
Architecurally?
PVGC, NGLA and Shinnecock are the short list from the US. (It really is remarkable that Shinnecock makes this list with its set of greens compared to the other two, quite honestly). Pine Valley wins on the strength of her greens alone. (Won't even dignify a few posts above..........)
Cypress Point is just not in the same league and neither is PBGL nor likely anything else in the US.
The Old Course has so much to teach us. I haven't seen (shamefully) Sand Hills (Which I seriously doubt is likely to convince me of its superiority - I feel many are taken with the remoteness of hte site, quite honestly) nor Royal Melbourne (which would require a composite course. So add The Old Course - and it is almost an "accident" of existence.
I can't even imagine considering another course for the "#1". The others are mere pretenders even with more hystrionic visuals.
The collaboration that is Pine Valley can only be approached by the accidental genius of The Old Course. What does that say?
-
Wow, Redanman..
I dont think I have ever read anything qiute so precise and in my opinion so accurate.
I think that thread should be framed for posterity.
-
Cypress Point has always been around 6400 yards. It wasn't considered long when it was built in 1928.
It never relied on being super difficult! Capiche?
How do you know that ?
It seemed to be difficult enought to host a PGA tour event every year.
Cypress Point = 6,500 yards, Pine Valley = 7,000 yards
Cypress Point = Par 72 Pine Valley = Par 70
You say that Pine Valley is too short, yet you ranked Cypress Point ahead of it, giving it the "short" rap, conveniently overlooking the glaring disparity in length and par.
I have no opinions on Sand Hills because I haven't played it.
Have you played Cypress Point and Pine Valley ?[/color]
-
This brings up an interesting question... has anyone in this discussion actually played each of Cypress, Sand Hills, Pine Valley, NGLA and Shinnecock? Seems like everyone always has one hole in that. I know I do. And I am damn lucky to have only one.
So I put Sand Hills at the top, followed by Cypress and NGLA... PV would likely be #4... but of course that is just based on pictures, etc... and it puts me at odds with redanman, which is ok, but then again he hasn't seen Sand Hills...
Just curious. Now back to your regularly-scheduled bickering.
;D
TH
ps to redanman - for a guy like me each of PV, NGLA and Shinnecock are more remote than Sand Hills. So while I do understand your point, well... you're wrong. You'll understand on that glorious day that you stand on #1 tee at Sand Hills. As might I change my rankings if that epic day comes that I tee it up at PV. ;D
-
I must have been Gandhi in a previous life because I've been fortunate enough in this one to have played them all.
-
Well fantastic Eck - you are one lucky man (I'm assuming you are male).
And you're right, by my take you ought to have the final word on those six. Interesting, take out PV for me (haven't played it) and our rankings would be almost identical (I'd switch National and PB, but only right now - I change my mind all the time on that).
I don't know if this is worse for me or for you.
;D ;D ;D
-
I must have been Gandhi in a previous life because I've been fortunate enough in this one to have played them all.
Well hell's bells, my bad, how soon I forget. My bad and one demerit for me.
So rank them, my friend. I think I know where you stand but I need confirmation. Just for curiosity, mind you. ;D
-
My Top Five;
1) Pine Valley (although I'm nervous at the "clean up" of the sandy areas and other "formalization" going on)
2) Sand Hills
3) National Golf Links
4) Cypress Point
5) Shinnecock Hills
-
;D ;D ;D
That was gonna be my guess.
And if PB were added, that would be #6 I presume.
We are not far off at all.
And man this is REALLY close, isn't it? My 2-5 seem to change on how I feel any given day. #1 is solid though, and it's in Nebraska.
I wonder how I would change if I ever did play PV... As you know I am prone to awe (understatement of the year) so just on reputation it would be right up there fighting for #1, likely... but it would take a lot to get it to the top. Here's hoping some day, some how, I get to have this discussion with you.
;D ;D
-
Tom;
Actually, of any course I've walked but haven't yet played, the one that I think might have a good possibility of cracking my top 5 is outside of Pittsburgh...especially since I'm basing that on a pre-tree-removal assessment.
However...that may change come April when I get to walk some dogtrack down in Georgia. ;)
To get back to the topic at hand, the thing with Pine Valley is that it's one of those few things in life that is actually much better than the hype. Virtually every hole is not just good, or really good...virtually every hole is friggin great!
It's really astounding, and the greens are incredible.
-
I have a feeling if and when that glorious day came that I got inside those gates down in Georgia, my rankings would change as well. In any case I look forward to your assessment next spring.
As for the one outside Pittsburgh, I doubt that would crack my top 10 - with our without trees it doesn't seem to be my cup of tea - long and brutal with crazy tough greens on top of things doesn't jazz me. But again, first hand knowledge could change that as well.
TH
-
Tom;
Since I'll only be there for the practice rounds, I'll really be out there looking at and studying the course hole by hole as I'm less impressed to actually see Freddy, or Tiger, or whomever these days.
Of course, I'd never make a full assessment without actually playing it but it should be fun to get the opportunity to learn more anyway.
-
Tom;
Since I'll only be there for the practice rounds, I'll really be out there looking at and studying the course hole by hole as I'm less impressed to actually see Freddy, or Tiger, or whomever these days.
Of course, I'd never make a full assessment without actually playing it but it should be fun to get the opportunity to learn more anyway.
Oh hell Mike, walking it during practice rounds is good enough by me. I guess that's not the "full" assessment but it's a damn sight better than 99.9% of all golfers get... I'll be interested to read in any case.
And you make a good point re PV. Man I would have such high expectations if and when I played there that my feeling is they couldn't possibly be met. But you're not the first to say that they actually get surpassed... I guess that's why it is universally seen #1 on the planet.
TH
-
Mike,
Not sure how many days you'll be down there, but I recommend being there on Wednesday if possible. The Par3 course is open, and few guys are playing practice rounds, so you really have alot of freedom to see the course.
Do some extra walking before going down there.....you'll never believe the elevation changes until you see them and how tired you are at the end of the day.
-
Tom;
Re: Oakmont...it really isn't that long. Most of the longer par fours play downhill quite a bit and holes like 12 add a lot of yardage. Most of the US Open competitors I watched used irons on many of the par fours.
It is brutal, though. It's also a heck of a lot cleverer and imaginative and varied than the stereotype.
-
Brian;
That's what I've been told...that TV never captures the actual elevation changes prevalent throughout the property.
I'd better get to the gym. ;D
-
Tom;
Re: Oakmont...it really isn't that long. Most of the longer par fours play downhill quite a bit and holes like 12 add a lot of yardage. Most of the US Open competitors I watched used irons on many of the par fours.
It is brutal, though. It's also a heck of a lot cleverer and imaginative and varied than the stereotype.
Well, I believe it would be long for me. The contestants in the USAm have no bearing in my world. ;)
And it surely is stereotyped - and even marketed and sold - as brutal. Hell that's it's reason for existence, isn't it? Wasn't Mr. Fownes setting out to build the toughest course on earth?
So I'm sure it is imaginative and the like and people in here have said so. It just has two strikes against it in in my book. Brutal is not my cup of tea. And I am ranking nothing except my personal favorites, so... it would be a HUGE surprise if Oakmont cracked such.
But I surely remain open to the possibility, and would love to see for myself some day. I doubt I ever will, but then again I can't believe where I have already been to date.
TH
-
I have a feeling if and when that glorious day came that I got inside those gates down in Georgia, my rankings would change as well.
Tom IV --
There's absolutely no trick to getting inside those gates, if you don't insist on playing golf when you get inside.
Just hang out on Washington Road on a practice day, and you'll find scalpers aplenty. A Tuesday/10 a.m. ticket would have cost you $40-50 last year. A Wednesday ticket -- presumably more ... but I don't know for sure, since I already had a ticket for Wednesday.
-
DK - oh yes I know that.
The trick for me is getting to Georgia. It's not exactly a hop skip and a jump from San Jose. And if I am gonna make that type of commitment in terms of finance, time and marital chips, well... it won't be to walk the course.
;D ;D
-
redanman:
I know what each of the words usually mean. But you forget, the world revolves around me. If it's distant from me, it's remote. And I had a hell of a lot more trouble getting to Long Island than I did to Mullen, NE.
;D
As for Sand Hills, hopefully you will see for yourself some day. Then you'll understand.
TH
-
I started this thread like 10yrs ago (or so it seems) and it's finally dawned on me that I doubt that there will ever be another course that will be ranked #1...except those occasional Pebble Beach re-rankings.
Why is this?
a) Pine Valley is apparently pretty damn good.
b) There will never be another architect (or club) that takes 4-6yrs to scout, route, design and build their course.
c) Quirk is dead in modern golf, and ultimately all great courses have quirk
d) Patience is no longer a virtue, so the absolutely need to get a course ranked, rated, review, disected, evaluated, photographed, marketed will override any allowance of a "grace-period" to let the course grow in, adapt to playability, solve drainage/growing issues, etc...
-
Brian
I suspect you may be right re Pine Valley being forever #1, but I am not sure I agree with your reasons.
Pine Valley is apparently pretty damn good.
While the course is undoubtedly pretty damn good as you say, so are many others, and a just claim could be made for the Old Course or for Sand Hills or for Cypress Point or for....
I think the hard part is getting to the top of the hill, but once there, it is damn hard to get dislodged. Tradition and inertia go a very long way to maintaining the status quo.
There will never be another architect (or club) that takes 4-6yrs to scout, route, design and build their course.
You may be right, but somehow I doubt it. I suspect there will always be wealthy people who are willing to spend whatever it takes and take as long as it takes to make it just so. Sorta like Bandon, or the European Club. Would Sand Hills have been better if C&C had taken longer? Maybe? Do archies still go back and make modifications as needed?
Quirk is dead in modern golf, and ultimately all great courses have quirk
As much as we both love Tobacco Road, this must be wrong, 'cause they don't get much quirkier ;) But the better point may be that modern quirk perhaps is not appreciated, but if it is on an old course it is a selling point (i.e. hitting over the 'rail sheds' on the Road Hole, or the Windmill at NGLA etc)
Patience is no longer a virtue, so the absolutely need to get a course ranked, rated, review, disected, evaluated, photographed, marketed will override any allowance of a "grace-period" to let the course grow in, adapt to playability, solve drainage/growing issues, etc...
Yeah, probably true, along with the issue of getting the product to market quicker to start the cash register ringing. But I can easily envision, as I said above, exceptions to this rule. Perhaps TDoak can actually add something to this area, whether he feels he can always take all the time he wants etc.
-
It's odd and sort of funny how these threads debating what should be #1 take place so often. Maybe Sand Hills will take PVGC's place at #1 one of these days but PVGC has been #1 for a long, long time against both Pebble and Cypress except once about two years ago when Pebble Beach replaced it as #1 for a single year. I don't see that either Pebble or Cypress have done anything recently to take PV's place and PV hasn't done anything recently to lose it's place. Obviously not everyone thinks PV is #1 in the country or the world but clearly more people think it is than any other course in the world.