News:

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


Brian_Gracely

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #225 on: December 05, 2004, 09:39:36 PM »
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?  

Mike Benham

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #226 on: December 05, 2004, 10:04:45 PM »
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" ...

"... and I liked the guy ..."

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #227 on: December 05, 2004, 10:25:37 PM »
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.

TEPaul

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #228 on: December 06, 2004, 06:44:00 AM »
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"!
« Last Edit: December 06, 2004, 06:47:19 AM by TEPaul »

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #229 on: December 06, 2004, 12:02:59 PM »
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.

redanman

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #230 on: December 06, 2004, 02:54:54 PM »
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?

Michael Wharton-Palmer

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #231 on: December 06, 2004, 03:15:41 PM »
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.

Patrick_Mucci

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #232 on: December 06, 2004, 03:18:41 PM »

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]


THuckaby2

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #233 on: December 06, 2004, 03:23:17 PM »
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
« Last Edit: December 06, 2004, 03:29:28 PM by Tom Huckaby »

Mike_Cirba

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #234 on: December 06, 2004, 03:30:20 PM »
I must have been Gandhi in a previous life because I've been fortunate enough in this one to have played them all.  


THuckaby2

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #235 on: December 06, 2004, 03:32:34 PM »
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

THuckaby2

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #236 on: December 06, 2004, 03:35:37 PM »
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

Mike_Cirba

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #237 on: December 06, 2004, 03:37:23 PM »
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

THuckaby2

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #238 on: December 06, 2004, 03:40:47 PM »
 ;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

Mike_Cirba

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #239 on: December 06, 2004, 03:50:09 PM »
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.  

« Last Edit: December 06, 2004, 03:51:53 PM by Mike_Cirba »

THuckaby2

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #240 on: December 06, 2004, 03:53:19 PM »
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

Mike_Cirba

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #241 on: December 06, 2004, 03:58:48 PM »
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.

THuckaby2

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #242 on: December 06, 2004, 04:01:21 PM »
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

Brian_Gracely

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #243 on: December 06, 2004, 04:01:44 PM »
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.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #244 on: December 06, 2004, 04:03:35 PM »
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.

Mike_Cirba

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #245 on: December 06, 2004, 04:05:10 PM »
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

THuckaby2

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #246 on: December 06, 2004, 04:07:36 PM »
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
« Last Edit: December 06, 2004, 04:08:25 PM by Tom Huckaby »

Dan Kelly

  • Karma: +0/-0
Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #247 on: December 06, 2004, 04:13:42 PM »
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.
"There's no money in doing less." -- Joe Hancock, 11/25/2010
"Rankings are silly and subjective..." -- Tom Doak, 3/12/2016

THuckaby2

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #248 on: December 06, 2004, 04:24:16 PM »
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

THuckaby2

Re:Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....
« Reply #249 on: December 07, 2004, 09:55:41 AM »
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

Tags:
Tags:

An Error Has Occurred!

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()
Back