[TEPaul]

"I'm in.  Can we do an amphibious assault?  A beach landing would be cool!"

Calm down and don't get out of control Wayne. I'd prefer to ride the deluxe bar car on the train out from NYC to the Shinnecock station and have one of my famous simultaneous sumptuous drinks and dinners sessions (or "Drinkners" to you uninitiateds) along the way.  

[Patrick_Mucci]

Tony Ristola,

I think you'll find that right up until the first of the recent US Opens that Shinnecock suffered from benign neglect.  The exact opposite of the "Augusta" snydrome you mention.

TEPaul, Wayne & SL,

Maintaining those islands is far more difficult then you think.

I'll venture a guess that Flynn didn't leave an odd variety of casual vegetation on those islands, that he was plant specific, and as such those islands required a good deal of TLC.

Wilson, perhaps copying Flynn provided similar islands on some of his courses.

Maintaining those islands, free of weeds and undesireable vegetation is no easy task, it's labor intensive, and takes its toll on the surrounding bunker as well.

With so many of them, I would imagine that a Superintendent or Green Chairman would want them removed, especially if they had their budgets under scrutiny and pressure.

If droughts hit those areas, roots die and the islands lose their connective glue and their shape and become unmanageable.

That's my theory and I'm sticking to it.

[TEPaul]

"That's my theory and I'm sticking to it."

I'm sure you are. If I go down to PV shortly and I think I'll ask Rick Christian how labor intensive HHA is, minus the sandproing of it of course which is a new maintenance practice down there.

Let me ask you again, Pat, if they ripped the vegetation out of those areas what do you think would happen?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

If you equate the look, texture and vegetation in HHA, today, or 82 years ago, with the look at Shinnecock as posted in Wayne's aerials you're in serious need of an eye doctor, OR, Coorshaw needs to get the the vet as soon as possible.

Just go to page 57 in Geoff Shackelford's "The Golden Age of Golf Design" and you'll see how drastically different those two features are.

Just when I thought I was making progress with you, you revert back to your pre PM days of being unable to distinquish and differentiate architectural features.

Turn to Page 57.
Appologies will be accepted through tuesday.

[TEPaul]

“TEPaul,
If you equate the look, texture and vegetation in HHA, today, or 82 years ago, with the look at Shinnecock as posted in Wayne's aerials you're in serious need of an eye doctor, OR, Coorshaw needs to get the the vet as soon as possible.
Just go to page 57 in Geoff Shackelford's "The Golden Age of Golf Design" and you'll see how drastically different those two features are.”

Patrick;

The look of those sand waste areas in those 1938 photos of Shinnecock above are very different from the look of those same areas of Shinnecock today (or in the 1990 aerials above) and that’s precisely why Wayne posted those comparative photos of Shinnecock. The look of HHA in 1925 (p. 57 of GeoffShac’s book) is different from the look of HHA today (today it’s more maintained, cleaner and not as “broken up”).

The point I’m making is that the look of HHA in 1925 (p. 57 in GoeffShac’s book) is similar to the look Flynn created on holes #5 and #6 at Shinnecock. I’m suggesting that look should be restored today at Shinnecock. I’d also suggest that look of HHA at PVGC in 1925 should be restored today!! If you want to see what that look on #5 and #6 at Shinnecock actually looked like in those early years don’t just refer to the aerials of Shinnecock in 1938 above, refer to the on-ground photo of #5 Shinnecock on p. 108 of GeoffShac’s book!  
 
Wayne and I are fairly convinced that early look that Flynn created (what he referred to in his design “instructions” as “undulated sand areas” ) are a constructed imitation of what was done on various holes of PV, including HHA! The reasons we believe Flynn imitated this aspect of PVGC at Shinnecock is because of the work Flynn did at PVGC, the fact that he belonged to that club and the fact that he clearly copied some of the unique features of PVGC including the unique “interrupted fairway” idea (which Flynn virtually advertised on various of his designs) as well as his fairly common use of greens that were “islands in sand” of which almost half of the greens of PVGC were in those days! Not to mention that on one early "iteration" of Flynn's plans for Shinnecock #16 had a 100 yard total forced carry sand waste area in the middle of #16 very similar to the 100 yard long sand waste forced carry area of PVGC's HHA. Not only that but Flynn also created another 100 yard long HHA forced carry concept in the middle of another par 5 iteration at Shinnecock that was never built!!

We also have Hugh Alison’s excellent multi-page review of Flynn’s design plans for Shinnecock that the club obviously asked Alison to produce. In that Alison review which is both general and hole by hole, Hugh Alison not only explains how those areas on holes #5 and #6 were created but what the purpose of them was both in look and in play (“…..it is intended to create a stretch of broken ground….this broken ground will not be merely rough, and will not be a more or less flat expanse of land. It will be completely broken up with hollows, dunes, marram and lime grass, and with tongues of rough. The object will be to obtain a great deal of colour contrast, and also to make as sure as possible that any ball played into this area will lie badly. The scheme….is excellent, but its merit depends on the manner in which the work is carried out…..”

Joke around about my eyes and Coorshaw if you want to but now is probably not the best time to do that. We know what we're talking about and we have all kinds of cross-referenced documentation to prove it and clearly you don't! This type of research is good stuff and our sense was that those we spoke with while at Shinnecock with all this research were appreciative of it. Whether or not they actually restore those areas remains to be known. Issues of how much it would take to do it and to keep it that way obviously is an issue. It's one thing for you to just disagree with me automatically but this issue of those designed and created "broken ground" sand waste areas on parts of Flynn's Shinnecock is important and it would frankly be awesome to see the club restore them. The look of them from the tees of their holes was intended to be one of visual intimidation and that should be restored! Shinnecock is clearly a very great world class championship golf course and these areas were a purposeful and intended part of it. The course is great now but in my opinion, and in Wayne's, this would make it even better. It would be a clear and hopefully exact restoration of a unique and important architectural feature!

Do you disagree with that?

[wsmorrison]

Tom,

Your post #29 is excellent.  We should gather information as to what it would take to revert back to that rough sandy waste areas (actual work and $ required) and the maintenance requirement and cost and write a proposal to Shinnecock.  They were clearly fascinated by the green sizes and outlines on the Flynn drawings and are amenable to restoring lost green space, maybe they'll agree with something not as subtle as restored green space.  A return to the intended hazard areas and look would be very compelling.  

To the experts out there, what do you think is involved in terms of effort and expense to restore and maintain?

The club is justifiably proud of their history and their course.  If they deem a return to former maintenance practices would accomplish the course reaching its fullest potential, why they just might do it.  The world of golf would be better for it.  

Tom, shall we get to work on this?

[Brian Phillips]

Wayne,

I chuckle to myself when the words maintenence and waste areas are mentioned in the same sentence or paragraph.  if a waste area is supposed to be a waste area should it also not be maintained as such?

I cannot for the life of me get around the fact that widening bunkers back to original size and then throwing in loads of sheeps fescue (as they did at Hidden Creek) to recreate a rough edge and area will cost more to maintain than normal nicely edged bunker?  If you use sheeps fescue it requires minimal water...

If water is a problem then all the better, because less water getting on to a plant means less growth....less growth means...yes...you guessed it less maintenance...

It would not cost much at all to create waste areas instead of maintained bunkering, it is all a matter of how much presentation (eye candy) the waste area requires.  What type of waste area are we talking about.

If it is similar to the way waste areas are maintained at PVGC then it will be costly (because there is a lot of edging done there even in waste areas) but if it allowed to evolve then surely it cannot cost more than maintaining a bunker.

Just my two cents or two kroner...

Brian

[wsmorrison]

Brian,

Thank you for the input.  I agree (athough I'm not nearly as informed as you), it doesn't seem like it would be prohibitive to return some of the lost waste areas and maintain them as intended.  If we can get accurate figures, then we can propose a meaningful concept plan.  The way the waste areas at PVGC are maintained today, would seem very expensive.  I think we'd recommend they use an approach that is far less costly in manpower and the mighty $ and is sympathetic to the original approach.  I am pretty sure that included using Sheep's Fescue, I recall reading about it somewhere.  I'll have to dig that up, too.  

[TEPaul]

Brian Phillips:

Thank you for that last post. I don't know how many times I've said on here the same thing you just did---that restoring and maintaining the kinds of "sand waste areas" we're talking about here are just going to logically take probably less maintenance labor and dollars than otherwise. As you explain, common sense pretty much tells you that on this kind of ground at Shinnecock. The architectural restoration, the look and visual effect of it would be stunning and effective. Years ago Flynn and his construction crews clearly formed what Alison referred to as "....creating the broken ground---eg...creating dunes and hollows with marram an lime grass".

I have to believe all that created broken ground is still out there---it's just totally vegetated over now. What Shinnecock probably just needs to do to restore it is rip that vegetation out of there (they could probably just take some kind of machine and cut and churn it out of there!) and expose the sand and some residual vegetation just as it appeared in those 1938 aerials above and in the on-ground photo in GeoffShac's book on p. 108.

The last thing we need now, and Shinnecock needs now, if they really will consider this, is Pat Mucci and people like him with their uninformed two cents-like opinions about what it will take to restore and maintain this architectural feature!  

[TEPaul]

I've also got to believe that one good way to return the look of PVGC's HHA to a look more like the photo of it in GeoffShac's book on p. 57 is to start by keeping the sandpros the hell out of HHA!!  

I've got a tractor with a medium sized bucket on it right here on the farm. If PVGC would let me, I'd put it on a truck and take it down to PV, paste the photo of HHA on page 57 of GeoffShac's book right above the steering wheel and in a day return the look of HHA in 1925 to the way it was on p. 57!  

Patrick, you out-sized Big Booby, are you interested in seeing this really neat original architectural feature restored at Shinnecock or are you more interested in coming up with every single bullshit reason you can possibly think of why it shouldn't be restored? How would you like it if I came up with a whole laundry list of reasons why GCGC's #12 should not be restored even though I do know that most of the problems its restoration would face really do have solutions?

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I've arranged an appointment for you and Coorshaw at
"Eyes R Us" a new opthamology and optometry franchise located close to your farm.  I've also arranged for a driver since the general consensus is that you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel and on the road.  I understand that local schools have reopened.

I have received a special dispensation from the Department of Motor Vehicles in the State of Pennsylvania regarding the operation of farm equipment.
The good news is: They will permit you to continue to drive farm equipment on your property.
The bad news is:  Your homeowners and liability insurance has been cancelled.

If you equate the look of HHA on page 57 with the look of # 5 at SH on page 108 your in desperate need of my assistance.

HHA at PV has "wilderness" as its theme, the sand areas at SH have a cleaner, "island isolation" look.

One could easily visualize HHA becoming totally overgrown with vegetation to the point that it ceased to exist as a sand/bunker hazard.  That would never be the case with the isolated islands Flynn created at SH.

They represent two distinct looks manifested through their inherent differences and origins.

I never stated that I didn't want anything restored, so I don't know where you came up with that line of thinking, unless, one of Coorshaws pack suggested it to you.

[TEPaul]

"If you equate the look of HHA on page 57 with the look of # 5 at SH on page 108 your in desperate need of my assistance."

Patrick:

I equate them in the sense that they were architectural creations basically known as 'creating broken ground of dunes and hollows' not that they look identical! Flynn supervised  PVGC's construction of holes #12-15 and he belonged to PVGC. He was a good architect and obviously was aware that he didn't necessarily have to identically copy HHA of PVGC with his Shinnecock Hills's sand areas that he created on #5 & #6 by creating an undulated sand area that Alison described as 'dunes and hollows with marram and lime grass'. The point is both architectural applications were for the same basic purpose and if you can't figure out that simple fact you sure can't figure out much!

"HHA at PV has "wilderness" as its theme, the sand areas at SH have a cleaner, "island isolation" look."

Those are pretty clever labels Pat! Did Crump and Flynn come up with those descriptions or did you just think them up this morning?  

"I never stated that I didn't want anything restored, so I don't know where you came up with that line of thinking, unless, one of Coorshaws pack suggested it to you."

I realize that. I asked you a question about whether you'd like to see them restored---I didn't make some statement that you didn't want them to be restored. But you neglected to answer the question I asked you so I'll ask it again----do you want to see those sand waste areas that Flynn created on #5 & #6 at Shinneocck restored or don't you?  And if the answer is yes you do want to see them restored, then I'm sure we can all find someone at Shinneocock such as Mark Michaud who can answer better than you can what it would take to restore them and to maintain them!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Returning SH to its state as evidenced on page 109 would be fine with me, although, while you're at it, advocate restoring PV to the way it looks on page 53 so that you will at least show the appearance of being consistent.

And, if you want a shocker, look at AWT's work on page 82.

Did you get your notice from the PA DMV yet ?

[TEPaul]

"TEPaul,
Returning SH to its state as evidenced on page 109 would be fine with me, although, while you're at it, advocate restoring PV to the way it looks on page 53 so that you will at least show the appearance of being consistent."

Patrick:

You're more than a little reading challenged, aren't you? How many times do I have to write on here that my suggestion for Pine Valley would be for them to remove all the trees from Crump's bunkering and designed sand areas??? Did you also happen to miss the half dozen times I mentioned those cleared lines that were for experimental holes and areas of them that were never used?? If they did that today (some of which they have done and are continuing to do) the course would have that look from that aerial on p. 53 and it would also have the hole isolation that Crump also intended!! Why? Because the trees in that photo on p. 53 have grown or haven't you figured that out yet??? Or perhaps you're novel idea of a PVGC restoration is for the club to clear-cut about 100,000 trees off their entire 600+ acre property and then start all over again with trees the size they were in that photo on p. 53 WHICH WAS 1925!!!

Patrick Mucci, when it comes to golf course architecture or it's restoration you are an extremely dense and dangerous man! It would be one thing if you were just that way but it's another thing entirely when you constantly argue with everyone and particularly perhaps the only person who can actually teach you something---or at least is willing to try!!

[TEPaul]

"And, if you want a shocker, look at AWT's work on page 82."

Patrick, I'm beginning to wonder if it wasn't a terrible idea that those early architects actually allowed photos to be taken of their holes in the early stages! The bad news would be that we who actually know how to analyze those early photos wouldn't be able to do it but the good news would be that you'd never see one and consequently might not come up with some these ridiculous things you think up. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps an architect such as Crump or even Flynn or Tillinghast may've been glad to see some of the small trees in some of these old aerials mature??

[TEPaul]

Architectural question of Patrick Mucci;

Questioner:
"Mr Mucci, do you advocate planting trees on any golf course?"

Patrick Mucci:
"Absolutely Never!"

Questioner:
"Why do you say that?"

Patrick Mucci:
"Because in my expert opinion, I believe I've noticed that it's possible that some of them might grow somehow!"

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Unlike you, I can distinquish trees maturing from additional trees being planted.

If the trees in the PV photo, circa 1925, as shown on page 53, just matured, few, if any would have a problem with the issue.  But, that's not what happened.

Take a careful look at that photo and you'll notice that areas with absolutely NO trees in 1925, are now dense with trees.

That's not a product of growth, that's a product of ADDITIONAL plantings SUBSEQUENT to 1925.

Tell me you recognize and understand the difference.

[AWTillinghast]

TEPaul,

Take a careful look at that photo and you'll notice that areas with absolutely NO trees in 1925, are now dense with trees.

That's not a product of growth, that's a product of ADDITIONAL plantings SUBSEQUENT to 1925.

Are you sure it was by the hand of man and not the product of nature itself (pollination)?  Even a native field, if left alone, can and will turn to forest if there is a nearby seed source!

[TEPaul]

If the trees in the PV photo, circa 1925, as shown on page 53, just matured, few, if any would have a problem with the issue.  But, that's not what happened.
Take a careful look at that photo and you'll notice that areas with absolutely NO trees in 1925, are now dense with trees.
That's not a product of growth, that's a product of ADDITIONAL plantings SUBSEQUENT to 1925.
Tell me you recognize and understand the difference."

Patrick:

You know you really are reading challenged. I have never ever said that additional trees WERE NOT planted in the last number of decades and well after Crump died. Matter of fact, I've even stated on here when most of those additional trees were planted and by whom but once again you completely failed to read that. I even went through each hole on this website and explained on each hole what I believe Crump intended to do tree-wise and obviously you missed that too! For about the twentieth time, I've said my suggestion is, and always has been that the best policy for PVGC, in my opinion, is to get all the trees out of Crump's old bunkering and sand areas. How many times am I going to have to say that before you finally figure out what I'm talking about? The trees that are in those areas I suggest trees should be removed are not trees in the same areas Crump planted and wanted planted for whole segregation and isolation. I don't think you're ever going to get this straight until I take you down there and SHOW YOU IN PERSON exactly what I'm talking about which I hope we can do in the not too distant future. Trying to explain this to you on here in the last few months seems to be virtual impossible Obviously the only way is to take you there and show you in detal but I'm beginning to wonder if you'll even figure it out then!
 
 
 

[Patrick_Mucci]

AWT,

That would be in conflict with the designers intent when sculpting the original features, the bunkers and sand areas, and more a product of benign neglect.

Why is it that NO TREES grew in the middle of HHA, or many other areas of direct play ?  Or, do you maintain that nature was selective in the winds it chose to carry the seeds ?

TEPaul,

We have a fundamental difference in our respective interpretations of how the golf course came to be systemically covered with trees and shrubs.

I feel it was nature left unchecked, coupled with indiscriminate plantings over the years, you feel it was part of the evolutionary process.

I look forward to examining and evaluating the merits of trees and shrubs throughout the golf course.

[AWTillinghast]

AWT,
That would be in conflict with the designers intent when sculpting the original features, the bunkers and sand areas, and more a product of benign neglect.

Why is it that NO TREES grew in the middle of HHA, or many other areas of direct play ?  Or, do you maintain that nature was selective in the winds it chose to carry the seeds ?

Not sure what the first sentence means, but if you mean that by benign neglect many areas of the golf course became vegetated by nature over time in conflict with Crump's orginal intent, then I would agree completely.  I suspect that some trees were planted to further Crump's intent, as suggested by Mr. Paul, while many grew over time by benign neglect.

As to the second sentence, nature was most probably not selective in the winds it chose to carry seeds, but trees will not grow in areas such as HHA and many other areas of direct play because of man's foot!  Where man constantly walks and tramples, trees will not grow by benign neglect!

[TEPaul]

"Why is it that NO TREES grew in the middle of HHA, or many other areas of direct play?"

Patrick:

For your sake, I really do hope that's not a serious question!  

[Jeff_Mingay]

I don't know why I'm getting involved here, but...

The information Tom Paul and Wayne Morrison present here, at GolfClubAtlas.com is generally very, very interesting. This thread is a perfect example of their generally excellent contributions to this discussion group.

I've acted as the Devil's Advocate on numerous occasions during my life. And, occasionally, a Devil's Advocate is needed. Sometimes though, the Devil's Advocate can suck the life out of a very, very interesting point.

Happy holidays,  

[Patrick_Mucci]

AWT,

I'm glad you see the light.
Now, if we can just get TEPaul to open his eyes, we might make some progress.

TEPaul,

But, I do know the facts behind the plantings.
And, I understand the impact, over time, of benign neglect.

Jeff Mingay,

I'm not being a Devil's Advocate on this issue.
I'm stating a clear case, that benign neglect and indiscriminate plantings resulted in conditions contrary to the golf course as Crump left it, fully understanding that trees mature.

TEPaul has admitted to the excessive indiscriminate planting issue.  He's also admited that benign neglect played a large part as well.

Why he continues to argue against positions he's already agreed with is beyond me.

This is behavior he's learned from Coorshaw.

It's called, "chasing your tail".

Have  you viewed the pages in "The Goldern Age of Golf Design" mentioned above ?

[TEPaul]

Jeff Mingay said (obviously in response to Patrick Mucci);

"I've acted as the Devil's Advocate on numerous occasions during my life. And, occasionally, a Devil's Advocate is needed. Sometimes though, the Devil's Advocate can suck the life out of a very, very interesting point."

I think I'll permanently copy that remark of Jeff's and post it directly under everything Patrick Mucci says henceforth about PVGC. Pat Mucci is a constant deterrent to an intelligent discussion of the golf coures.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()