Would Pine Valley still be #1 if ....

[TEPaul]

“TE
Reread my post...I said the photo appeared on the cover of a 1936 magazine, not that the picture was taken in 1936. I'll let you determine the precise date of the photo.”

Tom MacWood:

I read your post above that aerial very carefully. Here’s what you said;

“This is an aerial that was the cover of a magazine in 1936 (18 years after Crump's death), its a little fuzzy but I think it illustrates the more open nature of the course as compared to today. A number of holes are isolated, but there also appears to be an opportunity for panaramas.  There appears to be more exposed sand as well, and none of the hazards have been overrun by tree growth. Would this be the golf course's architectural high point.”

What does that sound like it implies to you? To me it sounds like it implies the aerial was the state of the course in 1936. What if that was a Dallin aerial in the early 1920s? Since the subject here is trees and their growth and the question of Crump’s intended visual separation between holes don’t you think that would make a fairly substantial difference in this entire question? I do. Over here in the Delaware Valley pine trees and such grown pretty fast but maybe they’re different out there in Ohio!  

Or perhaps, if you think the subject here is about the state of the trees today and how the trees effect the architecture of the golf course, you might notice that I've said a bunch of times on here my personal prescription for the ideal tree management plan for that course in the future would be to remove the trees from all Crump's planned and constructed bunkering and designed sand waste areas but that the cleared areas for proposed holes that were never built should be planted in trees! There's something you might need to know about PVGC that you may not have been aware of. As far as I can tell from looking very carefully at that course on the course all of Crump's old bunkering or anything else from the course once the 1921 Advisory committee finished its work is still all out there to be found. You can even see the remains of the old bunkering to the right of the old alternate fairway on #17 that's completely in trees and hasn't been in use in about 70 years!!

[T_MacWood]

TE
If I knew the aerial was from 1936...I would have written the aerial was from 1936. Instead I wrote it was from a cover in 1936...I think most can understand the distinction and that it isn't always possible to put a precise date on a published photo.

If the aerial is from the 1920's instead of the 1930's...my question is still valid...does the photo represent the architectural high point?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael Wharton Palmer,

I do not really understand the invitational reference, I can only assume that you mean  because one's golfing ability gets you an invite to an event then all of a sudden you cannot have any of your own thoughts...strange concept..you must have me confused with somebody else !!

I feel quite comfortable the same golfing record that enabled me to recive the invite will continue to speak for itself, and that having an opinion is not a feature that will remove me from the invitation list.

You must be very young.

In what year did you first play Pine Valley ?[/color]

With reference to the old aerials that you and macwood keep refering to, I do not see how they could possibly show fledgling trees that may have been less than ..say..3 feet tall at the time..just a thought.

The detail in the aerial and GROUND level photos is sufficient enough to reveal 3 foot trees.  But, how do you know that they planted 3 foot trees as opposed to 8, 12 or 16 foot trees ?

Don't you think that after 10, 15 or 20 years that those trees would grow and be a little, if not a lot bigger ?[/color]

I think we all agree that tree impingment when it is a problem has to be dealt with.. such as you have pointed out  to the left of number 17{I have no reson to doubt you, even though I have not noticed it.

Did you notice the areas on the golf course where trees had recently been removed ?[/color]

 I think the only place we differ is whether we should see more land or not..and that is a matter of personal preference...I just happen to be with those who prefer Pine Valley with isolated holes than not..

I understand that.  Taste or style is a personal preference or choice.  And, you are entitled to your opinion with respect to how you like the golf course, even though you never saw it in a different condition.  If you saw the golf course as it was 30 or 40 years ago, I wonder if you'd change your opinion.
You're somewhat handicapped by not having a playing basis for comparison.
[/color]

From what I have been told that WAS Mr Crump's original plan..but no I was not there at the time to hear him say it.....by the way I dont believe macwood was there either!!

None of us were present.  And, none of us were present for the Gettysburgh address, or the signing of the Armistice after WW I, but written evidence of those events exist for all to view.  

Who told you of Crump's original plan, where did they see it, where is it now, and what was it ?

Are you aware of the terrible turf problems that PV encountered in its early days ?  And the impact that heavy tree planting might have on those problems.

Are you aware of the fact that 20-30 or more years ago that PV was aware of problems the trees were creating with their turf and the resultant metal shield defense they employed to counter it ?  Do you think that 20-30 years of growth has ameliorated or exacerbated those recognized problems ?

[/color]

[TEPaul]

If the aerial is from the 1920's instead of the 1930's...my question is still valid...does the photo represent the architectural high point?"

Tom MacWood:

I have no idea. Maybe your idea of what the architectural high point of the course was is vastly different from my opinion, or PVGC's opinion or Michael Wharton-Palmer's opinion or George Crump's opinion.

But if we want to determine what Crump wanted which should be and I thought was supposed to be the subject of what we're discussing here I think I can help you understand that photo particularly if it was from the early 1920s. Can you see those smallish trees between #6 and #7 on that aerial. They're still there Tom, (or ones like those if some of those died or fell down) only much larger now. Do you think perhaps Crump didn't realize those trees would get as high as they are now?

You mention the clearing between #12 and #15 green. Do you know why it's that way on that aerial? It's because Crump basically took a number of years to figure out exactly what to do in the #12 to #15 area and he had all kinds of iterations going in that section and he cleared that section to look at those different hole iterations. Given the topography (and the present back tee on #12) some might find this hard to believe but if one looks carefully on that famous routing topo showing Crump's red lines and Colt's blue lines one can see a proposed tee for #12 about 30 yards short and just to the left of #11!!! That completely explains why there's all that clearing between #12 and #15 green.

That iteration of #12 was over 400 yards and obviously it was never built that way. One has to be really familiar with the ENTIRE evolution of the construction phase of PVGC, particularly during Crump's time there which lasted from October of 1912 until January of 1918!

That's precisely why it's just not representative or accurate to cite some article in a newspaper or magazine in 1914 and conclude that represents the way the course turned out during it's construction phase that lasted almost ten years.

I hope you're learning something Tom, although I'm sure you're going to be the very last to admit that!

[T_MacWood]

TE
Yes. I'm constantly learning. I'm still hoping to learn if Crump's desire for isolation is theory or fact.

"You mention the clearing between #12 and #15 green."

I thought I saw a clearing there...Wayne had me wondering if I was loosing it.  

[TEPaul]

Pat:

Regarding your post #126 obviously you really don't read and you're certainly not willing to listen. I've said on here a million times and continue too I REAIZE THAT COURSE HAD A MASSIVE TREE OVERGROWTH PROBLEM and has for years. So, why in Christ's name are you telling me about metal plates and drip lines 20 and 30 years ago?

The point here isn't what PVGC has been through in the last five or so decades with tree overgrowth it's about what they're doing about it and what they plan to do about it as well as what George Crump wanted to do with the course regarding separating and isolating holes with trees.

I've said a zillion times obviously he didn't build flanking bunkers and sand waste areas on the holes so that someday they'd be chocked full of trees!

And don't tell me that the facts are what marching orders PVGC gave Dick Bator. The marching orders they gave him was to come in there and fix the condition of the course that'd had been in pretty piss-poor condition for quite some time. Those were his marching orders Pat! "FIX THE CONDITION OF THE F... GOLF COURSE!" Pretty simple to say wouldn't you say? And if you don't believe me on that I'll call down there right now and ask the Mayor what Bator's marching orders were.

That's what I've heard from down there his marching orders were. Do you think they actually told the man in detail how to do that? Of course not and that's why they hired him. Bator has a long and proven track record as being one of the very best conditioning remediators in the world! Do you think they thought they knew more about how to grow grass and condition that course than he did? Sane people don't really do that and that's why you're not very sane. You're starting to act like you know more about how to maintain that course then they do, or Bator or Christian do.

That's just nuts. This discussion on what's good for that course is going too far. There're too many on here who really don't know what the hell they're talking about, in my opinion.

As far as Micheal Wharton-Palmer and his own observations of the course I think he pretty much nailed you to the wall Pat when he mentioned he analyzed the golf course during his practice rounds. After all that's the very thing you've laid on others on this site when you claimed they didn't know what they were talking about.

'That's what practice rounds are for---to analyze the golf course'. When he said that to you I about fell out of my chair over here laughing!  

[TEPaul]

"Are you aware of the terrible turf problems that PV encountered in its early days ?  And the impact that heavy tree planting might have on those problems."

Pat;

That's completely untrue. The early failures of the agronomy at PVGC didn't have one damn thing to do with trees and I can completely prove that because I really do have the ENTIRE WRITTEN RECORD of what those problems were and what it took to SPECIFICALLY correct them!

Michael Wharton-Palmer:

Can you possibly imagine what it'd be like to belong to a golf club that had Pat Mucci and Tom MacWood as members?? My God, nobody would ever get any rest at all.

The title of this thread is "Would Pine Valley still be #1 if...."

Look Pat and Tom MacWood the course is #1 and has been for a long time and probably will continue to be. The reasons they got there, are there, and probably will continue to be there are good reasons and a part of those reasons are they don't have members like you who try to micromanage the pants off everybody and everything and if they do have members like you at least they have the great and good common sense not to listen to them---and it's always been that way down there---THANK GOD!

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

Evidently he didn't analyze it too thoroughly if he didn't notice that trees blocked your way to the green from the left side of
# 17 fairway.  Perhaps, like you, he needs more practice rounds  

As to Bator's involvement.
I'd be curious to know what prompted them to experiment with the metal shield defense.  Was it a compromise alternative to cutting down the invasive trees ?

Is it possible that the turf problems he was called in to cure, were caused by lack of sunlight and air circulation ?

Let me ask you another question dealing with logic.

Do you think Crump would have planted trees, knowing full well that as they matured they would have impeded with the golfers ability to swing the club in the many bunkers he created ?

Do you think Crump was SO incompetent that he built bunkers with the intention of planting trees next to them so that the trees would cover up his bunkers ?

If you follow the logic, you'll come to the uncomfortable conclusion that someone, subsequent to Crump's death, decided on what Pine Valley should be, and it wasn't in keeping with Crump's concepts on design and playability.

Someone, some time subsequent to his death, decided to plant and to allow vegatation to run wild to satisfy their vision of what they thought Pine Valley should look and play like.

But, I admire you're ardent, but misguided defense  

[Patrick_Mucci]

"Are you aware of the terrible turf problems that PV encountered in its early days ?  And the impact that heavy tree planting MIGHT have on those problems."

Pat;

That's completely untrue. The early failures of the agronomy at PVGC didn't have one damn thing to do with trees and I can completely prove that because I really do have the ENTIRE WRITTEN RECORD of what those problems were and what it took to SPECIFICALLY correct them!

Tom, your reading comprehension skills are failing.
Reread what I wrote.  I didn't say that the trees were the problem.  I said that planting trees in the future MIGHT exacerbate the problem, callling in to question the prudence of wanting to plant more trees.[/color]

Look Pat and Tom MacWood the course is #1 and has been for a long time and probably will continue to be. The reasons they got there, are there, and probably will continue to be there are good reasons and a part of those reasons are they don't have members like you who try to micromanage the pants off everybody and everything and if they do have members like you at least they have the great and good common sense not to listen to them---and it's always been that way down there---THANK GOD!

Perhaps the routing, hole designs and individual features, which are largely untouched have something to do with it.

Tom, you continue to support an arrogant sense of infallibility, that they can't possibly make a mistake or become misdirected.  I don't adhere to that.  And, I'll say it again.
Without constructive criticism, progress is impossible.

Follow the logic, not your emotions and ties to the club.[/color]

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

PM, Thanks for teh questions, lets see if I get them all:
I am fairly young, although I do not understand the relevance, but never mind that.
I not play PV until 2002, so you are quite correct I have very little to compare it to, however, very few of us on this site played it back in the 1940's or 1950's, but I submit that I may have a different opinion if I had played the course back then.
I must stress however that it is the current isolation that intrigues me so much about PV and what to me,  helps make the course the challenge that it is.

I am making the assumption, maybe incorrectly, that the technology back at the time of early tree planting would not allow for the uprooting of 15 ft trees without the death of the roots, as such I feel quite sure that saplings were planted.

All of my "assumptions" come from older Pv members who I met at PV.
Even though I aws there to compete, my interest in architecture was such that I was going to ask questions..I was well aware from the aerials that things had either changed or matured depending on your point of view.

The members I spoke to stressed it was a maturing process rather than a changing of strategy which leads to the belief that it was indeed Mr Crumps intent to have the isolation.
But perhaps they are all wrong.

I was aware of the turf problems, as it was pointed out by those same members, but someone must have got it right, because the playing surface now is simply awesome, despite all the trees.

Again I stress that excess tree impingement has to be dealt with wherever it occurs.
At my home course,a Langford/ Moreau design that truly defines hidden gems,we had to remove some 200 trees for playability and as far as I am comcerned we could remove someto more closely "restore" the course to its intended look.

Quit simply our differences on PV are isolation versus the pre growth openness

[Patrick_Mucci]

Michael,

I am fairly young, although I do not understand the relevance.


It's about not biting the hand that feeds you.[/color]

I not play PV until 2002, so you are quite correct I have very little to compare it to, however, very few of us on this site played it back in the 1940's or 1950's, but I submit that I may have a different opinion if I had played the course back then.
I must stress however that it is the current isolation that intrigues me so much about PV and what to me,  helps make the course the challenge that it is.

That's your personal preference and I understand and respect that, although it's at odds with my views.[/color]

I am making the assumption, maybe incorrectly, that the technology back at the time of early tree planting would not allow for the uprooting of 15 ft trees without the death of the roots, as such I feel quite sure that saplings were planted.
It's more of a cost factor then a technology factor.
Balling and re-planting 8',12' and 16' trees remains practically the same today as it did years ago.[/color]  

All of my "assumptions" come from older Pv members who I met at PV.

Were they old enough to have been members in the teens, 20's and 30's when Crump's contemporaries were alive ?[/color]

Even though I aws there to compete, my interest in architecture was such that I was going to ask questions..I was well aware from the aerials that things had either changed or matured depending on your point of view.

The members I spoke to stressed it was a maturing process rather than a changing of strategy which leads to the belief that it was indeed Mr Crumps intent to have the isolation.
But perhaps they are all wrong.

Perhaps they are.

How else would you account for a large tree that is only 40-60 years old ?

If trees become invasive to the lines of play, such as at # 17, isn't that changing the strategy that Crump intended, designed and built ?[/color]

I was aware of the turf problems, as it was pointed out by those same members, but someone must have got it right, because the playing surface now is simply awesome, despite all the trees.

Were these members, members 30 years or so ago when the metal shield defense was employed ?
Do you think their budget might have something to do with it ?
Do you think grooming to prepare for a special tournament, once a year, might have something to do with it ?[/color]

Again I stress that excess tree impingement has to be dealt with wherever it occurs.
At my home course,a Langford/ Moreau design that truly defines hidden gems,we had to remove some 200 trees for playability and as far as I am comcerned we could remove someto more closely "restore" the course to its intended look.

In the context of playability, shouldn't the same standard be applied to both courses, your home course and PV ?[/color]

Quit simply our differences on PV are isolation versus the pre growth openness

But, since you never played the golf course before 2002 you wouldn't come to that conclusion other then through hearsay.
Had you played it in 1975, 1965 or 1955 your views might be entirely different.  That's why I asked you when you first played the golf course, to gain a sense of relativity regarding your personal experiences and the context in which you judged the golf course.[/color]

[TEPaul]

"Evidently he didn't analyze it too thoroughly if he didn't notice that trees blocked your way to the green from the left side of # 17 fairway.  Perhaps, like you, he needs more practice rounds!

Jeesus, now I've heard it all. You can be way over on the left side of the fairway and you may not be able to hit the far left side of the green but you certainly can hit the green. Probably the best strategy then for an ultra hyper cat like you, Patrick of Mucci, is to just hit it down the right side of that fairway and if you happen to take it just through the rough over that carry bunker and bounce it onto the right side of the fairway you'll even give yourself a bit more height from which to come into that green dead straight on.  

I can just see you now, though, the big tall ultra micromanager and overthinker. You'd have Rocky on your bag and you'd hit just the shot you both agreed on and you'd say to Rocky;
"Is that next to the pin Rocky?"

And like Rocky said to that big tall bigwig micromanaging corporate type he once had the bag of when on #17, Rocky would say to you;
"Come on over here next to me pro!"

And you'd say to him;
"What?

Rocky;
"Come over here next to me pro."

You'd go over next to him, and he'd say;
"Put your head down here next to mine."

And you'd put your head near him, and he'd say;
"Get your head right down here next to mine."

So you'd be about ear to ear with Rocky, and he'd say;
"Now what do you see up there on that green, pro?"

And you'd say;
"I can't see anything up there on that green?"

And Rocky would say to you;
"Well then, pro, why the f.... are you asking me if your ball is next to the pin?"

[Patrick_Mucci]

TEPaul,

I heard some funny and not so funny Rocky stories recently.

In one, he was arguing with a golfer on what club to hit into # 14.  The golfer wanting the lesser club and Rocky wanting him to hit more club.  Rocky had the players ball in his hand, having just finished cleaning it.  He brought it up to his face, looked at it and addressed it and said, "now you take a real deep breath, okay".

I know we jest, but you can't be suggesting that a ball lying within the fairway margins should have trees impeding the flight of the ball to the green on non-dogleg holes, are you ?

[Michael Wharton-Palmer]

PM,
I have to ask, when did you first play PV?

The members I had the privelage of talking to ranged from about 50 to the high 70's, in fact one gentleman's dad,was present on one of the ocassions that Colt and Wilson attended the site, now that would have been cool..especially now in retrospect at what they helped to create.

I think that TE  and myself have clearly stated that we do not agree with trees impinging on original hazards and clear lines of play..I do not know how many times we have to state that...but that is a totally different issue from isolation versus a more open nature to the golf course.

With reference to biting the hand thats feeds you,I believe my humble golfing exploits were behind my initial invite and whilst I am not going to act like an arsehole while I am there,  I am not going to kiss anybodys arse either..again you have me confused with somebody else.

As for standards for one course being different, what crap!!
Since when do we treat all courses the same?
Just because Oakmont decides to remove some thousands of tress, everybody else has to as well..give me a break..that is what makes courses different..what is good for the goose does not always have to be good for the gander..not if it threatens an already good golf course.

[Andy Hughes]

I know we jest, but you can't be suggesting that a ball lying within the fairway margins should have trees impeding the flight of the ball to the green on non-dogleg holes, are you ?

Why?
Or to change the situation only moderately, would it then be ok if that portion of fairway was allowed to grow into rough with the impeding branches still in the exact same spots?
(usual disclaimer, I haven't played 17 at Pine Valley, or any of the other holes here)

[TEPaul]

"...in fact one gentleman's dad,was present on one of the ocassions that Colt and Wilson attended the site, now that would have been cool..especially now in retrospect at what they helped to create."

Michael:

If that's really so I'd love to know who that was who told you that about his Dad. As far as I've ever been able to tell that particular short time in 1913 when Colt came to PVGC with Crump (for one or perahps two weeks at most) there is basically nothing recorded, and in that lies the real dilemma about what Colt really did do. Colt apparently wrote nothing about what he specifically did do that time at Pine Valley and apparently Crump didn't either. It was left for numerous others to sort of speculate what went on with the course and between them. There're a lot of newspaper and magazine articles, and very contemporaneous ones, of that collaboration which report that Colt did a lot and others that report he didn't do that much. The articles are even from the likes of Tillinghast who was apparently very close to Crump and very much part of that PVGC collaboration and from the very beginning.

The point is it's sort of left to some of us now to try to piece back together what exactly went on between them and who was responsible for what and when. Analyzing recently that topo hanging in the clubhouse I think has told parta of a story no one really knew much of before, and there's a previous topo that can explain perhaps plenty of what's on the second one and from whom.

In any case, from a historian like Finegan who had access to the entire archives and all those contemporaneous articles there didn't seem much in there to draw from about the ONE AND ONLY time Harry Colt was there. The point is he could have done a lot more than has ever been known or a lot less than some assume from the way the course came to be under Crump.

Harry Colt, as far as some pretty good Colt experts on this website know may never again have returned to America again(after 1913).

And I very much doubt that Wilson was there with them. If a Wilson was there it very likely would not have been Hugh, it would have been Alan.

But my suspicion would be that the one that man's father would have remembered or seen there with Wilson wouldn't have been Colt, it would've been Hugh Alison in 1921, Harry Colt's partner, who did a lot of work architecturally on the course for the so-called 1921 Advisory committee.

Obvously the man who told you that wouldn't really know much unless his father told him something in real detail he remembers now but if it was Wilson there with Colt I'd sure like to try to run that one down, because it could lead us to some places to look for more information that might be fascinating.

[Paul_Turner]

The 1920 aerial

[TEPaul]

Michael:

You're on a roll pal! You've got that Patrick of Mucci on the run---his posts to you are beginning to look like large Christmas trees! You just keep after that big bothersome gnati---do not let the man up for air under any circumstances---he does not deserve it. He's the biggest micromanager the world of golf architecture has ever seen and now he's apparently into micromanaging golf courses he has nothing to do with, even the world's #1, Pine Valley. The man must be stopped and cut off at the pass at all costs. He's a nuisance to great architecture and a worse nuisance to those who have to do with it---with him around no one gets any rest and those people need their rest, so they can think clearly.

Keep after him and if you need my help I'll be right there with you. Even if you don't need my help I'll be after him anyway---some things on GOLFCLUBATLAS.com are just that way because that's the way they are! Or is that the USGA's motto?

Whatever!

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Wow, that's a very cool aerial. Is that the same one you sent me a couple of years ago? That one has to be pre-Victor Dallin. That aerial must have been taken in or around the winter months or else there were a lot of very sick trees on that site! It seems you certainly can see the difference between the deciduous trees and the coniferous ones!  

[Paul_Turner]

Tom

Yes, it's the same one.  The earliest I've seen.  The drained pond in front of the 5th is very interesting.  I wonder why they did this?  It was certainly flooded at some point before 1920.

You can actually see a construction truck on that road.

[frank_D]

Whats better? .....I haven't played PV in 3 years and I've heard of some of the changes.....

this response leads me to think that there may be a particular year a course is best - like a vintage of wine

suppose PV best year were say 1962 - does that mean its 2004 rating if inferior relative to other courses which are "blossoming" in the year 2004 would plummet it off the chart ?

i guess there is NO answer to the question initially posited - unless each year since inception is weighed on a standard scale relative to all other entrants by calender year

[Paul_Turner]

Also.  What about the bunkers in the middle of trees on the 1st

[TEPaul]

"The drained pond in front of the 5th is very interesting.  I wonder why they did this?  It was certainly flooded at some point before 1920."

Paul:

I've never been entirely sure how the entire course's "water works" works at Pine Valley (I know Mayor Ott and some others down there know the details and history of that though). But I do know it was pretty elaborate for that time and was probably significantly overhauled and upgraded perhaps twice in Crump's lifetime or shortly afterwards. It was a pumped up/flow down system to and from the tower that is now the halfway house (and another original one), I think.

Anyway, seeing as how that course, like NGLA, went through at least one and perhaps two really signifcant agronomic failures there was a need for massive amounts of irrigation and one of those times of real agronomic failure was probably right around the time that aerial photo was taken. The photo, because of the apparent lack of tree and leaf cover was obviously taken in the off-season when the grass wasn't growing and perhaps they just shut the entire system down and drained parts of the place since it appears that water course you ask about was way down.

I have no idea if that's the reason but it may be a possibility.

[Mike_Cirba]

Also.  What about the bunkers in the middle of trees on the 1st

Paul;

Do you think Harry Colt...er um...George Crump intended them to be "double jeopardy"?  

Sorry...couldn't resist the urge to tease Tom.  

[TEPaul]

Paul:

Those aren't bunkers---that's the way the place looked. Those formations are still there except now they're all sort of vegetated over. Look at that enormous swath from the tee all the way down to the fairway on the right between the drive in that has trees that look like poles. That's the way the site looked. That's the way it was before the course. Don't forget PVGC is a ton of sandy surface. You don't think they hauled all that sand in the bunkers and waste areas in there back in the early teens do you? Remember Colt's instructions for some of the bunker placements? One of them just said "tear out hill"---and voila you had a PVGC sand bunker!!