[Jeff Mingay]

When did the first post-WWII golf course ranking come out? Was it in GOLF magazine, during the 1960s?

When Pine Valley was declared US (and World) number #1, obviously, many golfers throughout the USA and Canada (and the World) perceived it to be the ideal course.

Thus, do you think Pine Valley (which ironically, for the record, had suffered the negative affects of overgrowth and overplanting by the 1960s) was a serious factor in the planting trend that occurred, and persisted in years decades?

Although the Pine Valley's greatness has absolutely nothing to do with the presence of trees, the course's claim to fame was, and perhaps still is in the minds of some, that golfers cannot see another hole from the one they're playing. Geez... one theory suggests that because of this characteristic at Pine Valley, many golfers desired the same for their home course and thus orchestrated plantings that involved filling in gaps between existing groves and specimens.  

Imagine the vistas and sight lines that once existed at Pine Valley in Crump's day!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Jeff,

I agree with your premise.
I believe that in the last 30 or so years that the seperation and isolation influence has been wrongfully conveyed

I have for some time suggested that those visiting Pine Valley go to the large room, to the door leading to the parking lot, and look at Pine Valley before most of the tree and underbrush growth, and to see how much more sand was in play, and how much better the course seemed to be.

Imitation is still the sincerest form of flattery,
including golf courses.

Hopefully, the trend to eradicate such growth will follow the same route.

[TEPaul]

Jeff:

I think Pine Valley being so highly ranked and so famous for so long combined with the fact that it's been known for its individual holes from which you could not really see another hole or other golfers on other holes well, probably has contributed to other courses completely tree=lining fairways etc for the same effect. It certainly is something pointed to by those who resist clearing back tree-lining on other courses. That reason was certainly used to counter tree clearing during our restoration.

This effect, though, I certainly would never blame on Pine Valley, although tree-lining may be called the "Pine Valley syndrome" to some extent.

Other courses should have realized and should now realize that Pine Valley is simply a very unique style of golf course and was very much intended to be that way. George Crump himself very much meant it to be that way and planned and routed the course that way to accomodate the hole to hole tree separation without compromising various shot angles and such.

Certainly Pine Valley did become too treed in recent decades but they're definitely on an ongoing selective tree clearing program now.

It is important to understand, though, that it'd be a very wrong thing to do at Pine Valley to try to get rid of the hole to hole tree separation. That would definitely be something George Crump would NOT want done!

[ian]

Intresting thread. I think you can point to almost any mature tree-lined layout as a potential source. The 60's was the era where they defined everything to death. It was the era where architects added back mounds, rear bunkers and massive tree plantings "to add definition" I think it was more the era than a ranking related issue. People still want more trees for the most part.

A note on Pine Valley's planting. Most of the course is suprisingly comfortable from the tee but the two holes really stood out. The cypress planted lining the 7th first and on the approach to the 15th have really tightened up both locations. The sand waste in both areas were penal enough to do the job, but the planting has created very artifical looking straight lines on both holes. The planting on 15 is going this winter , 7 currently will stay as it is.

[Andy Hodson]

Jeff
Interesting thought, and probably true.

There is a lot of herd mentality when it comes to the golf world. A lot of keeping up with the Jones'. And although the game of golf comes replete with vast variety, the is alot of copying going on.

[Mark_Fine]

Come on Jeff, you know these rankings don't have any impact on golf course architecture  

[Jonathan Cummings]

The editors of Golf Digest first published a list in 1966 at the request of some real estate firms.   It was called America's 200 Toughest.   Bill Davis took over in 1968 and formed a panel of about 100, which included Beman, Wind, Snead, etc and FOB (friends of Bill).  The panelists evaluated courses based on 3 categories - tradition, history and fame.  The criteria evolved and the panel increased in size during the 70s.  Difficulty was de-emphasized and finesse and shot making were emphasized - Pine Valley shot to the top.  In 1983 the 1-10 system with 7 categories (still in use today) became the rating criteria.  Ron Whitten took over in 1985 and continued to tweek the system.  Since 1968, there have been 10 changes to the GD rating system.  Today's list still has half the courses that were on the original list.

John Ross of Golf Magazine began a top 50 in the world (no order) in 1978.  A small panel of mostly writers and editors evaluated the list.  In 1983, a young photographer and contributing editor - Tom Doak - wrote George Peper a letter suggesting an A/B/C/D/E rating system.  George liked the idea so much he made Doak the head of the panel.  Doak expanded the panel to 60 well-traveled and mostly well-know golfers (Nicklaus, Jones boys, Crenshaw, Venturi, etc) and in his first year published a ranked top 100 world list.  In 1991, GM starting competing with GD by running a top 100 US list.  Doak stepped down from running the panel in 1998 so he could devote more time to his design firm.  The GM lists have been run by Gary C. and Brian M. since Doak left.

Hope this helps.

JC

[Tim Weiman]

Jeff Mingay:

If Pine Valley was perceived to be "ideal", that is unfortunate. Something like Royal Melbourne probably better fits that description.

The Pine Valley style isn't for everyone, the forced carries being more of an issue than the isolation theme.

I see Pine Valley being comparable to what I've heard about Rustic Canyon. Each was built with a certain, but very different goal in mind. Neither tries to be all things to all golfers.

[Tony Ristola]

Jeff: "When did the first post-WWII golf course ranking come out? Was it in GOLF magazine, during the 1960s?"

Excerpts from GOLF Magazine 9/83
THE FIFTY GREATEST

"The "Fifty Greatest" list was introduced four years ago and updated in 1981..."

"With the new format this year (1983), the skepticism from four years ago may resurface.  The Fifty Greatest?  Fine.  But in order (ital.)?  Ridiculous."

"Editor's note: The balloting was organized and tabulated by Tom Doak"

1. Muifield
2. Pebble Beach
3. Royal County Down
4. Pine Valley

I believe GD had a Top 200 list but couldn't tell you when it started...1970's?

[TEPaul]

I don't know much about magazine rankings but I do known one thing about them--none of them made Pine Valley respected and famous--it was that way about 50 years before any of them!

[Dunlop_White]

             In its youth, GD raters regarded "yardage and course ratings" as the most revealing criteria. Essentially, the list constituted the “Toughest and Most Difficult" courses instead of the “Best” designs. Fortunately, the focus has shifted, as length and difficulty alone are not indicative of a great design. Jonathan Cummings wrote a good brief history above on the evolution of both the GD and Golf systems.

          Although Tom Paul is right that PV has always been considered great even years before the advent of rating's mania, today course rankings absolutely influence and impact golf architecture.

          As for the Pine Valley Effect, it is real and alive today. Many connected golfers have always been impressed that one hole cannot be seen from another at PV. Unfortunately, too many of these influential individuals return to their home clubs and initiated tree planting programs in attempt to create the Pine Valley look. The leadership at many clubs, including my home club, consists of actual PV members. The common thread being that newly planted saplings now choke many of these landing areas and pepper each of these courses like crumbs.

           However, it is interesting to note and most people do not realize this, but Pine Valley’s golf course sits on over Three Hundred (300) acres of land, while the average classical course contains between Eighty (80) and One Hundred Fifty (150) acres. SEPARATING GOLF HOLES AND FRAMING GOLF HOLES WITH TREES ON MUCH SMALLER PARCELS OF LAND WILL INEVITABLY IMPACT THE ANGLES OF APPROACH INHERENT TO STRATEGIC SHOT MAKING. Not to mention that countless sweaping vistas are now obstructed by such an outlining framework.

[Jim_Kennedy]

Jeff or TE,
This has probably already been discussed here and I don't want to change the direction of this thread but what is the short reason behind G.Crump's laying the course out this way?      

[Joel_Stewart]

Very good comments by all of you.  Pine Valley was also highlighted in 1958 by Sports Illustrated as the toughest course in the world.  It shows the par 3 14th hole on the cover.

Personally I don't think PV influenced anyone to plant trees.  When I play PV I rarely even look at the trees, its the waste areas and bunkers that have influenced others to copy PV.

As for the rankings, it has become very serious business by all the magazines and the courses involved.  Its rare to find a ranked course that doesn't have its plaque or article hanging somewhere prominent in its pro shop or clubhouse.

[TEPaul]

Jim Kennedy:

The short reason Crump laid out the course the way it is with trees separating individual holes from view from other holes is just that he simply wanted to do that!

But as Dunlop White implied, wanting to do that and being able to do it correctly can be two different things. To design a routing (most definitely done with Harry Colt) one needs to route holes off of each other (methods such as degrees of triangulation) where there is enough width between holes to supply room for tree separating then and in the future (to a specific degree) AND AT THE SAME TIME provide enough width on the individual holes that the trees between the holes will not get in the way of DESIGNED shot angles--obviously the shot angles from the flanks of the holes.

Tree encroachment on some of those "flank angles" very much did occur over the decades at Pine Valley! But Crump and Colt routed well enough with this consideration in mind that not many shot angles (flanks) have ever really been that compromised and the ones that are and were are being cleared back at this time--slowly but it's happening. Trees even encroached in areas of whole bunker sets and such, particularly left #2, left #12 and left #15 (near the green). Some of these have been cleared back and the rest are planned, I believe. Right #17 is a another and very interesting story.

But the point is they knew what they were doing and how to provide BOTH tree separation AND width of individual holes!

Other courses are either not aware of this routing and design method or the thought probably never occured to them that their routings did not provide for this kind of planned "double width", so then to plant trees on the flanks of holes immediately begins to compromise shot angles!

Not to mention the fact that PV's basic style or look was a very unique and different one. It's definitely NOT a parkland style course, which so many in America basically are.

Pine Valley, the golf course, clubhouse, the dorms etc are on about 184 acres--the original amount of land Crump bought. The club has much more land now but that was bought later after the course was built.

Not all the holes of Pine Valley are separated by this kind of space and there are interesting reasons for that too, in my opinion. #7 & #8 aren't and parts of #16 & #17 aren't. The same might be said with a portion of #6 & #7 too.

There's another good reason for that too  though. Crump was completely insistant that the green to tee commutes be extremely short! The only one that isn't is #11 to #12 and there is a very interesting story there too!

[Paul Turner]

Guys, we can't ignore Colt's influence on hole isolation at PV.  He was the first architect to implement tree planting schemes, most notably at Sunningdale in the early 1900s!

At Sunningdale (OLD) though, I do think the trees have encroached too much and a more open look should be returned.  From Colt's writing he didn't like trees as hazards and called them "obnoxious and fluky".  From photos of PV it looks like the trees are too much play on some holes; who isn't mesmerised by the early pictures of the 18th for example?

Did the tree planting at PV have/has much influence across the pond?  Difficult to say.  More likely that courses like Colt's highly exposed Wentworth have had a great effect in recent years.

[Tom Doak]

Do rankings have some effect on what people are building for new courses?  Yes, absolutely.  But I don't think that can be traced to the overplanting of golf courses.

Most of the trees we're removing from older courses were planted in the 1950's and 1960's, BEFORE the ranking phenomenon.  In many cases they were planted as an overreaction to the sudden loss of elm trees due to the Dutch Elm Disease.  Clubs in the east and midwest, losing these great elms around which holes HAD been designed in the 1920's, planted three small maples or oaks in the place of one lost elm -- and it took about twenty years for the mistake to become obvious as the trees grew.

I think you could certainly make the case that architects and owners have been more obsessed with making courses HARDER since Pine Valley got to No. 1 in GOLF's 1985 ranking; and I think you could also make the case that more architects have tried to separate and define their holes with mounds, on the grounds that "each hole at Pine Valley is separate from the others."  But, in truth, no one was planting many trees in the 1980's and 1990's.

[Dunlop_White]

Tom,

Mass tree plantings did occur universally in the 1980's and 1990's. Ornamental tree planting committeees and beautification committees have left their conspicuous marks on golf courses most everywhere in the last twenty (20) years. They have made an absolute mess!

In the 1950's and 1960's, awareness of attrition escalated as the American elm perished. Replacement tree(s) became the rage.

Also, the wholesale installation of single row irrigation systems down the center of the fairway also served as a contributing factor.

The "PV Effect" of isolation and separation is alive today on a more limited basis, as I am aware of two clubs which have initiated tree planting efforts outlining holes. Their green's chairmen coincidentally are also members of PV.

Then of course trees are planted to defend par or attract benficial wildlife habitats in other isolated instances.

Tom, the fact of the matter is that people embrace trees on golf courses. Because of such, there will always be justifications for tree plantings, regardless of the decade, if we do not educate these people of their negative agronomic, strategic, and aesthetic impact.

You and Brad have done a great job in this respect.

But rankings do constitute a justification for tree plantings! Regardless of the feature, whether it is "length", "green speeds", "waterfalls", or "separation/frameworking" due to trees, the top ranked courses in the country serve as a model for all others. They will be emulated!!

[Doug Siebert]

My home course was hit by Dutch Elm disease about 1980 or so.  I had just started playing when one spring a number of giant elms were removed.  Most everyone missed them for the shade they offered on most teeboxes during the summer, but their loss also made the course look positively bare by comparison.  Over the years, saplings have been planted most everywhere EXCEPT around the teeboxes, just about any open area was fair game.

Problem is, like Tom Doak alludes to, a single sapling doesn't do much for making an open area seem less open, so you end up planting a cluster of them.  Now many of them are mature, and even the more recent plantings are 20 ft high, and while you won't generally lose a ball in the trees if you are familiar with the course, you generally won't have much of a shot from them, either, and it gets worse every season as they continue to grow.

Its clear they are going for the tree-lined fairway look, and have already achieved it on a number of holes, and are about 10 years of growth away from having it be the case over the entire course.  I just hope they start cutting back some of the trees that were planted too close to the fairway and now overhang it.  The fairways are narrow enough without having an additional few yards of fairway made irrelevant on one side of some of them.

[TEPaul]

At my course, like many inland courses in this area, was a farm, tree planting started in the 1930s and also very much in the 1950s and then continued here and there thereafter.

I can also see on aerials from many other courses, particularly many Ross courses in Brad klein's book, the lines of little trees planted along fairways. That seems to have been the pattern on most America courses.

Actually, I can see in the minutes of our club that they were very proud of the fact they managed to get maybe thousands of little pine trees from the state for free and the only cost to the club was to plant them. As to where to plant them there's nothing at all in the minutes.

But as of next year there will be included in our master plan for the future EXACTLY where any trees can be planted! That means that other than those designated areas, trees will never again be planted in other areas.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Don't some of the early pictures of PV show open spaces between some of the holes ?

[TEPaul]

Pat:

The thing you need to understand better about early Pine Valley is that almost ALL the trees on that site before construction were very small! Certainly very small compared to today or even fifty years ago. Crump was a real amateur architect in the very beginning but I think even he understood that trees do grow and planned, routed and designed for that.

There's not a lot left from him because he didn't write like other architects did but he did make it very clear that hole separation with the use of trees was something he very much wanted!

There's another factor you should know about some of the early views of Pine Valley. And that is that Geo Crump, more than any other architect I've ever heard of, was an inveterate "shot tester". He had a number of areas cleared of the small trees because he was trying various "routing iterations" that he ended up not using. This gives some of the early photos of the course a more open look than he probably finally wanted to eventually have.

I've said this about ten times on Golfclubatlas and I'll say it again. It's just undeniable that Crump wanted to use trees at Pine Valley in various ways. He did not apparently intend to use them in the actual "shot angle strategies" of any of his holes, but even that is not a sure assumption! Apparently on #12 he may have thought to use a tree for tee shot strategy.

All I'm saying here--and others are beginning to confirm--is there appears to be some contributors to Golfclubatlas who believe that trees do not belong on any golf course for any reason and that's just extremely wrong, in my opinion! It's just not an accurate understanding of evolutionary architecture or evolutionary architectural thinking!

I'm neither an advocate for trees or not for trees in golf architecture. I'm an advocate, though, of trying to understand if various architects INTENDED to use trees in architecture for VARIOUS REASONS and what those reasons were.

For anyone to advocate clearing the trees out of Pine Valley or even clearing them back to what they were in the very beginning is simply not really understanding Crump or what he intended, in my opinion.

I'm not denying that PV became tree encroached to a large extent in ensuing decades but the club is apparently aware of that now. The thing to use as a direction of what may now need to be cleared back is the bunker sets and their placements and the sandy waste areas that were designed into the direct bodies of the holes.

But after that PV has no tree encroaching problem, in my opinion, because the course was planned and routed to accomodate both tree separation amongst the holes and also real hole width! That's important to know.

It's also probably useful to remember the golf course is called PINE VALLEY!

[Doug Siebert]

One thing I have learned from my short exposure to GCA so far is that trees are more of a problem than I had ever really considered.  I knew I didn't like courses that had dense forest on both sides of the fairway where it may as well have been marked OB, but that could be just because I tend to be wild at times and such courses penalize me relatively more than most 5 handicappers

I was pretty unhappy when my home course removed two very nice and very large evergreens on the 3rd about 8-9 years ago, but I was more annoyed that they ended up as Christmas trees at the U of Iowa hospitals (one of the largest teaching hospitals in the world, which understandably wields quite a bit of power)  I feared they'd be helping themselves out to a couple of them each year, but AFAIK that hasn't happened since -- probably because the university owns lots of well treed land, rather than the athletic department standing up for the course.

But I hadn't really considered that having trees so penal that they drown out anything in the equation for rough and bunkers makes the course rather one dimensional.  And to be honest, on many such courses, what I consider a good drive on some holes is "between the trees", the fairway is a nice bonus but not particularly necessary.

Of course then there are people like redanman who like you say don't want to see any trees coming into play.  I'll have to disagree there, as I see nothing wrong with using trees where other natural hazards aren't sufficient or would be too repetitive, or to define the shape of doglegs.  But since joining GCA I've definitely come to realize that a lot more courses have too many trees than what I would have thought.

[TEPaul]

Doug:

I think all of us should probably eventually come to realize that trees CAN be used and WERE used by architects as not much more than an ALTERNATIVE as a golf architectural feature!

Nobody who understands architecture wants to see trees used in the same places as things like bunker features when clearly those bunker features were originally meant to do the architectural and strategic job on their own.

But for some to carry the old line linksland thinking to the nth degree that trees have absolutely NO PLACE on ANYgolf course or in ANY golf course design is both short sighted and one dimensional to me.

Sites that have indigneous trees when the architects got there were used in varous ways with trees as parts of the architectural equation and it's crazy for anyone to deny that.

Tree encroachment far beyond the original architect's concpetion or intention for trees is just another matter altogether, but, of course, should never mean that trees should not EVER be used in architecture.

There're some very real considerations about trees, though, and as we all know agronomy is not the least among them! But certainly very good architects are well aware of this if they think to use trees in architecture!

[PGertner]

Trees at Pine Valley...

Obviously, seperation of each hole was a very important part of Mr. Crump's vision for Pine Valley.  However, this vision is only partly responsible for the heavily planted Pine Valley we know and love today.  When I think of the forestation of Pine Valley, I am guessing this was very necesary to keep the heavily erodable sands in place.  Without the hundreds of thousands of trees and shrubs, it would be virtually impossible to maintain any golf course on that soil.  More than any golf course I know of, the overplanting had a definite and necessary purpose.  

Not many golf courses I know of need their own CAT bulldozer to repair huge washouts in bunkers, waste areas and roadways after heavy thunderstorms, because they don't have the sugar sands and topography PV has.  

Kudos to my friends at PV for addressing tree and shrub overpopulation; but my guess is the overall look will remain unchanged.  

PGert
Ex-Super

PS.  The late and great Eb Steineger had the unenviable task of planting Pine Valley's terrain long after the construction was complete.  He deserves much of the credit for the greatness of the Valley.  Thanks Eb!!!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

But, there were vast areas of sand, that today are trees.

The right fairway elbow on the first hole is a perfect example, and an area where trees now block a short tee shot angle to the green.

It seemed to me that many of the open sand expanses have been allowed to vegetate, contrary to Crump's design intent.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()