If Pine Valley is inferior because it isn't seaside, happens to be in the Pine Barrens of New Jersey and therefore is not susceptible to wind and therefore inferior, then you can give me inferior every single day.
The only rap about trees that I buy into at Pine Valley and that Pine Valley has sometimes been given is that over the years they have let trees grow around bunkering and some of the design intent of Crump's original architecture and therefore effect some of the more interesting recovery shot angles and even legitimate risk/reward shot angles! But they are taking major steps to correct that now!
I know what MacDonald and other early architects, particularly the Scotish immigrant architects said about the benefits and the interest of the unfettered wind on seaside and links style courses. But I also know what William Flynn said in written detail later about trees and their use and benefit in golf architecture. And William Flynn, judging from his incredibly strong career inventory wasn't some slouch designer!!
I'm also quite sure that if C.B. MacDonald and some of the other immigrant architects like Ross and Mackenzie were around today they would likely see some of the varietal benefits of golf courses that have used trees as an element of golf architecture. Simply check out the writings of another slouch designer, A.W. Tillinghast's "Course Beautiful" and the elaborate mention of how to use trees in golf design.
Again, this is in no way to imply that trees should be used on golf courses that were not designed for trees or to crowd out the design intent of a course that was designed for them with trees that don't belong where they were later put!
But to say that all courses (and very good ones) everywhere should have all their trees removed just to make them susceptible to the unfettered wind and that would therefore make them better is really dumb and nigh onto architectural blasphemy, in my opinion!
If you want a challenge you should try out Pine Valley in a strong and SWIRLING wind condition sometime. It's plenty difficult and challenging, I can promise you that.
Half the interest in golf architecture generally is the wide and interesting and challenging variety of sites and courses everywhere and trees play as much a part in that as do the open and treeless links, seaside or plain type sites and courses.
It's perplexing to constantly hear people who really know architecture seriously state that one type is superior and the other is inferior. They may personally prefer one type, but they shouldn't state that because of their preference that everything should be that way!
They're all interesting if designed and maintained correctly and the fact of the differences in style, type and playability is just more of what's interesting about golf architecture.