[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Irrespective of the location of the camera, the photo shows the driving corridor, and not the view from the driving zone into the green, which is the critical one.

The lower elevation in the driving zone, will produce a skyline effect with the 9th green elevated above you, if the trees were removed.

Stand at 200, 150 and 100 yards and tell me what you think.

[Mike Benham]

The lower elevation in the driving zone, will produce a skyline effect with the 9th green elevated above you, if the trees were removed.

But the trees are there, so by a previously stated Mucci-definition of a skyline green, it is not a skyline green.

[Paul_Turner]

How much lower is the landing area below the tee?  10 feet?

How do we know that Crump wanted isolation through trees?  I can't remember where/who the source of that information comes from.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Benham,

You need to review post # 1.

The green IS a skyline green that has suffered from benign neglect.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I sort of agree and disagree.

Tom makes sense, and I don't think there is a person here that has studied Pine Valley more then Tom has, with the exception of Pat who has also spent pretty much a lifetime playing it.

So let see what a closer look of the fairway would say........

Below I've shown the same picture, but with one zoomed-in. Sorry for the quality, but I have a mound of paper work on top of my scanner and was too lazy to move it, so I simply shot it with my camera!

While the two images clearly show a somewhat false front to the OLD green, the back of the OLD green was sort of blind, but with the backdrop of trees across the train tracks and over the other side of the road, clearly make it less of a skyline green, and more of one of a deceptive nature. But Pat is right to some degree, the fairway does take a nice gradual fall, but I think its a bit past the driving area. I also don't think its ten feet of rise, but it isn't anything less then eight, so I think Pat is right about that.

From the driving area, one probably couldn't see the back of the green, probably where most of the pin placements were. The whole green looking to be pretty big if you ask me.




So, I think your both right and your both wrong, and that's why your the Dueling Doyen's!  Personally I think you both would make an excellent tap dance act, and I would love to be your representation for bigger and better futures on the Broadway stage.  All for a mere 25% of your gross, before I figure out your expenses.

Paul, Just to side with Sean and Tom, I too am fully appreciative of your research efforts and the value they bring to this website.

[TEPaul]

The fall from the tee on #9 down to the base of the fairway (lowest elevation in the LZ) is more than ten feet and from there up to the back of the green (top profile creating a skyline effect) is more than ten feet. You can see the back of the green clearly from anywhere on the fairway.

But as to a real "skyline" effect today behind that green's top profile, if all the trees on PVGC's property immediately behind it were removed, would no longer be possible. The reason is the treeline in the distance is much higher than it was in that photo in the teens (trees do grow higher). Just look again at that recent color photo. You can see right through the trees immediately behind the green and clearly see that much higher treeline than the one shown in the photos in the teens. If you go down to the very base of the fairway at the LZ and look up at the green you can still see that higher treeline way off in the distance. How do I know that? Because I've stood right there and looked at it.

This is similar to the "knoll" hole at Piping Rock. In the very old photos if you were at the base of that fairway in the teens the green would present a real "skyline" effect. But the trees about 400 yards past the green (to the left of the indoor tennis court) are now probably about 20-40 ft higher than they were in the teens so today that "skyline" effect no longer exists. You'd have to stand right under the green about 10 yards from it today to have a "skyline" effect.

[TEPaul]

"How do we know that Crump wanted isolation through trees?  I can't remember where/who the source of that information comes from."

Paul:

As far as I can see that comes from a number of sources. Finegan certainly mentions it in his PVGC history book as did Warner Shelly in his earlier history book. It appears Shelly and Finegan may be two of only a few who've thoroughly analyzed the PVGC archives in their entirety which apparently contain a number of letters from Crump.

"George Crump had very definite ideas, both general and specific, about how an outstanding course ought to look and what kind of holes it ought to possess. He thought each hole should be out of sight from each other hole,"
Jim Finegan's PVGC history

"Whether George Crump's ideas about a perfect course were influenced by pure thought or because of the land with which he had to work is not known. Some of his demands ARE well known. He abhored parallelism. He desired to keep each hole free from view of any other."
Warner Shelly, A Chronicle

Simon Carr, one of Crump's closest friends and golfing companions at PVGC writes of Crump's use of trees at PVGC after he cleared the site of 55,000 small trees to expose wide hole corridors and potential ones. (The trees of PV at that time of creation were certainly nowhere near the size and height they are now. I suppose that may have had to do with forest fires at some point before PV was discovered. Forest fires on raw land are certainly not uncommon and forestry experts now believe it to be "nature's way").

And from Tillinghast early in 1913, a remark about another interesting function of trees between holes;

"The scrub growth which covers the tract can be removed without difficulty, but only the fairways will be cleared, leaving close growth along the sides for winter protection."

Interestingly, the way Tillinghast describes 'fairways leaving close growth along the sides' is exactly the way PV is now and has always been. There's remarkably little rough grass at PVGC and Rich Christian will confirm that most of it is for mowers to turn.

So it seems from almost all who knew Crump and were associated with him at PVGC they were aware of this idea and remarked about it.

I guess all of them could've dreamed it all up or have collectively decided to lie about that but I'd think logically that wouldn't be very likely.

[Mike Benham]

Mike Benham,

You need to review post # 1.

The green IS a skyline green that has suffered from benign neglect.

Pat,

I assume you mean "was a skyline green".  The fact that it has suffered from benign neglect only defines what the holes was  ...

In prior posts, you defined a skyline green as follows:

http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forums2/index.php?board=1;action=display;threadid=890;start=0

TEPaul is correct.

A skyline green is one where only the green is visible and nothing behind it.

When I last played # 5 at The Creek there was the fairway, the green complex and the sky.

That is what I define as a skyline green

Redanman,

There's a number of big trees behind # 2 green at Lehigh.

And you implied to a poster that because there was a forest of trees visable behind the green, it was not a skyline green:

Pete Kilhern,

Isn't there a forest of trees behind the 10th at YALE ?

It would seem that based on your definition, that if one tree was visable behind the green, then it would not be a skyline green.  

And that's OK with me, just as long as you apply that definition equally as opposed to when you want to ...

[TEPaul]

Mike Benham:

There really is a moral to all this although the 9th green of PVGC may not be the very best example. That is that when some of these advocates for removing almost all trees from a golf course get a little too zestful about removing trees they better be damned sure what things will look like without them. If they don't do that there really is a potential for unfortunate mistakes and we all know that it takes a whole lot longer to restore what certain trees can do than it does to cut them down. Anyone interested in doing this kind of analysis with removing trees on golf courses and what the look will be without them should at least wait do that analysis in the winter!

[Tommy_Naccarato]

TE,
If the 9th is indeed more then ten feet, I wouldn't have ever noticed it being more then that,, and it doesn't look like it that much in pictures either,  But we are talking about a person that has seen the hole twice--once playing it and the other looking at it.

I don't think I would be out of line saying it was one of the flattest holes on the course either.

I'm with you in regards to cutting down tree on the sides and in the back, But I'm definitely for at least thinning them a bit and on a more regular basis because they really don't all that much come-into play from the tee (They did for me as I pumped one out of bounds right, and I saw my caddie throw it back in-bounds, which I told him I would be playing my second ball with two strokes added-thank you.

(This also probably led to his harsh reaction to me when we were on the tee at #10 and I asked for yardage to the DA, and we went through that whole exchange. The man had no sense of humor at all, especially when he found out I was serious about playing for the DA. I found this out from the other caddies in our group who were still laughing about it at #14.)

[TEPaul]

TommyN:

The elevation differential on #9 is more than 10 ft, that's for sure. It's not one of the flattest holes at PV either. From landing area to landing area #1, #6, #7, #12 are much flatter. Don't get me wrong--I wouldn't be at all opposed to seeing trees come out behind and around #9 green. All I'm saying is if they did come out when you stand out there in the LZ you'll still definitely see trees behind the green in the distance. Pat or Paul or anyone else can mince words all they want to but that fact is undeniable. The green that would be knock-out stunning as a restored "skyline" is #2, and it would be a snap to do!

[Patrick_Mucci]

Mike Benham,

Go back and look at Paul Turner's photos and what does your untrained eye see ?   A skyline green.

That's what the architect intended.

The green remains a skyline green in structure and location, only benign neglect has muted the effect.

Next, you'll try to tell me that 20 years ago the 11th green at NGLA wasn't a double plateau green because the back portion of the green wasn't mowed to green height.

Without touching the green, the removal of the backround trees restores it's original design intent, just like mowing the back of the 11th at NGLA restored the intent to have that green play as a double plateau green.

TEPaul,

The only reason that I don't agree with the isolation theory is the massive amount of tree clearing that Crump undertook when designing and building Pine Valley.

If he had wanted to achieve isolation, why clear all those trees knowing that it would take 20-50 years for their replacements to grow and create the isolation effect ?

It doesn't make sense.

Especially from a man who knew what he was doing when he picked the site and undertook the design and construction of the golf course.

I'm with Paul Turner on this one.

Since those trees on the right side of # 18 are on club property, and are between the railway line and the 18th fairway, they could be easily "topped off" to insure a skyline green.

If we get to PV, let's study the visuals from the 9th fairway.

[Paul_Turner]

Patrick

Like TEP, I think those trees in the background are further away that the 18th and the area that PV owns.  That said, I think only seeing the tops of these in the distance, from the landing zone, would be far more visually striking than the current framing.  The 18th would look even more impressive as well.  That old pic (same set) in Geoff's book of the 18th tee is one of the greatest vintage pics ever.

Yes the 2nd would be very easy to restore.  The 17th would work too, but you'd have to take a lot out!  All around the 11th tee.

[TEPaul]

TEPaul,
The only reason that I don't agree with the isolation theory is the massive amount of tree clearing that Crump undertook when designing and building Pine Valley.
If he had wanted to achieve isolation, why clear all those trees knowing that it would take 20-50 years for their replacements to grow and create the isolation effect ?
It doesn't make sense."

Pat:

I'm not too sure why you keep saying that. You just continue to miss the obvious fact about PVGC and its holes were intended to be visually isolated from each other--in many ways. I've probably pointed this out on here a dozen times in the past. I'd certainly not included the area behind the 9th green as an area he was dedicated to visually blocking with trees as there's about a 60 foot elevation change along a broad ridge directly behind it.

Of course Crump cleared out a good many trees when he created the course---some say app. 55,000 trees. That was a massive undertaking and it took a lot of work and quite a bit of his money. It wasn't cutting them down that took so much time and effort in that day, it was pulling the stumps out and hauling them all over to the right of where #13 is now to burn them. Crump devised a couple of creative ways of ripping out those stumps.

But if you look at the peripheries of the course in the early aerials you'll see that natural site was a dense forest of trees--although trees that were nowhere near the height and size they are now. Was there a massive forest fire on the site of Sumner Ireland's property at some point not that long before it became PVGC accounting for all those trees that were not particularly tall? Logic and understanding the natural cycles of forestry would tell us that was probably the case.

You should understand that those 55,000 trees came out of what was designed and what was to become very wide hole corridors (as they still are today!). Crump also clear cut a number of other areas that he planned for proposed holes or parts of them he never used---eg to the right of #6, straight out past #12 green, way to the right and also to the left of #13, to the left of #14 (the proposed "cape" hole iteration that was never built and the proposed par 4 14th hole that was never built, and the alternate fairway on #17, among other areas such as behind #15 and to the left of the beginning of #12 and the end of #13.

But the thing is, Crump and Colt purposely routed that course in such a way that it would have very wide hole corridors and also enough area for trees to isolate the holes visually from one another as he clearly, from many sources, wanted to do.

This obviously took a lot of foresight in routing to accomplish both! The only areas of the course that are not this way is a relatively small area between #6 and #7, between #7 and #8 and between about 200 yards along #16 and #17.

Not only that but those old clearing lines that were never used are a virtual blueprint on those old aerials to understand the various hole iterations that Crump thought about but never used. Those areas that are now grown back into trees do not need to be restored by removing trees again---many of them were for hole iterations that were never to be.

One only needs to compare the record of what he was trying to do, what he said he wanted to do, and what has happened over the years with trees encroaching on some of his flanking bunkers to understand the necessary areas where trees should be removed today. And that's precisely what the club appears to be doing today.

But for you or anyone else to maintain that Crump did not want to isolate his holes from one another visually is total nonsense and to claim otherwise is nothing more than uninformed revisionism of his intent for the course.

I don't think that much of rampant tree-huggers who plant trees in areas where a good original designer never intended them to be but I feel the same way about those who are so thoughtlessly dedicated to removing trees on a golf course that they neglect to consider or respect the intention that the original architect meant to use trees for.

The latter is the case with some of you regarding PVGC and it's visually isolated holes. You seem to hate trees on golf courses so much you refuse to acknowledge the use Crump wanted to put them to and how he came to do that.

Again, that course was routed very wide. In that hole by hole width there was room for very wide fairways and for trees to isolate the holes from each other TOO!!!

That's the thing for you to begin to understand if you want to understand PVGC and what it was supposed to be! The golf course itself, although one of the tightest anywhere for green to tee commutes (another fixation of Crump's) is actually on a lot of acres! Why do you suppose that is? Obviously for the reasons I've given here--eg wide hole corridors that also provide added width for trees to visually isolate the holes! All the club needs to do is get those original corridors that were finally USED back to the widths they once were and there will be plenty of room for the trees that remain between the holes as Crump intended!

If you continue to deny or not acknowedge this obvious fact, Pat, you must be doing so for some personal agenda that does not conform to what Crump was trying to accomplish there.

Does it make sense yet---or are you going to just continue to be stubborn and miss or deny the obvious?

[TEPaul]

"Patrick
Like TEP, I think those trees in the background are further away that the 18th and the area that PV owns.  That said, I think only seeing the tops of these in the distance, from the landing zone, would be far more visually striking than the current framing.  The 18th would look even more impressive as well.  That old pic (same set) in Geoff's book of the 18th tee is one of the greatest vintage pics ever."

Pat:

Paul now understands the way it is today behind #9 green and the treeline in the distance. The top profile of that treeline is not on PCGC's property--some of those trees are probably miles away. All I'm saying is that green can never have the "skyline" effect again of those early photos in the teens on this thread.

But I couldn't agree more that the green would be more dramatic with the distance treeline and the sky above that distance lower treeline than it is now with the trees that're now immediately behind the green.

The only problem is to make that entire green and green-end not look like a open corridor at the end of a NYC street a lot of trees would also need to be taken down well off to the sides around and behind that green-end and that's a big undertaking. The same is not he case with #2.

A good comparison to what #9 may look like if you removed  the trees just behind it only and left the rest to the sides is what #15 Friar's Head would look like if you removed the trees just behind it and left the rest to the sides behind it. Very wisely Ken Bakst does not want to do that for these same reasons---it would probably look odd and contrived!

Also don't misunderstand the nature of the so-called "hole isolation" effect Crump intended. He apparently intended the holes to be their own quiet little individual worlds and they very much are that and unique for it but I believe Crump would've had no problem at all with a green about 60 feet above another hole's fairway running perpindicular to it below. That's also a very dramatic and long running ridgeline #9 green sits on and to its left and right.

At one point Crump had a routing iteration with a hole running from app. the clubhouse across a deep ravine to a landing area near #9 green and a second shot to a proposed green to the right of present #10 green!!

Architects like Hunter who was around PVGC say that #9 was an original Crump hole but from everything I can see (on the big topo) I feel #9 in its entirety just may be the most complete Colt idea at PVGC (other than perhaps his change to #5). The Colt stick routing iteration for #9 on the topo complete with his bunker placement and design (the blue lines) is remarkably similar to the way that hole is today!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I'll take your word on the number of trees removed, but this only supports my theory.

If one understands the difficulty with massive tree clearing and stump removal in the early 1900's with mules and man power, the removing of trees was a tremendous burden, from a labor, time and financial point of view.

One can certainly create wide playing corridors without removing the tree buffers that you insist he wanted to keep.

Why remove them, and then replant them knowing that it would take 20-50 years for them to mature ?

Why not just clear the wide playing corridors and leave the already dense forest that existed on the property long before the golf course, thus establishing isolation from the very get go ?

I don't know that I'd be so dogmatic on this issue.
The clear and replant concept seems wasteful, expensive and time consuming to the degree that Crump would never live to see his course mature to its intended state.  That he would never live to see the materialization of his dream, his vision.

A more prudent concept would seem to be, clearing only what he intended to clear, leaving the trees to buffer and isolate the holes, during his lifetime, so that he could see his vision materialize.

Think again about the process in the context of the intended results, and it just doesn't make sense, from a variety of perspectives.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding your post #41, just read this remark carefully and consider what he means by it.

"The scrub growth which covers the tract can be removed without difficulty, but only the fairways will be cleared, leaving close growth along the sides for winter protection."
A.W. Tillinghast, early 1913

Tillinghast was there from the very beginning, before the course was built. "..only the fairways will be cleared....." What is he saying by that remark?

Simon Carr's "notes" concerning the creation of the golf course say the same thing as Tillinghast. Crump did not clear trees from areas other than hole corridors and then replant as you suspect. He only cleared trees from hole corridors (referred to as "fairways") and then actually added more trees to the areas outside those hole corridors.

Carr mentioned the tract contained;

"....pines and a good share of cedars. To these have been added hundreds of evergreen sapling from the (?) white pine, Scotch fir, hemlock etc.....In exposed places they (?) planted to the north side of tees and greens, (?) have a comfortable protection against the (?) winds of the winter season."

[TEPaul]

I think this thread, as well as the concurrent thread "Do you restore or try to make a course better?" are really excellent threads for this website and others who look in here.

It seems what we have here are a number of so-called "purist" contributors on trees on a golf course that appear to be intent on establishing "revisionist history" about PVGC.

In my opinion, and particularly with a course as interesting and famous as PVGC, the first and foremost effort should be to establish through research EXACTLY what Crump was trying to do and to accomplish with his golf course, EVEN IF that may fly in the face of what some on here feel about trees on a golf course.

To do otherwise is nothing more than "interpretative" architecture and "interpretative" maintenance practices for some current agenda on the part of those who contribute on here.

Even if we may not agree with some of the things Crump wanted to do we should at least understand what those things were exactly and then consider why.

Wayne Morrison and I regarding William Flynn hope to show EXACLTY some of the things Flynn was attempting to do in his architectural career even if they don't exactly all conform to the general thinking on this website of what architecture and golf should be. Anything less would be "revisionist history" in our opinions.

Those on here hopefully will begin to then understand how things were evolving in golf and architecture and why---even if it doesn't all fit into the perceptions of what should be of those on here.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

There seems to be some conflict amongst the different sources you quote,

But, the biggest conflict seems to between AWT and the early phots of Pine Valley.

Tillinghast said one thing, but the photos reveal quite the opposite.

Which are we to believe ?

[T_MacWood]

"It seems what we have here are a number of so-called "purist" contributors on trees on a golf course that appear to be intent on establishing "revisionist history" about PVGC."

Huh?

I don't see history being revised, but questioning if the course was better with fewer trees...and more exposed sand & other natural features and more open panaramas. In many of these old photos from the 1920's and 30's there was still plenty of trees, but there was also plenty of the other stuff too (exposed sand, exposed land formations, man-made hazards etc)....has the encroachement of trees gone too far? If the tree situation was brought back to pre-WWII would the course be even more spectacular?

By the way I agree that Crump was very keen on having his holes set apart, he evidently was strongly opposed to parallel fairways. And trees were introduced early on...in particular on the north side of tees and greens to protect exposed areas from the cold north wind of winter.

Isn't it possible to preserve Crump's wish for seperation and good winter golf and still go back to the equilibrium of trees to other natural and man-made features found in the 1930's?

[TEPaul]

“TEPaul,
There seems to be some conflict amongst the different sources you quote,
But, the biggest conflict seems to between AWT and the early phots of Pine Valley.
Tillinghast said one thing, but the photos reveal quite the opposite.
Which are we to believe?”

Pat:

Where’s the conflict, other than what you’re trying to create? Tillinghast’s comments on the raw PVGC site seem completely consistent with the early photos I’ve seen. Tillinghast described it as;

"The scrub growth which covers the tract can be removed without difficulty, but only the fairways will be cleared, leaving close growth along the sides for winter protection".

You should understand that the site Crump found was one with small immature trees and scrub undergrowth. Why was that? Why was it not densely forested with large and mature trees? That’s a good question, and logically it’d seem to me there must have been natural forest fires there that often happen on large raw tracts of land in this country. Forestry experts call these cycles “nature’s way”.

There seems little question Crump removed numerous trees from what's been described as "fairway" corridors--the number of 55,000 trees was given. Those trees removed were obviously small and immature trees as early photos show existed there when Crump found the site. But he had numerous trees planted in those areas that were not the cleared fairways---Carr even mentions what kind of trees they were--eg “saplings’ of the coniferous varieties (and then he names what varieties some were)! A number of people there at that time explain that was done due to Crump’s desire to sectionalize the holes from view from other holes. Why are we questioning this desire of Crump’s? Probably because it doesn’t fit into our current fixation of lack of trees on golf courses. We should realize Crump apparently didn’t feel that way about his course.

Tom MacWood asks:

“....has the encroachement of trees gone too far? If the tree situation was brought back to pre-WWII would the course be even more spectacular?”

Tom:

Of course it has and the club seems aware of that. That’s why they’re beginning to remove trees in various areas of the course. My belief is it would be ideal simply to remove all the trees from all the bunker and sand areas the course was initially constructed to have. Back to the look before WW2? Perhaps, in a quantity sense but would you also suggest they remove perhaps 30-40 ft from the top of every tree on that property too? That’s probably about as much as most all the trees have grown that existed at PVGC before WW2!

But if someone thinks the course should be taken back to the look of some of the early photos and aerials of the teens and 1920s and perhaps early 1930s, then in my opinion that person is not very competent in understanding the intent and intended evolution of a golf course such as PVGC.

Those trees that Crump had planted were described as “saplings! Do you suppose Crump or those there back then were NOT aware those trees would grow to full maturity?

Is someone on here seriously suggesting that course and the look of it should be taken back to that early time just after those saplings were planted? That’s perhaps the most preposterous thing I’ve ever heard of on here!

Is someone suggesting that course should be clear cut of all mature trees (which apparently were not present on the raw PVGC site) and replanted with hundreds or perhaps thousands of saplings again they way they did it in the teens and basically just start all over again?

If someone on here is suggesting that because of an old aerial and the look of the course at that time, I really think that person’s architectural competence should be seriously questioned!



 

[T_MacWood]

"Perhaps, in a quantity sense but would you also suggest they remove perhaps 30-40 ft from the top of every tree on that property too?" no


"Those trees that Crump had planted were described as “saplings! Do you suppose Crump or those there back then were NOT aware those trees would grow to full maturity?" no...it appears they were quite educated in their choice of specimens to plant...hemlock, scotch firs, white pine.

"Is someone on here seriously suggesting that course and the look of it should be taken back to that early time just after those saplings were planted?" The date I put forth was the 1930's...15 or 20 years after the sapplings had been planted.  

"Is someone suggesting that course should be clear cut of all mature trees (which apparently were not present on the raw PVGC site) and replanted with hundreds or perhaps thousands of saplings again they way they did it in the teens and basically just start all over again?" It appears you've gone off the deep end.

"If someone on here is suggesting that because of an old aerial and the look of the course at that time, I really think that person’s architectural competence should be seriously questioned!" I don't have a problem with someone using aerials, along with other photographic resourses, when evaluating the architectural highpoint of PVGC....if they didn't look at the aerials, I would question their architectural competence.

[Tommy_Naccarato]

I think its safe to say that those saplings developed more saplings, and those saplings developed more saplings, and so on and so on.  It doesn't take long.  But I also think that Crump probably expected the situation to be handled properly when the original saplings did reach maturity.

I also think the definition of this isolation of holes was never meant to be an arena of pine trees inhibiting play and destroying the original architectural intent of Pine Valley.

And on the 9th, while it will never happen, I'm sure the sensitive clearing of some trees could add some deceptive nature to the Maxwell Left Green, similar to the original 9th green. while many will question that, I think the cleaning up of trees there, even the downright removal of some would only make the hole that much better. And like Tom MacWood, a sensitive restoration targeted from 1922 to 1930 would be great.

[TEPaul]

Tom, it really is sort of funny the way you respond to things. Instead of telling me I've gone off the deep end why don't you just specifically respond to legitimate architectural questions only?

"Is someone on here seriously suggesting that course and the look of it should be taken back to that early time just after those saplings were planted?" The date I put forth was the 1930's...15 or 20 years after the sapplings had been planted.

So then why don't you tell me how PVGC can go back to the look of trees there that are 15-20 years old rather than app 80 years old? Is that such a "off the deepend" question?  

"Is someone suggesting that course should be clear cut of all mature trees (which apparently were not present on the raw PVGC site) and replanted with hundreds or perhaps thousands of saplings again they way they did it in the teens and basically just start all over again?" It appears you've gone off the deep end.

Why would you say that if I ask why and how someone thinks a course could be exactly restored to the look it had in the teens or even the late 1930s tree-wise?

"If someone on here is suggesting that because of an old aerial and the look of the course at that time, I really think that person’s architectural competence should be seriously questioned!" I don't have a problem with someone using aerials, along with other photographic resourses, when evaluating the architectural highpoint of PVGC....if they didn't look at the aerials, I would question their architectural competence.

Did I ever say old aerials should not be looked at? Of course I didn't so why bother to respond that way? We're talking on this thread about returning greens and holes and a course to a look of perhaps 50-80 years ago OR NOT in the context of its trees!

So why don't you just tell me how you think that can be best done if you disagree with how I've mentioned on here I think it can be best done.

If you're having some problem doing that then perhaps, first we should just see if we agree that all trees do grow over time and some very large. If you don't recognize that changes the look of a golf course from 50-60-70 or 80 years ago, then I can't imagine what we could intelligently discuss here.

So why don't you just tell me what you're trying to suggest here and how to go about it?

[TEPaul]

With Pat Mucci, all I'm trying to do here it get on the same page with how that site looked tree-wise just before Crump found it, what he did with clearing tree-wise and why and what he did planting-wise and why.

Once we get on the same page with the facts that way then we can more intelligently determine to what use Crump intended to eventually put trees on that golf course and how the course could be restored and maintained that way.

I'm beginning to believe that too many on this website look at PVGC (even the way it was uniquely intended to be tree-wise) and are simply assuming that since the course was perhaps intended by Crump to block other holes from view when on a particular hole that that's a very negative thing and a negative message to send to other clubs around the world!

It is not! The only negative thing about that is when others assume, for not good reasons, that Crump or anyone else was trying to suggest that all golf courses should look like his tree-wise and for the same reason. As far as I can tell Crump never said or thought such a thing.

His course that way may have been unique and perhaps he intended it to be unique that way. But it seems too many on here can't bring themselves to understand that or admit it! And so now they're actually trying to find ways to deny that Crump ever did want his course to be that way.

When that starts to happen, in my opinion, discussions like this one begin to devolve towards the ridiculous and become a waste of time or even worse---revisionist architectural history.

There certainly seem to be a good number of contemporaneous sources who knew Crump well who all corroborate completely consistently what he wanted to do with trees at PVGC---Tillinghast, a prolific writer and chronicler, being just one of them.

But I almost forgot---perhaps Tillinghast and his words are just not to be trusted by us since there was a recent thread which attempted to prove that Tillinghast was the sort who was prone to compromising his architectural principles. So I suppose now we should just look at what he said as suspect or even lies!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()