[TEPaul]

TommyN:

There's no quesiton that PVGC evolved into too many trees and trees that began to encroach into some of Crump's "other feature" (bunkers) penal areas. No one is denying that and not even the club now either and even into a few of his original shot angles and such. And they have and continue to do something to restore those things--including removing trees. There's no question in the last 40 to 50 years PVGC planted additional trees in certain areas, generally completely away from playing areas.

Go back to the look of the 1920s or late 1930s tree-wise as Tom MacWood has suggested? I'd like to know how he exactly proposes to do that.

My suggestion would be to simply remove all the trees that now are in those areas where Crump used other features such as bunkering or mounds and areas of sand and probably never intended trees to be as well as away from some of his flanking shot angles. Would you or Tom MacWood disagree with that?

And I've also asked him how he would propose to return the look of various holes and greens to what they looked like tree-wise if those trees all over Pine Valley and even in the distance beyond it have grown as they have in the last 60 or so years.

[TEPaul]

Unfortunately, what I'm beginning to feel is just how unrealistic some on this site with some of the things they propose and suggest and even think really are or can be. I hear more and more of those that run clubs including those superintendents, all of whom would normally be completely in tune with the general philosophies of this website, but only if we begin to be and act far more realistically.

There seems to be a general tenor on here that appears to be getting worse of who can "OUT-PURIST" the next contributor. Even some of the architects we admire on here are beginning to laugh at this tenor and attitude.

In the end, it does no one any good at all. It doesn't even do the architecture we all seem to admire any good either, in my opinion. All it does is polarize us from many of the things, clubs and people we don't need to polarize---who may just be our natural allies if we can learn how to be a bit more realistic about what's really going on out there.

We need to stop that stuff and begin to learn how to get more realistic. Some probably think that'll contribute to corrupting architecture even more somehow.

It won't---it'll help the cause because more people and clubs will be more inclined to take us seriously.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

I'd like to do the same thing, but, I'm not so sure that the position you've taken is absolutely accurate.

In looking at the photos, circa 1922-1925 on pages 53 to 62 in Geoff Shackelford's book, "The Golden Age of Golf Design" one could conclude that Pine Valley was cleared out of a dense forest of trees, not just scrub and saplings.

The picture of # 18 that Tommy Naccarato posted from the seed company seems to show mature specimen trees lining the right side of # 18 fairway, and beyond.[/color]

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.

See my above comments[/color]

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.

What he intended is open to conjecture, and that's my point.  Isolating a golf hole doesn't necessarily equate to hiding a golf hole from all of the others by planting trees.
There are degrees of isolation and variables in the very definition, and I'm not so sure that anyone knows exactly what he intended.  If # 18 didn't have a tree on it today, it would still be considered isolated, wouldn't it ?
So, isolation can be looked at in more then one context.

In addition, sometimes an architect intends to do one thing, yet ends up doing something else.
Intentions are not necessarily static, especially over extended time frames, and we know that Pine Valley wasn't built in a day, or seven days.[/color]

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.

But Tom, you don't know for certain what Crump wanted during his entire involvement with the creation, design and construction of Pine Valley.

Even Crump was stumped on his own routing while he was designing and building the golf course, so if he didn't know what he ultimately wanted to do, how can anyone speak with absolute certainty regarding their interpretations and theories
about what he intended ?[/color]

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.

The photographic evidence may be in conflict with some of those contemporaenous sources.

And, you have to follow the money.
In those days, people didn't waste it.
There was an efficiency in design and construction.
And as such, it doesn't make sense to clear all of those trees at a tremendous cost of time, labor and money, only to replant them so that in 20-50 years the holes would be as you and others allege, isolated from the other holes.
And, Crump would never get to see his intentions come to fruition, even if he lived another 10-20 years.

I think genuine, valid questions are being posed on this issue.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm saying that perhaps you shouldn't be so dogmatic with regard to confining the isolation issue or definition SOLELY in the context of trees.[/color]

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!

[T_MacWood]

TE
I asked if it would be possible to preserve Crump's wish for separation 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?

I’m asking the question in a general sense; I’m not focused specifically on the 9th hole or 17th hole and their skyline feature.  Perhaps re-opening the backdrop wouldn’t work…then again maybe it would. It is possible to preserve a limited number of trees as a backdrop, and also to allow for open vistas as one nears the precipice.

From everything I’ve seen the course was clearly more open pre-WWII…twenty or twenty-five years after the saplings of White Pine, Scotch Fir, Hemlock and Larch were planted. I don’t think height is the issue…its width, exposed sand, exposed land formations and selected panoramas.

The native tree in that location, the Jersey Pine, reaches a mature height of 40’.

The trees they chose to plant north of tees and greens indicate they were excellent judges of ornamental specimens; all four of those trees (the pines, hemlock and larch) mature into very handsome and picturesque trees…the two pines and larch with graceful open habits. Based upon their choice of specimen, if would be difficult to believe Crump was ignorant of what these trees would ultimately grow into…both ornamentally and size wise.

A mature Scotch Pine is normally between 30’ to 60’ feet….medium growth rate (1 to 2 feet per year). Eastern White Pine 50’ to 80’ -- fast growth rate, approximately 25 years. Canadian Hemlock, 40’ to 70’ – medium growth rate. Larch 40’ to 80’ slow to medium rate. Most of the trees planted in 1914 would’ve been fairly mature by the mid- to late 30’s, but as I said before I don’t believe height is the issue.

I’d be interested in the thoughts of a tree expert, is it the Jersey Pine that has engulfed the golf course or some other tree. Do you know?

 I don’t think it would be too difficult for an expert also to identify/find those specimens planted north of the tees and greens…as opposed to the weed-like growth that overwhelmed both natural features and man-made hazards.

Could the creation of more circulation also benefit…doesn’t circulation help turf conditions (of course wind helps the golf)?

There are quite a few old photos from 1936 when PVGC hosted the Walker Cup…perhaps that might be a year to study. Was that the course’s architectural high point?

[Paul_Turner]

I have one or two old pics of the site before construction really got underway.  I'll post them soon.  

I think there are obvious areas where you could open up vistas without changing the hole isolation:

Right of the 1st.  And left...see the bunkers more.

Behind the 2nd

Tee shot on the 4th.  It looked wilder and more terrifying with less tree coverage.

Left of the 5th green, although maybe safety issue with the house.

The right side of 6th.  Open up the gorge and chop down those UGLY trees on the left side.  Bunkers are in the middle of these.

9th as discussed above, particularly opening up the left side and behind (no holes to see there).

10th all down the left side and behind...will also get the skyline 17th.

12th  Definitely should be able to see the green here from the tee.  Remove the trees that cover the bunkers.

15th The ugly trees along the right side of the 15th green.  Some trees  have been cleared up on the left side bank to expose bunkers...perhaps do more of this.

17th Skyline

18th Would look amazing with the cliff more exposed.

There are some other obvious vistas that would look stunning, but these would look over other holes:  from the high 12th or 13th tees would examples, looking over 15/16.

I'd also get rid of the deciduous trees, the course should never look verdant IMO.  It is PINE valley.

[Paul_Turner]

PS

I don't believe the isolation nature of PV was unique or new at the time.  Colt had already done this by planting trees on Park's routing at Sunningdale Old.   Plus he'd already built St George's Hill and Swinley Forest, which were hewn out of thick forest (even more so than Pine Valley); both have much isolation and certainly much more than other inland layouts of the time (Walton Heath).  

Plus Simpson had built New Zealand, which was also a forest course and must have had plenty of isolation.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

If I'm sure of anything to do with PV I'm sure Crump wanted to create holes where golfers on one hole could not easily be seen on others. The sources confirming this are just far too numerous to deduce other-wise. Of course something like a the ridge that #9 sits on in relation to #18 creates a forrm of isolation and if you'll notice I said as much on this thread a day or so ago!

Analyzing photos from the 1920s, for instance, from GeoffShac's book can mislead you as trees had perhaps a decade or so to grow--many of them planted at Crump's insistence.

Also looking at some of the clearing lines in those old aerials from the 1920s of which John Ott has the entire array from the Hagley Dallin aerial collection tell a real story of what Crump was doing there clearing-wise and routing wise. There are numerous corridors that he cleared that were never used for golf holes. They're all over the place and basically probably tell the story of how Crump cleared and uncovered areas and potential routes for holes. With all those clearing lines that were not used for holes one can see were growing back in the 1920s and it's evident they all followed the stick routing that he likely did before Colt arrived and finalized the routing pretty much the way the course was built and now is.

All this tells the story of how PVGC began, evolved and came to be. Check much later aerials and you will see that many of those clearing lines that were never used are treed back up over the decades. If you want to know what they were and where they were I'd be glad to tell you. All that gives the early site a more open look than one would at first expect but as I said above those were the reasons. Probably very few understand this!

So you can call me dogmatic or whatever you want to but I'm confident I know as well as could be known how and why Crump cleared various areas of that site and what he eventually intended tree-wise on the course. What you can see on some of those early aerials squares very nicely with much of the text documentation left by his friends and collaborators.

Tom MacWood:

In perhaps the last 50 or so years numerous trees were planted all over PVGC. This had nothing much to do with Crump's ideas as far as I can tell. J.A. Brown perhaps, but certainly Ernie Ransome had plenty of trees planted there and these very well may be the ones that now encroach some of which are now being considered for removal.

Paul Turner said:

"I don't believe the isolation nature of PV was unique or new at the time.  Colt had already done this by planting trees on Park's routing at Sunningdale Old.  Plus he'd already built St George's Hill and Swinley Forest, which were hewn out of thick forest (even more so than Pine Valley); both have much isolation and certainly much more than other inland layouts of the time (Walton Heath)."

Paul:

This is all obviously true. I did not mean to imply isolating golf holes with the use of trees was invented by Crump or unique to him. It would be nice however if some of these contributors on here would simply get to the point where they can see and understand what he was doing and wanted to do with trees at PV.

I, for one, am not interested in debating the accuracy of this fact endlessly. There's no question of it in my mind but if others want to doubt it forever, by all means let them---all they're doing in my opinion is denying the obvious!  

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Is there much on the techniques Crump used for grubbing up the trees?  I want to compare this to what Colt did, it would give some insight into their discussions:

An excerpt from Colt's "Construction of New Golf Courses" , see Forest Courses section.





Carr claims 55,000 trees for PV.  Colt claims only 14,000 at Swinley.  Perhaps Swinley wasn't quite as heavily wooded as I thought, but from looking at early PV construction pics, I think Carr was counting small scrub as well as larger trees.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I remember playing PV in the early to mid 60's, and in forty years the growth of scrub and trees had a dramatic impact on the look and play of the golf course.

The first that comes to mind is the inside elbow of the dogleg first hole, which used to be a sandy, semi-waste area and now is a thick forest of trees.

It's hard to differentiate between what was original and generational trees from trees planted, or allowed to grow in the last 50 years.

Some of the natural features of the site provide for degrees of isolation, and I doubt that Crump would endorse golf in darkened hallways if he was alive today.

I'd like to explore the financial side of designing and constructing the golf course.

Are there any records of budgets or expenses related to design and construction ?   That might provide some insight into the tree issue.

[TEPaul]

"Tom
Is there much on the techniques Crump used for grubbing up the trees?  I want to compare this to what Colt did, it would give some insight into their discussions:"

Paul:

Yes, I believe actually there is. I'll see what I can find. As for discussions between Colt and Crump, apparently the PV archives contain little to nothing on that. That was one of the things Jim Finegan mentioned was a shame---that neither one of them seemed to keep a single shred documenting what they did and said to each other in that week or so in May 1913---the only time they were together at PVGC.

[TEPaul]

"and I doubt that Crump would endorse golf in darkened hallways if he was alive today."

Now Pat, for Chrisssakes don't start saying things like that because it really is bullshit! PVGC's playing corridors are still  wide as are many of their fairway widths. There ARE NO DARKENED HALLWAY holes at Pine Valley!!

There are a number of areas on the course that could stand the clearing back of trees, as I've said so many times. The best general prescription, in my opinion, would be to simply clear all trees out of all Crump's bunker, mound and original shot angles. There are other areas that would look fantastic if trees were cleared back---eg right #1 tee shot, left #5 green, way back on the right of #6 perhaps partially exposing the green from the tee!!, on the right side of # 9 down near the green, way back on the right on #11 perhaps almost exposing the green from the tee. Same on left of #12 exposing Crump's bunkering that is 30 yards inside trees (which would expose the green from the original tee, clear way back on the left side of #13 all along (Crump actually intended to build a back tee app where they just have and exposing the FLAG from that tee!!) (think about that and look at the old clearing lines on the old aerials on this), clear back on the right of #15 and definitely up along the hill to the left of the green!!, possibly restore the right alternate fairway on #17 clearing trees all along the right side of this hole.

[Paul_Turner]

Actually not pre-construction...more like soon after the fairway corridors had been cleared.  





Looking from 3rd teeing area up towards 6th.

[Paul_Turner]

Here's the 9th in the 20s just before the upper, then new, green was built (obviously the lower green wasn't abandoned as implied by the description).  Plenty of tree growth in that decade, but the new green would have been skyline.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I never said that the hallways were narrow.
I never addressed their width,
That assessment is all your doing, not mine.

I think your excessive exuberance to defend PV may have led you to jump the gun and attribute erroneous conclusions or positions to me.

The fairways today seem like darkened hallways, irrespective of their width.

P.S.  How would you describe # 12 fairway ?

Paul Turner,

I think a reasonable growth rate, in general, for pines would be a foot a year, and as such, those trees you pictured would seem to be of significant density, height and maturity had the photo been taken 10 years earlier.

[TEPaul]

"The fairways today seem like darkened hallways, irrespective of their width."

That's preposterous. The fairways of PV are nothing like darkened hallways. When the sun shines in Clementon NJ there's plenty of light on every single one of them. That 'darkened hallway' remark is just another example of you making an off the wall comment and when someone calls you on it you claim you've been misquoted or something and then you try to tack the discussion off in some other direction.

My primary point here, however, is it's virtually undeniable that George Crump wanted his holes to be separated from each other by trees. As I've said a dozen or more time too many trees were planted in the wrong places well after Crump died and the club is removing many of them in those areas.

I have no exuberance in defending PV---I'm simply telling you the facts--which apparently you just don't want to hear.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

That's a most interesting photo of the 9th in the 1920s. It appears they made a dedicated effort to keep trees out from immediately behind left #9 green. That's interesting and that photo gives some indication of what it'd look like if they did the same today with trees on either side of the green (although I'm certain you'd see trees behind that green that're far off in the distance and off the property).

[Patrick_Mucci]

My primary point here, however, is it's virtually undeniable that George Crump wanted his holes to be separated from each other by trees.

I'm not so sure that trees were to be the sole method of isolating holes, and # 18 is a great example.
# 18 is isolated with or without trees.[/color]

As I've said a dozen or more time too many trees were planted in the wrong places well after Crump died and the club is removing many of them in those areas.

Tom, that's a critical point.
It would seem that noone knows the degree of seperation and isolation that Crump wanted.  If Crump's intent was so clear then it's logical to assume that Pine Valley wouldn't have overplanted and planted in the wrong places.

And, it may have been the very theory that you're espousing may have led to the overplanting.  The theory that Crump wanted to totally isolate each hole by creating barriers or buffers of trees.

The early photos don't seem to be the work of a man who wanted to create isolation through massive tree planting.
And, that goes back to the tree clearing and cost issues.

I think that we just disagree on this issue. Or, that I'm just not as certain as you, as to Crump's thoughts and objectives relative to hole isolation.[/color]

I have no exuberance in defending PV---I'm simply telling you the facts--which apparently you just don't want to hear.

[TEPaul]

"Tom, that's a critical point.
It would seem that noone knows the degree of seperation and isolation that Crump wanted.  If Crump's intent was so clear then it's logical to assume that Pine Valley wouldn't have overplanted and planted in the wrong places."

Pat:

I never said Crump's intent was so clear that everyone would understand it. I said it was Crump's intent that trees were to be used to separate holes visually from one another---and in my opinion, that's undenaibly true. I didn't say Crump didn't understand the use of a high ridge without trees could also isolate a hole. I'm sure he did understand that!

"And, it may have been the very theory that you're espousing may have led to the overplanting.  The theory that Crump wanted to totally isolate each hole by creating barriers or buffers of trees."

That certainly may be true. That's precisely why I'm suggesting that the club understand that Crump designed the routing of the course to be wide enough to incorporate both wide fairways and playing corridors that included ENOUGH routing room for divisions created by trees!

That's what not many in the history of PVGC may have understood well enough! That's what's important to understand. You, on the other hand, seem to be implying that the course tree-wise should be returned to the look of a very early time in it's evolution when it was not mature tree-wise.

This to me is foolishness beyond belief. The point for both you and the club to focus on is that golf course was designed for both very wide playing corridors and mature tree divisions between holes. Crump certainly was not of the opinion that the trees he used and planted would not or should not grow to full maturity someday!!!

How many times have I said the best balance and prescription for the course is to clear all the trees out of those areas that Crump did not intend them to be such as his bunkers and areas of visiblitly of shots and angles?

That's what the club and you need to focus on. This means trees that have encroached over the decades in those playing areas need to be cleared back and the MATURE tree divisions between holes need to be maintained and preserved.

The thing to focus on is the course can have BOTH---it was designed to have BOTH!! If you don't believe me call up John Ott and ask him about it---he's lived there for over 35 years and definitely understands the way the course is supposed to be better than you do.

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

You, on the other hand, seem to be implying that the course tree-wise should be returned to the look of a very early time in it's evolution when it was not mature tree-wise.

That's not true, I never said or implied that.
That is an extreme misinterpretation on your part.

I did say, years ago, that there's an earlier aerial hanging in the big room, next to the door to the parking lot that reflects a  Pine Valley that may be a good combination of trees and open areas, and that that picture may be a good benchmark for restoration[/color]

This to me is foolishness beyond belief. The point for both you and the club to focus on is that golf course was designed for both very wide playing corridors and mature tree divisions between holes. Crump certainly was not of the opinion that the trees he used and planted would not or should not grow to full maturity someday!!!

But Tom, noone knows which trees Crump planted and which trees the club planted in their misguided efforts to interpret his intentions[/color]

How many times have I said the best balance and prescription for the course is to clear all the trees out of those areas that Crump did not intend them to be such as his bunkers and areas of visiblitly of shots and angles?

And therein lies the difficulty, sorting out trees Crump INTENDED from those he didn't[/color]

That's what the club and you need to focus on. This means trees that have encroached over the decades in those playing areas need to be cleared back and the MATURE tree divisions between holes need to be maintained and preserved.

Tom, I'm not late for the dance.
I've advocated this for over twenty (20) years, despite early objections to my proposition from many, including you.[/color]

The thing to focus on is the course can have BOTH---it was designed to have BOTH!! If you don't believe me call up John Ott and ask him about it---he's lived there for over 35 years and definitely understands the way the course is supposed to be better than you do.

I'm not so sure about that.  Sometimes it's easier for an outsider to see evolutionary changes then it is for an insider.  As custodial parents, we don't notice the day to day growth of our children, but a visiting relative, who sees the child every six months or so, immediately notices the changes, and so it may be with many who live and breath Pine Valley.

If everyone at Pine Valley was so aware of the invasive growth of the trees for so long, why didn't they do something about it ?  It wasn't for lack of budget.

It is only recently, very recently, that the club has begun to eliminate invasive growth that has been allowed to take place, unchecked, for decades, and I wouldn't descrbe their efforts as highly enthusiastic or massive, like Oakmont's or Winged Foot's.

Sometimes, people are married for forty (40) years and one files for divorce, and the other party states that they never knew there were any problems. It happens to golf clubs too.

Eternal vigilance is the price of greatness.[/color]

[Andy Hughes]

How many times have I said the best balance and prescription for the course is to clear all the trees out of those areas that Crump did not intend them to be such as his bunkers and areas of visiblitly of shots and angles?--Tom

And therein lies the difficulty, sorting out trees Crump INTENDED from those he didn't--Pat

Pat and Tom: ultimately, does it matter which trees Crump intended and which he didn't?  Would the club be better off removing all trees Crump didn't intend and leaving the ones he did, or would the course be improved by making these choices based on an architectural basis, hole by hole, tree by tree?  

[Paul_Turner]

Pic of the 1st from around 1916.

[TEPaul]

Pat:

PVGC certainly does not need to go through the golf course and determine each and every tree that George Crump may have wanted or not wanted. All they need to do is get the trees that are in or blocking his other features, such as bunkering or sand, out of there.

I realize what you said about that very early photo that hangs in the clubhouse as the blueprint that the club should restore back to----I've seen it, looked at it for years, analyzed it. That photo is too early as a restoration blueprint to follow today for tree removal. It could be useful in one sense---eg as a course that hadn't matured enough. There's something to be learned from that photo but it's definitely not the blueprint to return to completely today as far as the trees down there are concerned!

And your remark that the club should listen to someone who hasn't been there that much and who's consequently objective because of that really doesn't fly with PVGC. PVGC is doing fine on their own---I doubt they need your objective opinon on the best thing to do with their course! They've been removing trees on the course that came to encroach on certain areas and shot angles. Maybe they haven't exactly been doing it on your timetable but they're doing fine on their own timetable.

[TEPaul]

Paul:

That's a truly fascinating photo---and it seems to be one JUST preceded Crump's total fixation with strengthening the corner of the dogleg with bunkering (before the road!).

Thanks so much for producing these early PVGC photos---they really do tell a story!

[TEPaul]

"........and I wouldn't descrbe their efforts as highly enthusiastic or massive, like Oakmont's or Winged Foot's."

Pat:

I wouldn't either. Nor should you. Oakmont and Winged Foot are entirely different styles of courses than PVGC. William Fownes was the primary caretaker of Oakmont for app 40 years and when he died around 1949-1950 there were very few trees on that course. The club recently restored to that. Crump, on the other hand, did not intend that his course should be without trees as was Oakmont then. For starters, you need to begin to recognize that important distinction. Maybe you should start by considering what the name of the club is in Clementon NJ!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Oakmont and Winged Foot embarked upon aggressive tree removal programs because of turf and play issues.

Firstly, that's the right thing to do, to undo what man has allowed, encouraged and actively participated in by adding invasive trees to the golf course.

Just because the club's name is Pine VALLEY doesn't mean that the don't have a substantial tree problem, or that they shouldn't embark on the same aggressive removal program that Oakmont and Winged Foot did.

The same could be said for Pine Tree, which aggrressively removed trees that man and nature had inserted over the years.

Tokenism isn't dealing with the problem.
I'm not sure that they're fully aware of the problem.
If they were, with their budget, the problem would have been solved, and we wouldn't be discussing it.

Ask yourself, why does the tree problem remain at PV ?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()