[Patrick_Mucci]

Mark,
 
I don't think either of your posts addresses the issue of why a green like # 18 at PV hasn't been restored.
 
There's not alot of time consuming research required and certainly no need to educate, versus inform, the membership.
 
As to narrowing fairways and shrinking greens, they can be restored without a membership vote vis a vis diligent maintenance practices.
And, those changes weren't conscious, deliberate changes, merely changes created via benign neglect.
 
It took about 50 years to restore the 12th at GCGC, yet, it's such an obvious improvement that everyone wonders why it wasn't done decades ago.
 
The funny thing is that some friends of mine opposed the restoration.
Now, they think it's the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Pat,
Those "almost imperceptible" changes add up to major change over time as trees grow, greens shrink, fairways narrow, bunkers lose their size and shape,... 


I answered your "orchestrated change" question in my first post.

[Jon Cavalier]

I'd be surprised if golfers playing GCGC for the first time, don't remember the 12th hole as a standout hole.

It certainly was for me.

Here are the in-green mounds on the 5th hole at Somerset Hills to which Tom referred earlier:







With BFinn for scale:


More Somerset Hills photos: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59808.0.html

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jon,
 
Great photos of SHCC's 5th hole.
 
When the issue of being able to maintain substantive mounds first arose, I referenced that SHCC seemed to be doing so quite successfully on their 5th hole.  Perhaps someone more adept at using the search feature can find those early posts.
 
The 13th hole at SHCC also has significant contours that they've been able to maintain well for decade upon decade.
 
If anything, SHCC and GCGC should be shining examples of how interesting contours/mounds/spines can be incorporated and maintained at reasonable speeds within the putting surfaces.
 
Certainly, anyone interested in PV should be feel comfortable that the original mound in the 18th green could be easily restored and maintained.
 
Crump intended the 18th green to have a feature that would penalize the marginal or miscalculated approach.
 
Initially it was the mound pictured.
Subsequently, a spine was considered.
 
 

 
 

 


I'd be surprised if golfers playing GCGC for the first time, don't remember the 12th hole as a standout hole.

It certainly was for me.

Here are the in-green mounds on the 5th hole at Somerset Hills to which Tom referred earlier:







With BFinn for scale:


More Somerset Hills photos: http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,59808.0.html

[Tom_Doak]

Patrick:


That's a great picture of #18 at Pine Valley.


Why don't you take it up with their architectural consultant, Tom Fazio?  I've heard he doesn't much care for the idea of "restoration", and I've heard him speak at length that today's courses are the best that have ever been built, so that might be why no one has taken the idea too seriously at Pine Valley.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tom Doak,
 
I would venture to say that most people, including most members of PV are unaware of the fact that the original 18th green had a significant mound in the inner portion of the putting surface.
 
I would suspect that even fewer are aware of the reason that Crump designed and built the 18th green with that mound in it.
 
As such, there'd be no inclination to restore that feature, which is unfortunate.
 
I believe, as you get further away from a feature's removal, that fewer and fewer people realize that the feature was there in the first place.
 
Perhaps exposure to the original green, vis a vis photos of the original green will encourange some to want to restore Crump's original work.
 
I would think that that would be an architectural priority given the club's desire to present Crump's work.
 
One would think that Fazio himself would promote this idea since I believe he's the consulting architect and a member.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()